Angle echoed asst. Energy Secretary's groundless claim that Clinton "embraced" Bush's energy policy
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report, Assistant Energy Secretary Alexander Karsner claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had "come around to embracing" President Bush's National Energy Policy, while guest anchor Jim Angle suggested that Clinton's proposed energy plan was "pretty close" to Bush's plan with the only "differences" being that Clinton's plan involves "meddling" with the free market. But neither Karsner nor Angle spelled out any of the significant differences between the competing proposals.
During the May 29 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Assistant Energy Secretary Alexander Karsner claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had "come around to embracing" President Bush's National Energy Policy. Later on the program, Fox News chief Washington correspondent and guest anchor Jim Angle suggested that Clinton's proposed energy plan, which she announced during a May 23 speech at the National Press Club, was "pretty close" to the plan put forth by Bush with the only "differences" being that Clinton's plan involves "meddling" with the free market. But neither Karsner nor Angle spelled out any of the significant differences between the competing proposals, such as the fact that, in her plan, Clinton calls for a portion of oil company profits to be invested into the development of alternative energy sources.
The Washington Post noted on May 24 that Clinton, in her speech, "echoed what President Bush said in his State of the Union address earlier this year when he decried [the] nation's addiction to foreign oil, but her solutions went further." Clinton called for the creation of a Strategic Energy Fund, which would draw on two years' worth of excess profit taxes of major oil companies to fund research and development of alternative energy technologies; the companies would not be required to contribute to the fund if they elected to devote a percentage of their profits into biofuels, wind and solar power, or other forms of renewable energy. The tax would apply to oil company profits only above the baseline average of profits from 2000 through 2004.
Clinton also called for Bush to support the anti-price-gouging legislation Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Congressional Republicans rejected an anti-price-gouging amendment -- which Bush also opposed -- in favor of a tax bill that was signed into law by Bush on May 17.
From the May 29 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, which also featured Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer and Nina Easton, Fortune magazine's Washington bureau chief:
ANGLE: Now, one of the problems is always when the price goes up, everybody gets all excited about this, runs around in circles with their hair on fire, and then the price goes down and everybody goes, "Oh thank goodness, it's over. I can go back to driving the way I was, the same car, all that sort of thing," without changing our habits. One, is it your sense now that the country really is embarked on a different road? And two, how big a role does conservation play in all that? About a minute left.
KARSNER: Well, I'm thrilled to see that Senator Clinton has actually come around to embracing the president's advanced energy initiative and his bold leadership that he put out in the State of the Union. The president and the administration intend to lead on this issue. For [Energy] Secretary [Samuel W.] Bodman, and those of us at the Department of Energy, this is a wartime issue, and so we deal with the sort of urgency of the fact that we shouldn't have people leveraging petroleum over our economic future. In the near term, we're going to increase efficiency and we're going to increase supply. Now that Senator Clinton is on board and many of the coastal, liberal Democrats that have traditionally been against heartland fuels and ethanol, I think we can make more rapid progress.
[...]
KRAUTHAMMER: What she has is a plan of unbelievable complexity that tinkers in the market and that, in the end, will go nowhere. Thirty years ago, people started talking about wind and solar as the sources of the future. Well, they always will be. I have heard about it for 30 years and my children, grandchildren will be hearing about it. So, I don't hold any hope here. If there's any hope, it's in drilling, in nuclear and in adjusting the price structure of oil, so that, as she said, when the price declines, it's artificially kept up so that entrepreneurs will look for new sources on their own, without a government intervention.
ANGLE: Nina, what do you make of this whole thing?
EASTON: Well, I have to say -- this whole kind of idea that Hillary Clinton is kind of Johnny-come-lately to this issue -- I covered a speech of hers where she was talking about energy last fall. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] made it a piece of his campaign in 2004. You may think it's the nanny state but they were addressing this issue well before the Bush administration, which, by the way, you know, put together this energy bill that was very, very much focused on tax breaks for the oil industry, was not focused on conservation. Now, they've discovered conservation. And a lot of the ideas that she proposed were similar to Bush -- Bush's proposals -- the hybrid vehicles and so on. So, I do think that this sort of Johnny-come-lately to all this is the Bush administration, and to your question of how long is this going to take? It's going to take a long time and it's too bad it wasn't addressed you know five -- four or five or six years ago.
ANGLE: It does seem that the administration and the Democrats, if you take into account Hillary Clinton's views, are pretty close on this. I mean, there are some differences, in the way Charles is talking about in meddling things, but in terms of the goals, in terms of the fuels that people are looking at, ethanol for instance, they seem to be headed in the same direction.

















"Free market" is an oxymoron.
... that these Rightwing pundits see it as a PLUS to claim that Hillary "SUPPORTS" Bush's energy initiatives, and that there is little difference in proposals?
Despite being an outright LIE (tantamount to saying a moped is essentially JUST LIKE a Farrari, because both have wheels), they see VALUE in Bush having Hillary "on board". Is this the new way they hope to rehabilitate Bush's popularity, by saying he is "just like" Hillary? What a bizarro calculation by the rightwing!
They virtually IGNORE Hillary's bold ideas, dismissing them as being "meddling" and "anti-market". I suppose NEXT they will return to their old standby that Democrats "have NO ideas".
For the record, Hillary's plan addresses GOUGING and obscene profit-taking via governmental subsidies of the industry, NEITHER of which represents a "free market" condition. Bush's "meddling" ALLOWED Enron to bilk California out of BILLIONS, and now Bush's meddling allows Big Oil to violate supply and demand and just raise prices to where they are making huge profits, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VIRTUAL MONOPOLY (which is ALSO a violation of capitalism's principles).
Bush's meddling destroys Capitalism by eliminating competition by awarding NO BID contracts in the BILLIONS to his pals at Halliburton (an other favorites). BUSH is no friend nor practitioner of "open" or "free markets" -- he is a plutocrat who heaps every advantage on the already wealthy, while disregarding the suffering of the people.
Further, Cheney violates "free markets" and Democracy by conducting national energy policy in SECRET. We can't know what deals were cut with FELONS like Kenny Boy Lay. But we can sure see the result in "the market".
These bitter claims that Hillary would "meddle" in markets is a huge inside joke, because the present system represents a huge violation of the tenets of Capitalism, favoring the corporations and shafting American citizens and consumers. Rightwingers like Bush and Krauthhammer WANT to manipulate markets, as long as it favors their rich pals.
Don't tell me about "meddling", you arrogant elitist greed-heads! "Meddling" is your entire modus operandi!
"Despite being an outright LIE (tantamount to saying a moped is essentially JUST LIKE a Farrari, because both have wheels), they see VALUE in Bush having Hillary "on board". Is this the new way they hope to rehabilitate Bush's popularity, by saying he is "just like" Hillary?" I think back to the story of Hillary having "nice things to say" about the president and I think this is less about Bush and more about her. His approval rating won't improve much with his base by having Hillary on his side. The right has spent 10+ years making her a villain, so I don't think a few stories like this can change all that. I think the real reason is to try and discredit Hillary. Tie her to a man with a sub 30% approval rating and all the while never mention any of the Bush plans McCain has supported. If Hillary is going to run, I think her staff needs to dig up every piece of legislation, and every sound bite of McCain going lockstep with Bush's policies. They need to plaster this stuff on commercials and in any speeches that she gives. Tie that albatross tight around his neck.
"They need to plaster this stuff on commercials and in any speeches that she gives. Tie that albatross tight around his neck."
Yeah, promote bad politics by doing more of it. That will certainly show what kind of person she is. Let's get a president elected that can slander the other guy the most! I guess if it works for one, it should work for the other, right? After all, there isn't any difference between the left and the right...they both just smear the other until one drops out of the running. I mean, why promote ideals when you can smear the other candidate to win your election.
Remember...a vote for Hilary is a vote for anti-right. Not a lefty with ideals, but rather someone....anyone who is anti-righty! That is certainly a good reason to vote for a president. Why complicate things with stances on issues and other confusing things like that? Let's just stick to the mud slinging.
The Democrats tried the high road with Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004 and where did that get them? Kerry talked about his agenda and the right screamed "flip-flop", got the Swift Boaters and hyped gay marriage. Gore tried to talk issues and the right yelled he said he "invented the internet", called him a stiff and an elitist, had the media attacked him for kissing his wife, etc. Pretend that talking issues works all you want, but some of us actually paid attention to the last several election cycles. Anyone who pays attention knows what the Democratic platform is, and those who don't know don't care. It is time to fight fire with fire. No other option has worked.
After all, there isn't any difference between the left and the right...they both just smear the other until one drops out of the running.
Really? Bush certainly did this to McCain in 2000, but where has any Democrat done this?
The apologists have, at this point, absolutely NO leg to stand on... yet, they keep on'a'comin with this nonsense. It's amazing to me.
Folks need to realize that there's nothing wrong with admitting one was wrong... or misguided...how about lied to (that takes the pressure off)...
Are Democrats angels??? Hell no. In fact, once some balance is restored to our gov't (God help us)...some serious thought and action must be applied to this two party system. Only then may we ensure that a cowboy/despot will NEVER take control of this country again...