Posted on 06/27/2008 9:05:16 AM PDT by thackney
MIAMI (Reuters) - Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Friday that politicians who suggest that lifting a ban on offshore oil drilling would ease rising fuel prices in the United States were "blowing smoke."
The comments were seen by the U.S. media as a slap at Republican leaders including President George W. Bush and the party's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, who have recently spoken in favor of more offshore drilling as America tries to wean itself from its dependence on foreign oil.
A spokesman for the governor, however, said the comments were not directed at McCain, nor at Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who has backed McCain's stance on offshore drilling.
Rising oil prices and record-high $4-a-gallon gasoline and their impact on the faltering U.S. economy have put energy concerns squarely at the center of the contest between McCain and Democrat Barack Obama in November.
Speaking at a climate change gathering of politicians and business leaders hosted by fellow Republican Crist, Schwarzenegger said politicians have been "throwing around all kinds of ideas in response to the skyrocketing energy crisis, from rethinking nuclear power to pushing biofuels and more renewables and ending the ban on offshore drilling."
"Anyone who tells you that this will bring down our gas prices immediately or any time soon is blowing smoke," he said. "America is so addicted to oil it will take us years to wean ourselves from it and to look for new ways to feed our addiction is not the answer."
...
ENERGY PLAN
McCain has embraced offshore drilling in recent days and proposed a plan to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Obama has criticized McCain's drilling stance, and instead has advocated a plan to slap new taxes on oil company profits.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
So what was The Governator’s answer?
More of the “we can’t drill our way out of this” argument. When you get right down to it, the position is so repugnantly defeatist.
How do we know if we don’t try? What does it hurt to do so?
Oh, yeah; it might hurt the anti-America agenda of the defeatist left.
Here's why:
If the Dems and Reps united as they did post 9/11 and passed a resolution to tap immediately all of our own oil resources and build coal-oil and nuclear reactors for domestic electricity, this type of unity would b-slap OPEC and other oil-producing nations into realizing that they are about to lose a tremendous revenue stream.
This act alone would put an end to oil speculation (and the little, if any, impact this has had on oil prices — regardless, of the effect speculator's have, an act by both houses of congress would end the speculation). It would also force other nations to increase output at a massive rate so that America does not actually put into effect the resolution. They'd know that we can balance our own oil output (and therefore stabilize our own economy) domestically, thus removing that very powerful tool that our oil suppliers often use against us.
The effect would be almost immediate. But we'd need overwhelming agreement among Dems and Reps — powerful enough agreement that it would be a believable resolution (even if there were a behind-the-scenese agreement that it is only a feint).
Of course, this would benefit America. Therefore ‘they’ would never go for it.
But the argument that the decision to drill would have not immediate impact is fallacious. The effect would be almost immediate, within a two months, just as a November election has an immediate impact on the economy though the new President won't be sworn in for months.
Other than the mistake in your last paragraph, your post is beautiful...I am going to steal it...and I will try to remember to credit you.
Or we could just nuke the bastards and take what we need.
Opps!
Umm... I bathe daily.
Good post!
“Addicted to oil” is the 21st century version of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake.” We need that oil to get to work and get kids to school. We need that oil to get goods to our local stores, including the food we eat and the basics we need to live. Tell the tourism industry, the restaurant industry, and the airlines that oil is merely an “addiction.” Calling oil an addiction makes into some sort of luxury or extravagance, and it’s not.
It would be nice to find a VIABLE, cheap alternative source of energy that would work for transportation, but it’s a long way off. But tell that to our wealthy urban politicians who don’t worry about how the little people are affected by rotten energy policies.
Doesn’t he fly home every night to LA in his jet?
He has turned out of be the biggest flake.
Rush is talking about this now. (Might be in a few seconds for those not listening on the Dittocam.)
He sees oil as an “addiction” we must be weaned from. That means he is happy with the expense, and wants it to be MORE expensive so we will have more incentive to “wean ourselves” from it.
You do not talk about “addiction” unless you think it is bad. If there is a corn shortage, we do not say people are “addicted to grain” and that we need to “wean” them from it rather than produce more.
We need to get off of oil because eventually oil will run out, or more importantly supply will not be able to keep up with increased demand.
But that’s not because oil is BAD, just that it isn’t sufficiently available. If you are looking to replace something that is scarce, you don’t fight people who want to produce more of it, even if you think in the long run that more supply is just a temporary measure.
So it comes down to the question — do we want $4.00 gas, or not? Obama says he wants $4.00 gas, just that it got there too quickly. Arnold says we want expensive gas to get us to stop using the “evil oil” that I presume he thinks is destroying the planet.
But they can’t say that — because the average american was happy to fight global warming so long as it just cost the evil corporations. At $4.00 a gallon, the average american could care less about saving the polar bears.
So the democrats pretend that, if we fight global warming, we will enter a new era of cheap energy that doesn’t hurt the environment. And while this will take decades, they refuse any short-term fixes that might make things cheaper for us, because in the end they like the expensive gasoline.
Whoops... yeah, I was sort of writing in a rush and didn’t even think about it before you brought it up.
Should have been “natural born American citizen”. ;-)
Thanks for the kind words!
True!
LLS
Heh, let's see how that goes once the liberals start limiting our water to protect our "natural aquatic resources"... I'm sure that's next.
One partial solution would be to recall Arnold and put in a pro energy Governor.
Schwarzenegger = elitist twit!
Arnold’s been in LaLa Land toooooo long.
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.