That pesky “Bush is beholden to oil” thing
It’s making the rounds again as the Dems warm up for the fall. Obama’s already testing it. Clinton has worn it out already. Several have already blamed the price of gas on Bush, and most have offered their solutions to the Bush problem. When you listen to them make those arguments, remember one thing:
During the same periods, domestic production decreased by 15% for Clinton, 11% under Bush. In fact, it’s actually leveled off in the last couple of years.
So, the net result is the foreigners did not quite as well under Bush as Clinton, but locals haven’t been hurt nearly as much under Bush as they were under Clinton.
And, the reason we’re paying what we are now is almost exclusively because OPEC figured out we can’t support our petroleum fix. And, they’re right. However, we can very quickly find a new supplier. The Clintons wanted more foreign oil, the Bush’s wanted more domestic. Which would you prefer?
And, once you’ve answered that, answer this one for me again. Who is more beholden to the major oil companies? I’ve never bought that crap from day one for the simple reason I have seen us selling out to OPEC for the last twenty years. They supported every terrorist on the planet and we just kissed their butts for that cheap oil. Now, all of a sudden, someone says we’re tired of that crap and the price of oil suddenly skyrockets.
So, the question becomes, will the next President sacrifice our security for cheap gas as I think the previous one did? Or, will the continue to let them know we’re tired of terrorism and pay the price at the pump?
Or, will they get even ballsier and declare a state of emergency and send drilling rigs to the reserves we’ve got right here and tell OPEC and the eco-terrorists to kiss our oily butts? While at the same time sanctioning five hundred new reactors and mandating all new personal transportation by 2015 be electric.
Then, watch the price of oil half way across the planet.