Barack Backer Dodges On Obama Vote for Bush Energy Bill

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
  • Bookmark and Share

Forget Hardball. Dodgeball's more amusing . . .

As we'll detail below, David Shuster literally laughed in the face of a senior Republican today, and earlier on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell blithely dismissed the McCain energy plan as unrealistic. But there was one point of light, you might say, during the network's afternoon coverage.  When Shuster briefly held a Dem congresswoman's feet to the fire on the question of Obama's vote for the 2005 Bush energy bill, what ensued was one of the more hapless—and ergo entertaining—dodges of the political season. Shuster's guest was Allyson Schwartz, a Dem congresswoman from Pennsylvania.

DAVID SHUSTER: Congresswoman, during the event in Ohio today, Barack Obama attacked the Bush-Cheney energy policy.  But didn't Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

Schwartz's first foray was the old politician's standby: ignore the embarrassing question and give your canned spiel on something you want to discuss.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ: Well let's talk about what John McCain's been saying, and John McCain was in Pennsylvania just yesterday and really had very little to say about doing anything differently than the Bush administration's been doing for years.

Shuster, to his credit, persisted.

SHUSTER: Congresswoman, I'm  happy to talk about that, but just a yes or no question: didn't Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

SCHWARTZ: Well, I think, you know, we have to go back and, and check on that. I'm sure the campaign can give you the specifics on, uh, exactly what, uh, was done.

Not that the good rep didn't already know, but just for the record [from AP article]:

Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by President Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure for which Vice President Dick Cheney played a major role. McCain opposed the bill, saying at the time that it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

BONUS COVERAGE: Shuster Laughs in Donatelli's Face; Mitchell Mocks McCain Energy Plan

Before Schwartz played dodgeball, Shuster played truer to form, literally laughing in a Republican's face. As the redoubtable Frank Donatelli, Deputy RNC Chairman, explained how McCain would stand up to the oil companies as he's promised to do in an ad, Shuster can be heard off camera letting go with a mocking laugh.

View video here.

Andrea Mitchell stopped short of laughing at a McCain advisor, but Mitchell found a mirthless manner of expressing cynicism over McCain's energy proposals. Prof. John Taylor of Stanford and the Hoover Institution, a McCain economics advisor, was her guest during MSNBC's 1 PM hour. After Prof. Taylor noted how proposals to drill offshore have already brought crude prices down significantly, Mitchell went on the attack.

ANDREA MITCHELL: He talked about more than, having more than 40 nuclear power plants. That's not realistic given how many decades it's been since we've licensed a nuclear plant. Why suggest the nuclear option as a real answer to near-term energy needs?

JOHN TAYLOR: It's a big part of the answer, but it's not the whole thing. He's stressed this is an all the above policy. Nuclear power is important. We can do this. We can focus on it and it's a crisis and requires pulling out all the stops and that's what he's proposing to do.

MITCHELL: Is he promising more that can be delivered? What is being proposed is way beyond what is realistic.

Is it Mitchell's role as a journalist to declare that a candidate's plan is unrealistic?  Is Andrea a closet nuclear-energy expert? Mitchell seemed to base her conclusion on past policies, but isn't it a candidate's job to describe what new policies he proposes? Isn't this election about, you'll excuse the expression . . . change?

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Its funny that it doesn't happen on the flip side

Its funny that it doesn't happen on the flip side.  Should she have posed this questions to Barack many times?  Like with the inflating tires comment? That doesn't seem very realistic.

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying. 

- Ronald Reagan

Mitchell: "Why suggest the

Mitchell: "Why suggest the nuclear option as a real answer to near-term energy needs?"

So, the "real answers" for "the short term" are Obama's proposal that we all drive in new super-duper electric cars that aren't even built (and just how many will be able to afford them) and his other proposed and as yet unnamed "green" energy sources? These Tom Swift Jr. "green" energy/transportation ideas are somehow more realistic than nuclear energy - where the technology already exists? Sometimes it's not the bias that gets to me but the MSM's total lack of consistency and their contradictions.

McNotObama '08

My greatest wish has been

My greatest wish has been for along time that all people on the right side of the aisle would not...I repeat...NOT go on msnbc.

Boycott it.

Let them play with themselves. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I've never used the word

I've never used the word "smarmy " in my life.Does it fit for Schuster?

Yes. He's a

Yes. He's a smarm-meister.

McNotObama '08

In the 's' category, I'd go

In the 's' category, I'd go for "snide."

"S' Words

If we're going with the "S" word theme here, how about STUPID? I'm also in favor of Slimey.

How's this for "s"

Somebody should smack said smarmy snide-meister.Seriously.

Senator Obama

voted on something?

But come on!  It was three years ago.  A guy can change his mind, can't he?

Like McCain said about

Like McCain said about Romney during the primaries: "well, he is the candidate of change."

Blah, blah, blah. The

Blah, blah, blah.

The Left continues to stonewall the American people on this issue.   Meanwhile, not one more drop of domestic oil or the refineries to process that oil have been produced.

Only a few brave Republican congressmen stayed in Washington to protest Nancy Pelosi not allowing a vote on this important issue.  They are the ones that should be heralded.

Don't like the high prices for gasoline and everything else that is either made with petroleum or hauled to market using petroleum?  Call your elected officials tomorrow morning.  Here are the numbers: Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. House switchboard: 202-225-3121. White House switchboard: 202-456-1414

In the case that you don't know who your representative is or your senators, just tell the operator the zip code of where you vote.  He or she will look up the name of your representative and put you through.   

jdhawk... Glad you put

jdhawk...

Glad you put those numbers up there...

I have called everyday they have been there...today too.

It is a crying shame they haven't been getting any press coverage as far as I am concerned, they made statements again today in Statuary Hall, took questions, not one station covered it while I was watching live...this is a time to say thank you for these congressmen/women..they are doing what they have been paid to do, they are real patriots...after-all this is the number one issue today with people of all stripes in this country. 

I have been past disgusted with Fox...to put it mildly.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Bigtimer, I am glad to hear

Bigtimer, I am glad to hear that you are calling.  I have been too.  I am not sure it will mean one tinker's damn, but if it only bolsters our Republican representatives, it will have served its purpose.

Thank you.

 

 

Call your elected

Call your elected officials tomorrow morning.

If you don't have the wherewithal to call, send an e-mail at the very least. I hope their e-mail servers are filled to the last byte this week.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Andrea; How does McCain's nuclear stance differ from Obamas?

ANDREA MITCHELL: Why (does McCain) suggest the nuclear option as a real answer to near-term energy needs?

The same question could be asked of Obama:

Obama: I think we do have to look at nuclear...And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be—we've, we've got to look at every possible option. -- Obama On Meet the Press 05-04-2008

Obama supporting nuclear power expansion on video.

MITCHELL: Is he promising more that can be delivered?

You could ask the same of BHO

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/straining_a_point.html

Also from BHO's plan:

"It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues:"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

 

Did Shuster slip and hit his head?

Did Shuster slip and hit his head? The idea that he is even capable of asking a reasonable question of someone is astounding. The ditz Congresswoman looked like a deer in the headlights.

Andrea Mitchell should just ride off into the sunset with her husband Alan Greenspan and call it a career. She has become a useless propagandist.

Love that screen cap - Classic, wide-eyed Obamomaton

...mindlessly chanting "hope, change, Obama...Obama...Obama".