Everyone is talking about the evil oil baron Bush and how he is the reason for gas prices, and how drilling is not the answer...well, someone forgot to tell Chuck Schumer to check is talking points. Liberals are to blame, and they know it, that is why they (like surfer)continue to spin so hard. From the American Thinker's Top 10 list:10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.
Wow, one of the longest tenured Dem senators and stalwart lib Chuck the Shmuck sees this value of drilling and who one million barrels a day could help, but Latin spewing trolls like surfer believe the alGore spew....Gee, if oly Chuck would actually do something to help Americans instead of fiddling while Rome burns...but wait, there is more:
8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.
Now, for those of you anti-Schmidt people out there, this is one instance in which I DISAGREE with Rep. Schmidt. I do not like ethanol. The process used to create it adds more pollution than plain old refining of gasoline AND it makes world food prices higher. But, given that it is the green thing to do, what is she to do?
However, liberals who have advocated this and sucked in Republicans are now guilty of making it harder for people AROUND THE WORLD to eat, as food prices, of which corn is an important part, as it is feed for livestock and the basis of several peoples's diets, is going through the roof. But, don't we feel better because we are "saving the planet"? But for whom if we starve our livestock and our people so we don't have to drill for gas and build more refineries?
6) Coal "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.
And let's not forget what Clinton did to the Utah coal beds making them untouchable, making China's beds of clean coal more valuable...hmmm....could he have been a China doll?
5) Refinery capacity "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
Ah yes, the dirty little secret. It was not Bush blowing up the levies, but enviro weenies keeping progress from being made that doomed New Orleans...Nice job, Greenpeace....
and the number one reason:
1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
"President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.
Mr. Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies."
[The Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."
The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:
"Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."
Just as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:
"World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."
But, as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."
In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."
So, you can't blame Bush. He tried. He tried to get a common sens energy plan and the libs and the RINOs played suckup to alGore and the whackjobs. You can blame Bush for a lot, but not for this.
Oh yeah, and JIMMY"ORIGINAL ENABLER AND FRIEND TO ISLAMOFASCISTS"CARTER, was wrong again.....
So when is surfer going to condemn him? When is surfer going to say Bush's plan made sense and was right, and the whackos were wrong?
Wait, I think I sense some Latin jujitsu or some ad hominem. Wait, Rush Limbaugh started the rumor about a plan, he is the one who foiled it. Quick, call the AP, and maybe they can file a story.
Hat tip to Right Runner
