Carter deserves credit for his energy smarts (Idiot Alert)

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | 7/20/2008 | Cynthia Tucker

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Even here in his home state of Georgia, Jimmy Carter does not receive universal acclaim. He is regarded by many as a weak-kneed appeaser or a naive do-gooder with a puritanical bent.

Much of that reputation can be traced back to his widely noted July 1979 speech on the nation's "crisis of confidence," remembered as the "malaise" speech, though he didn't use that word. The response to that televised talk taught politicians one thing: Never ask Americans to make sacrifices. After all, it is now accepted wisdom that the speech — combined with hyperinflation, hostages and an oil spike — cost Carter a second term.

But a sober and fair look back at what Carter actually said ought to earn him higher marks. He was right when he insisted that consumers conserve energy; he was right to urge a dramatic increase in the use of solar power; he was right when he called for a cap on imported oil.

"Beginning at this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never," he said. "From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now."

Carter also called for research into alternative fuels, massive investment in public transit and a broad campaign for conservation. He acknowledged that the new programs would require billions, but "unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans."

Of course, you know the rest of the story. The next year, Ronald Reagan was elected and threw out Carter's plans. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) relented, and gasoline became, once again, plentiful and cheap. So Americans pretended Carter was the problem — not our profligate consumption patterns. Today, we're importing twice as much oil as we were when Carter gave that speech.

(In the past 28 years, the nation's oil consumption has gone up by about 21 percent, but the increase might have been even sharper were it not for the 1973 oil shocks. That OPEC-induced discomfort prompted Congress to pass the first-ever corporate average fuel economy — or CAFE — standards in 1975. Between 1974 and 1989, the efficiency of a typical car sold in the U.S. almost doubled, to 27.5 miles per gallon, according to The New York Times. Since then, unfortunately, our love affair with trucks and SUVs has sent average fuel efficiency spiraling downward.)

What if the nation had stuck to the path Carter laid out? What if we had invested billions back then in public transit and alternative fuels? What if we'd made a national campaign of conservation, similar to the successful no-smoking campaign? What if we'd insisted that Detroit continue pushing up fuel efficiency?

The United States would not be held hostage by petrocrats or tied down in a volatile region of the globe. The money we send to places such as Saudi Arabia plumps the bank accounts of its many princes, who then use their billions to appease jihadists. While Afghanistan's Taliban certainly played a role in 9/11, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Why send any of our money to them?

As recently as seven years ago, in the wake of 9/11, President Bush could have used our renewed sense of duty and patriotism to hike the gasoline tax and push through higher CAFE standards. At the time, the average cost of a gallon of gas was around $1.55. If Bush had pushed the price to $2.50, the nation would have had a huge reserve of cash to use for building public transit and finding alternative fuels. Instead, he did nothing about our addiction to oil. Even now, Bush is loath to encourage conservation. "It's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives," he told reporters last week. "You know, people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less." Wasn't it presumptuous to invade Iraq, a country that had no part in 9/11 but does have the world's second-largest known reserves of oil?

Looking back, Carter's plan makes a lot more sense than staying tied down in the Middle East. It's time to dust off his speech and several of his energy proposals.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

What if we would have drilled for more domestic oil? What if we would have built more refineries? What if we had built more nuclear reactors? All those things would be online today if it wasn't for environmental obstructionists, a practice Democrats continue to this day.

[freeangel]

Hey—it’s Cynthia Tucker—one of the top reasons for the cuts at the AJC in the last go-round of a liberal bent publication.

[OKIEDOC]

Cynthia Tucker is in the can for who I wonder?

Diversity has once again worked it's dirty little charm.

This woman is so racially biased that she only eats chocolate ice cream.

[lexusppd]

The response to that televised talk taught politicians one thing: Never ask Americans to make sacrifices.

Moron!! Were we asked to sacrifice during WW2? When it's necessary and the reasons are compelling AND there have to be choices made, then Americans will do what is necessary. In this case however the means to mitigate our energy price problems sits within our reach, here in America and off shore.

Sacrifice for the common good is one thing but sacrifice for the benefit of a political agenda is something entirely different.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Ms Tucker is a moron. Carter was a disaster in every sense.

[n230099]

Hindsight is always 20/20. If he said all those things, it can be seen now that he had a point. But you have to remember...we thought he was an idiot.

Also, poster is correct. The whackos that elected Carter have been the sand in the oil for these 30 years.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Oh, Cynthia... Nothing you can say, write, or intimate can turn the reputation of that little man, the worst president of the 20th Century, into anything more than that legacy: appeaser, sympathizer to despots and terrorists, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, demagogue (as all Dem leaders seem to qualify), and liar (despite his “I’ll never lie to ya!” promise).

When Carter made the malaise speech, the prime rate was around 14% and unemployment was round 10%, so calling for these further growth-limiting steps in energy policy were not timed for 1979. His speech was exactly unique, either: I recently found a National Geographic from the same era that was focusing on the energy crisis and our dependence on Middle East Oil, so nothing unique from Mr. “Watch Out for the Mad Hatter Rabbit” President Carter.

If Mr. Carter really wanted to reverse his legacy, he’d make a nationally televised speech: apologizing for all of his acts since leaving the White House and denouncing all of his hair-brained ideas that he’s promoted since 1976. Maybe then he could lose that “Worst President” status that he so justly has earned.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

The next year, Ronald Reagan was elected and threw out Carter's plans. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) relented, and gasoline became, once again, plentiful and cheap.

I wonder why that happened?

[TexasCajun]

Sometime all you need is a visual image:

Nuf said.

[cake_crumb]

"After all, it is now accepted wisdom that the speech — combined with hyperinflation, hostages and an oil spike — cost Carter a second term."

It. Was. An. Oil. Embargo.

Idiot writer. When they have their facts wrong that early in the article, there's no sense in reading further. If he wants to reflect soberly on Carter's energy policy, he needs to lay off the sauce and maybe join AA.

[cake_crumb]

Oh. Sorry. Didn’t read the author’s name. SHE needs to lay off the sauce and maybe join AA.

[Popman]

"It's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives," he told reporters last week. "You know, people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less."

Wow, A CIC who thinks people can think on their own without the "government" doing it for them or making them

Wasn't it presumptuous to invade Iraq, a country that had no part in 9/11 but does have the world's second-largest known reserves of oil?

Liberals just can't help themselves can they??

One day Miss Tucker, you moronic liberal moonbat, you will look back and say, thank God we liberated Iraq so we have a friendly oil producing country who we can depend on 'cause we aren't getting out of the mess any time real soon, we better have friends who produce lots of oil to keep you in your townie home in Atlanta

[flowerplough]

As recently as seven years ago, in the wake of 9/11, President Bush could have used our renewed sense of duty and patriotism to hike the gasoline tax and push through higher CAFE standards...

If Bush had pushed the price to $2.50,... he would have been impeached, lynched, and buried in an unmarked grave.

Jimmy Carter, Cynthia Tucker, and all the other weathervane Democrats would have screamed about the how hard the Man's taxes came down on the urban poor, and the 2006 Dem Congress would have been elected in 2002.

[cake_crumb]

YIKES.

[cake_crumb]

If Bush had hiked the gas tax that high in 2001 the brain dead public would have nodded sagely to one another as they blamed the Vast Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Conspiracy. THEN he would have been impeached, lynched, and buried in an unmarked grave.

[ThreePuttinDude]

psssst.....wrong Cynthia

[mkjessup]

They both eat chocolate ice cream. It's ok.

[Sender]

...in the wake of 9/11, President Bush could have used our renewed sense of duty and patriotism to hike the gasoline tax...At the time, the average cost of a gallon of gas was around $1.55. If Bush had pushed the price to $2.50, the nation would have had a huge reserve of cash to use for building public transit and finding alternative fuels.

This is the typical Democrat response to any problem. Just tax the hell out of the problem, raise the price until it's prohibitive, and use the pilfered loot to spend on programs in their home states.

Cynthia doesn't realize that such a giant tax increase on fuels would have created the problems we are having now, only it would have started 7 years ago. I guess she was hoping that the 2001 oil price crunch would have torpedoed Bush's prospects for a second term.

There are people in America today who are overjoyed that gasoline is $4 a gallon, and who want to see it go up to $10 if possible.

They don't care that it would severely damage the capitalist economy and derail American commerce, because that is exactly what they want to happen. These are the same people crying wolf about global warming, for the same reasons.

One way or another, we are stuck with relying on oil for much of our transportation for the next 25 years, even with all the research programs they can fund. It's going to take time to transition to alternative energy, especially for trucks and cars. The Dems should get a clue that we need a secure supply of oil at reasonable prices to be able to get by while we develop alternative energy. Ditto for coal and nuclear. They can chase unicorns at great length while the country breathes easier with affordable gas.

[Fishtalk]

Please tell me that an individual NOT a retard didn’t write this.

Someone with brains between the ears could NOT have possibly used such tortured logic, tell me it ain’t so?

First....let’s get this out of the way because I, as expected, am NOT a retard. WASTE is nature’s enemy. Notice please that nature NEVER wastes anything. Even our poop is put to great use, rotton organic matter such as leaves and vegetables can be composted to complete appreciation of living plants struggling to grow.

We GET waste out here in la-la and the more rational amongst us do NOT waste if for no other reason but the cost to our pocketbooks. Quit accusing Americans of such a thing. It gets real old real quick.

Next, mass transit is NOT going to work in this great big country so quit saying it. Belgium, for instance, is a small enough country that trains and buses in the cities might serve it fine. But it’s entirely a waste of time to try and build a mass transit system that will easily transport our citizens from Delaware to Iowa or from New Mexico to Idaho. It’s called common sense. Save a few big cities, mass transport will not work in this big country.

Back when our congress enacted the mighty Interstate system, we all made a deal. America’s prosperity would be built on our citizens’ ability to go anywhere they wanted, when they wanted, carrying items easily as opposed to lugging sand buckets and beach toys on a damn bus. Our legislators de facto agreed that the best way for our economy to boom is to allow movement easily and cheaply. Many folks moved to the suburbs based on that premise and while they might only be thirty to forty miles from their job, few suburbs are effectively served by any sort of mass transit or can they be.

Let’s not forget Jimmy Carter’s love of the fireplace and how he used to start fires at Camp David after cranking up the air conditioner. THAT, yon ladies and gems, is WASTE.
Oh, and please don’t forget...NO CHRISTMAS LIGHTS!

We have plenty of oil and gas in our own country and no one’s going to convince us fools out here in la-la land who carry this country on our backs whilst raising the citizens and soldiers of tomorrow that we shouldn’t go after our own damn resources. We’ve got common sense, something the political elite, AND this pathetic excuse of a “thinker” writing such stupidity, do not have.

Every pubbie with gonads (which eliminates most of them) should march out to the public and ask the Dems against drilling in our own country...WHY? Ask them over and over and over and over again. At every opportunity, every interview, every sound byte, look that camera straight on and say “WHY can’t we drill in our own country?”

Let them obfuscate and stammer enough. Already they’re on the losing end of this argument.

Jimmy Carter....heh. Yes, I remember him well. I lived my best years through his presidency. Interest rates were 18%. Gas lines required waits of many hours to fill the tank. I bit my nails every day for fear of my job. The economy was a bust. And let’s not forget his fine foreign negotiating skills when Iran kidnapped our citizens. They were not released until the very day Reagan was inaugerated.

Trying to make Carter into some sort of wise statesman is like trying to make McCain into a conservative.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

That picture is Cynthia McKinney, a different type of idiot altogether. This is Cynthia tucker:

[Savage Beast]

"He is regarded by many as a weak-kneed appeaser or a naive do-gooder with a puritanical bent."

Try weak-minded, meddlesome, self-serving, self-congratulatory, puritanical nitwit".

[Gay State Conservative]

Among other things,Jimmah has fully signed onto....or perhaps even helped set into motion...the RAT Party's change of attitude from "support any friend and oppose any foe" to "oppose any friend and support any foe".

Jimmah is a typical,filthy,worthless seditious RAT who masquerades as a beacon of morality.

[polymuser]

Neoliberals say the darndest things! (Especially girl neolibs.)

[stevem]

Stupidly, I started reading this first and asking questions later. I made it a couple of paragraphs into it before the exclamation, “Who wrote this???” Then I looked. Luckily I only wasted the time for a few sentences.

[Will88]

“Of course, you know the rest of the story. The next year, Ronald Reagan was elected and threw out Carter’s plans. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) relented, and gasoline became, once again, plentiful and cheap. So Americans pretended Carter was the problem — not our profligate consumption patterns. Today, we’re importing twice as much oil as we were when Carter gave that speech.”

Carter deserves credit for one thing: HE RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM FOR WHAT IT WAS.

Then he proposed mostly wrong solutions, directed too much toward conservation and not enough toward increased domestic production. Then, as now, incentives for the development of alternatives were needed.

But when Reagan scrapped Carter’s program he put nothing in it’s place but a fanciful confidence in a free market for crude that was not and won’t be a free market, with state owned oil companies and OPEC and other factors. Reagan lucked out because crude became plentiful and cheap internationally during the eighties and for the next twenty or so years.

But now we have the result of the fanciful reliance on free markets that aren’t free, and because there has been no plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil since Reagan scrapped Carter’s wrong headed plan, we have the result of poor leadership from both parties on this issue.

And, all too many are still holding the same ideological positions as in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s: conservation and alternatives from the Dems., and reliance on a pretend free market from all too many Republicans that would leave too many decisions about domestic production with the oil companies.

We’ll see if our political system delivers any better solutions this time than last time. So far, it’s anybody’s guess.

[Jim Noble]

Carter was absolutely correct that energy independence was (and is) a critical national security issue.

He did nothing about it, and if he had, anything he did would have been wrong. But he was correct about the idea.

[Wonder Warthog]

The only difference between the two Cynthias is that Tucker has neater hair. What’s UNDER the hair is the same in both cqases.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Then he proposed mostly wrong solutions, directed too much toward conservation and not enough toward increased domestic production. Then, as now, incentives for the development of alternatives were needed."

Got it in one. Carter pretty much single-handedly "kneecapped" the US's development of nuclear fission plants, and drastically hobbled natural gas production and use to generate electricity.

Carter was, and remains, a self-serving moonbat idiot.

[Will88]

“Carter was, and remains, a self-serving moonbat idiot.”

On this issue, the same can be said of most presidents since Carter, also. Oil became cheap and all those great leaders just pretended it would always be so. And all but four Gulf states were put off limits for drilling during the Reagan and GHWB administrations. Great long term planning, wouldn’t you say? Both parties were complicit in curbing new exploration and production of domestic crude. ANWR is the only area where the Republicans tried to make more domestic crude available than the Dems.

But all those who spent almost thirty years pretending the international market for crude was a free market that would always answer our needs look just as foolish as Carter.

And both parties will have to get away from their old mindless ideological posturing and look at the problem for what it really is, or we’ll see no improvement.

[Wonder Warthog]

"On this issue, the same can be said of most presidents since Carter..."

Sorry, but I can't agree. The responsibility is higher for he who STARTED the process than for those who "follow in footsteps". Reagan was busy winning the "Cold War", which I would submit was a MUCH higher priority than the "energy war" Carter tried to sell. I "do" fault BushI almost as much as Carter---HE should have known better given his background in the energy business.

[Will88]

“Sorry, but I can’t agree.”

Say what you will, but you can’t get away from the fact that Carter recognized the problem for being as serious as it was and is. Reagan just tossed all Carter’s programs and put nothing in their place but a fanciful reliance on the free market. But the international market for crude was not a free market, and it never will be with state owned oil companies colluding to restrict supply.

Reagan is my favorite president, but I don’t pretend he was perfect. Asking “What would Reagan do” in relation to our current energy crisis were only lead us down the same wrong road again.

The notion he didn’t have time to really address the energy crisis is silly. He took all time he wanted and declared the magic of the (pretend) free market would solve all our energy problems.

Did it?

[Will88]

Wonder why we have all these offshore drilling bans? Here is a chronology of how they came about. The names Reagan and GHWB sure do pop up a lot, back during the days of cheap crude prices on the international market:

http://www.taylor.house.gov/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=149

[popdonnelly]

Another one of the environmentalist memes. We would all be living in Paradise if we only listened to Jimmy Carter. I read exactly the same line in a recent letter to the editor. The enviros are organized, and they won’t give up power easily.

[Colorado Doug]

"He is regarded by many as a weak-kneed appeaser or a naive do-gooder with a puritanical bent."

That's just his friends that regard him as such. The rest of us don't think so highly of him.

[litehaus]

"Hey—it’s Cynthia Tucker—one of the top reasons for the cuts at the AJC in the last go-round of a liberal bent publication."

Ya mean the paper is "In The Black" now, but going into the red? (for being, in the old fashioned way, RED)..LOL...

[GladesGuru]

“This woman is so racially biased that she only eats chocolate ice cream.”

But does she eat watermelon?

If not, is it because she is against cannibalism?

Does she eat fried chicken?

[dalereed]

If Carter hadn’t put in the 10% wellhead tax 2/3 of the California nwells wouldn’t have been shut down.

Our 2 cats are smarter than Carter.

He and Obama both are escapees from the abortion clinic!

[Wonder Warthog]

"Reagan just tossed all Carter’s programs and put nothing in their place but a fanciful reliance on the free market.

Really??? I don't remember Reagan countermanding Carter's mandates killing fission fuel recycling and all research into breeder reactors, nor do I remember him countermanding Carter's restrictions on the use of natural gas.

Try pulling the other leg.

"But the international market for crude was not a free market, and it never will be with state owned oil companies colluding to restrict supply."

"IF" we had been allowed to drill in all areas offshore, we wouldn't have NEEDED the "international market for crude". And that monkey sits squarely on BushI's flat head.

[Will88]

“IF” we had been allowed to drill in all areas offshore, we wouldn’t have NEEDED the “international market for crude”. And that monkey sits squarely on BushI’s flat head.”

Afraid not. The first offshore drilling bans were put in place under Reagan. He might not have wanted them, but they were part of Interior Department general appropriations bills and he signed them into law. And that took place for four or more years of his administration. Then Bush I added even more states to the list where offshore drilling was banned for a period of time. Here is a summary many here need to peruse so they won’t make so many incorrect statements:

http://www.taylor.house.gov/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=149

That list was compiled by a Mississippi Blue Dog’s office, and is consistent with what I’ve seen elsewhere.

Clinton and W. Bush mostly just continued the bans Reagan and GHWB had signed into law.

And this is another example of something even Reagan’s biggest admirers have criticized him for: he rarely used the veto to curb actions by Congress. That was true for spending and now we know it was true for offshore drilling moratoriums. And he usually had a majority in the Senate as these bans were attached to Interior bills, but California, Florida and some other Republicans senators an representatives supported these bans.

And, yes, he did scrap Carter’s energy policies. Are you saying he supported the 55 mph speed limit, government guidelines for thermostat settings, excess profit taxes, etc.

Sorry, Reagan signed many Interior Department bills putting offshore areas off limits, and did rely on the international crude market, which seemed to be working during his eight years and until about four years ago. But it was never going to work on and on, and it was clear that when it stopped working, we’d be years from being able to do anything about it, as is now the case.

He, nor any president or congress ever made it a matter of national security. It still isn’t.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That list was compiled by a Mississippi Blue Dog’s office, and is consistent with what I’ve seen elsewhere."

It comes from a Democrat, and hence is not to be trusted. Try again. And this time use a map. Note that the only "bans" on drilling under Reagan were off California. BUSHI was the one who banned by far the largest area of drilling, including all the rest of the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, and adding the Atlantic coast. My assertion on BUSHI's culpability stands as stated.

"And, yes, he did scrap Carter’s energy policies. Are you saying he supported the 55 mph speed limit, government guidelines for thermostat settings, excess profit taxes, etc."

Uh, those are "conservation" measures---not increases in energy (and useless frippery, at that). The Carter policies that actually could have made a difference, increase in the use of nuclear fission, and banning use of natural gas for electricity generation, remained in place.

Carter was an idiot. He's like a guy who sees a fire, yells "FIRE, FIRE, FIRE", and then proceeds to spray gasoline on the flames.

[Will88]

“It comes from a Democrat, and hence is not to be trusted.”

You can find verification of that list scattered around. But all your denials don’t change the fact that Reagan and all presidents since just rocked along and put no real energy policy in place because the international price stayed low. None of these presidents, including Reagan, ever made energy policy a matter of national security. And we now have the result of his policies, or lack of a policy that addressed the real international crude market realities, and all other presidents since.

And, contrary to what you wrote, Reagan did sign bills extending the moratoria beyond California:

“In 1983, the moratoria on offshore leases were continued in Northern and Central California and were expanded to
include Southern California, the Florida Gulf Coast, and the Georges Bank off the coast of New England. Republican and Democratic Members of the California and Florida delegations pushed for the moratoria. The Republican-majority Senate approved the Interior Appropriations Act and President Reagan signed it into law.”

As much as some want to, you just can’t hold Reagan up as having done everything right. Another source for the 1983 extension beyond California:

“Pressure to permit drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean coastlines and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been building as oil and gasoline prices have surged to records.

Congress has barred drilling since 1983 through an annual Interior Department spending bill. That ban could be lifted if Bush refused to sign...”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a362RHmsy71s&refer=home

Notice, Bloomberg says “CONGRESS has barred drilling since 1983”, and they neglect to mention which president signed the Interior Department bills in 1983. And again, Reagan rarely used the veto, a criticism even some of his biggest admirers agree with.

[Wonder Warthog]

"As much as some want to, you just can’t hold Reagan up as having done everything right. Another source for the 1983 extension beyond California..."

Look, dummy--I never said anywhere that Reagan did everything right, what I said was that Carter did everything wrong. Carter did NOTHING to significantly increase the domestic energy supplies of the United States. All he did was magnify the misery.

[Will88]

Look, clown, you have no grounds for calling anyone dummy or anything else. You said in your #38:

““IF” we had been allowed to drill in all areas offshore, we wouldn’t have NEEDED the “international market for crude”. And that monkey sits squarely on BushI’s flat head.”

And you said in your #40:
\
“And this time use a map. Note that the only “bans” on drilling under Reagan were off California. BUSHI was the one who banned by far the largest area of drilling, including all the rest of the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, and adding the Atlantic coast. My assertion on BUSHI’s culpability stands as stated.”

Have you yet been able to determine that, contrary to what you’ve said more than once, Reagan did sign into law moratoria beyond California, including Florida and New England?

Have you been able to determine that yet???? If not, reread my #41, more carefully this time. Feel free to have someone else help you interpret what the words mean.

You Reagan worshipers are a waste of time, and a danger to rational discussion on any issue, with your preference to fantasy over facts.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Have you yet been able to determine that, contrary to what you’ve said more than once, Reagan did sign into law moratoria beyond California, including Florida and New England?"

I based that comment on YOUR link, from the supposed "Blue Dog" Democrat. You "do" remember that one, don't you.

"Have you been able to determine that yet???? If not, reread my #41, more carefully this time. Feel free to have someone else help you interpret what the words mean."

Being charitable in my response, I didn't point out that the two postings you have made contradict one another on who, how, and when the various moratoria outside California were implemented.

"You Reagan worshipers are a waste of time, and a danger to rational discussion on any issue, with your preference to fantasy over facts."

At NO point in our discussion have I been a "Reagan worshipper". The fact that you think that is indicative of a delusion on YOUR part.

I repeat my position---Jimmy Carter was a classic idiot, and did ZERO positive about energy. All he did was to be sure that the misery got spread around. What he SHOULD have done is to increase investment in and streamline the production of nuclear power, not feel-good crap like a 55 mph speed limit and "theremostat nagging".

[Will88]

“I based that comment on YOUR link, from the supposed “Blue Dog” Democrat. You “do” remember that one, don’t you.”

And the link was correct. You didn’t read far enough. And the link was substantiated with another link. My #43 pastes the paragraph from the Blue Dog’s list showing where Reagan signed laws extending the moratorium beyond California. It happened. Accept facts as they are.

You’ve made several very specific assertions without providing a single link to support them.

Total waste of time to respond to your unsubstantiated claims about things that supposedly happened almost thirty years ago.

But I will provide one more link to support a statement I made, that Regan did not use the veto to control spending or to defeat these offshore drilling moratoria and bans. From the esteemed Heritage Foundation:

“The problem is that, despite this tough talk, Reagan actually has been very timid in playing this trump thus far in his presidency.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bg443.cfm

A criticism even Reagan admirers agree on.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Total waste of time to respond to your unsubstantiated claims about things that supposedly happened almost thirty years ago."

I lived through the Carter fiasco. Did you??? I know what he did and didn't do, especially about nuclear power, because I graduated with a minor in Nuclear Science, and thus had a deep interest in his screwing of nuclear power, and I WATCHED IT HAPPEN.

I frankly don't give a damn about who passed or didn't pass the first offshore drilling mortatorium, because they should ALL be rescinded immediately.

James Earl Carter was far and away the worst president in MY living memory. He did nothing right. And I'd put BushI just above him as second worst, with Clinton next. One reason Reagan looks so good by comparison is the presidential midgets who came before and after him.