Pressed To Drill

President Bush lifted the off-shore drilling ban instituted by his father last week, although exploration is still blocked by a congressional ban.   This act, which put pressure on Congress to let the ban expire, led to a significant two day drop off in the price of oil per barrel.  As support for a major loosening of drilling bans increases throughout the country and in Congress, the price of oil continues to drop and the stock market is responding positively.  If the House and Senate were to immediately open ANWR and drop restrictions on the outer continental shelf, oil prices would plunge dramatically, nearly instantaneously.  The increasing possibility of the U.S. getting serious about drilling has lead to an over $20 decrease in the price of crude in the last week, belying the Democrat talking point that increased domestic exploration would not lower prices for ten years.   An immediate and significant drop in oil would mean not just the obvious smaller tabs at the pumps, but would also lead to a remarkable lessening of inflation fears, lower producer and consumer costs, and a much more robust Wall Street, including pensions and 401(k)s.  Which leads to the question: Are the Democrats just beholden to the radical environmentalists, or purposely pursuing policies to damage the economy until after the inauguration of President Obama?

The Audacity of Dope

The liberals and the media, two groups perhaps too intertwined to be distinguished between, made much of the fact that President Bush declined to name any mistakes he had made.  Terry Moran, who has quite the reputation for being an unabashed left-wing ABC news reporter, challenged Sen. Obama in an interview during his European vacation on his opposition to the surge.  The surge, it should be noted, that Obama claimed would lead to increased violence, but instead played a significant part in the incredible Iraqi turnaround.  In fact, Obama would probably not be able to even visit Iraq if it wasn’t for the surge.  Yet Obama repeatedly told Moran that he would not reconsider his opposition despite the evidence against him.

President Bush has also faced repeated mocking, much of it deserved, for his lack of articulacy.  That may be one reason for the ascendancy of Obama; liberals yearn for a president that won’t embarrass them every time he opens his mouth.  It is well known that Obama (pronounced jee-zuh s) is a stirring orator, in the tradition of Lincoln, Churchill, and Reagan.  And yet we don’t see much reported on the uh, well, uh . . . inability of Obama to communicate artfully without a teleprompter.

But Bush is not only inarticulate, according to his bashers; when he is able to articulate an idea, he is often inaccurate or mistaken.  He is, they claim, a verbal gaffe machine, even inspiring a book on “Bushisms.”  The latest DNC talking point, faithfully repeated, I mean reported, by the media, is that Sen. McCain is also continually making gaffes, although not because of a lack of intellect similar to that suffered by Bush, but because McCain is tired and confused (hint, hint).  As I write this, Anderson Cooper opened his show on CNN this evening by stating that McCain had made a possibly “game changing” mistake during an interview on the surge (more on that tomorrow).  Obama has made several mistakes, some quite bizarre, that go beyond anything that Vice President Quayle ever did.  For instance, Obama referred to the 57 states that he visited and the 8 to 10 years he plans on being president.   As Michelle Malkin started reporting earlier this year, there are quite a few others.  This is not the audacity of hope; this is the audacity of the hypocrisy of the Left, from the media to politicians to voters, who lack even an ounce of intellectual consistency or honesty.

Takedown: Jene blöden Deutschen!

Every once in a while, there is a day that the NYT op-ed page really shines.  Today was not one of those days.  Among the offerings this Thursday was a piece by Christoph Peters, a German author, giving what I’m going to guess is the mainstream view in Deutschland on Sen. Obama’s somewhat controversial coming visit.  Why is this foreign policy trip disputatious?  Barack the Christ, a presidential nominee, is planning on speaking at Brandenburg Gate, the historic gateway and one of the most well-known landmarks in Berlin.  Previously, Presidents Reagan and Kennedy gave historic addresses there.

Peters does not understand the opposition, albeit understated, of conservative Chancellor and Bush ally Angela Merkel, to the speech.  He writes “the chancellor seems to feel an instinctive sympathy, perhaps rooted in her having grown up in East Germany, for such staunchly right-wing and rather gruff figures of American politics as George W. Bush and John McCain . “  He suggests Merkel and East Europeans are more drawn to the foreign policy approach of Reagan, than the rapprochement policy of Nixon and the Left.   Engaging in psychologizing his political opposites, he claims “the fear of being threatened by the ‘evil empire’ still runs deep in those who lived under Soviet domination, and that fear may well be connected with a longing for the ‘strong, good’ leader who will provide protection. “  Ah, yes, those who personally suffered under the tyrannical rule of communism are longing (irrationally) for authoritarianism!  Or perhaps they can appreciate freedom and know which American political party embraced them and stood up to communism, instead of coddling it, or worse.

Peters goes on to criticize Merkel for supporting the war in Iraq, clearly the motivating factor in his essay (to engage in Peterian psychoanalyzing).  But more than the war in Iraq, there is a bitter hatred of Bush, expressed by this puerile and unbalanced unloading: “George W. Bush’s contempt for the rules and institutions of international politics, his revival of preventive war, with all its unforeseeable consequences, his abrogation of the rule of law in his own country, and his ignorance of every issue related to environmental conservation have become, for me and for the vast majority of Germans, synonymous with a high-handed, ugly America.”  Guter Gott! Unfortunately, this is what passes for sophisticated thought in Europe.  Where do I begin? I love being lectured on human rights and war by a German.  (That wasn’t fair.  I love Germany.  I loved my visit there.  I spent three years studying the language.  But I couldn’t resist.)  Unfortunately this is what passes for sophisticated thought in Europe.  Just check out the BBC, the Guardian, or Der Spiegel, where these “facts,” aka DNC talking points, are considered indisputable facts.  International rules broken?  Is that a reference to the U.S. repeatedly going to the UN?    As for preventive war: it’s pointless to wonder about what would have happened had some country engaged in preventive war against, say, to pick someone randomly, Adolph Hitler. (Damn, I did it again.)  As for the rule of law: Yes, in America today we have internment camps, a draft, habeas corpus suspended, newspapers shut down for opposing the government, and roving gangs of violent youths enforcing the government’s edicts.  Oh, wait, that was Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, both beloved Democrats, not Republicans and certainly not President Bush, who never instituted any policy resembling those fascist ones.  (See Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism for more.)  As for the environment:  What did Bush do?  Not sign Kyoto?  So what.  Germany did, and yet how has Deutchland done in implementing it?  How much has any signatory country achieved?  According to this report, the U.S. emissions increased significantly less than those who signed the Kyoto treaty.  He ends by claiming Germans “would be happy if emblematic pictures of Barack Obama, speaking before the gate to 100,000 flag-waving Berliners, would help him open a new chapter in the history of America’s relationship with the rest of the world.”  When St. Barack the Miraculous is done, perhaps he can cure cancer and end all war by passing gas.  

Veggie Tales

Today’s CSM has an interesting article that is just one more confirmation for a theory I, as well as many others on the Right, have long held.  Environmentalism is not a movement to “Save Mother Earth,” nor is it a misguided attempt to connect to Gaia, but is in reality a backdoor scheme to institute socialist policies that the Left cannot achieve at the ballot box.  Is it just a coincidence that every policy proposed to alleviate some imagined or exaggerated environmental threat is coercive and collectivist?
What is the latest left-wing lifestyle choice that they want the rest of us to obey by government order?  Vegetarianism!  The article is no longer available online, but it states that “in the future a day may come when there isn’t enough grain for both humans and livestock — at least not at the U.S. consumption rate.  Add to this the environmental impacts of modern industrial-scale meat production, and many wonder: With a predicted world population of 9.5 billion by midcentury, are we all destined to be vegetarians?”  The reporter does briefly mention lab-grown meat, but not so subtly mentions possible war and collapsing nation-states if we continue to expect to consume meat at current rates.  It isn’t until the end that the topic of the more delicious and healthy grass-fed meats is considered.
Let me make this clear, enviros: I will not be taking mass transit.  I will not be driving a hippie car.  I will not set my thermostat above 70 degrees in the summer.  I will never recycle.  And believe this, from an Atkins devotee: the day I become a vegetarian is the day that pig roasts fly, so you can kiss my Boston Butt and munch on my Italian meatballs.