It’s been more than 12 years since Brian Bilbray first took money from Big Oil to fund his political career. Back then, gas was $1.27/gallon in the 50th district, and after a dozen years of Bilbray and his Big Oil Republican buddies, gas is well over $4/gallon. Bilbray and his cronies think the solution is to give more tax dollars to oil companies, which makes sense since that money comes back as campaign contributions- a convenient way to launder taxes into re-election funds and not actually address gas prices in any way.

Nick Leibham just outraised Bilbray int he second quarter and is spreading a bit of that cash around as direct relief to drivers in the district. This Wednesday (July 30), Leibham will roll back gas prices at three gas stations in the 50th to $1.27, just like it was before Big Oil laid down the money to push Bilbray into office. This was a HUGE success in 2006 when Larry Kissell did it in North Carolina. More than 500 people showed up for the cheap gas, snarling traffic and bringing in police to wrangle the crowds. It’s a great time to be punching holes in Brian Bilbray’s absurd claim of being good on environmental and energy issues. Just a quick check of his recent voting record exposes how bad it is. Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act (Use It or Lose It): No. Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act: No. Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act: No. Energy Independence and Security Act: No.

Bad for the environment, bad for safe energy, bad for energy security, bad for creating new jobs in energy. And this guy’s supposed to be a friend of the environment and renewable energy? No.

[Update] Over at Politicker, Wally S. Edge wonders “isn’t it a little wrong to try to buy someone’s vote? Or is that just the American way?” Apparently there’s an electoral system in this country that I’m unaware of in which politicians do not spend money in the pursuit of receiving votes. Did we pass public election financing when I wasn’t looking?

Excerpted release on the flip:

Nick Leibham will temporarily roll back the price of gas during his “pain at the pump” tour on Wednesday, July 30th.  Leibham, the Democrat nominee for the 50th Congressional District, will have three different stops in North County throughout the day:

11 a.m: Encinitas, Shell Station, 1060 N. Camino Real

2 p.m: 4S Ranch, Chevron Station, 1629 Dove Canyon Road

5 p.m: Carmel Valley, Shell Station, 3861 Valley Center Drive

Leibham will offer 50 motorists at each location the opportunity to fill up at the price of $1.27 a gallon for up to 10 gallons of gas.  $1.27 was the average price of gas in San Diego in April, 1996 when Republican Brian Bilbray took his first campaign contribution from Big Oil.

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Today the New York Times reports on the continuing failure of the Michael Mukasey as Attorney General experiment. Back in November we at the Courage Campaign didn’t much like the notion of an Attorney General Mukasey, but Senator Dianne Feinstein strongly disagreed. She got a lot of pushback and defended her case in an LA Times OpEd that she might want back at this point given the way reality has actually played out. Let’s play point/counterpoint between Feinstein’s argument in November and the New York Times today:

Feinstein:

During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge.

Sen. Arlen Specter:

“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for”

Feinstein:

Judge Mukasey is not Alberto R. Gonzales. In our confirmation hearings (and subsequently, in writing), Judge Mukasey’s answers to hundreds of questions were crisp and to the point, and reflected an independent mind.

…

The Justice Department is in desperate need of effective leadership. It is leaderless, and 10 of its top positions are vacant. Morale among U.S. attorneys needs to be restored, priorities reassessed and a new dynamic of independence from the White House established.

Sen. Patrick Leahy:

But Mr. Mukasey is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand,” he continued, “and that disappoints me. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to be a place holder,’ and this is a man who certainly has the ability to be something more than a place holder. He doesn’t want to rock the boat.”

Feinstein:

In the hearing, Judge Mukasey clearly expressed his personal repugnance regarding torture. And in a letter dated Oct. 30, he reiterated his personal views and described in detail the analysis he would undertake if confirmed.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

From fending off calls to investigate accusations of torture to resisting a nationwide strategy against mortgage fraud, Mr. Mukasey has taken a go-slow approach that has surprised even some admirers, who see him as unwilling to break from past policies and leave his own imprint in the closing months of the Bush administration.

Feinstein:

I do not believe a president can be above the law, and neither does Judge Mukasey. In addition, Judge Mukasey explained that his view on executive power is based on an analysis of the Supreme Court’s 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that decision that the president’s power is greatest when he is backed by statutory authority from Congress, and at its lowest ebb when his actions are in conflict with a statute.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

But perhaps his biggest accomplishment has been the expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers under a bill signed into law by President Bush this month. Mr. Mukasey had little active role in the day-to-day negotiations with Congress, Congressional officials said. But he and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, sent a series of sharply worded letters to lawmakers, keeping the pressure on them to update the surveillance law and provide legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

After a months-long impasse over the surveillance measure, administration officials hailed its passage. But critics saw it as a continuation of the status quo under Mr. Mukasey. “I think he was determined to sustain the administration’s position,” Mr. Specter said, rather than work to scale back the White House’s claims to executive power after the controversy caused by the domestic wiretapping program.

Essentially, Senator Feinstein’s entire argument has been refuted by Mukasey’s actual performance on the job. While she wasn’t the only one involved, her proactive work to confirm Mukasey has done a major disservice to the rule of law and health of the Constitution in this country. But if we needed any further evidence that Mukasey is actually nefarious as opposed to lazy or incompetent, look no further than the week he’s delivering to us right now. Mukasey has embarked upon a campaign to compel Congress to pass a law altering the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, overruling the courts and the intentions of the founding fathers while also conveniently covering up the abuses delivered by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay. He isn’t just failing to fix the problem, he’s now neck deep in trying to cover it up. The Attorney General is the lawyer for the government, but the law itself is supposed to still come first. Mukasey is actively seeking to subvert the rule of law, and we have, in part, Senator Feinstein to thank.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly what we’ve been talking about all along here at Courage. A fundamental breakdown of leadership. At the very least, she could admit it and try to push back. But instead, we get her rolling over on FISA, just like the anti-Constitution Mukasey told her to. This is not what California elected her to do.

I mentioned this in the quick hits, but it’s expanded now. Via the New York Times:

Michael Savage, the incendiary radio host who last week characterized nearly every autistic child as “a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out,” said in a telephone interview Monday morning that he stood by his remarks and had no intention of apologizing to those advocates and parents who have called for his firing over the matter.”

Many of the folks here are familiar with the constant stream of hate spewed by Michael Savage, and once again remotely reasonable people are fighting back yet again. Savage told the New York Times that his show today (3pm-6pm pacific) will be entirely devoted “to parents and other callers who wished to disagree with him, and to educate him.”

So beyond just continuing to stand up and demand he be removed from the air, we now have an opportunity to call him out on the show (even though the format will be stacked in his favor). As I mentioned in the QH, it’s important to always push back on this sort of vitriol because they’re never going to give up any ground that they’re able to grab because nobody’s looking.

(bump – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

An hour after the start time, Nancy Pelosi is on the verge of actually taking a question. Updates to come.

[Update] First question asks about inherent contempt. The Bush administration is “tearing up the constitution and saying we rule. This is a monarchy.” Crowd goes wild over the notion of Karl Rove held in contempt. “Justice Department has advised the US Attorney not to prosecute the case.” Interesting needle she’s threading here- the power of Congress should be more respected but Congress is powerless to do more than it already has.

Gina Cooper asks if Karl Rove will be arrested and thrown in the Congressional jail. Crowd goes nuts, Pelosi punts.

[Update] Second question wonders what the gain was that balances out telecom immunity. Again, short version is ‘it’s not my fault, the Senate did it.’ She’s not wrong but I’m not sure how it helps. Pitching the exclusivity argument which is garbage as decided by the court which covers her district. Americans are protected by domestic spying, the Inspector General will be super, etc.

[Update] Gina asks “who exactly is supporting this?” Damn good question. Still pushing a Constitution or Bush dichotomy, but I’m not sure that she’s actually coming down on either side. The Senate bils are bad the Senate votes are bad etc etc.

[Update] Jeffrey Feldman asks from the floor “Can you tell us what you think government should be?” Build majorities in House and Senate, win the White House. Jokes that wider margins will increase bipartisanship. Talking about elements of health care reform which is nice but not an answer to the question. “Science is the answer” to something. “Science, science, science, and science…We have an innovation agenda.” 3rd point is infrastructure, tracking from the Erie Canal to the Bush Administration and the focus on destroying Iraqi infrastructure over building American infrastructure. 4th (and final?) Energy security. There’s a moral responsibility to be secure in our energy? International competitiveness. “Awfully proud of Barack Obama going overseas today.” McCain would love that one.

[Update] Silent protesters are moving through the room. New question: Should the government bail out GM like it did Chrysler several decades ago? “Help them be competitive” and help them innovate. How are we going to help the workers losing their security? Distinction between helping GM and helping workers. Answer is health care as a competitiveness issue.

Jeffrey gets a question from Natasha Chart regarding abstinence-only education. Funds to effective sexual education programs? “Abstinence-only…is dangerous to the health of our young women.” Feldman asks about Abstinence-only earmarks, Pelosi wants us to give her a better Congress. Mentions the Contraception/abortion debacle at HHS. “If you don’t like abortion, you should love contraception…It’s catering to a radical right wing view and it should be stopped.”

“Just say stop if you’ve heard enough on any subject.”

[Update] “Universal broadband is part of our innovation agenda…we must have it be universal.” “The whole country has to be wired.” It’s about health care and family values and education and every other one of her preferred talking points. Two solid ones in a row. Pelosi brings up net neutrality on her own, strongly supports. Objections during FISA but her “bigger disappointment [with the telecoms] was their objection to net neutrality.” The people standing in the way are the ones who didn’t innovate in the first place.

[Update] Audience question: Why are our soldiers being forced to beg for care packages? They shouldn’t, but emblematic of broader failures. “We owe them better than the policy we have.” GI Bill and veterans health care, “when you come home we’ll send you to college.” Nearly 1/3 of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans are seeking mental health treatment. “Build a future worthy of their sacrifice.” Win in November. Feldman pushes back: there seems to be an absence of the broader discussion of how we’re going to take care of them. Pelosi: The administration doesn’t care about the troops, what more do you need to know? (How about…what are you going to do about it?)

[Update] Final stage question from Gina is on Al Gore’s energy plan and…Al Gore is here as our surprise guest.

[Update] “…hold elected officials accountable.” Thank you. absolutely essential that we have…a well informed citizenry that is involved and engaged.” We represent the edge of government reform. On to climate change in the way only Gore can.

[Update] Gore’s speech is over and he’s taking questions with Pelosi from the floor. First question, would you consider a role in an Obama administration. Gore responds that his preferred role is as one who expands the political space for elected officials and bring about a public opinion sea change to make the atmosphere more amenable to change. Second question is on the carbon footprint from meat production which he addresses without saying much. Mountaintop removal is third up. Really going to bat for coal miners and bashes the irresponsibility of mountaintop removal and coal companies- calls liquid coal insane. “We’ve got to walk and chew gum at the same time” by getting off foreign oil AND off fossil fuels.

Pelosi’s back and thanking Gore for being great. Says we have a choice between yesterday and tomorrow.

[Update] Pelosi’s pushing the Use It Or Lose It program, “looking for an excuse, not a reason” to drill in ANWR and Outer Continental Shelf. She’s been absolutely great on this issue as I mentioned in Robert’s liveblog yesterday.

Finally responding to question about improving accountability. She didn’t really have a response and folks are starting to get rowdy. More questions from the audience:

[Update] Wind turbines on high voltage towers? Gore says that expense is a concern, and power lines aren’t necessarily where the wind is blowing. Mentions T-Boone Pickens who is not exactly the best friend in this group. “When we make an all out commitment then some of the problems…subside.” Quick bash of No Child Left Behind. E-waste disposal is next- there needs to be a lot more progress.

Pelosi responds to a question about how Congress will respond to Al Gore’s ten year challenge. Last year’s Energy Bill is her example of forward Congressional progress- a tough vote- and notes that renewable electricity standards passed over the fossil fuel PACs. Will bring it up again, but again punts responsibility to the Senate and tells us to build bigger majorities. NCLB: Not enough funding, revisit with a new president, will not be renewed this year.

[Update] Fresh round of four questions from the floor. Gore: we will still have a problem with a Dem in the White House and bigger majorities.