Posted on 06/22/2008 5:40:21 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Last Wednesday, Virginia Democratic Senate candidate Mark Warner proposed an emergency federal crackdown on "oil speculators." "Make no mistake about it: What has happened over the past few months has not been the result of the market," Mr. Warner said, sounding not so much like the level-headed, moderate Democrat he was once reputed to be.
Democrats clearly are worrying about high gas prices interrupting their march to landslide victories in the fall. In Virginia, Republican James Gilmore is given virtually no chance to win against Mr. Warner. Mr. Gilmore might be a former governor and offer a clear contrast on taxes and spending. But Mr. Warner is also a former governor, popular personally and enjoys a political climate that favors Democrats. That standard analysis, however, predates $4 gasoline and the sudden resurrection of the offshore drilling debate. A wealth of petroleum lies off Virginia's coast, unexploited because of a federal ban. Now President Bush and GOP leaders in the House and Senate want to lift the ban and share revenues from the oil with nearby states. Even Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, favors lifting the ban.
Mr. Warner isn't so sure. After all, opposition to drilling has been a national Democratic litmus test for 30 years and he likely has designs beyond a U.S. Senate seat – he's often touted as one of his party's best presidential prospects. Nonetheless, this week, even as he blamed unholy speculators for high gas prices, he felt sufficiently spooked to hedge his bets. He now says he's OK with lifting the federal ban, so long as the final decision is left up to the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
During the Reagan Administration the Democrats finally agreed to tough, federal crime laws. Prior to that their mantra was poverty caused crime; hence, punishing poverty didn't work.
One thing all the ones that are switching aren’t mentioning is that the North Slope of Alaska has two hundred years of oil and natural gas for us and the Federal Government made them cap the wells off in 1976. The only ones that weren’t capped off were the ones that send oil to Japan. Sulphur was an issue with the federal government and the environmentalists. The Sulphur is less than one pecent and from what I’ve found out that no matter where you get the oil from, Saudi Arabia, Gulf of Mexico, or the North Slope, the Oil Refrineries have to be modified in a manner to take care of the oil. Go to Google.com and google Gull Island near Prudhoe Bay. All the articles are about the same subject.
Mark Warner is a politician. And a relatively astute one at that. He can see which way the hurricane winds are blowing.
Mark Warner made is fortune (well over $100M) as a speculator of sorts in the early days of cellular radio licensing by acting as a broker and buyer/seller of fractional shares of licenses. So, he should know about speculation.
Jack
I have to laugh whenever I see someone claim that the government needs to crackdown on speculators. The folks who say that don't know that crude oil is traded on many exchanges in many countries. If the USA decides to tamper with the markets, here in America, then crude oil trading will simply move offshore to other exchanges. Then what has been accomplished?
“So, he should know about speculation.”
Mark Warner is a sharp cookie. This is pure political triangulation. Decry “the speculators” for populist appeal, while setting the stage for the sale of oil and gas leases off the Virginia coast. Which will no doubt be an extremely speculative market.
There will be drilling off the Virginia and Florida coasts in much the same way there will be drilling in ND and MT and probably ANWR as well. $130/bbl oil makes the economics too compelling.
Indeed. See my post today of the Buffalo News editorial.
Well it answers it. Warner is moving to the right on drilling. He will win.
As long as he doesn’t say Macaca he will be alright. Those Virginis are a savey bunch.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Does anybody see the problem here? Hint: the author wrote it twice.
I have to take issue with “Does Gilmore Have a Chance in Virginia?” which you inserted in the headline (at least, it wasn’t the Wall Street Journal headline.
Of course he has a chance! Why would you go out of your way on a supposedly conservative forum to play Chicken Little? Just curious.
That is what the WSJ article said: ".... Republican James Gilmore is given virtually no chance to win against Mr. Warner. Mr. Gilmore might be a former governor and offer a clear contrast on taxes and spending. But Mr. Warner is also a former governor, popular personally and enjoys a political climate that favors Democrats. That standard analysis, however, predates $4 gasoline and the sudden resurrection of the offshore drilling debate...."
Grammar: When you ask a question that summarizes the article, at the end you use a ?
Reasonable Understanding: The article and my question are not predicated on an anti-Gilmore feeling or belief. On the contrary, with the drill issue Governor Gilmore has a better chance of winning than he had before.
This whole “specualtors” thing is nothing but a lie, a trick, to cover up for 20 years of liberal energy policy that now has us bent over a barrel.
I really think that the reason Allen narrowly lost in 2006 was not that he said “Macaca”, which no one much knew what that even is, but that he kept apologizing for saying “Macaca”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.