random acts of verbiage

If you’re someone who wants your candidate to be taken seriously on foreign policy, you probably shouldn’t say stuff like Obama advisor Richard Danzig said, “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security”.  Yes, I’m sure that there was a deeper, broader point to it, because this guy is considered by some to possibly be the National Security Advisor in an Obama administration.  Putting the national security discussion in terms of children’s stories and fictional Star Wars characters might not be the best way to demonstrate a deep level of understanding on that subject.

Meanwhile, the move to end the ban on offshore drilling is picking up steam.   Both President Bush and presidential candidate John McCain have announced that they support ending that ban.  This is a change of position for McCain, but he is not a stupid man, and he knows that the majority of Americans want to start drilling to reduce the price of oil.  According to Rasmussen Reports, 67% of those they polled support ending the ban on offshore drilling.  The poll also said that a significant percentage of those people also believed that offshore drilling was somewhat likely to reduce gas prices.  The American people have now reached the point where their own financial interests are conflicting with their general desire to care about the environment and conservation of resources and so forth.  They are seeing the tradeoff and deciding that cheaper gas is more important than the environment — if being environmentally friendly means $4 + gasoline, that’s where they recognize the insanity of our current policies.  This is important, because all we seem to be hearing from the Democrats is that we can’t drill our way out of this mess, and some Democrats have even suggested that the government should take over all the refineries (!!!).

Offshore drilling won’t completely solve the problem, but it will provide temporary relief while we continue to work on a more comprehensive energy policy.  I know that many Democrats owe their careers to the environmentalists, but surely they don’t want to be seen as opposing anything that has so much public support. As long as there are appropriate safeguards in place, why not do everything we can to mitigate the pain Americans are suffering at the pump?

As far as what we should do to get this elusive energy independence, we could start with producing more of our own oil.  It makes no sense to beg the Saudis to increase production when we refuse to use the resources we already have.  There should be incentives for oil companies to re-invest profits into research into alternative energy sources — not increased taxation for failing to meet some benchmark set by a government bureaucrat. Then we should look into nuclear power and coal.  As far as government oversight goes, I have no problem with that, but we should draw the line way before we get to nationalizing refineries.

10 thoughts on “random acts of verbiage

  1. That is a simplistic way to put foreign policy to say the least. I’m not sure Danzig is that perspicuous or just giving a speech. Put into the context of that’s how he views the world, then yes it does look cheesy. But having a black and white foreign policy is all we’ve known for the last 8 years anyway. There can’t be anything more simplistic than smoking out bad guys and hunting down evildoers.

    As far as offshore drilling goes, I’m not against that at all. Or even more drilling in Alaska is fine with me. I think there are ways to safeguard against complete catastrophes, but nothing is fool proof. Though more drilling isn’t a quick remedy to our current prices. It would take years before that oil hits the markets. So combining more drilling with alternative fuel sources could in ten years bring prices and foreign dependence way down. It won’t fix the total failure of no energy policy by the Bush administration overnight, however.

    We are a long way away from nationalizing refineries– at least I hope we are. But being against nationalization would also mean not wanting to buy from the Saudis, which we do. So nationalizing refineries has been fine with America for 80 years or so. Heck, we’ve propped up the government doing the nationalizing.

  2. Rasmussen’s numbers are flawed by almost every other poll available, and for Dog’s sake PLEASE stop peddling the isiotic wingtard lie that drilling offshore is going to do a damned thing for the cost of a gallon of gas. Maybe 10 years from now, maybe NOT; I am sure that as Americans learn the latest wingtard shuck-and-jive, they’ll react accordingly.

  3. Sure glad you cleared that up. I was beginning to think that your hawk side had been completely destroyed by the “evil” Bush administration. 😛

    It’s hard to believe that there would be no immediate effect on the oil markets and the price of oil at even the announcement of increased US oil production. That’s what Joe Biden was saying on Meet the Press today. Even if you and Biden are correct, there’s still no reason not to start the process now, so that 10 years down the line we might not have to depend so much on the Saudis.

    This could be the way McCain pulls out the victory over Barack. Gas prices have become an issue in this campaign, and even if McCain is late to the drilling party (and he is), this is something the public will support. I know why Barack can’t support this, and why he supported the FISA compromise. He is trying to please all his supporters on the left while at the same time trying to show that he is serious about catching terrorists — and he has failed at both objectives. He is trying to do the smart thing and move more to the center, but if he does this, he risks losing his base. Tough choices for Barack.

    I’m sure that there’s nothing I can say that will shake your belief that Barack will be as tough or even tougher on national security than George Bush was. But you have to admit that the mindset of some of Barack’s advisors merits concern. I mean…some of them even originally supported getiing rid of Saddam. 😉

  4. Nice to see you’re still around to keep me honest, JollyRoger. 🙂

    Pick any pollster you consider reliable. I suspect that the majority of them will support the conclusions of the Rasmussen poll. Even if that’s not the case, offshore drilling is still the right move. Increasing domestic oil production gets us closer to our goal of energy independence. Whether we see an impact now or in 10 years we still need to begin this process. Is this the only solution that will work? No, but we still don’t have the technology to replace gasoline completely, so while we continue to work on alternative fuels (which also wouldn’t provide immediate results to consumers) we can relieve some of the pressure on the market. That will benefit us most in the long run, but it’s still worth starting this process now. We can’t afford to wait much longer to do this. High gas prices are killing our economy and our businesses. We must try to reverse this decline.

  5. Nope I’m still rather hawkish. At least to the point that I believe war to be necessary at times 🙂

    I agree that we could and should start drilling now. Also we should start increasing money to technology and development of alternative fuel sources. I’m for both increased drilling and alternative fuels. So I see nothing wrong with removing the huge tax breaks that Big Oil companies currently enjoy and use that new source of revenue to develop alternative energy. Removing tax breaks for companies already profiting $40 billion/year is neither socialist or communist and would probably still allow big oil to profit $39 billion a year.

    I don’t think Obama has failed at both objectives. His FISA stance, yes he’s failing his Democratic support no doubt. But his foreign policy that calls for actually catching bin Laden and pursuing countries responsible for 9/11 is very popular amongst the public. He’s moving no more to the center than McCain is moving away from it. One thing noticeably different concerning the scrutiny of Obama and McCain is that Obama is constantly held to words he never said, such as Danzig’s speech. Whereas McCain isn’t held to his very own words, such as staying in Iraq forever.

    I don’t think George Bush has been “tough” on national security at all. I think he’s been a miserable failure on national security. Bin Laden is still free to plan future attacks and we’re knee deep in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That’s not tough to me. That’s stupid.

    A lot of Barack’s advisors supported removing Saddam. A lot of Barack’s supporters, including myself, supported removing Saddam. What’s important is now we realize how huge of a mistake that was and how not to repeat the same mistakes of one of the most failed presidencies in American history.

  6. Sure, why not wait another ten years to start utilizing our own natural resources? That way we can be energy independent in 20 years, not 10.

    JollyRoger certainly is ‘progressive.’

    Had Clinton drilled ANWR in ’94, ’95, we sure as hell wouldn’t be paying $5.00 at the pump today.

    The idea that Bush has been ‘a miserable failure on national security’ is ridiculous. No terror attacks since 9/11/01. Bush is batting 1000%. Hard to do much better.

  7. aaaahhhh yes, had Clinton done this or that. American history begins and ends with Bill Clinton in the Republican Fantasy World. Had Reagan drilled in Alaska; or had Reagan increased funding for alternative fuel sources; or had Reagan not sold weapons to Iran; or had Reagan not armed, funded and supported Saddam Hussein; or had Reagan not armed, funded and supported bin Laden, we sure wouldn’t be paying $5.00 at the pump today. Or how about the first George Bush, does he count? Or Ford or Nixon. It’s just Clinton and sometimes Carter that Republicans remember.

    There have been terror attacks since 9/11. There was the London bombings. The train bombings in Spain. The Bali bombings. There was a terror attack yesterday in Iraq that killed 20 people. There’s even been terror attacks on our own soil since 9/11 with the DC sniper and the anthrax mailings. Bush isn’t batting a thousand. There have been more terror attacks since 9/11 than the ten years previous. But Bush is tough. He’s serious and he’s such a successful president. I suppose terror attacks to Republicans only mean when an islamofascistliberalmuslim is responsible. If not then they don’t get counted towards Bush’s batting average.

    I love this blog 🙂

  8. I should copyright the phrase “Republican Fantasy World”. The royalties from its use would be more than enough to fund all these exotic alternative fuels. 😉

    In Democrat Fantasy World, there was no terrorism problem until Bush came along and invaded Iraq. As you point out, this isn’t the case. Both Democrat and Republican administrations previous to this one didn’t see the importance of dealing with these terror attacks because most of those happened on foreign soil. We can argue all day every day about whose fault that is, but no President before Dubya recognized the need to be more aggressive and proactive against the terrorism threat.

    9/11 changed everything. President Bush said that we would aggressively punish those who attacked us on 9/11 as well as those who harbor terrorists. That included Iraq, which you admit you supported at the time. If the Iraq war had been easier to fight, and we hadn’t made the mistakes that Bush admitted to, you would still support it today. Iraq or no Iraq, it’s not a smart policy to do nothing about terror threats made more real by 9/11 and to hope that the terrorists leave us alone. We have to actively prevent attacks on the homeland. Have we done everything right? No. But I think we have the right mindset here.

    Now, I don’t expect you to agree with me on Iraq. You have made it perfectly clear that you don’t. But to suggest that all Republicans and conservatives have gone all in with the President’s foreign policy decisions — it’s just not true. I’m not talking about myself here. Even some of your favorite neo-cons at the National Review have had some differences with the President on Iraq and with some of his dealings with Iran and North Korea and they haven’t been shy about expressing those views. If the only conservative views you see are those who worship the ground Dubya walks on, then you really need to diversify your conservative reading list. 🙂

  9. You can’t, I’ve already copyrighted it…j/k

    You could copyright Democrat Fantasy World though.

    We did have a terrorist attack on our soil with Clinton in 1993. It was that guy Reagan funded, armed and supported in the 80s who attacked us. Oh yeah, bin Laden was his name. Had there not been 9/11 there is no way Bush would have been as proactive as he has been with terrorism. Of course had Reagan not created bin Laden we wouldn’t have to worry about it 😉

    President Bush said that we would aggressively punish those who attacked us on 9/11 as well as those who harbor terrorists. That included Iraq, which you admit you supported at the time.

    We were led to believe by the Bush administration that included Iraq. That’s why I and many others supported removing Saddam. Had the Bush administration not used trumped up charges of WMD and ties to bin Laden, things would have went very differently in 2003.

    If the Iraq war had been easier to fight, and we hadn’t made the mistakes that Bush admitted to, you would still support it today.

    If I recall correctly it was the Bush administration claiming that the fight in Iraq would be easy, not those of us who no longer support the president. It was Cheney who said the war would be over in a matter of weeks and Rumsfeld who said a small, light force would suffice in conquering Iraq. Obviously this is what Bush believed to be true as well. Since there was no plan for anything but a quick, easy war, there’s no reason to believe any differently.

    Plain and simple, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq did not pose a terrorist threat to this country before or after 9/11. Only in the Republican Fantasy World do people believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that Bush has the right mindset about fighting this war.

    It’s my understanding that those neocons at National Review and elsewhere on my reading list that have qualms with Bush’s foreign policy is because they believe Bush not to be aggressive enough in regards to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Syria etc. Not that they disagree with Bush because of less war, but because they want more war. That’s hardly a group I would have much in common with and certainly a group that lives in a Fantasy World.

    I have no problems with admitting Clinton’s failures in dealing with terrorism. There’s no doubt his intelligence agency and apparatus failed us. I’ll admit to that all day long just as long as we can also admit that Reagan is largely responsible for the whole thing. 🙂

    sind Sie schon mude?

Comments are closed.