Print
E-mail
Share
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Updated at 4:38 p.m.
This tidbit, which just dropped into our inboxes, is further proof that national Democratic leaders are focusing on Dina Titus' bid to upend incumbent Congressman Jon Porter:
Titus today named a press adviser to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Stoddard, as the communications director of her campaign. He will begin his new post Aug. 5.
The news release notes, as we have for weeks, that the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report have deemed Nevada's 3rd Congressional election as one of the "most-watched" in the nation this cycle.
_____________________
Originally published at 12:24 p.m.
We lead today's Early Line with big news for Democrat Jill Derby and her campaign to unseat incumbent Rep. Dean Heller in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. The Democratic National Campaign Committee has upgraded Derby's race to its top-tier list of targets, meaning she'll receive financial and field help from the national party.
She faced off against Heller in 2006 and lost by 5 percentage points in the overwhelmingly Republican district. The GOP edge at that time was more than 48,300 voters. Democrats, benefiting from the excitement generated by the state's early presidential caucus, have cut that advantage by nearly 19,000 voters.
Given that Republicans still hold a significant registration edge (nearly 30,000 voters) it's significant that national Democrats are targeting a race like this. Derby's fundraising strength (she raised $293,393 in the second quarter) likely played a big part in convincing the party to upgrade the race. Just last month the DCCC rated her bid as "an emerging race."
Derby joins state Sen. Dina Titus, who's challenging Rep. Jon Porter in the state's 3rd Congressional District, on the national Democrats' elite list.
Check out this piece by the Sun's Lisa Mascaro for more about the dynamics of the race.
--Sen. John Ensign, the R-J reports, plans to keep the $28,000 in donations he's received over the years from Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted this week for allegedly failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts from an oil services company and its chief executive.
Stevens pleaded not guilty Thursday, but the R-J notes that at least 11 Republicans who have received contributions from Stevens have distanced themselves from the Alaska senator, indicating they would donate the money to charity, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
--Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post says Nevada ranks second among battleground states.
--The Wall Street Journal fronts a piece on how Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been holding mandatory meetings with some of its store managers and department supervisors to warn them of what may come if Democrats win big in November: a unionized workforce.
Wal-Mart executives are briefing employees on the Employee Free Choice Act, labor's top legislative priority. The bill would make it easier for workers to organize and stiffen penalties for employers that violate labor laws during organizing drives. The implications are clear for Wal-Mart, which has aggressively fought unionization for years, including in Las Vegas.
The bill has become the chief fundraising tool for Sen. John Ensign as he seeks to defend embattled Senate Republicans this cycle.
As the piece notes, Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line and the tactics have drawn the ire of SEIU President Andy Stern, who released a statement on the article: "Today's Wall Street Journal story raises serious questions about whether Wal-Mart is attempting to influence its workers’ votes. Hardworking men and women such as Wal-Mart’s average hourly employees are having a tough time making ends meet in this economy, yet Wal-Mart’s board of the directors and the Walton family continues to prosper. Rather than adjusting the company's behavior to improve conditions for its employees, Wal-Mart has chosen to intimidate its workers to maintain the status quo. This time the company may have crossed the line."
The SEIU, he said, may ask for a federal investigation.
A Wal-Mart spokesman responded: "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time. We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."
--The Reno paper has details on the race for the state Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice Bill Maupin.
--Finally, bad news for Nevada's Hillary Clinton supporters. The New York Times reports that the leaders of an online campaign to pressure Barack Obama into picking Clinton as his running mate have ended their bid.
Clinton won the popular vote in the state's presidential caucus, but Obama bested her in delegates.
Pelosi needs all the help she can get. The Democrats in Congress are about to revolt around her. The no vote on drilling is going to cost a lot of Democrats their seats this year
Why would this cost a lot of Democrats their seats this year? Is the electorate too stupid to recall 12 years, that's right, SIX TERMS, of a disastrous combination of granting nearly a billion dollars in tax breaks and credits to oil companies and not even asking them to prove they were using the money to develop previously leased oil lands (at land grab prices) AND preventing even the most basic conservation measures by the Republican controlled Congress and Senate? You can't name a single House or Senate seat held by a Democrat that any legitimate observer would call in danger over this vote. Instead, Pelosi will have a significant majority and Durbin (Oops, Reid, for now.) will have a fillibuster-proof Senate.
Ms. Taxus and Pelosi are twins.
Did you ever stop to think that the only guy on the planet that lost money in the oil business is our current President?
Pelosi quote: "I stand here today very proud of the fact the Democratic Party has locked up trillions of dollars of gas and oil. We do not need one drop of that gas and oil. I do not care if all of us lose our jobs over high gas prices, especially that crowd in Las Vegas. I ask you to continue to vote for me and my Democratic allies. We will keep that trillions of dollars of gas and oil locked up FOREVER...........( she now screams an evil laugh).
God bless Saudi Arabia.”
So, the answer to one of the questions I posed in my first post would be yes, at least one, evidently.
And, of course, Nevada has no "off shore" to be worried about, so I guess you're all for it.
By the way, what are ya gonna do between now and 2030 when the first off-shore well begins to produce? Would that there were a wind generator in YOUR back yard. All our energy problems would be solved.
I did not know the democratic party had so many powers. Maybe they can magically make oil appear by clicking their heels?
We should move beyond oil. No matter what, as long as we use oil we will be giving money to foreign countries. If we moved beyond oil, we would not have to.
And I did not know that esquared but LOL! President Bush is not a very good leader.
The republicans should be ashamed that they sat on their behinds for so long. Now that it's too late, they want more drilling. If they had passed laws ten years ago, maybe prices would not be so bad. But the voters tossed them out because they wouldn't do anything. And now that the democrats are trying to help, the republicans will only stand in the way.
The republicans should be ashamed!
And I wish I were making it up. The company was called Arbusto. Unfortunately for "W", that spanish word does not mean 'bush', it translates to 'shrub.' Go figure.
Even more unfortunate is the fact that 'shame' just ain't in the Republican lexicon.
The reason that the word "shame" is not in the Republican lexicon is because the radical, right-wing, neo-con, nut-cases that have taken over the Republican Party are SOCIOPATHS - the have no sense of personal responsibility, guilt or shame!
Check out the American Psychiatric Assoication's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - and look up the definition - the Republicans need to be voted out into the political desert for raping 97% of America and starting an Un-American and Unjus War in Iraq - they are criminals!
I say, empanel, investigate, indict, impeach and imprison every one of the Republican rats found guilty under the Constitution - it's time we re-instated the rule of law - including the "royal" Republicans and their wealthy donors and corporate cronies!
"I did not know the democratic party had so many powers. Maybe they can magically make oil appear by clicking their heels?"
Perhaps instead of clicking their heels they could vote. Nope, that is just plain too hard for them.
High gas prices are killing Las Vegas.
Democrats, Reid, Obama and Pelosi have for decades locked up trillions of dollars of oil and gas for decades.
That has hurt us, is hurting us and will continue to hurt us.
The " it takes 10 years to produce oil" is an old argument. You said that 20 years ago, 10 years ago and I am sure that in 10 years from now you will say it again when the price of gas is at $10 a gallon.
Oil experts say that offshore rigs can start producing in 2 years from now.
I do not think you can poor energy from your wind mill into your gas tank.
Also even if you could, during the summer there are weeks when we have little to no wind. I guess then you will walk to work.
Dear "jfnance" - are you talking to yourself AGAIN? Please stop rambling, get up out of your chair, walk away from the computer and go take your medications - PLEASE!
No oil expert has ever said off shore oil drilling will produce in 2 years. Please, don't let any facts, don't let telling the TRUTH keep you from your agenda.
On a positive note, it's a pleasure to see that one of the White House advisory panel that said invading Iraq would be easy, that they'd love us, that it would pay off in oil revenues, and that we'd find all those nasty WMD's has found a new career here as a Sun tormentor.
Sorry. "Commenter."
Of course there are oil experts that say oil can setup offshore oil rigs and have them pumping out oil in 2 years.
Lets say it is 4 years or 6 years. We need that trillions of oil and gas.
"It will takes years"...Democrats said that 20 years ago. They said it 10 years ago. I bet they say it 10 years from now, too.
It is so foolish to keep locked up trillions of oil and gas. We need it 10 years ago, we need it now and will we need it 10 years from now.
No, let's get 5 sources from Nance that says drilling of new strikes can be done in 2 years.
Just prove your thesis, Nance. You've repeated it in the comments twenty times. Now, prove it.
The hole in Nance's theory is the lack of control over the leases granted thus far. The only proposition ever offered by the republican leadership is expanding drilling, either off-shore or in ANWR. But they killed their own bills expanding drilling rights in both areas in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000, and every year since because they would not permit language in the bills that called for a simple accounting of the exploratory activity in both the new leases and those already granted since 1975, which did not require divulging trade secrets, just numbers. But the annual reports of the 5 major oil lease holders spills the beans. Since 1980, the 5 major lease holders have never spent more than an average of 2 percent of their pre-tax profit on exploration and less than .5 percent on actual development. And yet tax incentives and credits designed to promote development make up more than 10 % of their profit. And yet this is a Democratic roadblock to oil production? It's blind ideologs like Nance who have let this charade continue for so long. Go sit in the corner and be quiet.
Source is Congressional Quarterly, an impartial publication.
If it's so easy, why haven't the oil companies put the rigs in place and begun drilling?
They have 68 million acres available for leasing, why haven't we seen a huge jump in domestic production or the number of drilling rigs?
Do the math, compare domestic production from 2005 to 2007. 68 million acres and it barely budged, and the Republicans just want to open up even more land?
It just doesn't make sense.
Oil lease do not equal oil on that land that is leased.
Most of the oil lease land has no oil or little oil. Oil companies have to get a lease to first explore for oil on that area.
There are tons of oil in areas where known oil exist and it has been locked by Democrats for years.
High gas prices is killing Las Vegas.
"Oil companies have to get a lease to first explore for oil on that area."
"There are tons of oil in areas where known oil exist..."
If you have to get a lease to figure out if oil is there, how do they know there is oil where they've never had a lease?
The area where oil leases now have low expectations of oil because of previous studies.
The oil companies still put out the money to buy the lease because oil is so valuable the risk is worth the cost.
They will loose the lease if they do not drill on it within a certain time limit.
They would rather get leases on land where studies show a much higher change of finding oil.
But if they can tell where the oil is with studies, why lease land that doesn't have any?
And if they can't tell where the oil is, how do they know there's so much of it where they don't have leases?
Just another distraction by the republicans. The high cost of gas is due to Cheney's closed door meetings with top oil executives who developed our current energy policy in 2001. Prices steadily increased from that policy forward.
The democrats offered a vote on offshore drilling if an amendment of "use it or lose it" was attached to all the offshore leases. The oil companies have millions of acres offshore that have yet to be explored. The use it or lose it would force the oil companies to explore or lose it and let someone else have the opportunity. The offshore drilling ban only applys to a small percentage of the coast, where tourism could not afford an accident. It was the elder Bush who first placed this ban.
Oil is set to drop dramatically due to the decreased demand in America. I don't blame the Democrats for holding off on the vote, don't let the Republicans take credit for a rapid decrease in the cost of oil in the next 30 days. Look behind the curtain people, the real story is manipulation. I could ramble on with much more detail, start by reading the energy policy at http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Nationa...
Nance, do you really think the most profitable corporation in American history is stupid? Each oil lease comes with a detailed study by the USGS as to oil productivity. The bidder knows with a degree of certainty equal only to the lameness of your next comment, exactly the rate of production they can expect. But even assuming there is some speculation, is that any reason to NOT explore the lands that have already been leased? And, more importantly, why are the Republicans preventing the simple disclosure of the amount of exploratory activity on the new and previously leased lands? Because their financial backers don't want the public to know that 95% of the leased lands since 1990 have remained utterly untouched. Honestly. You're the kind of guy that makes Karl Rove and infomercial producers millionaires. And perfect for Vegas: one of those sad sacks born every minute and destine to serve the machine.
I OK with you esquared.
I hope you walk around all day and say, "I love Obama and the Democrats and we all say "HELL NO EVER EVER TO NEW DRILLING".
Please keep doing that until Nov.
I guess you think the Wall Street Journal is a sad sack too.
“However, until the actual exploration is complete, a company does not know whether the lease will be productive. If, through exploration, it finds there is no oil or natural gas underneath a lease – or that there is not enough to justify the tremendous investment required to bring it to the surface – the company cuts its losses by moving on to more promising leases. Yet it continues to pay rent on the lease, atop a leasing bonus fee.
In addition, if the company does not develop the lease within a certain period of time, it must return it to the federal government, forfeiting all its costs. All during this active exploration and evaluation phase, however, the lease is listed as "nonproducing."”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12139171...
Here is another set of people who are experts in the field that you think are sad sacks.
“ However, according to the Richard Ranger, a senior policy advisor for the American Petroleum Institute (API), there’s no oil to be drilled for in those areas. Ranger also told the Business & Media Institute he was unfamiliar with Hoyer’s 4.5 million figure.
“There are more than 8,500 active leases on the Outer Continental Shelf that cover over 44 million acres,” Ranger said. “Now, over 6,300 of those leases on nearly 34 million acres have no production.”
“[Y]ou prioritize some over others, you may be lucky on those first ones you drill, you may not – then you drill prospects further down your priority list “
“
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/...
Another story from CNN: “In some cases, no oil is found on leases”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/eco...
I hope you walk around all day and say, "I love Obama and the Democrats and we all say "HELL NO EVER EVER TO NEW DRILLING".
LOL, wrong!
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/conte...
"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post."
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said."
Read the WSJ article again, Einstein. He's not saying what is actually done, he's giving "potential" reasons for the lack of activity. Less than 10% of the leases granted carry a return provision. The point is that for the past 12 years, drilling was the only option proffered by the Republicans and then they quietly killed their own bills when it looked like accounting provisions would be included. If you're so willing to allow carte blanche to these companies who have only today's profit in mind, then you should go get an endoscopic procedure from your fellow rabid Republican just down the road there in Vegas.
Obama is changing his position not because he believes in offshoring drilling. He said that he did not believe in it.
Perhaps he is feeling the heat from 75% of Americans that want offshore drilling.
Perhaps the Genius Obama can read a poll now and then.
It is so nice to heard from the Genius Obama who needs to teach those bitter gun carrying church going folk a lesson or too.
So merciful is the Genius Obama to say to us lower beings, "I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Thank you all knowing being, Obama. Be kind to us for we are so slow. We need your wisdom to guide to us the promise land. Thank you the Almighty Obama.
Throw a bone now and again to the 75% who want offshore drilling.
Please do not hold back your stunning wisdom again.
Nance- Do you have any original thoughts, or do you just repeat whatever Limbaugh or Faux News tells you. Wall Street Journal has no resepct anymore since Rupert Murcdoch (owner of Faux News) bought the paper. Republicans have one advantage in debates, they speak with a unified voice. The talking points go from the white house/RNC to Faux News, WSJ and Limbaugh, then their minions start regergitating the same nonsense, and all reference each other to support their positions. Well Fox News, WSJ, Limbaugh all said it, so it must be true. Do some research, you'll find you're on the wrong side of the truth.
Gordon, I have done plenty of research.
You do not say what truth I am wrong on.
"Republicans have one advantage in debates, they speak with a unified voice"
Democrats are split on the subject.
Over 75% of the people in a poll, are for new offshore drilling. Probably around 25% of that 75% are Democrats.
If Nance is a gun owner, I fear for his neighbors. He seems to specialize in missing the mark.
Original Art "John McCain Saves the Earth" by Quin R. Simanek
McCain has been hurting for a political ad that has made a positive mark on the American People. The Obama gas crisis, the Britney/Paris star lights... nothing has quite captured the "American President" persona that he needs to make a good run in this coming election. Here is your opportunity to purchase the "True American John McCain for President" advertisement. Created by a "True American Citizen, Quin Robert Simanek". One young, one old; both Americans looking to make a difference in our county.
Up for auction on ebay for $20,000,000.00 or best offer.