Lunch Break: Mitt tells woman “where to go for the free stuff”
UPDATE 6:30p: My apologies to everyone for my misunderstanding of who Mitt was referring to in the video. Of course it was President Obama, not Rick Santorum. Thanks for your feedback!! LL ;)
by LauraLoo
Where else but Illinois do we continue to experience either the most politically corrupt or politically absurd?
Illinois’ presidential primary on Monday (before Mitt Romney won on Tuesday) was no exception. Get a load of Mitt’s response to a young woman looking for a certain type of “free stuff”. (Part of me wonders if she was a plant.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aLpf5OMKw[/youtube]
For those who say smart politicians need to fight dirty sometimes, does Romney’s response confirm the opinion you held of him all along? Or were you surprised at how fast he threw Rick Santorum under the bus with that lie?
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: WLS890AM Chicago]
P.S. As an aside, for those who thought throwing Illinois ex-Gov Rod Blagojevich into the slammer for 12-14 years would deter other politcians from corruption, Democrat state rep Derrek Smith won his primary, in spite of being arrested last week on the federal charge that he accepted a bribe. And Jesse Jackson Jr. overwhelmingly defeated Debbie Halvorson to defend his 2nd district congressional seat for the 10th time, despite admitting to adultery in 2010 – plus his alleged efforts to trade campaign contributions for a gubernatorial appointment to Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat in 2008.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I thought Mitt was referring to Obama, not Santorum…?
I’m not one to stand up for Romney, but I agree with JoAnna. He was talking about Obama, not Santorum…
Thats what I thought too.
Yeah, I also took “the other guy” to mean Obama.
I’m supporting Santorum in the Republican race, and I think Romney was referring to Obama, too. He’s trying to use rhetoric to exclude the possibility of Santorum still being a contender for the nomination. Included in this strategy is running his race against Obama now instead of Santorum.
He was definitely referring to Obama, no question about it. I actually thought his answer we pretty good on principle, but unfortunately a lot of people these days enjoy the idea of forcing other people to give them something for free; especially if it violates their moral beliefs, then they do it with glee in their hearts.
yep, that was a reference to Obama, not Santorum
I agree, Romney was talking about Obama.
Kristy: He’s trying to use rhetoric to exclude the possibility of Santorum still being a contender for the nomination.
I’m sure that’s true – Mitt wants to get beyond Santorum as fast as possible. And if the shoe was on the other foot, Santorum would want the same thing – what politician in that situation would not?
Granted that it’s still mathematically possible for Santorum to win, or at least upset Romney’s applecart. However, barring some truly extraordinary happenings, you can stick a fork in Santorum – he’s done.
I think she was a plant, too. Otherwise, why did he say “watch this” when he started to answer her question?
Ugh. Illinois SUCKS SO HARD.
I think she was a plant, too. Otherwise, why did he say “watch this” when he started to answer her question?
Maybe he’s just that much of a bad@$$?
Yes, Illinois sucks.
I’m gonna agree with the other commenters and say that I am pretty sure he was talking about Obama. I also thought his answer was a pretty good one even though I still like Santorum better. If it was down to him and Obama I would in a heartbeat vote for him.
In the upcoming presidential election, I speak for myself and I bet there’s more like me:
I’d vote for an empty cardboard box before I’d cast a vote to re-elect Scary Barry. Some news pundits think that Romney and Santorum both getting votes means that a front man has not yet emerged. Good. Be complacent.
And, shhh, don’t tell Obama but the demographic that he’s courting so hard, well they have the lowest voter turnout, statistically. So, go ahead, Obama. Waste your time. If “cardboard box” is on the ballot in November, I’ll vote for the box. Heck, if Jar Jar Binks suddenly ended up on the ballot, I swear I’d even vote for him.
Altsa controlsa deleetsa.
I agree that it stinks to no end to live in Illinois (politically speaking). LL
Yep, I’m really lovin’ the Land of Lincoln over here! I’m so embarrassed for us! I think we should choose the members of a more sensible state to choose all our elected officials for us.
Hi Jamie, did you hear all the wishful talk about making Cook County its own state? Then for sure the remaining 101 counties would get the conservative representation we are longing for. LL
What does everyone think of Dick Morris’s analysis of the race? He is predicting Romney will win and thinks that the Democrats are worried about facing Mitt Romney. Brit Hume is also on the Romney bandwagon.
Not a Romney fan but what a relief to hear him finally utter a mildly amusing line!
Altsa controlsa deleetsa
Reminds me of my son’s favorite movie A Christmas Story where Ralph’s father says, “Fra-jeel’-ay… must be Italian.”
Land of Lincoln … I’m thinking Honest Abe wouldn’t quite recognize the political nature of the country today.
“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Tyler:
Morris is probably right. And there is a sense growing even among some Obama supporters that they are going to lose. Unless he stumbles badly or some big lie from the Obama camp undercuts him Romney (assuming he is the nominee) is gathering up more strength every day. If gas prices hit $6.00 or more a gallon it could turn into a juggernaut. The supreme irony of this is that the democrats rode the high gas price thing into a political advantage against Bush.
Nobama gets my vote
* Too bad they didn’t catch the questioner on camera so she could wave to her mom and dad. They’ve gotta be proud.
* Philadelphia is close behind Chicago in corrupt Democrat rule. The Chicago / Madison madness is widespread in the Northeast and West Coast.
* It’s too bad Santorum went a bit too far in his criiticism of Romney. He would still have gotten to a strong second and would have been a good vp choice to mollify the base. Bush called Reaganomics “voo-doo” but most people were also wrong about that.
Unfortunately Romney will probably have to choose Rubio - but he would be so valuable as a Senate leader. And as a 2016 candidate should the unthinkable happen.
Another four years of Valerie and her puppet? Unthinkable indeed.
Yes. Shudder.
I would vote for any of the Republicans, a cardboard box, a pile of rocks, Optimus Prime, or the honey badger in order to defeat Obama. The only way I would vote Obama is if the GOP nominated Hitler, Satan, or Bill Maher.
LauraLoo! I’m in Cook County! But I sympathize with your statement. The rest of IL is ever so much more conservative and sensible. I’ve gotten used to the isolation myself. And I can always move! No, wait. The real estate market is worse here than anywhere.
Jerry,
Thanks for the response.
Do you think Romney can rally and motivate the social conservatives for the general election? I think he has a good chance of getting some moderates but even a better chance of getting those Democrats who are no longer enchanted by Obama. However, I fear that Romney doesn’t motivate the social conservatives enough and that he may lose them to the couch (Andrea Tantaros brought up a version of this idea up on The Five). What is Romney offering to social conservatives that will get them out to vote?
I have read that Dick Morris was Bill Clinton’s former strategist? Which did he switch sides from the Democrats to the Republicans?
Jerry, do you think Santorum could win if he is the Republican nominee? Do you think it is the state of the economy in November that is going to decide which party wins no matter who the Republican nominee is?
I think Rick Santorum’s positions on the social issues actually reveal how radical Obama’s social policies are. Although I believe Obama and his Campaign will try to attack Santorum on the social issues I think Rick will not only weather the storm heroically but reveal the shallowness of President Obama’s positions. Rick has two defenses to an attack on his social conservative positions: 1) the economy – all social discussions can be directed to a discussion about the economy and freedom; and 2) Obama’s positions are not really the mainstream although he is trying to force them to be – usually the positions of Obama fail if they are put to a referendum. Do you think Rick Santorum has the defenses I outlined or is the fight for social conservatism over in America in your opinion?
“Morris is probably right. And there is a sense growing even among some Obama supporters that they are going to lose. “
Uh, no there isn’t. We’re positively giddy to be running against the Etch-a-sketch guy.
Hal loves the Chicago Machine / Illinois Combine on the Potomac.
rasqual, what I love is a competent president, implementing wise policies. I’m not in favor of 100% of his work, but more than any previous president of my lifetime.
So you loved Bush, then, inasmuch as Obama’s furthered so many of Bush’s policies?
Oh, wait — no. Bush wasn’t as MUCH of a fan of executive power as Obama. So what you love is that Obama has doubled down on that. And Bush used drones to strike targets on foreign soil much less frequently than Code Pink supposed. So what you love is the wisdom Obama has displayed in increasing the drone strikes on foreign soil by more than an order of magnitude — and targeting American citizens in doing so. Right. And Gitmo! Bush said it was necessary and kept it open. Obama said he’d close it (to the cheers of hopenchange voters), but keeps it humming along efficiently. The wise policy of lying to get elected and then doing what you knew you’d have to do all along, to hell with rube voters, is so wuvable!
Good Lord you people are tribalist rubes. Corporatist, Cronyist, Goldman Sachs-owned and operated, Valerie Jarrett puppet.
rasqual:
http://t5ak.roblox.com/1593b1a13450956d8df79b4bc8786d85
I love Ninek’s comment!! Cardboard Box 2012!!
Tyler: What does everyone think of Dick Morris’s analysis of the race? He is predicting Romney will win and thinks that the Democrats are worried about facing Mitt Romney. Brit Hume is also on the Romney bandwagon.
Tyler, until recently, I figured Romney would win. Now I’m not so sure, and it’s close – Obama ahead in the polls now but that could certainly change – events and politics usually provide more movement than that, one way or another. Paul loses to Obama by a greater margin, at present, Santorum even more, and Gingrich is the farthest out.
Romney said he’d balance the budget. If I thought he really did mean it, and if he presented an even half-reasonable (and possible) plan that looked like it would move substantially in that direction, I’d vote for him.
Rasqual,
Not a bad assessment of the dopey Obama crowd and their blatant selective righteousness. All the righteous indignation over Bush’s ongoing wars vanished when the wars became Obama’s. You’re exactly right in pointing out they are tribalists. They are so blinded by their intense tribal loyalty they can’t see the hypocrisy of accusing the other tribe of being tribal (only they call it ‘racist’). But, in the same respect, many people calling themselves Conservatives and complaining about the lack of distinction between Bush & Obama are already announcing their intention to fall victim to the same rigged game. I read so many comments of people that are more concerned with voting Obama out of office than they are in voting someone with integrity & character into office. Santorum or Romney or Obama= same outcome, a bought & paid for puppet president doing as he’s told. The two party system gives us the illusion of a choice, but pick your poison isn’t a choice at all. Ron Paul is the only reasonable choice, and the fact that the media has been doing everything possible to marginalize him is a good indication he won’t sell-out. He’s our best bet. What about voter fraud too? How many of our votes dissappear into an electronic black box that has no public oversight and no way to verify if the resulting vote count Diebold gives us is anywhere near accurate. How did we get to this point?
Jamie, I’d have to move too! But I know what you mean about the value of real estate being in the toilet so I couldn’t move anytime soon. LauraLoo <3
xalisae: LOL A meme I’ve missed.
You a brony? *BROHOOF?!*
Tyler:
Santorum is a strong candidate who inspires the base. Romney is gathering the most voters in almost all of the categories. I support Rick but the tea leaves are looking like it is going to be Romney. But don’t worry–the general public is looking for a path to change and it aint Obama. No one is going to be sitting at home in November. Conservatives and so called independents and many concerned democrats will vote for change because if we don’t change we are cooked.
The fight for social conservatism is stong and getting stronger. As a prolifer I see how the narrative has tilted to our favor on this and other social issues. The social issues constiutencies fueled much of the success we had in the 2010 elections–taking 710 seats in the federal and state legislatures. If we listen to the legacy media we might get discouraged from time to time….but they are dying off and the hundreds of thousands of beautiful, intelligent, politically engaged and energetic prolife youth are the hope of the future.
Hal says:
Uh, no there isn’t. We’re positively giddy to be running against the Etch-a-sketch guy.
This is a combination of a ruse and whistling past the graveyard, my friend. There is evidence all over that the dems are in panic mode. The dems are scared as hell of Romney because he gets the Catholic and the women’s vote in greater numbers than Santorum and is stronger among these constituencies than Obama was in 2008.
I recall that you democrats were in denial about the 2010 sweep before it happened too. The way to deal with the coming onslaught is to make light of it, dismiss it, get giddy about it, and spin it as though these acts of disengagement from reality can change it. Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on the day of the elections in 2010 and she said she thought the dems would prevail–this is representative of the head in the sand attitude of many democratic party faithful even to this day.
Hal: Uh, no there isn’t. We’re positively giddy to be running against the Etch-a-sketch guy.
Jerry: This is a combination of a ruse and whistling past the graveyard, my friend. There is evidence all over that the dems are in panic mode. The dems are scared as hell of Romney because he gets the Catholic and the women’s vote in greater numbers than Santorum and is stronger among these constituencies than Obama was in 2008.
Jerry, I agree that Romney is the strongest Republican candidate – by far, in fact. But I really don’t see the “panic mode.” If the election was held right now, Obama would beat Romney. Yeah, Romney gets more votes from women than Santorum, but that’s not saying much. The Republicans have a massive problem with women voters – the image of old white guys sitting around, telling women what to do, isn’t going to go away.
As far as “the women’s vote” – you are wrong about Romney being stronger than Obama was in 2008. The gap is closer, now, but in no way is Romney nearly as strong as Obama was. Obama got 56%, Romney is now around 44 or 45%, with Obama now around 49%.
____
I recall that you democrats were in denial about the 2010 sweep before it happened too. The way to deal with the coming onslaught is to make light of it, dismiss it, get giddy about it, and spin it as though these acts of disengagement from reality can change it. Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on the day of the elections in 2010 and she said she thought the dems would prevail–this is representative of the head in the sand attitude of many democratic party faithful even to this day.
There will always be some people who are mistaken. What one politician says is hardly necessarily representative of any meaningfully larger deal, let alone what even that one politician really thinks. I remember quite a few people from the fringe Right being almost ‘giddy’ over Palin, even as she drove a stake through the heart of the McCain candidacy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
There’s a chart of the poll averages between Romney and Obama, going back over a year. There were times – September and early October, when Romney was actually ahead of Obama. That is not the case now, and the last two months have been bad for Romney. As said before, things could certainly change enough that Romney will beat Obama.
However, Obama’s lead at this time is beyond the bounds of error in all the polls – we vote today, Romney loses. If there is any “panic,” it’s not on the Democratic side. If Romney could trade his current popularity for Obama’s, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
I have no inside knowledge, but I can’t see any reason the Obama campaign is anywhere close to panic. Sure, anything can happen between now and election day, but things really couldn’t be any brighter right now. The economy is coming back, the Republicans are nominating someone that no one is excited about, and Obama has a strong record of solid leadership over the past 3.5 years. The crazies who think he’s a “communist” wouldn’t have voted for any Democrat.
Santorum: Republicans “Might as Well” Vote for Obama if Romney Wins
Hal, both sides have fired a few shots-across-the-bow, so to speak, but it will be something to see when the big machines really get fired up in the main battle.
Santorum: Republicans “Might as Well” Vote for Obama if Romney Wins
I saw that too…. ;)
Wow. I can’t believe fuel prices are what they are and you two act as though 1.) that’s going to have zero impact on any possible recovery and 2.) other people don’t care. Prices were literally half of what they are today with Bush, and people were screaming bloody murder. You think all the people who have to be on food stamps right now are happy about that fact? Do you think the fuel prices aren’t affecting our food prices? Sh*t’s about to get real, guys. I hope Romney brings it hard. I wanna hear it over and over and over again, “…energy prices will naturally skyrocket…”. I wanna see it during Obama’s speeches broadcast over what he’s saying, Batman Returns-style.
“I played this stinkin’ city, like a harp from hell!”
xalisae, the democrats are going to vote for Obama, the republicans are going to vote for Romney. The winner will be decided by how the “independents” break, and who’s base is more energized. The Republican base is not going to be energized by Governor Etch-a-sketch. He’s a dream opponent
“I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay,” – Mitt Romney, 2006.
You know who else was a lot like an “etch-a-sketch” (played to his constituency)? Bill Clinton. Just sayin’.
There are clips out there that will make a devastating campaign commercial. Obama’s delusional energy policy is low-hanging fruit for even the most incomptetant of staffs.
Let him dream away that we’ll have the Jetsons’ technology next week, while we focus on the gas prices today.
Let him crow like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise, and we’ll explain the hands-tied -behind-our-backs drilling we are doing is the result of leases issued by Clinton and Bush.
The truth is our greatest ally.
Doug says:
If the election was held right now, Obama would beat Romney.
Actually the polls are within the margin of error. Historically at this point in the process it is very bad for the incumbent to be as weak as Obama is now.
There will always be some people who are mistaken. What one politician says is hardly necessarily representative of any meaningfully larger deal, let alone what even that one politician really thinks.
The troubling reality is that despite her inane ramblings Pelosi is the choice of the House dems as their leader. What this “one politician” says DOES carry more weight than you give her credit for.
I remember quite a few people from the fringe Right being almost ‘giddy’ over Palin, even as she drove a stake through the heart of the McCain candidacy.
Really? Many pundits say she was what breathed life into the campaign that was going nowhere.
If Romney could trade his current popularity for Obama’s, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
Are you saying Romney would like a 41% approval rating? And a 20% deficit when measuring “strongly support” versus “strongly disapprove”. I think Romney is quite pleased with where he stands right now re Obama’s dismal numbers.
the last two months have been bad for Romney.
Not so. Just two weeks back Rasmussen had Romney up by 5%.
As far as “the women’s vote” – you are wrong about Romney being stronger than Obama was in 2008.
My bad. I was thinking about his early on struggle for the women’s vote versus Hillary. Not an accurate comparison. That said, if (when) Romney peals off a couple of percentage points on both the women’s vote and the Catholic vote Obama is toast. Not only is this very doable, it is unrealistic to expect Obama to hold these at his 2008 level.
Hal: “The Republican base is not going to be energized by Governor Etch-a-sketch.”
Of course they’re not. They’re going to be energized by Obama. Duh.
Man are you reading this wrong.
Actually, in fact, it’s weird that liberals are acting as if only what attracts Republicans to their candidate could possibly be a factor in the election. Wasn’t it just yesterday that they were telling us that Republicans and Tea Party types are so “obviously racist” regarding Obama? Well then. One would expect liberals to be the first ones to claim that Republican hate for the black president would motivate them in unprecedented numbers to vote for anyone but Obama.
Yet another piece of propaganda they obviously don’t believe, themselves. Heh. The liberal purpose is not served just now by dis’ing Republicans in that way. The purpose is to impugn Romney within Republican earshot. And conservatives, of course, are entirely unaware of the ruse.
LOL
Right.
Xalisae: Wow. I can’t believe fuel prices are what they are and you two act as though 1.) that’s going to have zero impact on any possible recovery and 2.) other people don’t care. Prices were literally half of what they are today with Bush, and people were screaming bloody murder. You think all the people who have to be on food stamps right now are happy about that fact? Do you think the fuel prices aren’t affecting our food prices? Sh*t’s about to get real, guys.
X, fuel prices have not even gotten back to where they were the last year Bush was in office. The price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, is right about where it was 30 years ago.
When Bush Jr. took office, gas was $1.60 a gallon (Texas prices are what’s on the chart I looked at.) By his last year in office – during 2008 – they got to $4.40.
During Obama’s administration, there’s been a much smaller range, and nothing like that 175% increase that we saw under Bush Jr. Was the big price run-up somehow “Bush’s fault”? No, it was not. There’s really not all that much the President can do to affect energy prices. Likewise, it’s silly to cry about what Obama’s done or not done.
Obama knows that high gas prices are a negative for him in an election year. If he could magically “push them down,” he would.
During Bush Jr’s time as President, crude oil went from $20 a barrel to $145. A 625% increase.
So here we are in Obama’s 4th year, and yeah – crude oil has been increasing in price lately. West Texas Intermediate is $107 and Brent North Sea Crude is $125. Today’s figures. It hasn’t even gotten back as high as Bush had it.
Looking in the past 25 years, Bush had oil more than 3.5 times as expensive as the highest point for the preceding Presidents. For Obama to do the same, oil would have to be at $525 per barrel.
Bush had oil more than 260% above the highest price for those Presidents. Obama hasn’t even had a 1%, there. Oil hasn’t even gotten as high as Bush had it.
“If the election was held right now, Obama would beat Romney.”
Jerry: Actually the polls are within the margin of error. Historically at this point in the process it is very bad for the incumbent to be as weak as Obama is now.
In looking today, the average poll has Obama +4.5%, and that’s beyond the margain of error. You may be right about the incumbent, but Romney was *ahead* of Obama a couple times last year, unlike now.
____
“There will always be some people who are mistaken. What one politician says is hardly necessarily representative of any meaningfully larger deal, let alone what even that one politician really thinks.”
The troubling reality is that despite her inane ramblings Pelosi is the choice of the House dems as their leader. What this “one politician” says DOES carry more weight than you give her credit for.
So what? It doesn’t mean anything, as far as the election. If she’s wrong, she’s wrong. I’m not claiming that “Obama will win because Pelosi says so.” ;)
____
“I remember quite a few people from the fringe Right being almost ‘giddy’ over Palin, even as she drove a stake through the heart of the McCain candidacy.”
Really? Many pundits say she was what breathed life into the campaign that was going nowhere.
Even if so, that “life” only lasted a handful of days, max, and the post-convention “bounce” would be expected anyway. Other than that, it was straight down after picking Palin.
___
“If Romney could trade his current popularity for Obama’s, he’d do it in a heartbeat.”
Are you saying Romney would like a 41% approval rating? And a 20% deficit when measuring “strongly support” versus “strongly disapprove”. I think Romney is quite pleased with where he stands right now re Obama’s dismal numbers.
I’m saying Romney would trade his numbers for Obama’s, and he would. He’d trade his current numbers for his own last Sept. and early Oct. as well.
_____
“the last two months have been bad for Romney.”
Not so. Just two weeks back Rasmussen had Romney up by 5%.
So what? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls Clearly, things were pretty close for a while, and then Romney suffered in Feb. and March. There was a significant move down for Romeny and up for Obama.
____
“As far as “the women’s vote” – you are wrong about Romney being stronger than Obama was in 2008.”
My bad. I was thinking about his early on struggle for the women’s vote versus Hillary. Not an accurate comparison. That said, if (when) Romney peals off a couple of percentage points on both the women’s vote and the Catholic vote Obama is toast. Not only is this very doable, it is unrealistic to expect Obama to hold these at his 2008 level.
Hey – Romney may well win. I figured that *would* be the case until fairly recently.
Hey Doug, Obama can majically get oil prices down. Unleash ANWR, the Keystone pipeline, drilling offshore, shale oil, gas, etc. Bush sped through Gulf oil leases and gas plummeted.
But no, our Dear Leader ridicules supply and demand and throws wet blankets on speculation. All to throw money at technology that will take decades to make up 10% of our energy.
It is his Achilles’ Heel. We will go from the gas pump to the voting booth and it will be clear to a majority.
I wish I could magically replace a “j” with a “g”. :)
Hans and Doug:
Keystone is his downfall. I’m convinced.
Trouble is, they say he’s going to allow it to take credit for it. Heck, he was just at the Southern section to the Gulf Coast, basking in attention. But that part was under the authority of the Corps of Army Engineers, and he had nothing to do with it.
Hans and Xalisae – yeah, energy/Keystone/etc. could make enough difference that Obama loses.
But as far as increasing the supply, there isn’t really that much to be done as far as “unleashing” US oil production. US production peaked over 40 years ago and – even with massively higher prices now – it’s pretty much been a downtrend ever since. When we look at what is now a truly global energy market, and what that increased US production would mean to prices, it’s a very small thing.
Hans, I don’t know what Bush did with Gulf oil leases as far as natural gas, but NatGas prices had an enormous rise into 2005 and related to Hurricane Katrina, and a subsequent plummetting back to earth – on the basis of supply and demand – there, the demand picture is much different from that of oil.
Normal oil-to-natgas price ratios are from 5 to 10. Right now it’s about 50. Wow – you’d think this could be exploited. Oil is so easy to use, though….
Personally, I’m for increased US drilling, and especially for increased use of natural gas – the stuff is dirt cheap now, compared to crude oil. Ought to be building ports for filling Liquid Natural Gas tankers, too, for shipment overseas where prices are multiples higher, but that’s a huge-money decision, and likely a political one too.
There’s no doubt natural gas is the most promising fuel. It’s becoming dirt cheap, and perfecting the technology to liquify it should be a priority. But oil is still plentiful, now that reaching it is more and more efficient. If only Obama had the sense to use our resources.
Not to throw a monkey wrench in this debate, but there is a theory that oil is not the remains of life forms from eons past, but is a natural “secretion” of the Earth, as surely as Mt Kilauea is adding acreage to Hawaii.
The constant oozing of oil along the Santa Barbara shoreline far exceeds the oil spill there in the ’60s.
Discuss. Or not. :)
If only Obama had the sense to use our resources.
Hans, you could say that about any President, on the basis of there always being a potential “more” there. Even if Obama did fire up ANWR, approved the Keystone Pipeline, increased offshore drilling, etc., how much do you think that would actually add to world production, and how much do you think prices would be reduced?
Even with all of ANWR open, peak production – which would not last many years – would be about 1.5% of current consumption. Meaningful, yes, but not going to change prices very much. There will always be certain “other projects” that could be done, but the farther “out there” we get, the more environmental concerns there will be, and (whether we agree or not on a given project) some real cons along with the pros, and the pros for some aren’t all that big.
Shale oil and shale gas drilling is already going on, bigtime. The biggest factor for US oil production isn’t gov’t permission, it’s the price of oil itself. With oil at $10 or $20, it wouldn’t pay to develop lots of sites. $100 oil is a whole ‘nother deal, and thus we’ve got lots of drilling going on now. This is the factor that’s allowing US production to remain as high as it is.
there is a theory that oil is not the remains of life forms from eons past, but is a natural “secretion” of the Earth, as surely as Mt Kilauea is adding acreage to Hawaii.
The constant oozing of oil along the Santa Barbara shoreline far exceeds the oil spill there in the ’60s.
It’s definitely oil from within the earth, rather than oil spilled as a result of human activity. But it’s not made by “magic,” as in a secretion of the earth without chemical basis, same as for the La Brea Tar Pits, for example.
We should go all out on our resources. The environmental impacet of ANWR is negligible, but the speculative impact would be great. Markets only need to be reassured of a good future to ease up.
Energy is key to economic growth. We need to get back on the road to prosperity in order for us to have the breathing room to one day make better green technology viable.
Then maybe we’ll be able to look inward and see that we’re wasting our human resources. Hint. Hint.