DC EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Battleground Dem Lawmakers About Sen. Sanders’ Anti-Fracking Promises. Only One Responded

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

February 28, 2020 4:47 PM ET

  • Moderate Democrats from battleground districts didn’t respond to questions about potential 2020 nominee Bernie Sanders’ anti-fracking policies.
  • Reps. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania and Max Rose of New York were two such Democrats who declined comment despite their past willingness to push back against their party’s leftward lurch.
  • Their unwillingness to talk comes as Sanders continues making inroads in the race for president while superdelegates are angling to find a way to stop the surging self-avowed socialist.

Many Democrats distanced themselves from their party’s more radical elements before winning congressional seats in 2018, but some of those same lawmakers refused to respond when the Daily Caller News Foundation asked them about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ anti-fracking policies.

Neither Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, nor his colleagues Matt Cartwright and Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania responded to questions about whether they support the self-avowed socialist. They also declined to discuss Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ill-fated Green New Deal with the DCNF.

In fact, only Rep. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma responded.

“I do not support the proposed ban on fracking or the Green New Deal,” Horn told the DCNF. “The oil and gas industry has fueled economic development and new opportunities in Oklahoma since statehood.” She refused to further discuss a possible Sanders nomination.

The Texas Democratic Party told the DCNF that they do “not comment on specific candidates right before a primary that we are administering,” and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party did not respond to questions. Both states’ economies are heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

Democratic Rep. Max Rose of New York has come out in recent months against the GND, telling USA Today in April 2019 that Ocasio-Cortez’s solution to climate change is a “massive socialist economic policy platform. Just not needed.” He went on to say that “urgent and bold action” is needed.

Despite his past criticisms, Rose was unwilling to respond to the DCNF’s repeated requests for comment on Sanders’s policies, which many Democrats are calling socialistic. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg even called the senator a communist at the Feb. 18 Nevada debate.

Lamb, who won a tight race in 2018 against former Rep. Rick Saccone, has also demonstrated a willingness to criticize his own caucus. He wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Feb. 15 rejecting a piece of legislation imposing a nationwide ban on fracking within the next five years.

Sanders, for his part, revealed his own GND in August 2019, promising everything from “virtually free” electricity and a “hunger-free” transition to green energy from fossil fuels. The democratic socialist’s nearly 14,000-page memo also lays out how he will deal with a variety of social justice issues.

Republicans in the Senate torpedoed Ocasio-Cortez’s legislation in March 2019 as Democrats called the vote a dog-and-pony show. The GOP defeated the proposal 57-0; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a socialistic ploy designed to kill the economy. None of the Democratic senators supported the bill.

Ocasio-Cortez’s GND sought to phase out fossil fuel usage within 12 years, which would have cost tens of trillions of dollars, some reports show. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February 2019.

Other reports suggest the proposal, if it had become law, would have taken a sledgehammer to American households in swing states. Households would have ponied up between $74,287 and $76,683 in Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among others, a report Wednesday from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted.

Meanwhile, the U.S. also became the world’s largest producer of fracked natural gas in 2012, surpassing Russia despite former President Barack Obama’s decision in 2015 to place a moratorium on such production on public lands. It also passed coal as the country’s leading source of electricity in July 2017.

Fracking technology helps energy producers extract natural gas out of places like the Permian Basin in Texas and the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.(RELATED: Flashback: Bernie Sanders Says His Green New Deal Can Make Electricity ‘Virtually Free’ By 2035 — But There’s A Catch)

Lamb, Cartwright, Cuellar, Rose and Horn are running for re-election. They are running as the sand shifts underneath the Democratic Party’s proverbial feet, with Democrats worried that a potential Sanders win could mean disaster for a party that won control over the House less than two years ago.

More than 90 superdelegates told The New York Times in a report Thursday that say they are willing to sacrifice party cohesion to prevent a Sanders nomination ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July.

Nearly 84 of those the NYT interviewed said that the progressive senator does not deserve to become the party’s nominee because he has not yet secured a majority of the delegates.

41 thoughts on “DC EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Battleground Dem Lawmakers About Sen. Sanders’ Anti-Fracking Promises. Only One Responded

  1. Senator Bernie Sanders’ GND version goes well beyond the GND presented by Senator Edward Markey and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In addition to sunsetting the entire fossil fuel industry in America, Bernie will:

    “Ban imports and exports of fossil fuels. Congress’ decision in 2015 to lift the ban on exporting fossil fuels was a mistake. We must no longer export any fossil fuels. Our coal and natural gas are contributing to increased emissions abroad. We will also end the importation of fossil fuels to end incentives for extraction around the world. We can meet our energy needs and ensure energy security and independence without these imports.”

    That one action item of Bernie’s GND plan to ban imports of fossil fuels from other countries will ground Air Force One, close all American airports, and eliminate America’s Military to name a few consequences of his plan.

  2. Any Democrat, in a tight race swing district, that comes out openly in support of Bernie Sanders will lose their seat. Their best response is no response because anything they can, and will, be used against them.

    • Here in Arizona, Capt Mark Kelly (USN-ret) running against Colonel Martha McSally (USAF-ret) for the Senate seat. Poor Kelly has had to say he will support whoever is the Democratic Presidential nominee.
      I so want to see him eat those words with Comrade Bernie (USSR-ret) on the top of the Dem’s ticket in November.

    • The “Green New Deal” floated by unqualified sock puppet Ocasio-Cortez was shot down 57-0 by Republicans and NOT ONE Democrat voted in favor of it either. Why in the Sam Hill is this even still a “thing?” It was a NON-STARTER for very good reason–it’s IMPOSSIBLE, unnecessary and unwanted by anyone!

    • The only difference between a moderate Democrat and an outright Stalinist is that the Democrat is lying that he isn’t.

  3. AOC read her entire GND proposal yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives.
    She’s making it hard to run from for her fellow Dimwits.

  4. The betting line is that Sanders will win the nomination. link

    In the last election, some folks thought that people who voted Trump might have been just as likely to vote Sanders, given the choice. Now, President Trump has a record to run on. Given the coronavirus, there will be effects on the economy and voter mood. Will frightened voters support Sanders’ wild schemes?

    The Gallup Most Important Problem poll could give some clue about voter mood. The last version posted is from January, before corona really hit. I’m guessing that starting in February and March we’ll see folks start to worry about the economy.

    Things could change quickly and politicians heading into the election will have to be super aware and super nimble. I would give the edge to The Donald in that department. I’m also aware that after the election I could look like a complete idiot. 🙂

    • In 2016 I believed all the polls and waited dejectedly that night for Trump’s defeat.
      I will never again believe the polls on anything.

      They have consistently proven themselves to be unfit in modern times (at best) to intentionally wrong (at worst).

      • And most of Australia believed the polls about the ALP (Democrats effectively) winning “The Climate Election” in 2019. People, and businesses, are still reeling from an LNP win. Car sales are down, junk food is discounted and the jobs market is stagnant.

        Entry in to the last quarter of the year is going to be interesting.

      • Me too. I thought the betting lines would be more reliable because people are risking actual money. When I checked what happened before the 2016 election, I found that wasn’t the case either.

        Having said the above, I follow the Gallup ‘most important problem’ poll and think it does a reasonable job of gauging public sentiment.

      • Polls are often used to influence rather than just report.
        Based on the MSM “exit polls” in Florida, the winner was declared.
        But the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone. The winner was declared by the MSM an hour before the polls closed. (Since a “winner” was declared, some in Florida’s panhandle may not have voted.)
        After ALL the votes were counted, Gore lost. He called for a recount, entitled to that, but only a recount of certain places where he thought he was a shoe-in. Not entitled to that.
        I remember the mess that ensued.
        So, since polls are often used to influence rather than just report (and I don’t do polls), I don’t trust them or pay much attention to them.

    • “The party decides its nominee. The public doesn’t really decide the nominee.”
      Anton J. Gunn, a one-time advisor to former President Barack Obama and a a former South Carolina state representative, made the comments to MSNBC’s Craig Melvin Thursday morning.

      Ouch! Would explain the 2016 deep sizing of Bernie after the Clintons paid off the DNC debt and bought the candidacy for HRC.
      The question is, who are they going to pick this time instead of Bernie?

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/27/public-doesnt-really-decide-msnbc-guest-under-fire-saying-voters-wont-choose-dem

    • Flu season ends around May 1 in the northern hemisphere. Transmission rates within Wuhan province are already dropping like a stone. I predict Coronavirus will be a distant memory by June and the Dems (I mean, commies) will have to find another scandal or fright to stampede voters off a cliff.

  5. the progressive senator“. I hate seeing “progressive” used to describe someone who is regressive and repressive.

    • Progressive is always used to describe something I find regressive.

      I hate the Orwellian abuse of language.

        • Progressive. Sounds good.
          A “progressive” cancer is not a good thing.
          In politics, look a bit deeper into into people AND especially groups that incorporate such words that “sound good” but that most people who would agree with the definition of the words would not agree with the groups’ or person’s goals.
          Case in point, “progressive”, progress toward what?

          PS Reminds me a bit of the colors used on political maps. Back when there were only three networks in the US, they might have used green and yellow during election coverage or, (I admit I don’t remember all the combos); but I do remember that when “red and blue” were first used.
          The Democrats were Red and the Republicans were Blue.
          But that was back in the day when Communist China (as opposed to the recognized government of China which had fled to Taiwan) was commonly referred to as “Red China”,
          I’m not surprised the MSM changed the color association.

  6. Establishing better relations with India may be a way of notifying China that the U.S. will not be putting all of their economic eggs in one Asian basket.

    • Did you not see the massive crowds of Indians cheering Trump and waving American flags last week?

  7. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the USA government gain large amounts of revenue from allowing companies to extract fossil fuels? They also get taxes on profits, and all sorts of taxes on the end products.

    If these are then no longer extracted, then doesn’t the government both lose revenue, and lose more revenue in order to support poorly performing unreliables?

    Seens like a simple route to government bankruptcy to me.

    • The fastest route to insolvency for any government is to destroy economic growth.

      And the GND would the Mother of all Bombs dropped on the US economy, and not just oil and gas taxes and royalty remittances to the US Treasury.

    • They would lose the revenue from coal, oil and gas and every industry that depends on coal, oil and gas.
      All are major GDP contributors.

      Huge amounts of people will be out of work; previously democrats told coal workers to learn to code.
      A gutted economy, loss of major GDP contributors, out of business industries, immense loss of tax revenues and any of the democrat candidate socialist claims are methane rectal bursts in the wind.

      At a recent debate, the candidates were screaming at each other as to who had the most and greatest free stuff.
      Democrat candidates and far left democrats are trying to annihilate the democrat party.

  8. As for the moniker “moderate Democrat” used here to describe those Fellow Travellers, that is just euphemism for “closet-dwelling Socialist.”

    The only thing that discriminates them from Comrade Sanders is that Bernie is at least open about what he is and what he wants if he gets the power to do so.

    • “The only thing that discriminates them from Comrade Sanders is that Bernie is at least open about what he is and what he wants if he gets the power to do so.”

      Bernie does not have a history of honesty, fairness, truthfulness. Coupled with a long evident inability to accomplish anything productive.
      Bernie got wealthy running for legislature positions. All that wealth of his came from his campaigns and whatever else Bernie got his hooks onto.

      Presidential decrees have never been challenged to SCOTUS.
      Bernie attempting to enforce any of his socialist promises solely via Presidential decree would likely be met by legal challenges.

      Making Bernie remarkably unsuited, badly informed, extremely biased and likely ignorant about how to support capitalism and eminently impatient and intolerant to be an effective President.

      It would be a good way to identify embedded socialists/communists as Federal employees pledge their fealty to a socialist Bernie.

      The Federal Government is structured to be inefficient and unproductive on purpose; a structure meant to prevent the Government from chasing after the latest fads and fashions or passing endless levels of burdensome laws easily.

      My favorite version of Government was Republican Senate and House with a Democrat President. That way, only the most important laws to both parties made it into law.
      The uniparty broke that simplistic model conception.

      • Bernie has never hidden his socialist side. I never said he was truthful or honest, just what he was was never hidden if one looked. It was always there to see if one wanted to look.
        If he becomes the Dem’s nominee, the piles of opposition research to show Americans in ads in the Fall, people who never bothered know about this Socialistist’s history, would fill a small library.
        Bernie’s support for Cuban dictator Castro would immediately make Florida unwinnable. His anticoal and anti-fracking positions make Pennsylvania and Ohio unwinnable. Minnesota would probably go Red with union workers, happy with hard-won health care plans, would be turned off by his promise to put them in the healthcare rationing line with public medicaid recipients.

        The Democrats would get blown out except maybe 5 New England states and California.Trump would win the electoral college by something like 400 to 130 for Bernie, and Democrats would be sent to the political wilderness for a decade.

        That why I think establishment Democrats are going to cheat by rewriting their convention rulebook to stop him at the DNC convention. The problem they face is who to give the nomination to?

        Biden and probably Bloomberg will be the only other two left behind Bernie with any sizable delegate count. Buttigeig, Warren, Klobuchar performance in South Carolina’s primary shows they need to drop out, and all 3 will all be gone by next Thursday after this coming Super Tuesday.

        Biden is a walking gaffe machine and he lacks physical vigor. Plus anyone who looks can see Biden is not all there mentally anymore with memory lapses and false embellishments of his record. The complicit media may try and hide Biden’s physical and memory problems for him, but a grueling campaign schedule in the Fall will expose that, just as it did for Hillary in 2016.

        Bloomberg is actually a disaster for Democrats that the establishment Dems refuse to see. Bernie voters will walk away from the party if Bloomberg buys the nomination. We saw that clearly in how easy it was to viciously attack Bloomberg’s past as Warren did in the debates. A large numbers of black voters will not support Bloomberg’s racially targeted Stop and Frisk policies as NYC mayor.

        All in all, it appears as disaster is shaping up for Democrats this Fall. But a lot could still happen that no one can predict.

  9. They also declined to discuss Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ill-fated Green New Deal with the DCNF.

    – When did AOC switched party? (Booted?)

  10. Dems in Congress vote as a bloc so, it does not matter what an individual representative says.

  11. From the article: ““I do not support the proposed ban on fracking or the Green New Deal,” Horn told the DCNF. “The oil and gas industry has fueled economic development and new opportunities in Oklahoma since statehood.” She refused to further discuss a possible Sanders nomination.”

    Ms Horn says she doesn’t support a ban on fracking or the Green New Deal which is good, but I don’t think it is going to help her keep her seat in the Democrat U.S. House of Representatives. She voted to impeach President Trump which trumps any other good positions she may take.

    I wouldn’t bet money on her getting reelected.

Comments are closed.