Speaker of the House Starts Blogging

Bjimba writes "Denny Hastert, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has just started his own blog on the official speaker.gov site. I don't know if he'll keep up with it, but from reading his initial post, it seems clear that he's not employing ghostbloggers."

No comments?

[Frodo Crockett]

Smart man.

Better Late Than Never

[Sundroid]

Right off the bat, this Republican Senator did something his Repblican colleagues probably won't like -- he criticized oil companies. From his blog:

"Today, energy companies started reporting their 3rd quarter earnings, and while Americans paying were record prices at the pump, energy companies were making record profits. This is America. And Republicans don't believe in punishing success. But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas?"

Welcome to blogosphere, Senator.

Re:His words seem genuine

[yog]

He sounds genuine but he doesn't say very much of substance, only that he doesn't plan to spend as much as $250 billion for hurricane damage.

The web could be used to powerful effect to outline one's policy stands and to encourage comments and feedback from his voters. This would be a true virtual town meeting.

Unfortunately, this will probably never come to pass because of the many who abuse the system and ruin it for everyone else. I have seen many forums degenerate from high quality postings by the original, idealistic people to rant sessions and flame wars by idiots who drive out the reasonable participants. It's hard to regulate this behavior.

Anyway, it's probably better that a blog exists at all, but I'd like to see a more meaningful exchange of ideas between the elected and the electorate.

Refineries

[The Bungi]

I thought it was interesting that he commented on the record profits the oil companies have been pulling in and how they had done nothing to alleviate the costs at the pump for the rest of us. True, he says 'republicans don't punish success' or something like that, but for the life of me I cannot fathom why he would bring up the refineries issue. I heard on NPR the other day about how the price of heating oil was going to go up *more* this winter because many of the oil companies were shipping refined product from the US to other countries instead of feeding the surplus back into the national market and taking a small hit on the bottom line.

The democrats won't let them build new refineries because that might kill some migratory bird, and the republicans allow them to ship the stuff out to make a few cents more on the barrel because they refuse to legislate more stringent regulations into the system...

It's a free market and all, but sometimes you have to wonder if they're not a little bit more evil than they should be.

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's genuine. I'll bet any other day of the week, you complain that politicians are survey-driven spinmeisters who make sure every word is run through a marketing machine before it's made available to the people they represent.

Reading his blog, I have no doubt that I'm listening to the REAL Speaker of the House. That's pretty damn refreshing if you ask me.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Clockwork Apple]

They are always happy to reach out with their message, but its a one-way street.

From the blog:
"This is the future. And it is a new way for us to get our message out."

We need some folks in office who listen to the folks they talk at.

C.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas?

The job of an oil company is not to act as a charity to provide free gasoline. The job of an oil company is to maximize value for shareholders. This is most efficiently accomplished by charging the highest possible price a customer could possibly bear to pay before running off to a competitor.

Welcome to the world of free markets and capitalism. If you don't like it, Marx and Engels have some publications that may interest you.

Re:His words are lies

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

He didn't say the Bible actually said anything about condoms (or even about anything). He said that the so-called religous right will claim that it does - and what's worrisome is that'll be enough for most people.

Martin Luther published one translation of the Bible into German and everyone read it, because the peasants then knew that once they read the Bible for themselves, they would know if the clergy were lying to them. Today we have a bazillion translations of the Bible, many even available online, and we trust the religious right to tell us what it says - to tell us what He says. Is that wise for us, to hand our religion to a political group?

You say "I'm sure it speaks of pre-marital sex." Are you sure because you know for a fact it does, or are you saying "I'm sure" because society has implied that it does, so you think it does? (I know it does because I've seen a few of the passages, but I've heard reasonable arguments that question the translation, and even the passages themselves don't condemn it that strongly IIRC.)

Believe me, the religous right has read the Bible cover to cover, and that's how they know how to wield it. A religious left can as easily read it and use it to their ends too. The Bible doesn't have much to say as far being on the right or on the left (except perhaps Joshua 1:7 [biblegateway.com]).