That may be the name of the fever that is afflicting Liberals when it comes to drilling for oil in the U.S. There is no question that the Libs and the Dems are back on their heels on this issue.
Obama's "nuances" on drilling and oil prices in general have the left in dismay. But what annoys me is the dishonest way liberals portray the issue of whether or not we should drill for more oil in the U. S. Take this New York Times editorial from Sunday's edition. The editorial criticises both candidates views but makes the following statement that has become the left's mantra:
"Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources."
And this op-ed piece by Thomas Freidman, also from the Sunday paper , containing a similar point:
"Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)"
OK, please tell me which Republican politician said we can drill our way out of the crisis? Actually, the GOP has taken the position that we should produce as much oil as we can domestically, while we transition to alternative fuels. The left is so anti-drilling (because they are completely dominated by the environmental extremist crowd) that drilling is a complete taboo. They always sought higher prices so that those prices would force we foolish gas-guzzling Americans to get to alternative fuels (see Friedman's op-ed). And, someone tell the Times, their 3% figure is based on exploration done 20 years ago (since the Dems have even blocked domestic oil exploration). We may have more than we know.
Well, we may be dumb, but we are on to the left on this one. Let's at least get our own oil out of the ground instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What kills me about the GOP is that all they believe in is drilling. Reagan had, and I do me had, the right idea during the period of higher oil prices during his presidency. He started pumping money into alternate fuels. His failure was to stop when oil prices came back down. If he had kept his vision we might not been in the situation we are in now. The answer is, and the GOP is loathe to admit it, is Hydrogen, not drilling or Bushes pet ethonal which will be a horrendous mistake if it is allowed to proceed. Ethonal uses just as much oil to make and drives corn prices higher. If I were to hazard a guess Bush is going to get some big bucks from the Oil Companies once he leaves office but I digresse. Hydrogen can be broken down from water, burns clean and is technically renewable as long as we have water. Oil does not have to be in the mix as alternate power sources that do not rely on petroleum can be used to crack the water into its basic elements.
The Government should start pouring money into hydrogen research immediately. What will happen is that the oil producing nations will see that we are serious about reducing our dependence on oil thereby driving down prices again. This time we should remain smart and continue development and not just say "hey, oils down, why bother". Intelligence will not happen in this administration of idiots. Its a tough sell when your two top leaders are in Exxons pocket.
Service Man:
I can't agree with you that all the GOP believes in is drilling. John McCain has clearly outlined a comprehensive policy that includes drilling domestically along with improving fuel conservation and supporting alternative fuels.
Meanwhile, how do you explain the Democrats abject refusal to consider any increase in domestic drilling? Of course, the "highly principled" anti-drilling positions Obama and Pelosi have taken are starting to shift, now that polls show Americans want more domestic production.
Further, its completely unfair to try to pin the ethanol debacle on George Bush. Politicians on both sides of the aisle fell over each other trying to be first in line to support the ethanol boom.
Finally, do you have some evidence that Bush and Cheney are "in Exxons pocket", or is that just an anecdotal opinion? Its very easy to assert that a politician is beholden to some special interest; its much harder to support such claims with facts.
Repo man:
I certainly did not expect you to say "OMG, he is right, how could I have been so blind".
Unfortuntely all I hear from McCain is drill, drill, drill. He should be as vocal about the other aspects of his forthcoming energy policy as he is about drilling. So we find more oil but the thing is it is only a stop gap measure that will delay the inevitable. Maybe the dems are trying to make us aware that the inevitable may be here sooner than you think. I remember seeing a chart that compared the oil coming to us from Alaska w/ all of the other sources, domestic and foreign and believe me it did not amouunt to a hill of beans. So we allow drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and what may we get? Certainly no more than another hill of beans. I do agree that beans do give you gas but again, I digress. The thing is that America wants the easy way out and it seems drilling appears to be an easy out. Its not.
Money needs to be poured into alternate soures NOW. Ethanol is not the answer. The thing about Bush is that he is the President. He grabbed ethanol and ran w/ it. Nobody remembers the names of the shmoes in Congress who backed the idea but they do remember Bush and what ethanol has done to corn prices.
In regards to our executive branch being in the pockets of "Big Oil" I think back of the "top secret" energy policy meeting in California that involved Cheney and the heads of all of the Oil Companies. Where were the scientists? The representatives of alternate energy sources? They were nowhere to be seen. Big oil has constructed the policy we have today. Remember both Bush and Cheney have been involved w/ the Oil industry in the past. Look at Haliburton, that fine company that would try to bleed the government dry if it could. Thats Cheney's baby. And of course Bush is a Texas boy and Texas=oil. Do the math.
In retrospect, while it would be nice to increase domestic production it is not the answer. We need someone w/ the cahonaes to stand up and do what is right for America instead of telling us what we want to hear. Its to bad that is always political suicide. The next president should create a new cabinet post "Secretary of Alternate Energy" and give that person the power to get the job done and quickly.
Service Man:
Reasonable people of goodwill may differ. I don't have a problem with disagreement. I enjoy a good political argument.
The problem with our government (at almost all levels) and political discourse these days is that both sides have reached virtually total no-compromise partisanship. We treat government and politics as an all-or-nothing, win at all costs game. Winning is more important than governing.
Your post ends with a statement that we need someone with the guts to tell it like it is on energy. Surely you don't believe the Democrats will do that. Look at how they are reacting to the polls on drilling in light of high gas prices.
Who is the brave leader who will tell us tht the price of gas is too high? Chuck Schumer? Eric Massa? They keep implying its Big Oil's fault yet three investigations have shown no evidence of price fixing or price gouging.
Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Their "never drill again" stances are wilting under the pressure of polls. You may not like Bush or Cheney's positions on energy, but at least they're not hypocrites.
John McCain? Well John has flip-flopped on energy, too. In 2000, he was against Ethanol subsidies. In 2007-08, he switched gears to gain Iowa primary votes. His off-shore drilling stance has broadened too.
My gripe with some bloggers and commentors is their unwillingness to accept the flaws in their guys' positions. Also, I get irked by the overkill on pounding the guys they don't like. Take George Bush for example. He's made some bad moves but he hasn't been wrong all of the time. Yet to read some commentary, you would think he was the anti-Christ.
Getting back to energy. Yes, we need to move to alternative fuels. Yes, we need to do better on fuel economy. But don't rule out increasing domestic oil production. We are still a long way from the days of the hydro-car. Until then, we are still going to use oil. Lets buy it from ourselves as much as possible rather than give our money to all of the people who want to kill us.
I happen to think that is John McCain's policy.
Very good, But I have noted no support for either of the candidates yet. I am leaning towards Barrack but I wish it was the McCain of 2000 running as I liked him. Do the dems have the guts? Probably not. The GOP, ditto. I guess we will learn the hard way.
I have to admit that its hard to be enthusiatic about our candidates. The last time I felt so uninspired by the guys who were running was actually the first time I could vote for President (1976). I voted for Jerry Ford that year but I really didn't have my heart in it.
Since then, I have held strong views about the Presidential candidates and strongly supported the people I voted for. This will be the first year I will probably vote against someone rather than for someone.
Maybe next time the choices will be better.
Post a Comment