First up, there's the price of gas. During his campaign, Obama said he thought that the price of gas should go up, gradually, to encourage more people to conserve. And his energy secretary, Steven Chu, actually said "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- which is currently just over double the price here (about $8.25/gallon there vs. $3.84 here). It's worth noting that in January 19, 2009, the day before Obama took office, the numbers were $5.58 and $2.08 respectively. (All numbers for premium grade gas -- the first set I could find, and I'm feeling slightly lazy.) So, after just a bit over two years, the Obama administration has overseen gas prices going from 37.3% of European averages to 46.5%, so that's progress.
(All numbers cribbed from here, except the averages and percentages -- I did those.)
OK, that's gas. Let's talk about what makes gas -- oil. Here we have a couple of Obama positions to consider.
Obama stated -- as all candidates tend to -- that he wanted to help America achieve energy independence and end our reliance on foreign oil. As I said, that's a standard talking point; they all say that.
But Obama has also been hostile to development of new sources of oil domestically. He's opposed opening up ANWR, working shale, and is outright hostile to offshore drilling -- even before the BP oil spill.
Now, those are all defensible positions. I think that they're flat-out wrong, and contradict the idea of energy independence, but they're defensible.
However, they got tossed in the blender during President Obama's recent trip to Brazil. While there, he affirmed America's support for helping Brazil to develop its own offshore oil drilling, and pledged that America would be a proud and glad customer of Brazil's oil.
I guess that Obama thinks that offshore drilling is so bad, it's only fit for brown people to do it. And since Brazil is part of the Americas, it doesn't count as foreign oil.
Alternately, it could tie in to George Soros' substantial investment in Brazilian offshore oil drilling, but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut.
This one area sums up the problem with confronting Obama's policies in general: he rarely has any kind of consistent, coherent program or ideology or set of principles behind them, so it's hard to find the opposite tack to take. And you never know just what set of policies he's backing at any given time.
And don't even bother to ask him. He'll go off on a set of his standard ticks -- "as I have always said," straw men and false choices, and vague generalities. Trying to figure out just what Obama wants and stands for is very much like the proverbial exercise of nailing Jello to a wall.
And here's even more good news: Obama wants a second term, presumably to give him time to figure out just what the hell he stands for.
I guess he figures that after eight years of on-the-job training, he just maybe might get the hang of it -- just in time for him to be Constitutionally limited out of office.
Great plan there, Mr. Commander In Chief.
Update: In the "great minds run in similar channels, or fools think alike" category, Chris Horner of The American Spectator covers much of the same ground -- but with entirely different evidence.
Comments (12)
If he was really energy con... (Below threshold)1. Posted by epador | April 6, 2011 9:03 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
If he was really energy conscious, he's use pen on his palm instead of a teleprompter.
1. Posted by epador | April 6, 2011 9:03 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 09:03
2. Posted by Hank | April 6, 2011 9:24 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
It's hard to have a coherent plan when you're in over your head.
Obomba loves to read/talk about lofty goals as any psuedo-intellectual does. After all, talk is cheap. When it's time to actually get down to work, Obomba outsources that to others, (budget, health care, Libya, deficit reduction, etc). I think it was JLawson who compared Obomba to a child discovering new toys. he plays with each for a while, gets bored, moves on. Same with energy. Same with everything.
But he's the greatest orator of modern times, according to Roger Simon at Politico. And to the left, incredibly enough, that's all that matters.
2. Posted by Hank | April 6, 2011 9:24 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 09:24
3. Posted by PBunyan | April 6, 2011 9:49 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"he rarely has any kind of consistent, coherent program or ideology or set of principles behind them"
I can't believe people can be so blind! It really blows my mind. (Even though it does explain how Obama can get 52% of the vote when only about 18% of the voters are far left/Marxists/Communists.)
But for those still clueless, let spell it out for you: Remember when Obama accidently told the truth on the campain trail? When he told 'Joe the plumber', "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."?
That's all you need to know. That is the definition of Marxism and it is the core, the consistent ideology, the set of principles behind everything Obama does.
Now, most of the useful idiots who voted for that mendacious Communist thought he meant he was going to use the force of government to take from the wealthiest Americans and give to poorer Americans, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama is not an America in his heart, he is a citizen of the world. The poorest in America are among the top 10% of the wealthiest of the people in the world. Obama's anti-American, Marxist plan all along was to "spread the wealth around" FROM America TO Communist/Marxist or Communist/Marxist lead countries like Brazil.
Another example is Obama's close associate, advisor, and partner in crime, evil Jeffrey Immelt and GE. When GE recently made news for not paying taxes on tens of billions in profit a lot of dupes excused this because "they had lost money in the past and the law allows them to write it off over time". The part the dupes either don't know or ignore is that GE avoided paying most of the taxes by dumping close to 10 billion into third world Marxist countries to prop up their failing economies, a.k.a. "spreading the wealth around". It is a purely Marxist concept this is the core of all Obama policies.
Open your damn eyes people!
3. Posted by PBunyan | April 6, 2011 9:49 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 09:49
4. Posted by GarandFan | April 6, 2011 10:22 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"The hallmark of an Obama policy, it seems, is that he doesn't have a single policy. He tends to have several policies at once,...."
Because He is The One, The Obamassiah - NO issue that he cannot straddle. HE is above it all. HE sees all sides, and takes no side. To do so would require a DECISION.
4. Posted by GarandFan | April 6, 2011 10:22 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 10:22
5. Posted by 914 | April 6, 2011 10:35 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"I guess he figures that after eight years of on-the-job training, he just maybe might get the hang of it -- just in time for him to be Constitutionally limited out of office."
The Constitution is but a mere nuanced obstacle for the jackal in chief.
5. Posted by 914 | April 6, 2011 10:35 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 10:35
6. Posted by jim m | April 6, 2011 10:47 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
What's incoherent?
The left's energy policies are easily understood.
Fossil fuels = bad
Nuclear energy = nuclear war. Every nuclear plant is just a nuclear bomb aimed at the environment.
Alternative energy = good, except...
Wind farms = bad when they mar the natural beauty of nature. They must be sited where no one can see them, preferably miles out to sea over the horizon where construction is impossible and transmission of power pointless.
Solar energy = bad when one realizes the vast acreage required to turn on a fluorescent light and how construction of such solar arrays will possibly push to extinction some endangered sand fly that is sacred to the sierra club.
Geothermal energy = bad when it might crack the earth's crust creating unspecified destruction of the environment and potentially endangering said sacred sand fly above.
Oh and one more thing...
Fossil fuels = good, but only when produced by America's enemies. China can start up a new coal fired power plant every week and the left doesn't care.
6. Posted by jim m | April 6, 2011 10:47 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 10:47
7. Posted by Jay Tea
| April 6, 2011 11:00 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
You missed a couple, jim m:
Wind farms -- they also kill birds. Also, they remind people of Holland, which has a lot of dikes, which sounds like "dykes," and therefore is hate speech against lesbians, so that's bad.
Hydroelectric -- they annoy fish.
J.
7. Posted by Jay Tea
| April 6, 2011 11:00 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 11:00
8. Posted by jim m | April 6, 2011 11:03 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Oh, I suppose that you think it is incoherent for the left to refuse to accept construction of power plants of any sort when they continue to demand electricity to run their TV's, computers and to charge their Prius's.
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. They know full well that there won't be enough power to run everyone's appliances. They expect everyone else to sacrifice for them. In fact they are prepared to use force to make that happen.
8. Posted by jim m | April 6, 2011 11:03 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 11:03
9. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | April 6, 2011 11:48 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
A kind of environmental NIMBYism could explain restricting petroleum development here at home while supporting the same methods abroad: you could be worried about our beaches getting screwed up, but just not so concerned about the beaches in Brazil or Norway or wherever. Of course, such a philosophy would horrify the true lovers of Mother Gaia.
Not that any of it applies to Obama; his motives are to support whatever will do the most harm to the USA.
9. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | April 6, 2011 11:48 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 11:48
10. Posted by BlueNight | April 6, 2011 12:04 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"Trying to figure out just what Obama wants and stands for is very much like the proverbial exercise of nailing Jello to a wall."
It reminds me of the various adversaries in Lost. Their agendas remained hidden and seemingly contradictory as they took actions against the castaways, and even they didn't know who they were ultimately fighting for.
Back in our world, the unions are fighting for jobs by killing businesses, the government is fighting for revenue by putting taxpayers on welfare, and the people who know how to fix things are absolutely terrible at marketing their message.
The one constant is a President whose policies have a single effect: pushing America into chaos, from "stimulus" to "health care" to "war" - I even had to put his war in quotes!
His purpose is revolution, his goal is collapse. Is his endgame a dictatorial police state in America and the end of capitalism? For a generation raised on Red Scare movies, the answer is, "Pshaw, don't be silly. That only happens in fiction."
10. Posted by BlueNight | April 6, 2011 12:04 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 12:04
11. Posted by Jeff | April 6, 2011 1:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Presentdent Obama Energy Policy - reducing Americas dependence on domestic oil since 2008 ...
11. Posted by Jeff | April 6, 2011 1:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 6, 2011 13:39
12. Posted by Brian_R_Allen
| April 7, 2011 9:36 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm in Aussie at the mo' and day before yesterday had to drive 130-odd miles into the countryside and back. Filled up my Henry in a country town: Little under 16 gallons @ USD$6.25/gallon: USD$99.00!
I'm homesick!
B A - L A - CA -- and The Far Away
12. Posted by Brian_R_Allen
| April 7, 2011 9:36 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 7, 2011 09:36