Showing posts with label Ken Salazar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Salazar. Show all posts

Friday, May 25, 2012

Tell Washington Not To Close The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

A very interesting post from http://consumerenergyalliance.org/ about natural petroleum  reserves in Alaska. This follows this post about the EPA and stringent coal regulation. This follows this post about the Keystone XL pipeline.  This follows this article about the recent news about ending the ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read the very interesting book that is shown HERE!


Tell Washington Not To Close The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska









We don't know how to explain this without sounding downright silly. Right now, Americans need to fight Washington for its rights to maintain the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska as a - wait for it - a petroleum reserve!











The federal Bureau of Land Management has drafted a new management plan for the reserve in which many of the alternatives would prohibit access to this energy resource.











Decades ago, Alaska and the federal government agreed to designate the area for oil & gas development - understanding the value that domestic energy would have for the American Navy and U.S. energy security.





Act now! Tell the federal government to allow oil & gas leasing and infrastructure development in the petroleum reserve.









Monday, February 27, 2012

10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now

A very interesting post from http://www.redstate.com/ about ways Barack Obama could reduce the price of gasoline NOW! This follows this post about Warren Buffett profiting from the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. This follows this previous article about encouraging American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book  HERE!

You can also write your two Senators about the Keystone XL pipeline HERE!

10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now




I'll hold my breath.


Posted by Steve Maley (Diary)



 Tulsa World headline:





Obama: No magic bullet to lower gas prices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says there is no easy answer to the problem of rising energy prices, dismissing Republican plans to address the problem as little more than gimmicks.



“We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. …



Obama said Republicans have one answer to the oil pinch: Drill.



“You know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling,” Obama said, echoing his remarks earlier in the week. “It’s a bumper sticker.”



Speaking of bumper stickers, remember “Yes We Can”, Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.



Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.



Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.

1. Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.

2. Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.

3. Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.

4. Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.

5. Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.

6. Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.

7. Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.

8. Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.

9.  Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]

10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.



Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said“You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.



Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.



Cross-posted at http://www.stevemaley.com/.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Obama/Salazar Moratorium Has Crippled Domestic Oil Production

An interesting post from www.redstate.com about the domestic oil drilling ban. This follows this previous post about it.This follows this post  about a creative solution to Gulf drilling and this previous article about the recent news about the ban on offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here!

Obama/Salazar Moratorium Has Crippled Domestic Oil Production


In 2011, Gulf of Mexico oil production will under-perform the government’s pre-Macondo forecasts by 355,000 barrels per day — almost 130 million barrels for the year. In 2012, the shortfall rises to 550,000 barrels per day — 200 million barrels. That’s fully one-third of the Gulf’s oil producing capability, and over 10% of total domestic oil production.




These are staggering numbers.



Alaska, our #1 oil producing state, will supply roughly 200 million barrels in 2012.



Two hundred million barrels is about what the U.S. imports from Iraq every year. Or roughly half of our Saudi Arabian import volume. Two hundred million barrels would supply all of Ohio’s yearly petroleum use, with quite a bit left over.



Replacing 200 million barrels of oil will require an additional supertanker full of oil every two days.



The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides a rather dry but telling explanation:



Off shore oil production in [the 2011 forecast] is lower than in [the 2010 forecast] throughout most of the projection period [through 2035] because of expected delays in near-term projects, in part as a result of drilling moratoria and in part due to the change in lease sales expected in the Pacific and Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS), as well as increased uncertainty about future investment in off shore production. [AEO2011 Preview, p. 8. Emphasis added.]



Moratoria, access and uncertainty: issues which fall squarely in the laps of Barack Obama and Ken Salazar. Their misguided policy decisions come in times of rising global demand and rising world tensions. By the fall of 2012, we might look back on the “good old days” of $105 per barrel oil and $3.75 per gallon gasoline.

The projected shortfall comes from EIA forecasts. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook, with detailed production and consumption forecasts covering the next 25 years, is published each April; AEO2011 is due to be published April 26, but a Preview came out last December.



Short Term Outlooks are published monthly. The most recent STO was published March 8.



The shortfall is the difference between the March 2011 STO (”where we are”) with the May 2010 STO (”where we might have been”). The May 2010 STO was the last monthly forecast which did not take post-Macondo regulatory actions into account. Since the STO only covers a 24-month time frame, supplemental values for 2012 came from last year’s Annual Energy Outlook.







The cumulative shortfall, just through the end of 2012, will be 387 million barrels, plus 723 billion cubic feet of natural gas (which contains the equivalent energy value of about 120 million barrels of oil).







How much are we talking about in dollar terms? Just on the value of the oil and gas alone, over $40 billion dollars worth. Somewhere around $6 billion of that would have flowed straight to the U.S. Treasury as royalty. This analysis is too simplistic to address the real economic cost, in terms of lost jobs, capital investment, income and payroll taxes, etc. Notice in the graph below that the cumulative value really starts to take off in 2012 as the volume loss accelerates.



Consider, too, that this shortfall does nothing to curtail demand. Not a single consumer will alter their consumption habits (that is, until the price adjusts). This volume of oil will be made up from imports, adding to our national trade imbalance.



Ultimately, as I have argued before, a half million barrels a day can make a substantial difference in the market price of oil. As we have seen supply disruptions (Libya, Yemen and elsewhere) against growing demand, buyers will inevitably bid up the value of that last barrel to come on the market.



This shortfall could be erased by an administration that correctly viewed the oil and gas industry, not as a convenient whipping-boy, but as a potential growth engine for our tepid economy. Capitalist risk-takers have already proven the potential of oil from shale plays such as the Eagleford of South Texas and the Bakken of North Dakota. We find ourselves at a moment in time when a true visionary in the White House could realistically set a goal of 50% or more growth in domestic oil supply, and couple it with a commitment to develop our plentiful, clean American natural gas resources. Such a visionary leader could become the first president since the 1973 embargo to succeed in putting America on a course to true energy security –



Hey, a fellow can dream, can’t he?



Cross-posted at  VladEnBlog.

Also at http://www.thehayride.com/



Monday, May 3, 2010

Don't Let Federal Regulators Choose Appalachia's Economic Future

A very interesting post from www.FACESofCoal.org about mining. This follows this post about safe offshore drilling and this previous article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

Don't Let Federal Regulators Choose Appalachia's Economic Future
A group of federal agencies have teamed up to make decisions on the future of Appalachia – decisions that could impact our jobs, our communities, our towns and even our own backyards.
The Appalachian Regional Development Initiative, which consists of representatives from the Appalachian Regional Commission, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Small Business Administration and Environmental Protection Agency are developing strategies for pushing economic development and allocating federal resources in Appalachia.
Do you want these agencies making decisions without letting them know what you think?
The bureaucrats in Washington have already shown that they do not understand the importance of coal to Appalachia. The ongoing attack on coal by the EPA demonstrates an unwillingness to recognize that the region and nation depend on coal. They fail to see that without the economic base of coal, Appalachia would lose its main economic driver and effectively turn the region into a “no jobs zone.”
The Appalachian Regional Development Initiative has held listening sessions over the past few months and the sessions and comments have been taken over by anti-coal activists pushing their activist agenda. We need you to act now to set the record straight and demonstrate that Appalachian residents support coal!
Time is tight – the online comment period for the Appalachian Regional Development Initiative ends today, April 30th. To submit your comment, you must use the online form:
http://survey.sc.egov.usda.gov/survey.aspx?surveykey=89
The comment section is a little challenging to navigate but this is very important. The online comment section lists five categories. Please add your comments to every section, but pay special attention to the Economic Base Strength category. Coal is Appalachia’s base strength, supplying the region with thousands of jobs and billions to the regional economy while also helping to fund our communities. Make sure the Appalachian Regional Development Initiative hears the voices of the Appalachian residents that are going to be impacted by the decisions they make.
The online comment section limits entries to 150 words and under. If the comments are longer than 150 the survey will not accept the comment. Please tailor your comments to the 150 word limit and ensure that your voice is heard or feel free to copy and paste the text below into your message. Thank you for exercising your voice and your patience in this process.
Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal)
Suggested text:
Coal is the BASE STRENGH of Appalachia. Coal can support long-term economic development and will create jobs in the Appalachian region for years to come – as long as the government doesn’t regulate coal mining out of existence! Everything the Appalachian Regional Development Initiative is looking at, from self-sustaining communities with strong leadership, to a skilled work force or the physical infrastructure of the Appalachian region is related to coal mining in some degree. The funding needed for schools, public works and communities are provided by the revenue and taxes generated by coal. Coal is the nation’s most abundant resource and with a two hundred year reserve it’s by far the best long-term guarantee for jobs and economic security in Appalachia – no other industry even comes close to providing the level of support, good-paying jobs, economic growth and stability that coal mining can guarantee.

Support Safe Offshore Development

A very interesting post from www.consumerenergyalliance.org about safe offshore drilling. This follows this post about Louisiana's new law against Sharia (like Arizona's immigration law?) and this previous article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.



Support Safe Offshore Development!
Comment period ends May 3.
Tell Washington to Find Cause, Fix It and Move Forward!!
The tragic incident in the Gulf of Mexico and its unfolding aftermath has brought the subject of American offshore energy development and safety into the minds of many across the nation. Beyond the immediate response, the priority is to Find Out What Happened, apply that information to Fix It and Ensure it Never Happens Again; and Move Forward to ensure economic growth, jobs & stable energy prices.
Even as we deal with this terrible accident and its effects, it is vital that we keep the long-term energy needs of the United States in thoughtful focus and that Americans show their support for continuing to move forward with prudent and responsible offshore exploration and production, which will stimulate the economy, create more jobs and aid in stabilizing energy prices. This country simply can't afford a return to $4.50 gasoline!
Right now, the federal government is seeking comments from the public about U.S. offshore energy development. The public comment period closes on Monday.
The incident that took place last week is a tragedy that needs to be - and will be - addressed by both the government and industry. We need to make sure that every step possible is taken to prevent accidents like this from ever happening again. However, it is imperative that we not react to this incident by withdrawing our support for a balanced, rational energy policy that includes offshore energy production, along with wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and other energy sources.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as the economic livelihood of this nation are directly tied to offshore oil and gas development. We need more oil & gas development, not less...but we MUST access these resources safely and effectively. Offshore development is a vital part of our energy future.
As President Obama told the nation - offshore oil & gas must be part of a balanced, sensible energy policy. In addition, the President has ordered that a Safety Review of all offshore rigs take place in reaction to the recent oil spill. CEA fully supports this effort to continually improve and monitor safety as American energy resources are developed.
Make you voice heard. Submit a comment today about the need for safe & responsible offshore energy development!
CLICK HERE AND SEND A LETTER TO Washington NOW!

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Obama's False Promise on Offshore Drilling

This is an interesting article from www.americansolutions.com about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence that follows this previous post about it.. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here

If you would like to send a comment to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, click here.


Obama's False Promise on Offshore Drilling
By Steve Everley
More than a year into his presidency and after imposing numerous delays on American energy production, President Obama announced today that he would open up portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling.But the plan is defined more by what it restricts than what it opens up. The Obama administration chose to take off the table large portions of the OCS in an announcement that was supposed to be about expanding American energy. The new plan includes:
No drilling in the Pacific Ocean.
No drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean.
No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
No drilling in much of Alaska.While opening up any portion of the OCS for responsible energy development appears to be a great step forward, the truth is that none of this has been finalized, and most new drilling will not occur until after 2012 at the earliest.The offering also comes with a hefty price: President Obama wants to force Americans to swallow a massive new energy tax before any state will reap the benefits from this new offshore drilling. The bill Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass last summer, the Waxman-Markey energy tax, would eviscerate the economy, killing more than one million jobs per year while raising the cost of energy for all Americans. If an energy tax passes Congress this year, the negative impact on the economy will happen long before the first oil comes from these new offshore leases. In addition, the multitude of steps to be taken before any of these lease sales are made after 2012 are still a work in progress. Each offshore tract that the administration proposes will no doubt fall victim to an array of court challenges and bureaucratic hangups, each of which will push back new offshore drilling even further.Instead of following the will of the people and moving forward immediately with offshore drilling, the President is asking us to trust him to proceed in the future, kicking the can of energy independence years down the road. Recall that during the 2008 campaign then-Senator Obama affirmed his support for offshore drilling, only to take office and implement a series of delays and roadblocks to responsible oil and gas development.According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, offshore drilling has the potential to create millions of new American jobs and could provide more than $2 trillion in new government revenue at the local, state, and federal level. By delaying offshore drilling for at least another two years, the President's decision does nothing to allow us to begin reaping those benefits. Mr. Obama's insistence on imposing a new tax on American energy also hamstrings any future job creation or new drilling revenues. When Congress voted in 2008 not to extend the ban on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, they did not choose to keep a ban on Pacific waters, nor did they intend for a de facto ban to remain in effect in the OCS for at least another four years. What Congress did through legislative action, acting in accordance with the public will, the President has undone with the stroke of a pen.Despite sweeping rhetoric and a promise to make "tough decisions" on offshore drilling, the Obama administration appears content to maintain a de facto ban on responsible American energy development.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Delay, Baby, Delay Instead of Drill, Baby Drill

This is an interesting article from www.americansolutions.com about the attempts to stop American energy independence that follows this previous post about it.. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here and if you would like to send a comment to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, click here.

Delay, Baby, Delay
Another day, another delay.
The Department of Interior is on a bureaucratic quest to ignore the public and stop any development of American energy. The latest example is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's announcement this week that the next offshore drilling program will not begin until 2012.The decision, made without voter approval and against the wishes of a clear majority of Americans, upends the existing lease plan that was set to begin this year, a plan that was crafted directly in response to public outcry in 2008 over record high gas prices.
Ironically, it was that very energy crisis that forced then-candidate Barack Obama's hand in August 2008 when, as he campaigned tirelessly for the presidency, he declared support for offshore drilling. The left may have protested, but the decision was the right one.
What a difference a year and a half makes.
Of course, broken promises are a recurring trend for President Obama. We remember his promise not to hire lobbyists and his promise to conduct open and transparent health care negotiations. The administration even made promises about openness and accountability in accepting and assessing public comments on offshore drilling.Still more broken promises. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, American Solutions discovered that the Department of Interior is deliberately hiding something from the American people that we already know -- the public supports offshore drilling by a 2-1 margin.
If the president tells the American people in his State of the Union address that he is ready to make "tough decisions" on offshore drilling, then why is his administration delaying responsible American energy development while lamenting publicly that the United States is too dependent on foreign oil? Foot-dragging only makes Americans more reliant on dictators like Hugo Chavez and Saudi kings for its energy.
Despite the rhetoric of support, this administration opposes offshore drilling. Consider the following:
Within a month of taking office, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar delayed the offshore leasing process by extending the public comment period for an additional six months.
Just days before he delayed the leasing process, Salazar also voided several existing onshore drilling leases in Utah delaying the development of American energy.
Last September Salazar announced that he could delay offshore drilling until 2012, or longer, depending on Interior's own internal analysis, which is at his discretion.
Days after the end of the public comment period, Interior promised that it would take "several weeks" to review and analyze the 530,000 comments received. That analysis was delayed, as there has been no public announcement from Interior.
Earlier this year Salazar announced a new layer of bureaucratic regulations for energy companies, which will further delay any kind of responsible energy development.
Last month Salazar announced that offshore drilling in Virginia could be delayed until at least 2012.
Senate Democrats wrote to Salazar last month that his delays on offshore drilling were preventing economic recovery and job creation in Virginia.
Through a FOIA request, American Solutions uncovered a deliberate delay within Interior regarding release of the breakdown of public comments on offshore leasing, which they have known since October were 2-1 in favor of drilling.
And just recently, the Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore drilling, told the Justice Department that it would miss its own deadline for a court-ordered environmental assessment of drilling in Alaska. Without that analysis, all further drilling will be delayed in the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi seas.
Delay, delay, delay. Apparently there is no need for "tough decisions" on offshore drilling, as President Obama claimed. The administration can simply delay the decision, ignoring a clear majority of Americans who support offshore drilling in the process.
A recent study shows that existing restrictions on oil and gas drilling in America will cost the American economy $2.36 trillion over the next twenty years. Another study shows that offshore drilling can create 1.2 million jobs per year.
Simply put, every day that the Obama administration delays American energy development is another day of delaying economic recovery.
It's time for the administration to listen to the American people and stop delaying offshore drilling.
This piece was originally published at the Fox Forum.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Salazar: Drilling Won't Begin Until at Least 2012

This is an interesting article from www.americansolutions.com about the attempts to stop American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here and if you would like to send a comment to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, click here.

Salazar: Drilling Won't Begin Until at Least 2012
By Steve Everley on March 3, 2010
Rather than adhering to the Beltway tradition of waiting for Friday to release bad news, Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar eschewed convention today and dropped a bomb on American energy independence, economic recovery, and public opinion when he announced that the next offshore drilling program will not begin until 2012.When Salazar took office last year there was an existing leasing plan set to begin in 2010, a plan that critics believed the Obama administration would alter but not scrap completely. After massive unrest in the summer of 2008 over $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress finally lifted its 25-year ban on offshore drilling, clearing the way for a common-sense leasing plan. Even President Obama as a candidate embraced offshore drilling during the presidential campaign.Apparently the Obama administration actually believed that a quarter of century of bans on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was not enough of time to wait for more affordable American energy. In speaking with reporters this afternoon, Secretary Salazar said that the next five-year plan for offshore drilling would have to wait another two years, yet another needless delay prompted by a fierce commitment to hamstring responsible energy development.Perhaps Secretary Salazar is making one of those "tough decisions" on offshore drilling of which President Obama spoke in his State of the Union. After all, what could be tougher than assuming office on a platform of government accountability and then blatantly ignoring a clear majority of Americans who support offshore drilling?According to the Minerals Management Service, there are an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, collectively representing a clear path toward being able to ignore OPEC and foreign dictators for our energy. Developing these resources would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs annually and generate billions of dollars in tax revenue for the government.But, evidently, the Obama administration is more interested in blocking affordable energy than pursuing economic recovery, as evidenced not only with this latest assault on offshore drilling but through more than a year of systematically imposing delays, restrictions, and regulations on affordable and reliable American energy.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Drill Here Drill Now Meetings!

A Big hat tip to www.americansolutions.com

Attend A Public Hearing on Drill Here, Drill Now

Remember Drill Here, Drill Now?

Last summer, the collective voice of 1.5 million Americans forced both the administration and Congress to reverse long-held, overlapping federal bans on offshore drilling.
Unfortunately, due to bureaucratic delay, massive amounts of American energy are still under lock-and-key. Last month, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that a years-long process of identifying energy-rich areas offshore to lease for development would be delayed an additional six months. The secretary plans to use this time to conduct a series of four field hearings on the plan, hoping the public reinforces his view that the status quo be preserved, and no new energy be brought online anytime soon.
Make no mistake: the deck is stacked and the game is fixed. Just look at the four locations they have selected (and those they left out) for these hearings: Atlantic City, New Orleans, Anchorage, and San Francisco. The one thing they haven’t accounted for, though, is that supporters of American energy exploration might show up to these events and demand their voices be heard. And make no mistake, we will be heard.
If you live near one of the four events, we hope you can to attend and participate in this hearing. Here are two fact sheets that you can print off and bring with you: The Basics and Myth vs. Fact. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and your full participation couldn’t be more urgently needed. Here are the four locations along with the itinerary for each public hearing:
Dates/Venues
Monday, April 6 -- Atlantic City, NJAtlantic City Convention CenterOne Convention BoulevardAtlantic City, NJ
Wednesday, April 8 -- New Orleans, LATulane University, McAlister AuditoriumMcAlister Drive between Freret and Willow Streets6823 St. Charles AvenueNew Orleans, LA
Tuesday, April 14 -- Anchorage, AKDena'ina Civic & Convention Center600 W. Seventh AveAnchorage, AK
Thursday, April 16 -- San Francisco, CAMission Bay Conference Center on the campus of Univ. of California, San FranciscoRobertson Auditorium1675 Owens StreetSan Francisco, CA

Itinerary (same for all four events)
8:30am: Secretary Salazar meets with elected officials
9:00am: Secretary Salazar introduces proposed five-year energy plan
10:00am: Questions are submitted by audience
1:00pm – 4:00pm: The public is given a chance to offer comments
6:00pm – 8:00pm: The public comment process continues Posted by Dan Kotman

Friday, December 19, 2008

Obama's Cabinet - NO MODERATES!!!

"We Are All Americans, Whether You Are Legalized Or Not."
By Joe Guzzardi
As Barack Obama’s "Change you can believe in" Cabinet team takes to the field next month, here’s the starting line-up he’s put up against America’s immigration reform patriots:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, immigration grade "D-".
Clinton on immigration: "We have to, though, remain faithful to our condition as a beacon for people around the world seeking a better life." Readers will recall that Clinton supports more than just a standard variety of amnesty and illegal alien benefits. In her heart of hearts, she much wants more—as she proved when she advanced the concept of "baby bonds" for each of the four million children born in the U.S. every year. That would, of course, have included illegal aliens and provided more incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border and have children on the American taxpayers tab. And Hillary is married to the globalist, anti-American Bill whose financial disclosure records—3,000 pages long and released on Thursday—reveal that the former president has raised millions from foreign governments in the Middle East (mainly Saudi Arabia) and Asia. One example from many: various donations to the Clinton foundation ranging between $1 million and $5 million are from Amar Singh, an Indian politician who has been embroiled in ethics controversies, and other individuals in India. That’s great for India but, like so many other things the Clintons have done and would like to keep doing, rotten for America.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
A notorious pro-immigration Arizona Governor and long-time open borders advocate.
Two months ago, in my series of columns about Michael Chertoff, I warned readers that they would miss Chertoff when he and his vigorous interior enforcement policies were gone when Obama takes over. Is there anyone out there today who would trade Napolitano for Chertoff even up?

Secretary of Health and Human Services and former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle.
How can a South Dakota resident be bad enough on immigration to have a career "F" grade? Beats me, but Daschle did it.
Even 9/11 isn’t enough to temper Daschle’s pro-immigration agenda. Here’s what he had to say during a 2001 trip to Mexico, referring to aliens as "citizens":
"We want to ensure that those people who have come from Puebla (Mexico) to the Northeast and want to stay in the U.S. as citizens can do so. We wanted to make as strong a statement as we could that our mutual agenda has not been lost in the aftermath of the disaster of Sept. 11. Our agenda regarding our mutual relationship is every bit as important and our commitment every bit as strong."

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
Immigration ranking "abysmal." Perhaps the most audacious of the new Cabinet, Richardson had the gall to speak Spanish while accepting his position. When it comes to amnesty, as far as Richardson is concerned, "Si, se puede" .

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Another solid "F" . Although Colorado Senator Salazar is a fifth generation American, you would never know it from his immigration voting record. Salazar is so bad that he actually scored "F-" in two critical areas, chain migration and amnesty.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Harkin
At first glance, Iowa Senator Harkin looks like a breath of fresh air with his "D" grade. But when I looked closer, I saw that Harkin is only fractionally better than Salazar on chain migration and amnesty, scoring "F" in both.

Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood
Although the only Republican (RINO) in the Cabinet, even Illinois Representative La Hood gets no better than a stinking C, his grade dragged down by a F- in chain migration and amnesty, two of VDARE.COM’s main targets for elimination as we go into 2009.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis
Saving his most disgraceful pick for last, Obama chose California Representative and Mechista Hilda Solis—"F"— as Labor Secretary.
Solis’s most infamous quote:
"We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not."
Let’s hope Solis remembers that in her new job she controls labor certifications for legal workers—not the amnesty seekers she supports.
To top it all off, look who has Obama’s ear more than his White House Chief of Staff:

Rahm Emanuel.
Currently an Illinois Congressman, Emanuel has an "F" across the board and a "F-" on border control.
Even the strongest advocates of amnesty like John McCain make token statements—sound bites, really—about the need to reinforce our borders. But not Emanuel! He supports unchecked immigration all the way.
Of course, there’s the main man, the Commander-in-chief—president-elect Barack Obama, a D-.
And Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden, also a D-.
The threat our own government presents to our sovereignty could not be clearer.
As tough as it will be, we at VDARE.COM working together with you our faithful readers can defeat this treasonous Cabinet.
We can stymie its eagerness to abolish America—but only with your bighearted help.
We hate to ask for money. But we need it to keep the battle going.
I’m in the lucky position of seeing what an America without immigration is like. In July I moved to Pittsburgh, PA from California where immigration has changed entirely (for the worse) the state’s demographics. Mexicans in California represent the largest foreign-born group. They arrive in a completely uncontrolled fashion, accounting for 44 percent of the state’s non-U.S.-born.
In Los Angeles alone, as of 2005, nearly 35 percent of residents were born outside of the U.S.
For a native Californian like me, this is an unspeakable tragedy.
But moving to back to Pittsburgh where I studied, took my first post-college job and have children and grandchildren is an awakening.
As someone said to me the other day, "It’s like coming home to America for you."
And it is.
We in Pittsburgh don’t have immigration—specifically Hispanic immigration. As of 2000, our Hispanic population was only 0.7 percent, the lowest of any major US city. By national and benchmark norms, Pittsburgh’s Hispanic population and its overall rate of in-migration is infinitesimal.
The result—Americans get our jobs, our school children and teachers speak English and we celebrate American traditions and values.
Unless you live in a border state town, Pittsburgh is what your America can look like.
And if you do live in an immigration-heavy city, then VDARE.COM can help you control mass immigration by raising your awareness about the dangers posed by our subversive federal government through our timely and insightful columns, blogs and daily letters.

More than any other site, VDARE.COM has repeatedly pointed out that legal immigration, mostly through our disastrous visa system, is equal to or a greater threat than illegal immigration in terms of its impact on our society.

We were the first to report on the biased mainstream media coverage and have exposed dozens of unprofessional reporters and editors. Our annual "Worst Immigration Reporter" award has a wide following—in the media although no one from any major newspaper will admit it!


I’m appealing to you as an immigration reform patriot of long standing. I’ve been focused on the immigration scandal for more than two decades.
And although my columns have appeared in California daily newspapers and on other webzines, it is only at VDARE.COM that I have been able to expose in complete candor the totality of the immigration crisis.
The VDARE.COM editorial collective is just like you: we’re concerned Americans who want to save the country for our children and grandchildren.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Senate Preview 2010

See also
http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/should-conservatives-have-really-wanted.html and
http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-to-do-now-rebuilding-conservative.html

Senate Preview 2010
View
What links here
by Sean Oxendine
In light of Patrick’s earlier post on the importance of Senate recruiting, I thought it would be good to give a preliminary outlook of where things stand in the Senate. I’ve divided the Senate seats for 2010 up into three categories for each party: Seats that will be competitive no matter what, seats that could be competitive with the right national environment and/or recruiting effort, and seats that would require a major shift in the national environment to become competitive.
At first glance, the outlook is pretty grim for Republicans. Of the two competitive Senate seats for the Democrats, both probably at least slightly lean their way to start. For the Republicans, probably three of the four Senate seats for Republicans are at best 50-50. With the right combination of recruiting, retirements and national environment, this could easily get really bad, really quickly. Considering that at the beginning of this cycle only the open Colorado seat and maybe Oregon or Minnesota would be placed in the definitely competitive category, we see how important a role the environment and recruiting can play (indeed, without stellar recruiting by the DSCC of candidates who didn't intially want to run, AK, NH, NM, and VA might have had different outcomes). Similarly, in 2004, Senators Chafee, Allen, and DeWine, and potentially Talent, would have at best been in the “potentially competitive” category.
But it’s a double edged sword, and shows why you should ALWAYS recruit your best candidate to run. If Tim Roemer had run against Dick Lugar in 2006 – someone considered as unassailable at recruiting time as, well, Mike DeWine – he probably would have had at least a 50-50 chance at becoming a Senator. We just don’t know how the national environment will look two years from now, and that will greatly impact who is seen as vulnerable. The situation swung wildly from Democrats to Republicans to Democrats from 1992 to 1994 to 1996, and swung pretty decisively from 2004 to 2006. It isn’t impossible to imagine Bayh or Mikulski or even Obama’s replacement being vulnerable in 2008, provided we have the right recruits in place and are running in a favorable environment.
It’s also worth noting that the famed midterm election tendency, which finds that the President’s party always loses seats in the midterm election, simply doesn’t hold as well in the Senate. While there are only three exceptions since the Civil War in the House, there are a number of exceptions in the Senate since direct election of Senators commenced in the early 1900s, including 1962, 1970, 1982, 1998, and 2002. Therefore, we probably shouldn’t expect the “midterm tendency” to bail Republicans out.
So with that said, the ratings are below the fold.

Potentially Competitive R Seats
Arizona (John McCain) – If popular Governor Janet Napolitano runs against McCain, she would make for a very competitive race, and indeed has led in some polling. If she waits until 2012 to challenge Jon Kyl, he probably cruises. Much will depend on how the Obama Administration pans out.
Kansas (Brownback Retiring) – It’s hard to believe that Kansas is potentially competitive, given that the state has elected all of three Democrats in its history, and none since 1932. But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius. If she can be persuaded to run – and if Obama doesn’t select her for Agriculture Secretary or some such – she’ll be difficult, though not impossible to beat. If she doesn’t run, this shouldn’t be particularly competitive. Congressman Jerry Moran is running on the Republican side.
Iowa (Chuck Grassley) – Grassley is in his late 70s and may retire, at which point you’d have to like the Dems’ odds in a state that has been trending their way in recent elections. Grassley is something of an icon, sports a 63% approval rating, and would have to be the favorite if he runs for re-election.
Missouri (Kit Bond) – Every six years the Democrats say that they will take out Kit Bond, and every six years he’s re-elected with a votes share somewhere in the low-to-mid 50s. Maybe lightning will strike this time, as Bond is below 45% in tests against various political figures. Then again, those figures are already known statewide (Dick Gephardt, Robin Carnahan), so if Bond were really destined to lose, you'd expect them to perform much better. More importantly, none have declared.
New Hampshire (Judd Gregg) – The temptation is to say “here we go again” after John Sununu lost, but Sununu lost to a figure with about as good a brand as there is in the Granite State. Obviously if popular Governor John Lynch runs this would be a real headache for Gregg, but other than Lynch, there isn’t anyone nearly as formidable as Shaheen.
Oklahoma (Tom Coburn) – I guess if Governor Henry challenged Coburn it could be competitive, but in Obama’s worst state nationwide, I just think the odds against it are awfully high. That said, Henry’s approval rating is substantially above Coburn’s, and his term is up in 2010.
Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) – To be honest, I just don’t see Chris Mathews posing that big of a threat to Senator Specter. If it were Minnesota, it would be a different story altogether. But we’ll see. Any number of young Democratic Congresscritters might be eying a promotion.
South Dakota (John Thune) – If Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin ran, it would at least be competitive. But word is she has her sights set on the Governor’s office.
Likely Competitive R Seats
Florida (Mel Martinez) – Given that Martinez is pulling in between 31 and 37 percent of the vote in recent ballot tests, it is difficult to see how he wins re-election in this purplish-red state. Two years is a long time, but we’ve got a lot of work to do here.
Kentucky (Jim Bunning) – Bunning barely scraped by against unknown State Senator Dan Mongiardo in 2004. He’ll have a heckuva time holding this seat against likely opponent Ben Chandler in 2010, without Presidential coattails to support him. The 40-44 approval rating isn’t great news for him, but McConnell just won re-election with a similarly upside-down approval rating (but Bunning is no McConnell).
North Carolina (Richard Burr) – After seeing what happened to Elizabeth Dole, who lost to a relative no-name by a margin much greater than Obama was carrying the state, one has to think Burr, who has generally sported similar approval ratings, is in real trouble. Expect Burr to spend a lot of time in this state, defending a seat that has switched between Republicans and Democrats in every election since 1974.
Ohio (George Voinovich) – Two words: Mike DeWine. Voinovich’s approval rating is above 50%, which is better than DeWine can say, and he won’t have the Bush albatross to the same extent that DeWine had. But Ohio Democrats are on a roll, and Voinovich is having trouble getting above 40% in ballot tests.
Not Competitive at this time R Seats
Alabama (Richard Shelby) – unless the 74-year-old Shelby retires or commits an unforgivable gaffe (see Allen, George), its hard to see him going down to defeat.
Alaska (Lisa Murkowski) – If the last couple of cycles have shown anything, it is how difficult it is for a Democrat to win in Alaska. In 2004 and 2006 Democrats have had high hopes of stealing a statewide office from Republicans, only to have them dashed. Unless Murkowski becomes a convicted felon, she should be safe, and even then it appears it would be a 50-50 proposition.
Georgia (Johnny Isakson) – Obviously anything can happen (see Chambliss, Saxby), but it is pretty difficult to imagine Isakson falling below 50%, especially without Obama at the top of the ballot.
Idaho (Mike Crapo) – Assuming he avoids airport bathroom stalls, he should be handily re-elected.
Louisiana (David Vitter) – Yes I know about the hooker. I also know about the 67% approval rating he was sporting in the wake of the scandal (and 55% in July of this year). Given the thin Democratic bench and, um, demographic shift, I don’t see this going anywhere.
South Carolina (Jim DeMint) – Nothing for Democrats here.
Utah (Bob Bennett) – Nah.
Potentially Competitive D Seats
Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln) – Its pretty amazing that the state that was one of John McCain’s strongest states has elected all of one Republican Senator since Reconstruction, but for historic reasons there is no Republican Party here to speak of. Lincoln is one of those Senators who is probably rooting for Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss, because she doesn’t want to be tagged as the deciding vote for every piece of controversial legislation that goes through the Senate. Against a no-name opponent she garnered 56% of the vote in 2004; depending on how the Obama administration and Republican recruiting fare, it could get worse for her this year. But given that the GOP failed to mount a challenge to Senator Mark Pryor this year, this could go either way.
California (Barbara Boxer) – Even though California is a very blue state, you have to consider any Senator with an approval rating below 50% to be potentially vulnerable. That’d be Barbara Boxer, a.k.a. Dianne Feinstein’s consistently less popular Senate counterpart. A lot will depend on recruiting here, but I wouldn't really hold my breath.
Connecticut (Chris Dodd) – I struggled mightily with this one. After all, Connecticut is a solidly blue state, and the GOP’s best shot, Governor Jodi Rell, is likely not running. But it is hard to ignore the Countrywide scandal hovering over his head, and it is likewise hard to ignore his upside-down 43-46 approval rating. If the GOP can find a credible candidate – no small task – it could make a race out of this.
Hawai’i (Daniel Inouye) – Inouye has been involved in Hawai’i politics since statehood; it is no exaggeration to say he is a legend. The only reason this is listed as potentially competitive is that he is 86 years old at this time, and Republicans have a potentially credible candidate in Governor Linda Lingle. It’s hard to see Lingle taking on Inouye – she’d likely wait until 2012 to take on the less popular Daniel Akaka (who will be 90), but if Inouye retires or if his health fails, she could make a race of this.
North Dakota (Byron Dorgan) – John Hoeven, John Hoeven, John Hoeven. If Hoeven runs, this race would be something of the irresistible force hitting the immovable object. I can’t find a recent poll for Senator Dorgan, but last time it was measured (2006), it was 75-21 (and hovered around 70 for most of the year. But Hoeven’s is even higher, at 86-10, and he was last elected with a 74-24 advantage over his Democratic opponent. If we can convince Hoeven to run, this will be our best chance to defeat a Senate Democrat for the first time since 2004. No, that’s not a typo. Then we’d just have to get Ed Schaefer to run against Kent Conrad in 2012.
Washington (Patty Murray) – The original “mom in tennis shoes” has been in the Senate for three unimpressive terms. With the Bush Administration behind us, it might be possible for a candidate like Dino Rossi or Mike McGavick to knock her off. Still, her approval rating (for now) is at 55%, so it would be no small feat.
Wisconsin (Russ Feingold) – This is another one I debated, but given that Feingold couldn’t get above 55% of the vote against a weak candidate in 2004, and sports a tepid 53-45 approval rating, I can't say that this is in the bag for him. Paul Ryan would be a nice recruit here.
Likely Competitive D Seats
Colorado (Ken Salazar) – While Colorado has lurched to the left of late, I believe that a large part of that is due to the state’s visceral reaction to the Bush Administration. Salazar would likely be vulnerable regardless of who was President, since the most recent Democratic polling has him under 50%, with an approval rating under 40% (and a similar disapproval rating). Liberals may primary him as well. Either way, this will likely have some degree of competitiveness, regardless of recruiting efforts.
Nevada (Harry Reid) – Harry Reid dodged something of a bullet with Jon Porter’s defeat in 2010. Still, there are statewide Republicans who may challenge him, including Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki. Reid’s approval rating hasn’t been measured recently, but last time it was tested, it was a horrendous 32-51 split. As the face of Senate Democrats, he has a tight rope to walk in a state that has hewed close to the national average in recent elections.
Not Competitive At This Time D Seats
Delaware (Joe Biden’s Successor) – Delaware isn’t a particularly competitive state for Republicans, and they have a very, very thin bench here. It would take a recruiting coup and a major blunder by the appointee to make this competitive at this time.
Illinois (Barack Obama’s Successor) – This is better for the GOP than Delaware, but not by a lot. The only difference is the GOP has some credible candidates, but unless Blagojevich picks himself and/or the Obama Administration tanks, neither of which is impossible, this is simply a very tough state.
Indiana (Evan Bayh) – Again, being the deciding vote on cloture on a number of measures isn’t really what he wants, but it is hard to imagine him tanking so badly that he loses. Some people say that Bayh may retire but that seems extremely unlikely to me, as he’d have to get a real job.
Maryland (Barb Mikulski) – Unless Gov. Ehrlich runs and the economy collapses (even more), it is just hard to see Mikulski retiring (although she is 74) or losing. She hasn’t fallen below 60% of the vote in any race since her unsuccessful Senate bid in 1974.
New York (Chuck Schumer) – Senators with 60% approval ratings don’t lose unless they are in states with heavy bases for the other party. That ain’t New York.
Oregon (Ron Wyden) – Maybe Wyden will retire, but the bench is thin and we just lost a strong Senate candidate to a fairly weak candidate. Wyden’s approval rating isn’t anything to write home about – about 54-34 – but it should do the trick.
Vermont (Patrick Leahy) – It’s amazing to think that Patrick Leahy is only 70 years old, given that he’s been in the Senate since I was in diapers. It’s also amazing to think that his initial win was regarded as a fluke in a state that had never elected a Democrat to the Senate. Anyway, if Jim Douglas ran this seat might be competitive, but more likely it would end up the way it ended up in 1992, when Douglas lost to Leahy by ten points.

http://www.thenextright.com/sean-oxendine/senate-preview-2010

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

2010 Senate Recruitment Project

In continuing what can you do NOW and planning for the future, first read here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/rebuilding-conservative-movement-what.html and then follow below.

Big hat tip to Patrick Ruffini http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/2010-senate-recruitment-project

A big part of the Rebuild platform is running everywhere and not giving any Democrat a free pass. That should start in the 2010 races for the Senate -- and it needs to start now. Look how many previously popular GOP incumbents were taken out in 2006 and 2008 because popular Democrats decided to stake their careers on taking them out.
I've put together this prelimary list of potential challengers to all Democrat incumbents up in 2010. Many of these are simply readouts of statewide officeholders, and a couple of others come from this insightful Free Republic thread (go John Elway!). But we should not limit ourselves to this list. Who are the rising, outside-the-box leaders in the state legislatures or the private sector who could be enticed to take on the total Democratic stranglehold on government in the midst a deep, deep recession (wink, wink)? I want to hear some in the comments.
Among the most promising and potentially gettable recruits on this list are Elway (Colorado), Linda Lingle (Hawaii), John Hoeven (North Dakota), and Rob McKenna (Washington).
Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee - Run Huck Run! I really wish he would recognize that he has a hard ceiling for any POTUS primary run, but could be elected in a cakewalk back home. The Dems have no shortage of self-sacrificing figures like Mark Warner who could have gone higher but instead performed a valuable service to their party by limiting their longshot national ambitions, keeping themselves in the game, and growing the party.
Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson
Rep. John Boozman
Note: Despite this being a McCain +20 state, there are NO Republican statewide elected officials and only 1 out of 4 GOP representatives. Arkansas is probably ripe for a some sort of organized project akin to Karl Rove's turning Texas red in the '80s and '90s and Tim Gill et al. turning Colorado blue in the 2000s.

California - Barbara Boxer
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (declared)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rep. David Dreier
Rep. Devin Nunes
Rep. Mary Bono Mack

Colorado - Ken Salazar
John Elway
Former Gov. Bill Owens
Attorney General John Suthers
Rep.-elect Mike Coffman - former Secretary of State just elected to replace Tancredo, so it's unlikely he'd make a race in 2010, but he should be noted as a potential future statewide candidate

Connecticut - Chris Dodd (potential retirement)
Gov. Jodi Rell
Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele
Rep. Chris Shays - defeated for re-election and would clearly not be a perfect Republican vote, but still has the best track record of surviving in Connecticut
Former Rep. Rob Simmons

Delaware - Biden vacancy
Auditor General Tom Wagner
All ears for any potentially talented State Reps or Senators. We need to start somewhere.

Hawaii - Daniel Inouye
Gov. Linda Lingle - term-limited in 2010

Illinois - Obama vacancy
Rep. Peter Roskam - safely re-elected 58-42% in a close seat against the Obama tide; ran a great campaign in 2006
Rep. John Shimkus
Rep. Mark Kirk - hung tough in a liberal seat against an Obama-esque Dem nominee
Mike Ditka

Indiana - Evan Bayh
Rep. Mike Pence
Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman
Sectetary of State Todd Rokita
State Treasurer Richard Mourdock
State Auditor Tim Berry

Maryland - Barbara Mikulski
Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (if not elected RNC Chairman)
Former Gov. Bob Ehrlich
Because of its proximity to DC, there may be somebody of national prominence who lives in Maryland, though they would have to start making a name for themselves statewide now

Nevada - Harry Reid
Former Gov. Kenny Guinn
Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki
Rep. Dean Heller

New York - Chuck Schumer and potential Clinton vacancy
Rudy Giuliani
It's pretty slim pickings to find a good statewide figure or a non-parochial GOP Congressman, so we may be left looking to business or sports for other options

North Dakota - Byron Dorgan
Gov. John Hoeven - declined to run in 2008 because of re-election bid, but wouldn't be up in 2010 and would be the ideal GOP statewide nominee
Secretary of State Al Jaeger
Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem
State Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenehjem (Wayne's brother)
State Tax Commissioner Cory Fong

Oregon - Ron Wyden
Sen. Gordon Smith
Rep. Greg Walden
Former Gov. candidate Kevin Mannix

Washington - Patty Murray
Dino Rossi
Attorney General Rob McKenna
2006 Sen. nominee Mike McGavick

Wisconsin - Russ Feingold
Rep. Paul Ryan