The president yesterday complained that his opponents are licking their chops over bad news, and putting their partisanship over the collective good. This is normal politics, but still a little strange, given that Americans, well before the tight summer driving season, are right to be worried that gas might hit $5-a-gallon in a few months — in a climate in which pipelines are perceived to have been cancelled; oil leases frozen in Alaska, offshore, in the Gulf, and in the west; and members of the administration, including the president himself, in the past, are on record advocating such high energy prices as a means to diminish supposed man-made climate change and help promote alternate energies.
But such pique is even odder, given that such partisan politics are an Obama forte. He voted against raising the debt ceiling as a senator when the deficits were far less than his own have been. He filibustered the Alito and Bolton nominations, when there were not enough votes to stop their appointments — only to later criticize just that tactic as president. Ditto his recess-appointment turnabout. Short-term political advantage led him to subvert the public financing of presidential campaigns, the first candidate to ignore that liberal-inspired law in a general election.
Obama surely was seeking partisan advantage when he once declared that the critical surge in Iraq was not working, even as it was, and at a time when the surge needed critical support. He started his campaign in 2007 by grandly announcing plans for a withdrawal of all troops from Iraq by March 2008, and went on to damn Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, etc. at a time when they all were providing critical advantages in stopping terrorists — as he later agreed after his election by adopting all the protocols that he once deemed injurious or unconstitutional. Was it for political advantage that he called a sitting president “unpatriotic” for borrowing at a rate of about a fourth of what Obama himself would later embrace? As I recall the political discourse just a few years ago, a “jobless recovery” in 2004 was defined as one of around 5.5 percent unemployment; Herbert Hoover was invoked to cite the “unprecedented” supposed loss of net jobs; spikes to $3-a-gallon gas were due to rapacious Halliburton oil men in the White House; and questioning the commander-in-chief was patriotic dissent (Hillary Clinton: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.’”)
In an election year, it is traditional politics for incumbents to claim that things are better than what statistics indicate, and, in turn, for rivals to argue that they are worse. Obama knows all that — because he did both better than anyone between 2006–12. So spare us the whining and pontification, and maybe try spending less, and drilling more.
Mr. Hanson's ability to draw connections between completely unconnected events, and then combine them in order to launch a political attack on his political opponents, is breathtaking in its lack of logic and honesty. And Mr. Hanson is, of course, smart enough to know that the price of gasoline right now has everything to do with instability in the Middle East, and nothing to do with domestic oil production, since domestic production has increased under Obama, and our dependence on foreign oil has decreased.
I do appreciate his unexpected candor in acknowledging that Republicans are engaging in distortion in an attempt to convince Americans that things are worse than the really are, however.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, but when you come to realize that it is your own failure to see connections that is the problem, you will grow up and become a conservative.
Liberal policies always rely on refusing to see connections between things, don't they? They like to pretend there is no connection between oil lease policies and the price of gas, just like they like to pretend there is no connection between promiscuity and the outbreak of illegitimate children - or the connection between illegitimacy and poverty.
Liberals only believe there are connections between things when their leaders tell them it is so (like, for instance, the incredibly logical connection between Sarah Palin and Jared Lee Loughner). Because facts should never interfere with a good narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement that 'oil production has increased under Obama' is like giving him credit for your child growing an inch while he was President. Oil production in the US increases slightly every year. However, the rate of increase has slowed (and is unable to keep up with demand) under Obama specifically because his administration is - quite openly - halting the expansion of drilling in and production in the US.
This is just another example of lefties wanting to have it both ways. They want to say their guy is getting rid of fossil fuels and bringing in 'green energy' to win the left; and they want to say their guy is making more fossil fuels available to win the right.
As for 'making things seem worse than they are' - if you believe this nonsense about hiring improving, or think the DOW being over 13K is some sign of stability, you're far too ignorant to have the right to vote. And, by the way, if a Republican were President, you'd spend a little time checking these assumptions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour ability to find some lie with which to defend Obama is legendary, and continues unchallenged.
Without the actions of Obama, our oil production would have gone up by much more. With that oil that wasn't produced oil prices would not have increased as much, and our dependance on foreign oil would be even less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProject much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's ironic because that's all you guys ever do - blame, blame, and more blame. Taking responsibility does not exist in your lexicon.
How about stating your argument, refuting what Mr. Hanson says, rather than changing the subject?
We don't need to distort; the proof isin the pudding. One thin I can never understand about guys like you - led by a president, who has done nothing ever other than to lie, cheat, project, and steal.
Hypocrisy is thy name!!!
Obama is like the 68’er that can’t get the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 off her mind.
These petroleum haters interfere with progress because their touchstone on energy is always accidents and not the advance of the piston in its cylinder … they’re the philosophy of motionless inertia as an alternative to moving on down the road.
Yet, they bought Grateful Dead & Sheryl Crow Lp’s, created from pressed petroleum product, listened to music on systems of plastic made from petroleum base and used items of personal hygiene all created from elements of oil extracted and refined.
Can we just say phony runs as deep as pools of crude and be agreed to it?
If I were able to do a voir dire on Mr. Obama in a public forum, I’d put a question to him that would test his suitability to have an opinion on energy use and the automobile-a foundational question.
Does anyone think he’d be able to reply?
Mr. Obama knows little and appreciates less of the American story. He’s a knee-jerker on all things associated with the oil patch. He’s an Upton Sinclair without the style or the savvy.
Can you imagine the young Obama building a model car, participating in a science fair or changing the oil on his first car?
Drilling is an anathema to Obama … as he is to us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf W was "unpatriotic" for his borrowing habits, Obama's program has to at least venture into the neighborhood of treasonous. Even as cynical as I've become in recent years, I don't see how it's possible for anyone to conclude that Obama is trying to fix things. And he certainly isn't merely "doing nothing." He is actively working at something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, there was no chop-licking or partisanship involved when Senator Obama claimed American troops were indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan or when he said President Bush was unpatriotic for requesting an increase in the debt ceiling and voted aginst the increase or accused intelligence officers of torturing terrorist suspects and threatened to prosecute them.
When President Obama publicly accuses those he disagrees with of evil motives, he does so for the purpose of uniting the American people and elevating our reputation around the world. He calls us bigots, human rights violators, extremists and obstructionists. He claims wealthy Americans don't pay their fair share and encourages those less fortunate to resent them. He mocks the Tea Party movement and embraces the Occupy Wall Street movement because that will make us better and stronger.
President Obama blames Republicans for obstructing the people's business, but has no criticism for a Democratic-controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in three years. During his very first SOTU address, he rebuked conservative members of the USSC because of a campaign finance decision he disagreed with. Today, he's taking advantage of that decision for the benefit of his re-election campaign.
President Obama says and does all these things for our own good and shame on us for not appreciating it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like Hanson is saying liberals in general and oblamer specifically are hypocrites.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow that's an epiphany!
NOT!
VDH, it's really so much simpler than that: the president is the most cynical politician in American history. He expects a double standard, and usually gets it. You don't really expect him to be consistent in his statements or "actually do anything", do you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVDH wants to blame the President for the current high price of oil. VDH has apparently forgotten his own prediction, nine years ago, that the war in Iraq (which then-Senator Obama opposed) would significantly lower the worldwide cost of oil: External Link
The fact that the failed war VDH tirelessly promoted did not lower the cost of oil, but rather contributed to the instability in the Middle East that is driving the high cost, makes VDH's blame game insupportable. There are three fingers pointing back at you, Mr. Hanson.
United States oil production has actually increased under President Obama, a fact that VDH disingenuously omits in favor of the innuendo that the President is getting in the way of domestic production.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse