_

The Senate is scheduled to vote late this afternoon on legislation that would eliminate what Democratic sponsors say are tax subsidies for the highly profitable oil and gas industry. The proposal is likely to fall short of the 60 votes needed to move the bill forward.

It will, however, give both parties a political issue for the fall elections, with Democrats likely to accuse Republicans of protecting major oil and gas companies while Americans pay very high prices for gasoline. Republicans likely will counter that the Democratic bill would have further increased already high pump prices.

“People I talk to in New Jersey want to know why they’re stuck paying close to $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline while these companies rake in billions of dollars in subsidies and record profits,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the bill’s lead sponsor. “And they want to know why these oil companies should continue to enjoy billions of dollars in subsidies when we could be using that savings to invest in alternatives to oil and lower the deficit.”

Over the last 10 years, the Big 5 oil companies have made $1 trillion in profits, while retaining tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, Menendez said. Last year, the five companies — BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips — reported $137 billion in profits.

Menendez said his bill would use the $4 billion in savings to continue subsides for alternative energy sources and to pay down the federal deficit.

In addition to canceling some oil and gas tax breaks, the legislation would make it harder for speculators to drive up the price of oil by limiting how much future trading any investor could do in a single day.

Louisiana two senators, Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican David Vitter, oppose the bill, as would be expected for a member from an oil producing state.

“The bill from Sen. Menendez is a wrong-headed approach that pits sectors of the energy industry against one another in an effort to assign blame for high gas prices, instead of promoting the all of the above energy strategy our country needs,” Landrieu said. “I support alternative renewable energy, but the advance of this sector cannot come at the expense of the oil and gas industry that powers our nation and supports more than 9 million jobs in the United States and more than 375,000 in Louisiana.”

Vitter said the Democratic bill would have the “wrong sort of impact.

“It would drive the price even higher than it is now,” Vitter said.

The American Petroleum Institute has been running advertisements urging Congress not to increase energy taxes. Says an API radio ad: “It’s another bad idea from Washington.

President Barack Obama and Senate sponsors of the legislation to cancel some oil industry tax breaks said that many oil tax breaks were intended to provide incentives for domestic drilling when prices are low. With prices well over $100 a barrel, companies shouldn’t need incentives to explore for oil.

original article

Recent Iranian saber rattling about closing the Strait of Hormuz is yet another reason for the U.S. to look north to Canada for oil imports. Military confrontation or a perceived threat of it in the strait — the route for almost 17 million barrels of oil daily — would wreak havoc on global oil supplies. The effects for the United States would be particularly severe: 75 percent of oil from Saudi Arabia, which at 12 percent of net U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products is our second-largest supplier, passes through this strategic waterway.

Occasional threats to global oil supply are one reason why U.S. energy security requires “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy,” as President Barack Obama put it in his 2012 State of the Union address. Though this strategy must include cleaner natural gas, as well as alternative energy sources, the U.S. will continue to depend on oil to satisfy its energy needs in the short-to-medium term.

Here, Canada, which at 25 percent is already the United States’ top source of net oil imports, can play an even-greater role in maintaining the stability of the U.S. energy picture. With 175 billion barrels, the province of Alberta is home to the world’s third-largest oil reserves, behind Saudi Arabia at 260 billion barrels and Venezuela at 211 billion — and it is right in the U.S. backyard.

Canadian oil is also important for maintaining U.S. refinery jobs. Home to nearly half of U.S. refining capacity, the Gulf Coast is dependent on foreign sources for approximately 65 percent of its crude oil, so any disruption in imports could force refineries to scale back their operations. Here, a slowdown in Saudi supply is not the only concern.

Mexico and Venezuela, two of the top four suppliers to the Gulf Coast, are expected to reduce their U.S.-bound exports in the next few years. Mexico, the largest source of Gulf Coast imports with 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd), saw production in its Cantarell field drop by more than 1 million bpd from 2004 to 2009. For the United States, this meant a 500,000-bpd decline in Mexican exports to Gulf Coast refineries from 2006 to 2010. The 2010-2015 outlook for Mexico’s oil production does not look much brighter.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez’s politically motivated management of the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, has led to declines in the country’s oil output. At the same time, although U.S. refineries have the unique capacity to process Venezuela’s heavy crude oil, Chávez would rather ship his crude to Asia than to the United States. If he stays in office past Venezuela’s October presidential election, U.S. refineries would do well to prepare for a further reduction.

Canadian oil is certainly not the sole answer to these hemispheric developments or to solving our overall energy needs, but it can help to maintain a steady flow of oil to U.S. refineries while we continue to explore the large-scale use of alternative energy.

One factor behind much of the opposition to drilling in the Canadian oil sands is that Canada’s oil sands must be processed to create synthetic crude oil suitable for transport by pipeline and refining. This process creates carbon dioxide emissions that, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, are 6 percent greater than the average U.S. crude supply on a “wells-to-wheels” basis. Other estimates place it higher.

Besides greenhouse gas emissions, environmentalists also deride the land devastation caused by mining the oil sands. But oil companies are legally obligated to restore land to its original condition, which could mitigate this concern. The impact on Alberta’s forests will be further minimized as in-situ extraction, using pipes and steam to recover resources, increasingly replaces mining. Still, in situ is not without its environmental concerns: The amount of steam used per barrel of oil must be further reduced to decrease emissions and water and energy usage. It is worth noting, too, that at today’s oil prices, the oil sands will likely be developed with or without the U.S. market.

Of course, the Keystone XL Pipeline — a 1,700-mile project that would carry 700,000-830,000 bpd of crude to Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast — is another focus of opposition to Canadian oil. Nearly 600,000 bpd of oil can already flow from Alberta to Illinois and Oklahoma through the existing Keystone Pipeline; if built, Keystone XL would double the amount transported to U.S. refineries — and would bring it all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Detractors warn of the environmental consequences if a spill were to occur along the route through Nebraska’s Sandhills wetlands region and the Ogallala Aquifer. These concerns were a top reason why the U.S. Department of State said on Jan. 18 that it “could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information.” With that, Obama rejected the pipeline as proposed.

The problem is that politics overtook on-the-ground considerations. In November, the Nebraska Legislature passed a bill that would move the XL pipeline’s path out of the Sandhills and the Ogalla Aquifer, and TransCanada — the Canadian company that would construct the pipeline — agreed to shift the route. But Congress, rather than wait for TransCanada to submit a new application and for the U.S. government to complete a new environmental impact study, inserted a 60-day timeline into the payroll tax extension bill in December to compel Obama to make a final determination on the pipeline.

This will not be the last we hear of Keystone XL in this election year. The proposed pipeline and the jobs it will create are now campaign fodder for Republicans eyeing an opportunity to claim that the president is failing to support job creation. But instead of playing politics with pipeline construction, Congress should allow TransCanada to reapply for approval, as Obama has offered, after it finalizes a new plan that avoids the Sandhills. The political hijacking of a plan to further integrate North American oil does not serve the interests of the United States, especially with continued uncertainty in the Middle East.

original article

Conscious and deliberate decisions by President Obama and his Administration reduce future domestic supplies of energy. These actions violate the President’s constitutional mandate to “provide for the common Defence.”

The withholding of approval for the development of the Keystone Pipeline to bring Canadian crude oil to refineries in the United States constitutes merely the latest in these unconstitutional moves against maintaining national security. In aggregate, Obama’s restrictions on use of domestically available energy increase the Nation’s vulnerability to unstable and unfriendly foreign energy sources. Simultaneously, the military and essential industries lose access to secure supplies of fuels and electricity.

Along with the anti-Keystone decision, the President and his Administration have undertaken the following policies that, in total, are unconstitutional:

1. Severe limits and regulatory delays in permitting offshore oil and gas exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore regions.

2. Continued administrative inaction by the Department of Interior to make the Alaskan ANWAR and other potentially productive public land areas accessible to oil and gas exploration, development and production.

3. No action taken by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the regulatory hurdles preventing the construction of new domestic oil refineries that produce domestic gasoline, diesel and jet fuels.

4. Multiple regulatory actions and threats by the Environmental Protection Agency that will force the closure of many coal-fired power plants, threaten the stability of the national power grid, and increase the price of electricity.

5. Plans by the Environmental Protection Agency to limit or prevent the use of hydraulic fracturing and reservoir treatment to release abundant shale gas and tight crude oil reserves.

6. Political and ineffective releases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that reduce its availability for crisis defense needs.

7. Termination by the Department of Energy of Federal construction of a central repository for spent nuclear fuel, forcing the eventual shutdown of nuclear power plants that now supply 20% of U.S. electricity.

8. No action taken to remove the domestic regulatory hurdles preventing the construction of modern nuclear power plants.

9. Department of Interior’s withdrawal of one million more acres of Southwestern land from uranium exploration and production required to fuel future nuclear power plants.

10. Threats by the White House and Department of Interior to use illegally the Antiquities Act and other arbitrary orders to withdraw vast areas of public lands in several Western States from energy and mineral exploration.

11. No action to reverse the Clinton Administration’s similar withdrawal of millions of acres of Utah’s public land with great energy resource potential.

12. Using taxpayer and debt resources to subsidize economically unsound solar, wind and bio-fuel energy development and production and equally unsound passenger rail systems.

13. Forcing Americans to pay far more than necessary for transportation fuel and vehicles through excessive regulation, taxation, subsidies, unsafe automobile mileage standards, and mandated use of costly and inefficient ethanol additives.

14. No effective diplomatic efforts to secure long-term access to Iraq’s petroleum exports in the context of the premature withdrawal of American forces from that country.

15. No effective diplomatic efforts, if any, to contain China’s efforts to control Western Hemisphere energy resources, as well as energy transportation routes across Central America.

16. Abetting China’s moves to control U.S. access to energy by regulatory limitations on domestic exploration and decisions like “Keystone” that force Canada to look elsewhere to sell its tar sand resources.

17. No assertive or effective efforts to contain the adverse consequences of takeovers or intimidation of energy-rich portions of the Middle East by new radical Islamic dictatorships.

18. No assertive or effective efforts to prevent Iran from gaining access to nuclear weapons, weapons that could effectively prevent access to all Middle Eastern energy resources as well as pose a direct danger to Americans and their allies.

19. Ceding the Moon’s resources for future helium-3 fusion power to China.

The continued drawdown of the national defense programs and the armed forces through actions by the President, his Administration, and the Congress only compound these and other adverse energy and economic actions and inactions. Of particular note are anti-growth policies that lead to higher tax rates, increased financial and environmental regulation, and inflation stimulated by artificial expansion of the money supply.

The constitutional mandate for a rational and scientifically and economically sound national energy plan lies in energy’s close modern relationship to the Federal Government’s mandate to “provide for the common Defence” found in the Preamble and Article I. These provisions are reinforced by the Article II designation of the President as Commander in Chief and an Oath of Office that requires the President to “preserve, protect and defend of the Constitution”.

Both near and long-term national security options are limited by projected increases in our dependence on foreign sources of oil. That dependence also creates an economic burden on our struggling economy that restricts the liberty of Americans, their 9th Amendment guarantee of the pursuit of happiness, as well as their ability to respond to crises of all kinds.

Dependence on imported oil gives existing and potential adversaries leverage to control our defense and foreign policies. Additionally, imports subsidize both the financial supporters of terrorism and, through additional national debt, our major economic and security adversary, China.

Dependence has the further effect of giving the United States no influence over the price it pays for oil. If the price of oil came under the direct economic influence of the United States through use of abundant domestic and Canadian resources, for example, Iran would have great difficulty affording the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

Dependence on oil and gasoline imports that are vulnerable to attack at sea also gives China further means to intimidate our national leaders into acquiescence to its continuing ambition for international dominance. China’s rapidly growing economy, fueled by U.S. debt, has a major influence on world energy supply and cost, competing directly with our needs. Additionally, that country’s growing conventional and asymmetric military capabilities directly threaten our sources of energy.

Cold War II has begun; however, it is being fought on an economic and energy front as well as through military capabilities. Relative to its geopolitical influence, China’s rapidly developing space capabilities and its expressed interest in lunar helium-3 energy resources cannot be ignored [See Essay No. 49].

Many varied elements are necessary to a long-range national, free market plan that would ultimately provide for energy independence and a more stable economy. A scientifically and economically based, long-range strategy also would provide far more benefit to the preservation of the environment and natural resources than possible today [See Essay No. 44]. The absence of such a strategy has led to a national security crisis through progressively increased dependence on foreign sources of oil and restrictions on use of North American coal, tar sand, natural gas, and uranium resources.

The “common Defence” provisions of the Constitution require that the next President and Congress have a concerted and immediate focus on energy independence as well as on reducing spending and debt. No choice remains other than capitulation to the economic, military and terror intimidation of the enemies of liberty.

original article

Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is among the top policy decisions the U.S. oil and gas industry would like addressed during this election year, said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard Jan. 4.

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade organization representing U.S. oil and gas producers, outlined its policy agenda and launched an advertising campaign to convey its message during the group’s State of American Energy event in Washington, D.C., Jan. 4.

The ad campaign, called Vote 4 Energy, is a multistate effort that’s aimed at informing voters about critical energy issues through print, radio, television and social media avenues, Gerard said. API is not endorsing any candidates as part of the campaign, which Gerard said is a nonpartisan effort.

The advertising effort also will focus on regional hotspots, including Ohio, where oil and gas policy issues are being considered.

The proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline is key to enhancing the nation’s energy security and generating more than 500,000 jobs by 2035, API said.

Gerard stressed the need to move forward on the Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration postponed until after the 2012 election pending a review of the pipeline route.

“I think the Keystone XL pipeline is already an election issue,” Gerard said.

The State Department determined in November that it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of alternatives to the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska because of environmental concerns.

The Keystone pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to Texas, has already undergone extensive environmental reviews, Gerard said. The only decision remaining for President Obama on the issue is whether the project is in the United States’ national interest, Gerard said.

The pipeline would immediately create 20,000 jobs and bring an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day to the U.S. market, Gerard said. That’s about half of what the nation imports from the Persian Gulf, according to the American Petroleum Institute’s state of the industry report.

Among other key policy issues cited in API’s report include increased access to oil and natural gas resources, “common-sense” regulations that don’t place unnecessary burdens on the industry, an accelerated leasing and permitting process for offshore and onshore resources and no punitive taxes for the oil and gas industry.

On hydraulic fracturing, Gerard said API supports regulations at the state level where local geographic issues present unique challenges to each particular region.

Original Article

-

By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman – 12/19/11 10:40 AM ET

The new year will bring the continuation — and perhaps escalation — of a suite of major energy and environmental battles.

Here are some major issues E2 will be watching, in no particular order:

Solyndra: House Republicans have vowed to press forward their investigation into the Obama administration’s $535 million loan guarantee to failed solar firm Solyndra next year.

Solyndra, a California-based solar panel manufacturer, declared bankruptcy in September about two years after receiving the loan guarantee from the Energy Department. Republicans have pounced on the bankruptcy, raising questions about President Obama’s green energy agenda and alleging that the administration approved the loan guarantee for political reasons. The White House strongly denies the allegations.

The months-long GOP investigation has yielded more than 185,000 pages of documents and two Obama administration subpoenas, one to the White House.

The investigation has not uncovered evidence that the loan guarantee approval was influenced by politics. But the probe has nonetheless been a political nightmare for the White House going into the 2012 elections.

Top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee say they will broaden their investigation in the coming months to include other green energy loan guarantees.

Nuclear safety: The March disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant has prompted the country’s nuclear power regulators to re-evaluate existing safety regulations.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in the early stages of evaluating and implementing a series of more stringent safety standards recommended by a federal task force mandated by President Obama in the aftermath of the disaster.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko has called on his commissioners to implement the new standards, which include rules to ensure that plants can deal with sustained power outages, within the next five years. That’s a speedy time frame for an agency that took a decade to impose new regulations after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The commission will make a series of key decisions next year that will lay the groundwork for its new safety standards.

NRC members will need to make the decisions amid major tensions at the agency. Four NRC commissioners launched a public revolt against Jaczko this week, arguing his “erratic” behavior could prevent the body from protecting public health and safety.

During back-to-back hearings, they alleged that Jaczko has overstepped his authority, withheld information from his colleagues and verbally abused staff members. Jaczko strongly denies the allegations.

Republicans attacked Jaczko over the allegations, with some even calling for his resignation. But many Democrats came to his defense, arguing that the commissioners are retaliating against Jaczko over his efforts to move forward quickly with new nuclear safety standards.

Keystone pipeline: The Keystone oil sands pipeline is also likely to remain a political battleground into 2012, regardless of the outcome of Capitol Hill talks on a compromise that could alter the timeline for a federal decision.

Environmental groups bitterly oppose TransCanada Corp.’s project to connect Canada’s oil sands projects with Gulf Coast refineries. Look for them to keep pressure on President Obama to personally reject the project.

But at the same time, major business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, back the project. They’re casting it as a job-creation engine during a campaign season dominated by the economy.

Green-energy tax credits and funding: Look for renewable energy companies and their Capitol Hill allies to ensure preservation and extension of various incentives for renewable electricity projects.

A major priority will be protecting the production tax credit for wind power projects (and some other renewables) slated to expire at the end of 2012.

Historically, new wind power installations have plummeted when the credit has lapsed; the industry will put its lobbying muscle into an extension.

At the same time, the White House is pushing green energy research funding, a challenge amid efforts to cut federal spending.

EPA regulations: EPA is vowing to continue crafting greenhouse-gas regulations for power plants and refineries. House Republicans have passed bills to scuttle the rules, but they haven’t advanced in the Senate. Don’t expect them to stop trying.

More broadly, EPA will be implementing other Clean Air Act rules that many Republicans and some Democrats — backed by powerful utilities with coal-fired generation — oppose and are seeking to soften.

Offshore drilling: The Interior Department is moving ahead with a 2012-2017 offshore oil-and-gas leasing plan that Republicans and oil industry groups call far too modest, while environmentalists remain dismayed over plans to sell leases in fragile Arctic seas in several years. Expect the legislative and political pressure to continue.

Original Article

-

By Ed Anderson

BATON ROUGE — Forty newly elected lawmakers will get their first taste of being legislators this week when House and Senate officials give them a crash course on lawmaking, media use and how their lives will change starting with inauguration Jan. 9.

House Clerk Alfred “Butch” Speer said that all 31 new members, along with the six members elected in the middle of the last term, will get the instruction starting Tuesday at 1 p.m. The orientation will run through Friday afternoon.

Nine senators-elect, and two members elected in the late stages of the 2008-12 term, will start Senate orientations Wednesday at 11:30 a.m., going through Friday afternoon, First Assistant Senate Secretary Yolanda Dixon said.

The new members from both chambers will be in town for the legislative Christmas party Thursday night.

Speer and Dixon said the newcomers will not be paid a per diem but their lodging and travel expenses will be paid.

Speer said the cost to the House should be about $15,000, including House-prepared meals. Dixon said the orientation will cost the Senate about $3,800.

“They need to learn about being inside the rail instead of outside the rail” as spectators, Speer said of the focus of the four-day seminar. “This is an attempt to give them that first layer of education” of how the legislative process works.

Their first lawmaking session opens March 12 and must end no later than June 4.

Speer said the House’s agenda will include mock committee meeting and floor sessions, as well as discussions of ethics laws, parliamentary procedure, introduction to legislative staff, key dates for filing bills, and one called “Norms of Behavior or How to Operate within the House and Keep Your Integrity and Sanity.”

“We are trying to create a foundation for them to work from so some things won’t appear to be Martian” during the session, Speer said.

Besides Senate mock committee and floor sessions, the new senators will also get lessons on equipment, personnel, the rules the Senate uses to operate, and ethics laws, Dixon said.

Senate spokeswoman Brenda Hodge said the new senators also will be given brief overviews of key issues they will face in the session, including budgetary and education matters.

Dixon said although five of the nine new senators are House veterans and one is a former senator who is returning, the procedures in the Senate are different from what they have been used to.

“This will give them all an overview of what they are in for, not that they will remember it all,” she said. “We are going to bombard them with so much information, they won’t be able to get it all in their brains” at one time.

Original Article

-

December 11, 2011

After losing last month’s runoff to Vincent Pierre, state Rep. Rickey Hardy is out of a job.

Hardy, D-Lafayette, was a full-time legislator.

“(It’s) just a little setback to determine my comeback,” he quipped.

Hardy lost despite having Gov. Bobby Jindal’s backing.

“You prepare yourself to win and when you lose, you lose graciously,” Hardy said.

The urge to run for political office hit Natchitoches resident Bob Lang late in life.

Lang, 66, ran against U.S. Sen. David Vitter last year and then jumped into this year’s gubernatorial primary. He ran without a party affiliation.

After losing both races, Lang said he might be finished with campaigning.

“I enjoyed the heck out of it,” he said of meeting people on the campaign trail.

The problem, Lang said, is that he is “getting long in the tooth” and has a list of things he wants to do before he gets too elderly.

Maj. Gen. Bennett Landreneau was scheduled to symbolically hand command of the Louisiana National Guard Saturday to Brig. Gen. Glenn Curtis.

Landreneau is retiring as adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard. Gov. Bobby Jindal named Curtis as Landreneau’s replacement.

The ceremony was supposed to include a formation of troops and a display of equipment, vehicles and helicopters.

The handover is symbolic because Curtis already is on the job.

State Rep. Rick Gallot, D-Ruston, does not plan to scramble for tickets to the BCS Championship between LSU and Alabama.

The two teams meet Jan. 9 in New Orleans.

“I’ve got the best seat in town on my sofa,” Gallot said. “I don’t have to fight the traffic.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal has appointed a Baton Rouge woman to a state board that regulates social work.

Carla Moore, eligibility services program manager for the state Department of Children and Family Services, will serve on the state Board of Social Work Examiners.

The governor also named Judith Haspel of New Orleans and Parker Sternbergh of New Orleans to the board.

Haspel is an administrator for the Uptown Mental Health Center/West Bank Mental Health Center. Sternbergh is assistant director of the Porter Cason Institute.

A recent poll commissioned by Gov. Bobby Jindal found that the governor enjoys an overwhelmingly positive image.

Placing second in the popularity contest was U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a surprising finish for one of the few Democratic officials elected statewide.

On Message Inc. polled 800 people — those who voted in the Oct. 22 ballot and those who did not — between Nov. 8 and Nov. 10 to reach the results. The poll has a 4.4 margin error for primary voters and a 5.7 percent error margin for those questioned who didn’t vote in the primary.

They were read a list of elected officials and asked to “tell me whether you have a favorable or unfavorable impression.” The poll showed 71 percent characterized the Republican Jindal’s image as very favorable or somewhat favorable.

Landrieu scored 54 percent in a combination of those two categories among the primary voters and 58 percent for non-primary voters. She outpolled President Barack Obama, Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter, Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Secretary of State Tom Schedler.

“I’m not surprised. She’s had no scandals,” said Timmy Teepell, the governor’s former chief of staff. Teepell now is a partner in On Message.

A similar poll was conducted for New Orleans businessman John Georges, who ran for governor in 2007 and flirted with the possibility of running again earlier this year.

Market Research Insight polled 600 voters between Nov. 28 and Dec. 1. The error margin is 4 percent.

Poll participants were asked which of four men — Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, Georges, state Treasurer John Kennedy and U.S. Sen. David Vitter — they “could definitely vote for, probably vote for, probably not vote for or definitely not vote for.” Georges is a registered Democrat. The others are Republicans.

Dardenne received 48 percent “total vote for,” Georges received 42 percent, Kennedy got 34 percent and Vitter received 36 percent.

In trial head-to-head heats, Georges’ poll showed: Georges, 34 percent; Vitter, 22 percent; Dardenne, 17 percent; Kennedy, 9 percent. Eighteen percent were uncertain, according to the poll Georges’ commissioned.

Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell will address the Press Club at noon Monday, Dec. 12.

Campbell will discuss Gov. Bobby Jindal’s decision to not seek $80 million in federal stimulus funds that would extend high speed internet into rural areas of the state. Campbell also will discuss his ongoing push for an oil-processing tax that would tax all oil and gas processed in Louisiana, regardless of where the oil and gas is captured.

Press Club meets on Mondays at De La Ronde Hall, which is located at 320 Third St. in downtown Baton Rouge. Lunch, which is served at 11:30 a.m., is $12 for members and $15 for non-members.

The public is invited, but only members of the Press Club and members of the news media are allowed to ask questions during the question-and-answer portion of the program.

The Pelican Institute for Public Policy is hosting a private dinner featuring Karl Rove, who worked as an advisor to former President George W. Bush.

The New Orleans-based institute describes itself as a nonpartisan research and educational organization.

Tickets to the 7 p.m. dinner Monday at the Camelot Club in Baton Rouge start at $450 per couple. Those paying at least $500 can participate in a book signing.

Compiled by the Capitol news bureau. Contact email address is mballard@theadvocate.com.

Original Article

-

By Stephanie Grace, The Times-Picayune

When Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney signed up Wednesday to run in Louisiana’s GOP presidential primary, the candidates committed an act of optimism.

By signing up, all four contenders — and whichever GOP hopefuls plan to join them before qualifying closes on Friday — placed a bet that they’ll still be standing by the time the state’s Republicans cast their ballots on March 24, 2½ months after Iowans kick off the official nominating process Jan. 3.

That makes it an optimistic wager for Louisiana’s conservative voters too, because it holds out the possibility that their opinions might actually affect this year’s outcome — even if history suggests it’s unlikely to happen.

This year, though, feels different. After so many newsmaking debates and so much drama, not to mention a healthy dose of comedy, it almost seems as if we’ve been watching a national election instead of a bunch of statewide contests that are mostly taking place far away from here.

That impression is deceiving, of course. Despite efforts to reform the nominating process and break the stranglehold of early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, voters there will once again exert disproportionate influence over the outcome, while their peers in states like Louisiana will be lucky to still face a choice at all.

Yet the turmoil of this strange up-and-down campaign suggests the contest may go 15 rounds.

Just like the Democrats’ 2008 fight to the finish between President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, this year’s GOP contest has long boiled down to a two-person race; it’s just that one of the two keeps changing. There’s Romney, and then there’s whoever seems best positioned on any given day to tap into free-floating conservative resistance to the technocratic and ideologically flexible former Massachusetts governor.

For a few weeks now, that spot has been held by Gingrich. Before him came Michele Bachmann, Perry and Herman Cain, all of whom withered under the intense glare — although Bachmann and Perry are hanging around hoping they’ll earn a second look, and Gov. Bobby Jindal is still dutifully helping Perry raise money for a final push. Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman are holding on as well, still waiting for their first turn in the spotlight, along with Paul, whose hard-line libertarianism has earned him a devoted following but makes him an unlikely candidate to catch on.

And then there’s former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who’s running on an issue — the corrupting power of big money in politics — that surely resonates with many more people than, say, Newt Gingrich’s opposition to child labor laws. Yet Roemer’s campaign actually amounts to an act of optimism too, since he can’t wage the type of media campaign that relies on the big donors he routinely criticizes, and since the national political press won’t seem to give him the time of day. Roemer is now thinking of abandoning the two-party system entirely and making a third-party bid.

Meanwhile, whichever Republican is the lead Romney alternative when the music stops and the voting starts may well have some staying power. While Gingrich has plenty of problems, polls suggest his support may be solidifying, which means he and Romney could be teeing up to be this year’s Clinton and Obama.

Yet as exciting as that contest was for the Democratic voters who got a rare taste of the franchise, it was an aberration. More typical was John McCain’s early, decisive triumph on the GOP side.

And given that Obama is already out there waging his general election campaign, the Republican Party has extra incentive to force the nomination process to a quick resolution. The more time Republicans spend competing to sew up an uncompromising conservative base, the theory goes, the harder it will be to shift to a strategy of wooing independents and moderates.

If the poobahs carry the day, then by the time late March rolls around, Louisiana voters may discover that their choice on the ballot isn’t a real choice after all.

Original Article