Schweikert to Mitchell: Stop Your Opposition to Domestic Drilling!

The following statement was just released by Congressional candidate, David Schweikert:

For Immediate Release: September 10, 2008     

Schweikert Calls on Mitchell to Drop Opposition to Domestic Drilling
“It’s Time to Put Arizona First”

(Scottsdale)  Today, David Schweikert called on Harry Mitchell to drop his long standing opposition to domestic drilling.

Despite high gas prices, Mitchell has continued to side with liberal special interests and Democratic leaders in opposing the expansion of domestic drilling.
 
“With high gas and energy prices, it’s time for Harry Mitchell to drop his opposition to domestic drilling, said David Schweikert.  “If we are going to bring the price of energy and gas down here in Arizona, then Harry needs to stand up to the leaders of his own party and support domestic drilling.”

During his first two years in Congress, Harry Mitchell has been steadfast in his opposition to domestic drilling.

  • Mitchell voted NO on comprehensive energy legislation to allow offshore and ANWR drilling.  House Roll Call Vote 831, 2007
  • Mitchell voted NO on lifting a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling.  House Roll Call Vote 553, 2007
  • Mitchell voted NO again this year to allow consideration of legislation to allow drilling in ANWR and offshore oil exploration.  House Roll Call Vote 391, 2008

“Arizonans are suffering from the high cost of energy,” continued Schweikert.  “I am disappointed that Harry continues to side with the most liberal elements in his own party in opposition to increasing drilling.  I call on Harry today to do the right thing for Arizona and join me in supporting expanded domestic drilling.  It’s time to put Arizona first.”


Comments

  1. Or does he really mean ‘put big oil and GOP-run Interior Dept. corruption first’

    see: http://dpatterson.blogspot.com/2008/09/drill-this-bush-interior-ethics-sex.html

  2. You tell ’em lefty!!

  3. What it is time to drop the patently false claim that drilling for domestic oil will have any significant impact on our energy problems.

  4. Todd,

    why don’t you and DRP meet and talk about solar powered cars.

  5. Tom – I assume you disagree with me but are too lazy or ignorant to actually make a cogent argument.

  6. Under the watchful eye of the first MBA president in US history, this corruption carried on.

    And we want to point the accusing finger to Mexico and other banana republics for their corruptive ways – sounds like people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  7. Schweikert is not off to a good start here…

    did anyone check roll call vote 391?? It was a vote to end debate on the AMTRAK bill not ANWR…

    See this is why I am waiting before helping this campaign. He has to actually show he knows what he is doing.

  8. azdRED,

    Why don’t you do what I did and read the Congressional Record that day.

  9. Tom,

    Don’t waste your time with azdRED, he is a Dem stalking horse. Read his other comments on SA and you get the picture. He generally attacks Republicans on this site.

  10. I only attack baby killer susan and Schweikert for being endorsed by the AFL-CIO. As I have said before if Schweikert shows some competence I will be knocking on doors, making phone calls and giving money but he has not shown that yet…

  11. By the way “tom” roll call vote 391 from 2008….

    FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 391

    H RES 1253 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Jun-2008 1:10 PM
    QUESTION: On Ordering the Previous Question
    BILL TITLE: Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

    What else would you like me to read? This just looks like incompetence on the Schweikert campaign. They need to get their act together or else republicans like no only won’t be active volunteers in the campaign but won’t even vote for him.

  12. George of the Desert says

    Gee, azdRED, David showed enough competence to, uh.. y’know… WIN the election!

  13. In response to azRed’s comment, I would like to highlight that he/she has made an incorrect assumption, and collaterally has made a substantive critique about a matter that is truly procedural in nature. It is always important to make the necessary distinction between substantive and procedural elements of the legislative process. Expounding on matters when one is confused is detrimental both to a personal understanding of a candidate’s position, as well as impairing the overall knowledge base of the general public. When engaging in discourse in a public forum one should first take a deep breath before commenting extemporaneously on the intricacies of lawmaking. Otherwise an individual runs the risk of being a talking-head like those pundits on evening “news” programs. I will help you understand the issue presented in Mr. Schweikert’s most recent press release.

    With regard to HR 391 you must focus attention toward the fact that House Republicans proposed H Res 1253 which would in turn allow the House to contemplate HR 3089. HR 3089 was directly related to the procurement of consistent and adequate energy supplies for the American people. Democrats manipulated House procedure to inhibit consideration of H Res 1253 by voting “Yea.” By preventing consideration of H Res 1253, House Democrats, including Mr. Mitchell, deprived the American people of significant and sound legislation presented by the “No More Excuses Energy Act.” (HR 3089.)

    I am not a professor in political science, and it has been a few years since I sat in civics class. But, if Azred would like me to perform the musical rendition of a “How a Bill Becomes Law” in order to illustrate that procedural aspects of the legislative process should be distinguished from substantive aspects, I will be more than happy to accommodate such a request. It is a confusing process and not everyone understands what a motion to defeat the previous question is exactly. However, most conscientious Americans would refrain from smearing an entirely respectable campaign until they comprehended what they were writing about.

  14. Science guy,

    Schweikert is in good company, azdred also isn’t a big fan of McCain/Palin either.

  15. Bill Bye,

    Trust me I completely understand what the Roll Call vote 391 was. It was a way for the Dems to close debate quickly and not allow the Republicans to control debate for an hour where they would have been able to debate HR 3089. I know how it works, I worked on the Hill for Hayworth…. But on its face when people look at that they are going to say what was Schweikert talking about??

    Schweikert is going to have a fun time trying to explain that Mitchell voted yes on the resolution that does not mention the energy bill it talks about the Amtrak bill but is really about the energy bill. But by voting yes he really made it so that the American people did not get a vote on HR 3089… That sounds easy for the basic voter in CD-5 to understand and put in a 30 second ad… Right??

    Lets be honest Schweikert has 54 days to make in roads against Mitchell, talking about a couple Democratic tactics and roll call votes is not going to get it done… He needs to go at Mitchell on earmarks and immigration!!

    Also Mark yeah I am not too enthusiastic with the McCain/Palin ticket. As well all know being from Arizona McCain is not exactly the best conservative in the world. He was against the tax cuts before he was for them (sounds kind of like another presidential candidate in 2004) he was against drilling before he was for it, he was against the bail out of freddy and fannie before he supported it, I could just go on and on… The man is not a real conservative. It was nice that he put Palin on the ticket but this TRUE conservative is not fooled by McCains pandering.

    Everyone here being from Arizona should knows this too.

Leave a Reply