Democrats’ Energy Ideas Date to 19th Century


'We should take a hard look at reviving the canals,' says Rep. Jerry Nadler

Bless his heart, Rep. Jerry Nadler is trying to understand the woes of Americans facing the high cost of gasoline.

Venturing outside the comfortable confines of his Manhattan and Brooklyn district, the liberal Democrat was spotted Monday in the Upstate New York city of Utica talking about transportation and energy policy.

Nadler’s solution:

“We should take a hard look at reviving the canals,” Nadler said. Rail transport is cheaper than truck transport, and canal transport is even cheaper than that, he said.

Yes, you read that correctly. The liberal New York City congressman wants to invest government resources in the nearly 200-year-old New York canal system to solve the “energy crisis.”

As someone who grew up just miles from the canal, it’s safe to say Jerry Nadler has no idea what he’s talking about. I don’t question the facts. I’m sure it would be cheaper to transport goods on the canal. But with a maximum speed of 10 mph and a system of locks to slow down boats, it might be faster to employ a pack of donkeys.

This is further proof that liberal elitists like Jerry Nadler and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are clueless when it comes to energy policy. Of course, that’s to be expected. Pelosi’s rich San Francisco district doesn’t face the strains of high gas prices like those in the Midwest. It’s no wonder they oppose energy exploration in favor of old ideas.


Category: , , , ,

RSS feed

9 Comments Leave a comment

Democrats -- The Party of Middle Eastern Oil

Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 8:46AM EST (link)

Feel free to pick up that slogan and run with it.

It hit me on my way into work today.

Oz

********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts

 

How..Quaint..

padre29 Tuesday, July 29th at 8:51AM EST (link)

Nadler is no dummy of a politician, such a proposal is sure to fire up some voter’s imaginations.

Problem is, the infrastructure is just not “there” to make such a plan work, things like barges, off loading and onloading facilities, distribution routes based on the canals..it just won’t work.

That is, it won’t work without massive amounts of Federal Monies (“our” money) which is more then likely what Mr. Nadler had in mind in the first place..

Maybe he wants to dig canals around the country

Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 9:18AM EST (link)

that wouldn’t be environmentally destructive now, would it.

********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts

Frank Boykin and he Tenn-Tom Canal

blooch Tuesday, July 29th at 9:28AM EST (link)

all over again?

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/specialreport/mobileregister/boykin_17.html

Porkers never change.

“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”

Maybe he wants to dig canals around the country

Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 9:40AM EST (link)

that wouldn’t be environmentally destructive now, would it.

********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts

in all fairness to Nadler

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 9:44AM EST (link)

which is a statement I’m not sure I’ve ever uttered before, he refers to both canals and railroads.

The St Lawrence Seaway is commercially viable. So is the Mississippi. To what extent we can bring back the Erie or C&O canals I don’t know. But we can work to bring back railroads and our maritime traffic along our coasts.

It isn’t like highways are free or anything. Trucks are a terribly inefficient means of long haul transportation that are only viable because we subsidize an interstate highway system but won’t do the same for rail or maritime traffic.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Pork..porky pork..

padre29 Tuesday, July 29th at 9:51AM EST (link)

That is all that is steiff, Pork Barrel spending, if the Canals were viable (I’m dubious on that) then a private entity would be better suited to running the thing, or investing in it.

The old canals fell out of use for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their shallow depths, they are maybe 10 feet deep, add in the locks, and the fact that long stretches are now parks, and the plan is unworkable.

disagree

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 9:57AM EST (link)

they failed because they were slower and less cost efficient that railroads.

There might be a half-dozen areas in the country where a canal makes economic sense but it isn’t like the interstate highway system isn’t little more than a porker’s heaven.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Another great pork barrel spending project for the dems!!!

Chuck_Norris_Republican (Diary) Tuesday, July 29th at 10:54PM EST (link)

Can we sink taxpayer money into donkeys helping the ships upstream.

Because, of course, this will lower oil prices more than offshore drilling.

Chuck Norris Republican

Part of the EIB (Excellence in Blogging)

“Chuck Norris Republican is the only man I would let raise my taxes.” – Grover Nordquist