McConnell Analogizes Obama to Carter

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has attacked the Obama administration's energy policy -- with its drilling moratorium and proposed tax hikes.

As voters cringe every time they fill their cars, McConnell reminds us that we have seen these failed policies before.  It's Welcome Back Carter time.

Politico quotes McConnell:


"Democrats need to stop deflecting attention from their own complicity in our nation’s overdependence on foreign oil,” McConnell said at the Nuclear Energy Assembly conference in Washington, D.C. “They need to end an approach that hasn’t changed since the Jimmy Carter administration.


“Just like Carter, they’re more interested in using this crisis [of gas prices] as an excuse to push for higher taxes than they are at solving the problem itself,” McConnell said. “And just like Carter, they’re underestimating the frustration of the American people.”

. . . .

 "In all of these areas, the administration’s had the same approach: the less American energy the better,” he added. "If Republicans represent the 'all of the above' approach, the Obama administration represents the 'none of the above' approach unless of course you want to sell them some wind turbines or solar panels."

Sen. Murkowski Give GOP Address

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (who recently survived a recount) gives this week's Republican address. The topic is energy. Here's the video link.

Murkowski puts the lie to the Democratic fable that America is running out of oil and outlines Republican plans for increasing the oil supply at a time when Americans are worried about rising gas prices:

We don’t import oil because our domestic reserves are exhausted. Not even close. Since 1919, people have claimed that America is ‘running out of oil.’ It might surprise you that we’re still the world’s third-largest oil producer, and seem to find more whenever we actually look.

“Republicans know that it’s past time to produce more of America’s oil. My home state of Alaska alone has estimated resources in excess of 65 years’ worth of Persian Gulf imports.

“Republicans would end the de facto moratorium on new development in the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Rocky Mountain West. Instead of canceling leases and refusing to issue permits, we need to put people back to work.

“It’s also time to shelve the bad ideas. Democrats have repeatedly sought to increase taxes and fees while slowing the permitting process. That won’t solve any problems, but it will mean less production, more imports, and higher prices. To boost production, we need to cut red tape and streamline regulations."

McConnell Statement On Obama's Energy Plan

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't always say no to the Obama administration's ideas. Take Obama's plan to drill off-shore, at least a little. McConnell applauds the administration's first step and urges more exploration:

“Senate Republicans have long supported efforts to find more American energy, and use less; we believe we must do both. While supporting conservation, electric cars, clean coal and nuclear energy, we also pushed for lifting the Congressional ban on offshore exploration, which was removed more than a year ago. Since then, we have been waiting to see whether the administration would follow through and open more areas for the development of American energy.

“Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American energy off limits. And the proof of the administration’s announcement will be in the implementation: will the administration actually take concrete steps to finish the studies, approve the necessary permits, and open these areas for production? Will they stand by as their allies act to delay the implementation in the courts?

“The American people believe that to strengthen our national and energy security we should rely more on America’s energy resources, and less on those of the Middle East. It’s time to put America’s energy to work for the American people, without the threat of a new national energy tax.”

Mongiardo and Conway Miss Deadline

Trey Grayson has issued a press release to state his support for a Kentucky House resolution that opposes the E.P.A. controlling carbon emissions by regulation (rather than by statute).

Grayson maintains:

The Kentucky House of Representatives is right to ask Congress to block this EPA action without Congressional authorization that could threaten hundreds of thousands of businesses, farms, schools and even home owners by putting them under EPA regulation of carbon emissions. As Kentucky’s U.S. Senator I would support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution of disapproval regarding EPA regulation of carbon emissions,” said Grayson.

Note that Grayson then takes aim at Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway and the Beshear-Mongiardo administration for missing a key deadline:

While 16 states filed court challenges to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, Kentucky missed the deadline for presenting petitions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, both candidates for U.S. Senate, failed to take action and stood silently by while Kentucky missed this critical deadline.

That's a bigger problem for Conway as Attorney General -- who according to Grayson missed what is essentially a statute of limitations for filing suit to protect the Commonwealth.

What Kentucky Will Pay For Cap and Tax

Most of us who do not work in the energy industry understand in general terms that the Democrats' Waxman-Markey energy plan,"Cap and Trade," will raise our energy costs. Here are some specifics from Americans For Tax Reform on what Kentuckians will pay -- and what we will lose -- if this becomes law:

According to a study by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. at the Heritage Foundation, Kentucky will suffer the following losses in 2012 as a result of Cap and Tax:

• A decline in Gross State Product of -$1,811,910,000
• Total Personal Income Loss of -$2,313,260,000
• Non-Farm Job losses of -21,942

An update to the Heritage Foundation’s study further shows an:

• Increase in Electricity Prices from 2012-2035 of $567.51 per household.
• Increase in Gas Prices from 2012-2035 of $0.65 per gallon.

Kentucky would lose billions of dollars and 20,000 plus non-farm jobs. Our state is too poor and too small to take that kind of a hit. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about how Cap and Tax would affect Kentucky is that unlike a natural disaster, this is a disaster that a Democratic Congress and Administration would inflict on us. Thankfully, this is a disaster that we can avert.

Obama Wants Electricity Rates To Skyrocket

Not only does Obama want to bankrupt the coal industry (see Bridget's post below), but he also wants consumer electric bills to skyrocket. I know it sounds incredible that Obama would acknowledge that this is his energy plan, but in fact he made this admission in an interview in January 2008, as reported by Hotair.com. Here is his exact quote:

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

(emphasis added)

So what little money we have left after taxes and Obama's "spreading the wealth" will go to pay our electric bills. Now, remind me again, why is it that any thinking person would want to vote for this guy?
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Dems Continue to Stonewall on Drilling

Democratic leadership, including House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, are betting that the drilling issue "has peaked" and that voters won't punish Democrats for preventing our country from drilling oil here and now. To the contrary, voters remain "piqued" about gas prices.

House Republicans have been staging protests in the House, which is in recess while Pelosi uses her "mother of five voice" to moderate the Democratic National Convention. Pelosi has called off-shore drilling "a hoax."

The Investor's Business Daily, however, makes clear what Pelosi cannot grasp: the price of oil will go down just by lifting the prohibitions on domestic drilling -- even before the first drop of oil flows.

The belief that the current quantities demanded and supplied are the sole determinants of price misses an important point. Both current and expected future demand and supply interact to determine the quantity demanded and supplied in the current marketplace.

That is true because oil, and indeed almost everything else, is storable.

When a quantity is storable, the amount a producer will supply and a consumer will demand is not independent of future expectations.

Pelosi assumes that price only reflects the supply of oil that is currently available. In fact, the possibility of off-shore drilling causes gas prices to fall. We have seen this already. Once the presidential order against drilling was nullified, and once Republicans began pushing on the issue, prices started to fall.

Pelosi might not get the connection, but voters will. Three-fourths of Americans want domestic drilling; Schumer's assertion that the issue has "peaked" makes clear that Democrats will run down the clock, refusing to enact any energy legislation until after the election. That's a gift to Republicans, because voters understand at this point that Democrats are the No-Drill party.

More DSCC Hypocrisy

The headline looks like typical Democratic agitprop, to those who don't recognize the byline. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's headline reads "McConnell Chooses Politics Over Bills To Stop Child Predators, Fight Disease."

The author, Matthew Miller, knows first-hand what it's like to place politics above the needs of children, including protecting children from predators. Miller sat on emails that suggested that that former Congressman Mark Foley was propositioning Congressional pages. Rather than report the matter to Congressional leadership, Miller shopped the story to three newspapers. Congressional pages remained in harm's way while Miller sought to advance his own career and his partisan agenda.

So Miller's headline -- "McConnell Chooses Politics Over Bill To Stop Child Predators, Fight Disease" -- reeks of hypocrisy.

As to the substance of Miller's piece, he ignores that the bills he waxes on about will get a vote -- and will probably pass with large bipartisan majorities -- just as soon as the Democrats stop blocking a vote on the McConnell energy bill.

Politico reports:

Republicans stuck together in blocking this bill not because they oppose all of the programs, but because they have decided to block everything small and large this week until they get votes on stalled energy legislation.

The vote sent [Senate Democratic Leader Harry] Reid into one of his trademark tirades on the Senate floor, as he basically accused Republicans of voting against people with strokes, people in wheelchairs and those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. . . .

McConnell held his ground, saying the Republicans were launching blockade of everything not related to oil prices. The two sides are actually negotiating on energy amendments, but there was no breakthrough yet.

Democrats need to let the vote on domestic drilling take place now. Three-fourths of all Americans want to let our country drill off-shore; even one out of four environmentalists favor domestic drilling. Stalling the inevitable will just make voters madder at the Democrats who are trying to keep the price of gas as high as possible until Election Day.

"We know the American people are interested in seeing the Congress work together on the number one issue in the country, and that's the price at the pump," McConnell said.

The C-J's "Experts" on Oil Speculation Flunked Economics 101

The Courier-Journal's editorial writers come out today against the big bad oil speculators, and call Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell a "fraud" for not signing onto the Democrats' bill "to curb the rampant speculation that experts say is part of the reason gas prices are so high." The C-J's editors don't say who their "experts" are, but those "experts" appear to know more about dunking than principles of economics.

As Professor Craig Perron of the University of Houston wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

Commodity price shocks, like those currently rocking the oil market, inevitably lead to witch hunts. And speculators are typically among the first to be hunted down.
. . . .
The unprecedented run-up in oil prices is painful for consumers around the world. But the focus on speculation is misguided, and represents a convenient distraction from an understanding of the real, underlying causes of high oil prices -- most notably continuing demand growth in the face of stagnant production, supply disruptions and the weakening dollar.

More restrictions and regulations of energy markets, in the vain belief that such actions will bring price relief, are counterproductive. They will make the energy markets less efficient, rather than more so.

In other words, curbing speculation in oil won't lower the price of gasoline, but drilling for more oil (i.e., increasing supply) and conservation (i.e., decreasing demand) will. Oil speculation -- like speculation in any commodity -- is simply the mechanism through which an efficient market prices the commodity based upon anticipated supply and demand in the future. Oil speculators are, in a sense, the "messengers" of what the price of oil will be if more drilling and conservation do not occur.

Essentially the Democratic response to the reports of higher oil prices is to try to act in the counterproductive way that the Greeks handled bad news: by killing the messenger. Fortunately, we have leaders like McConnell who understand that the energy shortage can only be solved by addressing the root causes of the problem -- supply and demand for the commodity -- and not looking for imaginary scapegoats. As he writes today in a letter to C-J's editor: "The answer is simple: We need to find more energy and use less."

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Dingey Harry & The Worried Scramblers

Democrats, according to the Paper of Record, are "worried" that some of their own members will vote in favor of off-shore drilling, a component of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's energy bill.

Democrats, worried about defections in the ranks, are scrambling to avoid votes on expanded drilling and this week canceled a series of Senate committee sessions that could have provided an opening for Republicans. In the House, Democrats are increasingly bringing legislation to the floor under rules that deny Republicans the chance to counter with a drilling proposal.

Harry Reid is doing all he can to prevent an actual vote regarding domestic drilling. McConnell continues to push for a vote on letting America drill its own energy reserves.

The Hill reports:

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

Because of McConnell's steadfastness on drilling, "the GOP is positioning itself as the party willing to do whatever it takes to lower gas prices."

Lex. H-L, C-J Push Back on McConnell Ad

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader have published editorials that purport to show the fallacy of the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's current ad. Predictably, both are illogical and biased.

The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:

Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.

A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:

The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.

The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.

Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.

Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:

Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.

Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.

The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.

That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.

Use It Or Lose It Nonsense

Democrats like John Yarmuth, and his mentor Nancy Pelosi, have stonewalled development of other sources of energy -- like drilling in shale -- by responding that the oil companies are not drilling on all the land they've leased from the federal government. But their snappy slogan -- "use it or lose it -- defies common sense.

At a time when oil prices are at a record high, it would be economically irrational for the oil companies to not pump every possible gallon of crude. It would be contrary to the oil companies' own self interest to hoard crude in federal lands, especially after having spent hundreds of million of dollars for a lease. Why would they do such a thing -- laziness? evilness? Given the Democrats' attempts to demonize everyone who works for an oil company, they probably assume evilness.

The "Use It Or Lose It" rhetoric makes even less sense, given how the federal lease program works:

"I think it gives you a good idea why our leases are arranged in 5-, 8- and 10-year terms," said Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, the arm of the Interior Department charged with overseeing offshore drilling in federal waters.

"If a company gets to the end of those terms and they're not making significant progress — and I do mean significant progress toward actually producing — those leases come back and we sell them again," he said.

Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn't make economic sense. Either way, they're listed on the federal government's books as "non-producing."

So if the Friends of the Caribou bring suit to stop an oil company from drilling, that land is listed as "non-producing." Democrats therefore maintain that the government should be able to take it back, regardless of whether the suit was frivolous or the oil company was close to making the land productive. But note: even if the government can convince another oil company to lease the seize land, as long as the litigation to stop the drilling is still pending, the land remains listed as "non-producing,"

It's all a big charade that lets Democrats rant against Big Oil without producing a drop of oil.

No surprise on the regulatory and litigation delay; we've seen the same problem in developing nuclear energy. It takes longer to get to the end of the permit process for a nuclear plant than to build one, and that's assuming no one from the Green Party sues.

Despite the risk of an empty well and a lawsuit, the oil companies have still been willing to lease the land and attempt to extract oil and gas from it. Congress, and the market, have built in a guarantee that those companies will use their best efforts to develop the land in the short increments for which they lease it: it's called the lease price.

Any company, even a big oil company, that invests "$100 million or more" on and oil lease and doesn't do all it takes to get a return on the profit will have more to worry about than John Yarmuth asking for their lease back. They'll be worried about about a shareholder derivative suit.

Bruce's Tax Increase

Admittedly, I was riding on fumes, but that still didn't make me feel any better about the $100 it took to fill my car today. Then I found out that the Kentucky gas tax had gone up July 1. And I found out why -- when Bruce Lunsford lobbied for John Y. Brown, he engineered a state gas tax that is indexed to the price of gas. As gas goes up, the tax goes up as well. And it does so automatically, so politicians don't have to vote for a tax increase.

This is an absolute outrage, in and of itself. The man responsible for it, Bruce Lunsford, wants to go to Washington where he can raise taxes on an even grander scale.

Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is getting all sorts of national press (like today's piece in the Wall Street Journal) for actually trying to help lower the price of gas by drafting legislation that will let America drill here, drill now, pay less.

The difference between these two candidates could not be clearer. Every time Kentuckians fill up their cars, they have yet another reason to reject the perennial candidate, Bruce Lunsford, for a third time.

McConnell's Fox Interview

Here's the link to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's interview on Fox and Friends, in which he makes a strong argument for Republican legislation to "find more and use less" oil.

McConnell pointed out the absurdity of some of the Democratic proposals. Their proposed ban on America exporting oil, for instance, would only free up enough oil to run our country for half a day (and the oil is exported to Puerto Rico, in any event).

More than 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition to drill here, drill now and pay less. As McConnell has said repeatedly, electric cars, wind mills and whatever other alternative sources that American ingenuity can produce are the long term solution. In the meantime, however, we need to tap our own resources.

Barry, It's Time To Flip On Energy

Voters, who also happen to be consumers of oil, aren't buying the canard that domestic drilling is a Republican conspiracy to enrich Big Oil. Even the New York Times sees Democrats waking up to the fact that consumers understand supply and demand and want domestic drilling. Now.

Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, faces an increasing uneasiness among his colleagues, who have signaled receptiveness to allowing more drilling.

President Bush lifted 20 years worth of executive orders that ban domestic drilling, but Congressional prohibitions remain in effect; the president called on Congress to end the ban.

Ten Democrats have made statements indicating that they will support some form of domestic drilling; how long before Barry flips?

Here's how he'll do it. Today, he takes the position that:

If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” the Obama campaign’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said in a statement.

He'll announce that some new study (translate: an internal poll) shows that domestic drilling is "worthy of consideration," that he has "considered" it, and agrees to support the McConnell bill so long as it contains provisions for conservation and alternative energy. (It does.) Then Flipper will swim on to the next issue.

Update: Two more Democrats have embraced domestic drilling: Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-MN) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Given that the McConnell bill included 43 Republican co-sponsors at the outset, this legislation is quickly moving to passage.

McConnell's Energy Bill Gets Moving

The Washington Post today published an informative article addressing legislation introduced by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to allow for off-shore oil drilling:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced an energy bill with 43 Republican co-sponsors that would, among other things, open up the outer continental shelf starting 50 miles from shore for oil and gas exploration. McConnell says 85 percent of the outer continental shelf is currently off limits.

Although the drilling would be in federal waters, state governments would have to give approval for exploration and production off their shores. McConnell's legislation would give states an incentive to allow drilling by giving them a 37.5 percent share of federal royalties.

Republicans have tried to link offshore drilling to the surge in gasoline prices.

"The American people are saying loud and clear -- there is no ambiguity about it -- they want us to do something about it, and they understand the laws of supply and demand," McConnell said last week. He said he was negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) in an effort to find common ground.

. . . .

Drilling proponents say that drilling today is much more sophisticated than it was in 1969. Oil companies and their supporters boast about how their platforms and pipelines withstood the hurricanes of 2005. "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita," McConnell said. "Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported."
It is encouraging to see that, while his multi-millionaire opponent wastes jet fuel flying to meaningless photo ops to pump gasoline for the common folk, Senator McConnell is actually doing something to try to reduce the price Kentuckians have to pay at the pumps.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

More Dems Ready to Drill

The steady stream of Democrats who understand that they must agree to more domestic drilling continues. From Politico:

In the stages of grief, denial gives way to anger and then to bargaining.

It may be an apt metaphor this week, as Democrats’ long-held opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling succumbs to the political realities of $4-per-gallon gasoline.

Democrats are so desperate to deprive Republicans of an issue to run on that they may actually do the right thing and pass legislation that leads to lower gas prices; the price of oil dropped $8 a barrel in two days this week, perhaps in anticipation of Congressional action.

Even Dingy Harry is coming around:

"I’m not knee-jerk opposed to anything,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We’re willing to work. We haven’t shut our minds to anything.”

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he sensed there were enough votes from his Democratic colleagues to expand offshore drilling into new areas — and that the eastern Gulf of Mexico “should be one of the first places we should look.”

Durbin Warms Toward Drilling

Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrats' whip, told the Wall Street Journal today that he might support off-shore drilling. This Congress may yet enact an energy bill that gives consumers some relief at the gas pump.

No, the off-shore oil and gas won't be immediately available, but the futures market, by definition will reflect that it's coming. That will cause today's prices to drop.

Demo-Blog: Voters are Stupid

How to explain that voters will not only tolerate drilling off America's shores and in our shale, but actually demand it?

According to Demo-blog What's Required, the reason is that voters are (a) wrong because they are (b) stupid:

First: while the public does indeed favor expanded domestic drilling, there are two forces at work here that can’t be discounted before the GOP uses a new data point as an excuse to keep the economy thriving for the top half of 1% of us. First: we have an angry electorate. That means they’re more ready to lie to pollsters than ever before, act completely out of character in the voting booth, and generally be as hard to govern as a sack of cats. They’re not telling you that you have to drill, really–they’re telling you that the percentage of their income that is spent getting from point a to point b has to go down. Do it with drilling, do it with electric cars, do it with flying carpets, but get it done, and now (and we will point out that electric cars would get it done BEFORE drilling). Second: the American public, even if they’re not being overspecific like they are here, can be really, really [expletive deleted] wrong.

Good thing we have enlightened, progressive intellectuals to set us straight.

More is at play than our differences on energy policy. It is an axiom of liberalism that the common man is stupid. This is especially true of poor people; it's why liberals think they are poor. This sense of elitism causes "progressives" to tie all sorts of strings to government entitlement, because they don't trust the poor dumb people to make wise choices as to how to spend the taxpayers' money without guidance from bureaucrats. (The bureaucrats, in turn need guidance from the Demo-blogs.)

Conservatives, in contrast, believe that most people are smart enough to act in their self-interest and make good decisions. (And to the extent they don't, they should not be rewarded with even more government entitlements.) That's why we believe that American inventors and entrepreneurs can make our country energy independent in the long run -- but only if government gets out of the way.

Leaving On a Jet Plane

While most of us are figuring out how to strap our kids to the roof of a Prius, Bruce Lunsford has leg room to spare. Check out Bruce's sweet ride.

Does he buy carbon credits to assuage his liberal guilt about the size of his carbon foot print?