Mark Udall's U-turn on domestic energy production now effectively has him on every side of the issue. What should we believe? While Udall plays TV ads claiming he supports domestic drilling, there's every reason to doubt his sincerity.
On Friday we asked why the anti-drilling group Environment America is spending so much time, money, and resources on Mark Udall's behalf. Perhaps because they know his claims about drilling aren't to be taken seriously. The evidence is out there.
After all, Mark Udall continues as a co-sponsor of HR 39, which makes the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) completely off-limits to drilling. No, it doesn't say that all drilling in ANWR needs to be "responsible", which is easy to achieve with today's energy exploration technology. No, Udall's HR 39 prohibits exploration altogether.
When it comes to energy, pick which Mark Udall you want to believe, and then begin to wonder if there's a Mark Udall you can really trust.
As the Democratic National Convention gets underway today, Mark Udall might be debating with himself about whether to introduce a pro-drilling amendment to the party platform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ya know, for someone who hasn't yet been able to produce any documentation indicating how drilling for oil in the US will actually impact prices, you're awfully obsessed with it. All the facts show that it will have little to no impact on prices - so why should Mark Udall jump through some straw hoop to keep you and your taskmasters happy? Show us why he should do so and then maybe its worth talking about - until then, it continues to be nothing but a stunt.
This is why the Democratic Party has been running all over the Republican Party the last several election cycles - they believe in facts, and the electorate appreciates that. Republicans see facts as something flexible - unless they're written about in the Bible, presumably - that can be used to whip up stunts to try and keep the base from collapsing under the weight of all that big government they've taken on.
"All the facts show that it will have little to no impact on prices..."
You really need to get out more. It's called economics, and I know Democrats have a very hard time with this important subject. But here's a sample:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Also:
Why did the price of oil begin to drop when Pres Bush announced an end to the exec order ban on offshore drilling?
Why does Mark Udall even think it's necessary to feign support for domestic drilling?
"...for someone who hasn't yet been able to produce any documentation indicating how drilling for oil in the US will actually impact prices"
Well, with that sort of strawman argument, yes. Can economics exactly predict how a policy change will have an impact on prices at any point in the future? Not when there are millions of individual decisions interacting in a free market. But all things being equal, more supply means lower price. And the anticipation of more supply will lead to a shift in market investments that can and often does have a real impact on prices (see above).
"This is why the Democratic Party has been running all over the Republican Party the last several election cycles - they believe in facts, and the electorate appreciates that."
Look up the word "naif", and then look in the mirror. The Democratic Party believes in facts? Off the top of my weary head I can think of numerous examples countervailing that case - whether it's John Murtha jumping to false conclusions about the U.S. Marines in Haditha, Nancy Pelosi waxing ineloquent on the Catholic Church's history on abortion, Joe Biden caught in plagiarism, every time a Democrat spouted off that Pres. Bush "lied" to get us into Iraq, or dozens more.
You really, really, really ... I mean REALLY need to get out more.
Be careful what sort of threshold you set for policy-making that those you so blindly support cannot possible meet.
Ben, how about you read ALL of what you post. From the WSJ, "increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today." Yet your favorite politician (after Reagan and Cheney) voted against and increase in standards. As for ANWR, McCain doesn't support drilling there either, showing just how far right you are. The WSJ article notes that oil can be stored in the ground, so how about keeping some for MY generation and your kids. Conservativism is supposed to be about the good of America, past, present and future. Seems like it has lost its way.
"You really need to get out more. It's called economics, and I know Democrats have a very hard time with this important subject. "
Ben, the folks that apparently need an introduction to the sort of economics you are practicing here are at the Department of Energy, where they determined drilling would have no significant impact on prices and then not for almost 30 years. Perhaps you didn't read the extensive comments I posted earlier on this? Don't make me do them all again.
"Why does Mark Udall even think it's necessary to feign support for domestic drilling?"
Because it takes it off the table. You should be savvy enough to understand that. Mark Udall can't make domestic drilling lower prices because domestic drilling can't lower prices, but in order to get to an *actual* solution, he'll give the Republicans their land giveaway to the oil companies in return for actual energy solutions that will actually accomplish something.
You still haven't let us know what Bob plans to do about alternative energy. As Matt points out, the only legislative record I can find for Bob on alternative energy shows him voting against it. We know what Mark Udall wants to do to solve our problems, What About Bob?
Post a Comment