I am not really seeing your point. You are upset that there were meetings in 2001? Horrors.
I’ve never understood the need for secrecy. Having lived a previous life in the government world, I can’t imagine the need to keep these things secret as long as they don’t deal with national security.
If your advisors for something like energy policy require secrecy in order to help out, then you may want to get different advisors.
I’m not that surprised either. When one wants to know about the state of energy in our nation one should go and talk with the people who work with it every single day. Seems logical that the vast majority of those people would work in the energy industry.
Are you suggesting that those formulating energy policy might want to solicit the opinions of people who actually produce energy?
I just don’t understand how someone could think that way.
It is not classified. It is just none of the public’s business. The VP is just insisting on exercising his privilege to get information from whom he wants without its being a public spectacle.
I don’t see Chuck Schumer disclosing his contacts with People for the American Way, nor should he.
These people can all meet with whom they want when they want. If others want to know meeting details, they can just go pound sand.
The article you posted makes it clear that his group did meet with environmental groups, so you are just making stuff up. You are usually more thorough. I really don’t care that they say they didn’t feel loved at the time, but they return that feeling in spades obviously.
“Cheney was not there, but so many environmentalists were in the room that introductions took up “about half the meeting,” recalled Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group said, “It was clear to us that they were just being nice to us.””
Selective quoting?
Maybe you missed the part about the report being almost complete before someone in the admin thought, gee, maybe we should have ONE meeting with some folks on the environment/energy efficiency side.
As for Chuck Schumer meeting with someone, if he is doing it while on the taxpayer dime, damn right he should be willing and able to disclose at least that the meeting happened. Unless it is about national security he is doing it on behalf of the taxpayer and should be accountable. If he is meeting with NAMBLA, I think that is valuable to know. If he is meeting with the CEO of a company while writing legislation that impacts that company, I think that is valuable to know.
If you’re in private business and want to keep your meetings secret, that’s great. When you’re being paid by taxes and making policies that impact millions of people and want to keep meetings secret, that’s not great.
It is just none of the public’s business.
Given the broad reaching impact of our energy policy, I would strongly disagree with this statement. While input from energy professionals, for lack of a better term, is important, it seems as if the energy policy was simply a handout to special interest. The public has a right to know if it is getting screwed…
Please get hold of Schumer’s office and request a log of all contacts between him or his staff and People for the American Way.
Let us know when you get this. It just might be a while, like the rest of your life.
If you think you have a right to know this, you are smoking dope.
This is typical of this kind of discussion that there is zero discussion of the actual policies that were proposed. If you don’t like the policies, that is fine and a great topic for debate. The process by which the President formulated the policy proposal is irrelevant and none of anyone’s business any more than interim drafts of SC opinions are anyone’s business.
If memory serves, the bill died.
You haven’t alleged anyone was screwed. You are just alleging that there were some meetings in Washington six years ago. Yawn.
“This is typical of this kind of discussion that there is zero discussion of the actual policies that were proposed.”
In a strange twist of fate, this thread has actually stayed on the original topic. If you would like to discuss the actual policies proposed, many are willing to take that on.
I don’t think anyone has said that the administration should not talk to energy providers when crafting energy policy. It would be crazy not to. It is also just weird that they would feel the need to keep it secret. When I talk to House and Senate legislators and their staffers, they keep a log of our visits and notes of what we talked about. I’ve got no problem if that information is released. And I have no idea why one would want to keep that information secret barring national security or personnel concerns.
I guess that’s what happens when you believe you are working for the public good versus not.
It is up to them whether to tell people about meetings they have or not. I don’t remember seeing a daily log of all the meeting the President of the US has on a daily basis for example.
I am guessing you haven’t heard back from Schumer’s office yet. Let us know the moment you do.
A bunch of people who hate the administration and its energy policies whine because they don’t feel loved or consulted. This is news why?
I am sure if they had their meeting in January instead of April, 2001 they would be right on board. Give me a break.
It is just none of the public’s business.<
LOL! That’s disingenuous. When the VP has 40 meetings with private energy lobbyists, corporate heads and campaign contributors to determine national policy it certainly is the public’s business. If he’s not hiding anything then why not come clean? Just connect the dots…
Have you gotten that information about Schumer’s meetings yet. I am pretty sure we are going to find hundreds of communications designed to determine judicial approval policy. I really want to know. Why not come clean?
You know the Executive Branch had 40 plus meetings. What more do you want to know?
I find it really hard to believe that you care what meetings had in Q1, 2001. Do you know all about the meetings he had to determine the Executive Branch position on tax policy too? Please give us the details. I am sure the people who wanted tax increases weren’t really consulted until after the general policy had been developed. Such a scandal.
“I find it really hard to believe that you care what meetings had in Q1, 2001.”
Actually, those of us in the energy business and industry who are impacted by the policies set forth by the administration do care about how this came about. Especially since taxpayer monies were spent conducting the meetings, and millions or billions of taxpayer monies were allocated in federal budgets based on these meetings.
Open and honest on one side. And the opposite is?
I’m not “alleging” anything. I am taking issue with the notion that those meetings are none of the public’s business. VP meets with representatives of publicly traded energy in order to help draft energy policy is not what I would consider “internal” deliberations. And it is important to know where the ideas for certain aspects of energy policy came from in order to better understand that policy. Finally, what happens if energy policy or changes come as part of an executive order? Exactly what is the public’s recourse?
Using your analogy of the SC, you wouldn’t want to know if a decision was written by one of the parties?
The moutpiece lives…
Decisions are written for judges by the parties thousands of times a day. The judges ask for recommended orders and sign the one he wants. Yawn.
I am really interested to know how Schumer makes decisions about what judges to filibuster. The public has a right to know such things, don’t you think. I want to better understand the judicial filibuster policy. I think his meeting, letter and phone logs should all be public and accessible on line, along with those of his staff.
If you don’t like the Administration requested policies that is just fine. None of your business how the recommendations came about absent real evidence of some actual crime. If you want to better understand the policy, ask questions about the policy. Hold hearings. Get staff reports. If you don’t like the policy, your recourse is to get it changed via legislation or vote the policy makers out of business at the next election. I don’t much like the Schumer judicial appointment policy either. My recourse is to get him defeated at the polls. If I don’t like it, too damn bad for me.
When you get that Schumer communication web site up and running, please let me know. Then I will take the complaints seriously.
Decisions vs. Judgments are entirely different things, but then you knew that.
And yet another staple of “Debating by Art Franke”: think of some ridiculous request that has no relation to the subject at hand and continue to beat it to death in the most smug fashion possible.
But just to answer–you bet your ass that Schumer’s constituents have a right to know how he makes decisions on legislation or policy…
I don’t know why I bother with you anymore, you are a shell of your former self.
Are you suggesting that those formulating energy policy might want to solicit the opinions of people who actually produce energy?
I just don’t understand how someone could think that way.
Just so that I don’t get lumped in with your ridiculous points/arguing styles, I am suggesting that I find it is appropriate that the WH meets mainly with those who work in the industry. BUT, I don’t see any compelling reason to keep it secret and the fact that the WH works that hard to keep it secret leads one to question why?
Hmm, doesn’t congress vote on judicial nominees? Both sides of the issues are presented; both sides vote. It’s the American way. Not the case with the Energy Task Force.
Have you gotten that information about Schumer’s meetings yet
Yes. Neas and Schumer met to strategize how to defeat far right nominees. Surprise! Your turn… got that Energy Task Force info yet?
You know the Executive Branch had 40 plus meetings. What more do you want to know?
who was there, what was talked about. Bet it’d be a real eye opener
I am going on memory here, but the purpose of the task force was to propose Energy policy law that was never enacted by Congress. You have your panties in a wad over the echos of the spin that was used years ago to defeat it. I wouldn’t want you to feel manipulated or anything like that though.
Energy execs were there and they talked about federal policy effect on production and consumption.