So, I was all set to write a post saying that, although I had disagreed with really, pretty much everything that Pres. Bush has done in office until this point, I admired the fact that he wanted us to get off of Mideast oil. In fact, I thought it was brilliant political strategy too -- beating the Democrats to the punch with this idea that was certain to be a staple of the Democratic party platform in 2006. Because even if you missed the speech, the message was sure hard to miss this morning:
But, it didn't take long for my pleasant dreamworld to cave in...
One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.Sigh...
Maybe it's time to make a contribution to the Democratic party?
6 comments:
The Democrats need to hit with "flip flopper" and tag all Republicans to Abramof, corruption, flip flopping and homeless veterans.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RbR:
Please remember I'm an idiot.
Can you direct me to a link about the homeless veterans of which you speak? That's a news item I've somehow missed.
Bell Curve:
I was pleasantly surprised to find that the CNN.com coverage of the State of the Union was rather pessimistic about Bush's statements, and pointed out "That [the proposed-but-not-meant 75% cut in imports from the Middle East] would represent only a fraction of the total oil imported by the United States annually, however. Government statistics show that about 80 percent of U.S. oil imports come from outside the Middle East."
Bob
// posted by Bob
Veterans are disproportionately respresented among the homeless. Also, the Bush administration has been cutting benefits to veterans and cutting funding to the VA relative to demand for its services.
It's already a fairly common plank in Democratic campaigns to say that Republicans are "pro-war and anti-veteran."
The "homeless veteran" remark was an allusion that whole ball of wax.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Good point, Bob. So even if Bush did mean it (which he didn't), the Democrats still have a stronger idea: making America energy-independent. Democrats now have a golden opportunity to jump on this and keep hammering the point home that "we really want it, and they don't."
// posted by Bell Curve
Bob, thanks for pointing out lack of understanding about where our oil comes from.
We should all remember as well that the proposals put forward by Bush do nothing to improve energy consumption. They simply shift it and then cover it up. It takes more power to produce ethanol and other bio-diesel fuels than to produce gas. So we solve nothing by finding those kinds of alternatives. But the Ethanol thing plays well in the Mid-West. What Democrats need to do is point out that they are looking for safe, efficient alternative energies like wind, water, etc.
Overall, Bush bold face lied throughout the speech and he is as irrelevant as ever. Its his administration that we have to hit.
// posted by USwest
We elected an oil executive from Texas as president. Gas is now nearly $3/gallon nationwide. Coincidence? I think not. Bush has made a point of alienating Arabs and Venezuela, all places we get fuel from. In Iraq, one of the largest oil producers, we shut down production for months, and have so screwed the occupation that it's still piddling. Now we're working on cutting Iran out of the oil supply. And at home, far from encouraging alternative fuels, they've blocked higher CAFE standards and kept the SUV tax boondoggle.
OPEC, which for his daddy and for Clinton kept oil around $25/barrel, has done nothing to help Bush. Or has it? What is Bush really asking OPEC to do? Have you even ONCE heard Bush say on TV that OPEC should dramatically increase production to bring oil back to the prices in the 1990s? No, his only proposal is to open up Alaskan wilderness to American oil companies, for gradual development in 10 years or so, which they REALLY want now because oil is so freakin' expensive - it wasn't profitable to find much oil up there in the cold 5 years ago. The result: oil has nearly tripled in price. Exxon now posted the largest profits EVER for any corporation, no qualifications needed. Remember folks, just 'cause they charge more don't mean it cost more to take out of the ground. In 2000, everyone pooh-poohed comments like this as conspiracy mongering. I think driving up oil prices has been a major part of Bush's strategy.
Think of it another way. What if Bush had: (1) made a huge pitch to OPEC repeatedly to lower prices, including calling the Saudis and others oil terrorists; (2) sent enough troops to Iraq to secure the oil fields; (3) encouraged Iranian democracy instead of promoting such virulent anti-US hatred that the hardliners took over for the first time in a decade; (4) didn't cheer when there was a coup against Chavez in Venezuela, or at least apologized when it failed for pre-empting it; (5) worked on developing Russian oil; (6) instead of competing with China for oil, join forces.
It's like Medicare Part D - forbid the government from doing anything to negotiate to lower prices, just pay whatever his campaign contributors (drug companies) ask.
Arughghghghgh!
// posted by LTG
Post a Comment