Do Democrats actually listen to T Boone Pickens?

posted at 12:30 pm on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, and the rest of the Senate Democrats have recently begun singing the praises of T. Boone Pickens.  Even Barack Obama says that “Pickens is right” when it comes to energy.  Why?  Pickens has spent a lot of money backing wind power, and these Democrats want to latch onto Pickens’ substantial investment in alternative energy sources to bolster their claim that we can’t produce our way out of a supply crisis.

Perhaps they should actually listen to Pickens, as the Senate Republican Caucus gently prods in this video:

In fact, Pickens has actively endorsed the Republican “kitchen sink” plan.  He wants to drill in the OCS, in ANWR, in the interior West for shale, as well as increase efforts to develop mass-production alternatives in energy.  Unlike Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he scoffs at the notion that increasing regulation on “speculators” will produce lower gas prices for American consumers.

We agree, Senator Reid.  Pickens is right.  Now will you and Speaker Pelosi get back to Washington, start doing your jobs, and pass a rational energy policy that unlocks American production, creates massive new jobs, and keeps American wealth in America?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The DemOrats won’t listen to anybody above their pay grade!

byteshredder on August 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM

They may listen, but they only hear what they want to.

cozmo on August 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM

these Democrats want to latch onto Pickens’ substantial investment in alternative energy sources to bolster their claim that we can’t produce our way out of a supply crisis.

.
They are also latching on to his plans with dollars. Virtually all of them are investing in his wind farm, so that their personal investment gets paid back via a windfall profits tax – in the words of Yakov Smirnov: ‘What a country!’

Think_b4_speaking on August 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM

I think the whole problem here is the name. “Alright folks. T. Boone Pickens has this idea for an energy plan and we’re gonna get behind it.” It lacks panache.

I agree with Pickens…except for the part about wind power. Let’s drill everything and stop building windmills for goodness sakes. I’d drill baby seals if it would drop the price of gas and emasculate terrorist economies.

blankminde on August 18, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Reid foresees his illicitly gained Nevada property covered with windmills.

Bishop on August 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM

No, they put fingers in their ears on the part that they don’t like, and sing “Nananana…”

Sir Napsalot on August 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Pickens’ plan requires 200,000 acres of land to build enough wind turbines to provide electricity for about 1 million homes. Do you know how many nucular plants you could build on 200,000 acres of land? His plan works in the panhandle but hardly any other place in America has 200,000 acres of available land in the same state as major population centers. And even if Pickens builds his wind farm, he’s counting on taxpayers to build an electrical grid capable to transferring the power to those homes.

fleiter on August 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Drilling? That’s not the new T Boone they thought they knew.

The Democrats are going out on really thin ice by identifying with Pickens. First, he’s all bacony-smelling, and second, he’s for drilling. Lose/lose for the Democrats.

forest on August 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM

T Boon’s commercial opens with those windmills and the Democrats get mesmerized like they are looking at pinwheels. They see only what they want to see and ignore the part about drilling.

abinitioadinfinitum on August 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM

First, he’s all bacony-smelling,

That’s good comedy there!

HawaiiLwyr on August 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Do Democrats actually listen

Answer no.

OT, When I clicked on this article, the front page said there had been 9 responsed. When I got here, there were none.

This has been happening a lot lately.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM

I don’t trust anyone that feels the need to initialise their first name.

LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Let’s drill everything, and stop subsidizing windmills (and solar). If they can survive without subsidies, then go for it.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Democrats have selective hearing.

Kini on August 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Feet of Democrats, meet the fire of your constituents. Do as Pickens says and allow drilling along with everything else, or scratch your head wondering what hit you in November when we tell you that you’re fired.

It is nice to have some leadership on this matter now, but I wish that more Republicans and even Blue-dog Dems would grow the pair necessary to get this matter going down into the ground as opposed to down to defeat.

I don’t think Pickens would market wind energy with his own money as he is if he thinks it’s not possible make a buck on it, so, on this assumption that it is profitable, I’m all for it. Having just driven across the plains recently, I can assure you there’s a good amount of wind out there to harvest, too. When I stopped in Goodland, KS, it was 103 degrees, and the wind was blowing at 30 MPH. I felt like I was in a convection oven.

Just the same, I’d gladly open the Jersey shore for exploration if I had the power myself in my home state. Put the derricks 40 miles out and paint them blue. Nobody onshore will ever see them.

flutejpl on August 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM

their personal investment gets paid back via a windfall profits tax.

WIND-fall profit! I get it! Now THAT’S comedy gold!

FishFearMe on August 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Drilling and Pickens is not out of the ordinary.

Picken and windmills is odd though. I am not going to site the man for what he has done with oil and such… but I wonder why he decided as of late to begin.

Sometimes money is more motive then common sense.

upinak on August 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM

good post

ThackerAgency on August 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM

The Pickens Plan is the largest private property grab in history. He will use the flawed “Kelo” decision of the Supreme Court to sieze private property from coast to coast – “for the good of the people”, and for gigantic profits for him. Bad bad bad.

marklmail on August 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

fleiter on August 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM

California just approved using just over 12 square miles to build a solar facility to generate at best 800 MW. A single reactor will generate just over 1000 WM and are a bit smaller than 12 quare miles.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 18, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Money talks and its sound is the only thing the dems hear.

rbb on August 18, 2008 at 1:08 PM

In business we used to call this SELECTIVE HEARING…You hear what you want to hear… Or, YOU LISTEN, BUT YOU DON’T HEAR…DEMs have been doing this for years… It is tough to hear when you have your head buried up your ass!!! The day PICKENS made his statement, I heard it in it’s entirety, and agreed with him… Than I read MSM accounts, no mention of DRILLING or NUCLEAR, or COAL… WHOOOAAAHHH!!! Amazing I thought, were they listening to what I listened to???

pueblo1032 on August 18, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I noticed a bunch of libtards applauding pickens and his plan when it first came out. They were all unaware what all Pickens was for and once pointed out they shut up.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM

In fact, Pickens has actively endorsed the Republican “kitchen sink” plan. He wants to drill in the OCS, in ANWR, in the interior West for shale, as well as increase efforts to develop mass-production alternatives in energy.

As Pickens endorsed more nuclear power? McCain’s second biggest applause line of his night at Saddleback came when he said we should be relying more on nuclear power. I think Americans are more and more accepting of nuclear power because of the overall good safety record of nuclear power generation in the world.

Outlander on August 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM

The Pickens Plan is the largest private property grab in history. ***
marklmail on August 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

I thought Pickens bought all that land in rural Texas for his wind farm on the open market. I know there’s some scandal with him having some piece of property declared a “water district” so he can use eminent domain to strong-arm adjoining landowners into giving him right of way easements, but is that really related to his wind farm?

Outlander on August 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Deaf, Dumb and Blind. Our U.S. Congressional Majority.

Griz on August 18, 2008 at 1:30 PM

MM wrote a good column on this subject I am surprised you didn’t link. It dealt with Pelosi investing in Pickens company and now supporting his program.

koolbrease on August 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM

marklmail on August 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Perhaps Pickens, being an olde oil man; could convince some of the oil companies to let him use some of those 68,000,000, acres they haven’t seen fit to drill on as wind generator sites?

J_Gocht on August 18, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Pickens goes nuclear.

Seriously though, the Dems are nuts to put any trust in that guy. He wants to get pork for his wind and gas interests, and he wants to drill too. This doesn’t help them at all, but then again, I don’t think anything can help them besides reversing course.

forest on August 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Neither party listening to Pickens. Both have their favorite energy flavor, and neither side wants to accommodate the other.

Pickens does support drilling expansion but also wants a national energy policy that favors alternative energy. If you look at US military spending in the gulf region, it’s clear that oil costs more than what consumers pay at the pump. Neither party is behind this direction. It’s too easy to get the party lackeys fired up by pointing fingers across the aisle.

bayam on August 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM

California just approved using just over 12 square miles to build a solar facility to generate at best 800 MW. A single reactor will generate just over 1000 WM and are a bit smaller than 12 quare miles.

Who cares how much space is used by a solar plant? Are you worried about the fate of the desert flea? Mining coal for power is far worse if you’re worried about the enviornment.

By the way, the 800 MW plant is under development by a major utility PG&E, not a state government.

bayam on August 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM

flutejpl,

The reason Pickens is putting out all these ads is because their is a huge subsidy on wind power that is about to expire.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM

There is a story here from my neck of the woods about a couple putting up their own wind mill to generate their own power. Now I don’t know how much electricity they use (they clearly feel guilty about using any anyways) but costing near $100,000, one can buy an awful lot of traditional power (from our nuke plant and wood burning and nat. gas power plants). Not to mention, they are up there in age (I would guess late 60’s early 70’s), and clearly won’t see a return on their “investment”.

rslancer14 on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Put the derricks 40 miles out and paint them blue. Nobody onshore will ever see them.

40 miles out, nobody will see the, whatever color their painted. Beyond being too small to see at 40 miles, their over the horizon anyway.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM

He will use the flawed “Kelo” decision of the Supreme Court to

Be carefull, before you know it, people around here will be declaring that you don’t believe there is any difference between the US and Russia.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM

T. Boone Pickens, yes sirree Boone!

Says “this is one pickle we can’t drill our way out of.”
I subscribe to his news letter, so can you.

Pragmatism is his gambit and a diversified approach to filling our continuing need for additional energy is his hallmark.

A combination of wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear development is the type of diversified, hybrid, approach that is both necessary and required for our energy independence.

J_Gocht on August 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Anyone notice the strong similarities to Elvis Hounddog. Hope they aren’t pulling the same thing the McCain campaign pulled cause this is too effective of an ad to be lost.

pritzcovan on August 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM

rslancer14 on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM

We; “she who must be obeyed” and my own self, are thinking of our children and grandchildren with our investment in alternative energy resources.

J_Gocht on August 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM

The Dems have very “selective hearing”. Pickens has proposed a very reasonable approach to energy (with a bit too much stress on wind power because he has a financial interest). In spite of that he is advocating a basically balanced effort in all areas which is what we should be doing.

duff65 on August 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Be carefull, before you know it, people around here will be declaring that you don’t believe there is any difference between the US and Russia.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM

The “keto decision” will let Pickens sieze private land and, maybe more importantly, water rights from the middle of the country to the Pacific and the Atlantic. Private property will have to be taken via eminent domain to get the power from the wind units in the middle of the US, out to the coasts. But, it’s not really about wind power. It’s about using this eco “front” to sieze land. This guy is trying to be the John D. Rockefeller of water.

marklmail on August 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM

‘…But, it’s not really about wind power. It’s about using this eco “front” to sieze land. This guy is trying to be the John D. Rockefeller of water. marklmail on August 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM

So for all the money [trillions] that’s to be made in the production of energy; you’re saying there’s also, or will be [trillions] to me made in water.

You may have something there; the Saudis can’t drink their oil. In Dubai they spend billions to desalinate seawater.

J_Gocht on August 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

The dems do not even realize yet that Pickens has just won this election for Mccain.

More people trust Mccain on energy than tire gauge boy, and energy is now the dominant issue in this election.

SaintOlaf on August 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM

I want to go to Alaska and work in the new US Independence Project!!

Pass the damn law!!

PattyJ on August 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Notably absent from the Pickens soundbites, at least here, was anything about about nuclear energy.

NTropy on August 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM

For all their hatred of rich people, the Democrats are trying to turn a billionaire into a trillionaire using my tax dollars(subsidies and infrastructure). If he wants to invest in wind power, more power to him, but don’t force me to pay for his trillions. As for the rest of his ideas, they do make sense.
A side question. Why is it that most inventions come about without subsidies, but “alternative energy solutions” need all these subsidies to make them work?

Corsair on August 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM

From instapundit, Corsair, what happens when subsidies are given. Just like cable franchises, it’s a boondoggle. I don’t blame Kennedy for not wanting a wind farm in his neighborhood. Solar, yes. Wind, no.

Corruption on the City Council

PattyJ on August 18, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Everything you wanted to know about Pickens…

There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly. – T. Boone Pickens, 2008

The Wind Cries ‘Bailout!’ (FOX News)
Is T. Boone Pickens ‘Swiftboating’ America? (FOX News)
Pickens Gives New Meaning to ‘Self-Government’ (FOX News)

Poptech on August 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM

If there was some magical energy source that could replace oil some country would be using it, the fact is there is nothing that comes close to the energy content at the price (even at over $4 a gallon). All “alternatives” have to be heavily subsidized to come close to competing.

T. Boone Pickens most certainly is NOT right. Wind Energy is a joke and we can drill our way out of this…

Reserves:
– 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
– 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
– 173 to 315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
– 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
– 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
– 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
– 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
– 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
– 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
– 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
– 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
– 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
– 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
– 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
– 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
– 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
– 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
– 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
– 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
– 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
– 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
– 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
– 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
– 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
– 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)

Poptech on August 18, 2008 at 11:57 PM