Politico’s ‘Morning Energy’ update opened this
morning with six paragraphs on Cong. Gabrielle Giffords’s
energy and environment policy stances. Fine. Except for its rather
clumsy fashion, in the end unable to resist a shame that so many
other among their media brethren have also succumbed to.
First was their take that she “vot[ed] in favor of Waxman-Markey
(a risky political decision in her competitive district).” Mmm.
Then there was some discussion of other stances including
threatening the oil industry’s access to tax breaks — no risk
to herself in doing this was cited, at least — and a couple
that were pretty off the wall. The theme common among them all was
that she aggressively promoted increased government spending on and
other favors for the otherwise non-viable renewable energy
industry.
But then came “POLITICO’s Darren Samuelsohn has a look at the
conservative backlash that occurred last June after Giffords asked
Gen. David Petraeus to explain whether he had any plans to use
solar panels and hydropower to increase fuel efficiency in an
otherwise dangerous battle zone” — linking to a full,
uh, ’news’
item, “Gabrielle Giffords’s ‘green’ question riled
right.”
Yeah, yeah, I know, they’re just sayin’ she was
very outspoken abut the green agenda and then she was shot, is
all.
bob.hess| 1.10.11 @ 1:31PM
to stir up a hornets nest to insight reasoning is to create a farrago of absurd thinking { appears suject mentally twisted}
JP| 1.10.11 @ 1:54PM
Kind of ridiculous effort to remove "Green Issues" from democratic debate. We all know the tactic; use Gifford's assault as a means to pound and ultimately silence the Right. These people have no shame. And it does Gifford no good by highlighting her questions to Petraeous. I remember when she asked her questions. She might as well have asked the general what was he going to do to ensure our troops consumed less salt and transfats.