Sen. Gregg should be ashamed to put ANWR in budget

Oh, let the whiners whine! As usual, democrats are sore losers. Here's some typical liberal whining:

SEN. JUDD GREGG, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has helped the Bush administration and the powerful oil industry to open up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling by inserting language allowing the drilling into the federal budget.
This tactic avoids an up-or-down vote on the drilling itself. Using the budget process, only a one-vote majority is required, and budget resolutions are not subject to filibusters. Early in 2004, this tactic was defeated by a 52-to-48 vote margin. But, with an additional four Republican votes after the 2004 election, it passed 51-49 on Wednesday.

WELL DUH! We've been talking about doing this for years! Leave it to liberals to complain about the Republicans using their majority to push their agenda. How dare they? If ya don't like it, maybe you guys should actually get off your dead asses and vote! Then maybe your candidates would win. This is what being in the minority feels like. Better get used to it.

"It was in the President's budget and we're trying to do what the President asked for," Sen. Gregg told reporters on March 9. Is it a senator's job to do whatever the President says, whether it is right or wrong?

No, pea-brain. It's a senator's job to do what his constituents say. For some reason, whenever they don't get their way, liberals always think something illegal is going on. It reminds me of an eight-year-old screaming, "That's not fair!!"

Many conservationists argue that this end-run around the legislative process (a process in which advocates of ANWR drilling have lost many times in past attempts) is really a vendetta designed to put conservationists on notice that Republicans are going to go ahead and do as they please — legislative process, environmental concerns, and public participation be damned.

Now this part was funny because he contradicted himself in the same sentence. He says legislative process and public participation be damned. What kind of public participation do you suggest? A national referendum? Wouldn't that type of public participation subvert the legislative process of our constitutional republic? This isn't a democracy ruled by the mob, after all. The legislative process was served by the vote of 51-49, in case you forgot. The public participated by electing the senators that voted. If they don't like it, they can vote them out.

It isn't like the poor oil industry has been shut out of Alaska's coastline. The refuge contains the last 5 percent of the entire Alaskan coastal plain that does not already allow for oil drilling. Can't they leave just one little bit for the huge diversity in wildlife that lives there?

What huge diversity of wildlife? We're talking about an arctic tundra! An abyssal plain of nothing but ice, a few caribou, and some freezing eskimoes who, by the way, happen to favor drilling in ANWR.

Oil use at our current level is not only unsustainable, it contributes to global warming and helps cause wars. Our oil use should be treated like the crisis that it is, and if Sen. Gregg were a genuinely responsible politician who cared about his constituents and not special interests like the oil lobby, he would be leading the way to immediately change to genuinely safe alternative, renewable energy sources.

Okay, I drive a Ford Escort. It gets pretty good mileage, but where I live the gas price is 2.24 a gallon, and I'm definitely feeling the squeeze. I'm all in favor of switching to a new, cheaper, renewable fuel source. But that doesn't mean the transition can happen overnight! Are you going to be the one to buy me a new car that runs on whatever? What are you suggesting? Some sort of Maoist "Great Leap Forward" where we ban all automobiles? Wouldn't you prefer a gradual, sustainable transition that won't destroy the American economy? Preferably one driven by consumer demand rather than government edict?