Senator Obama: Rising gas prices are President Bush’s fault!
President Obama: Rising gas prices are someone else’s fault!

It is rather similar to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) telling us that President Bush adding four trillion dollars to the national debt all by his lonesome was irresponsible and unpatriotic. From the Pirate’s Cove:

Obama To Blame Others For Rising Gas Prices Thursday

By William Teach February 22, 2012 – 5:38 pm

While attempting to toot his own horn:

(Bloomberg) President Barack Obama will try to head off the political impact of rising gasoline prices as Republicans vow to make the price at the pump an issue in the 2012 election campaign.

Obama plans events this week focusing on his administration’s efforts to expand domestic exploration and development of alternative energy sources to combat cyclical spikes in gas prices.

He’s going to blame China, Iran, speculators, people who fail yo properly inflate their tires and get tune ups, anybody but himself.

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, came to his daily press briefing armed with statistics about domestic exploration and said Obama favors various forms of energy, including higher fuel-efficiency standards, nuclear reactor development and alternative energy research.

He will discuss the steps his administration has taken to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, raise fuel efficiency standards and promote new construction of nuclear facilities, officials said.

How’s that worked so far? Much like the unemployment rate, the US has had sustained high gas and energy prices throughout Obama’s time as emperor, er, president. And the rates continue to rise.

This will be a purely political speech, one in which Obama ducks all responsibility, and one in which he provides no true solutions. The phrase you’ll be hearing in your head is “suck it up, buttercup. Buy a Volt.” Because energy just magically appears from unicorn farts in Obama World. And one in which the taxpayers pay for his gas for the 17 car motorcades and unnecessary fossil fueled flights to campaign events and vacation spots.

Bloomberg’s reporting is unsurprising: President Truman’s famous desk sign is nowhere to be found in the Oval Office these days! But it’s just one more piece of the Obama puzzle, telling us how the very things for which he criticized President Bush are somehow, some way not his responsibility now that he has the big job.

If President Obama had a strong record, he could, and would, tell the truth about it, and his re-election would not be in doubt. That he’s pointing fingers at everybody else, that he’s trying to misdirect your view, tells you everything you really need to know about this President: he knows, himself, that he has not been a success.

81 Comments

  1. To have this be BO’s fault, he would have had to do something. Well, he’s overspent by $4T and played a lot of golf, he has taken a lot of vacations, but then again MO just came back from her 16th taxpayer paid vacation in just THREE short years. It also happened under Bush, so it’s Bush’s fault as usual. So, there we are, proven not to be BO’s fault, as usual Oh, and the cancellation of the XL pipeline is the Republicans fault. So, business as usual, IT’S NOT BO’s FAULT.

  2. From Obama’s guardian….the New York Times, via msnbc:

    Modest drag at this point
    Economists say the current price of oil is only a modest drag on the economy. But a big jump — combined with tensions over Iran and continuing European debt worries — could present a more significant challenge to America’s recovery, they say.

    For the president’s economic team, the specter of such increases in oil prices comes on the heels of positive economic news that has lifted Mr. Obama’s approval rating, including better-than-expected job growth, a surging stock market and a payroll tax deal that will put more money in the pockets of millions of Americans.

    $1.89 when Mr. Obama took office in 2009, yet the Time‘s “selected economist” say the current price is only a modest drag? How’s that $40 dollar a week payroll tax rebate working out? Yet, in a rare case of not-Bush’s fault, Jay Carney reminds all of us how global events are the culprit:

    “The president is keenly aware of the impact that higher gas prices have on families trying to make ends meet,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said last week.

    For Mr. Obama’s economic team, the increase in oil prices is an unwelcome reminder of how global events largely outside their control can hamper a recovery. For the third year in a row, a modest recovery faces head winds as winter turns to spring.

    This is exactly the point that the Times, Jay Carney, and President Obama fail miserably to comprehend—with a robust domestic drilling policy, this nation WOULD NOT be at the mercy of “global events”. The political rhetoric coming from the White House that the President is/has become an “all of the above” advocate of domestic drilling is pure hogwash and his record speaks for itself when he set back Gulf oil production ten years with the administration’s “crisis moratorium”, and his all out assault on the U.S. coal industry. How’s that Keystone rejection workin’ out for you Mr. President?

  3. Pingback: THE THURSDAY GRUDGE | PoliNation

  4. AOL’s News is run by HuffPo. Just read where they are spewing that the rising gas prices were largely out of the control of BO. So, it’s not his fault by the HuffPo reasoning. But when Bush was President, tried to explain the same, but it was his fault anyway. Don’t ya just love double standards??? But, from the Liberal Press I would expect nothing less.

  5. The rising gas prices are due to factors not under our control, as in the Iran actions cutting off supplies to the Brits and the French!

    This sets off the speculators who also play a major role in the price of crude oil, which then translates into increasing prices at the pump, as well as all other fuels refined from crude oil.

    If we had only followed President Carter’s advice in 1979, like much of Europe did. Republicans had no vision, nor do they to this day. They are all about today’s bottom line – that’s it! And oh yes, there are some Dems to blame as well!

    Take the huge threat to our grandchildren known as global warming and climate change. Please list for me the Republicans in Congress who give a s**t about global warming.

    The overall problem is this Congress, whose dysfunction has bred uncertainty, which is impeding the growth of our economy.

  6. Gasoline prices are up because that’s the primary objective of Barack Obama’s energy policy. He can’t come right out and say so, but if you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

  7. Like phasing out coal fired generators, BO also wanted higher gas prices like Europe. He does not like AMERICA.

    Obama’s War on Oil
    By Peter Ferrara on 5.4.11 @ 6:10AM

    A campaign promise kept: he wants higher gasoline prices and his policies guarantee they will only go higher.

    As a guest on a black radio talk show recently, I suggested that someone ask President Obama what his plan is for bringing down high gasoline prices.

    What a gaffe that question would be. The current high gas prices, and more, are precisely the President’s plan.

    President Obama’s Secretary of Energy is former Berkeley physics professor Steven Chu, who said in 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” We still have a way to go to achieve Secretary Chu’s goal. The average price for a gallon of gas in Europe is over $8.

    President Obama’s Secretary of Interior is Ken Salazar. When he was a Senator in 2008, he proclaimed on the floor of the Senate that he would oppose any offshore drilling no matter how high the price of gasoline rose, even to $10 a gallon.

    When President Obama took office in 2009, the average price of gasoline in America was $1.83 a gallon. Today it is more than double that at $3.87. As the above quotes indicate, the Obama Administration’s policy is to increase it well beyond that.

    The rest of this sad story here:
    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/obamas-war-on-oil

  8. WW wrote:

    If we had only followed President Carter’s advice in 1979, like much of Europe did. Republicans had no vision, nor do they to this day. They are all about today’s bottom line – that’s it! And oh yes, there are some Dems to blame as well!

    Shall we characterize this comment like this?

    The American people didn’t think too highly of President Carter’s job performance, and gave him the gift of an early retirement. And, regardless of what you think about Mr Carter’s energy policies, he has been out of office for 31 years now, and however we reacted to his ideas, that is all in the past, and cannot be undone.

  9. The tragedy is, Yorkshire, that you and ropelight actually believe this.

    In my view, we should have done this long ago, like the Europeans did, by raising taxes years ago. It forced them into greatly enhancing public transportation. You know this, Yorkshire, from your own traveling experiences. If we had followed President Carter’s lead, we would have greatly enhanced our own public transportation system. Instead, we put all our resources into cars and roads and bridges, a gross waste, in my view. Now that has come home to roost, and we suffer as a result. Its a lack of vision on our part.

    I favor a gradual increase in federal taxes on gasoline, to force us to cut back on consumption of gasoline, and to begin to develop public transportation alternatives to private cars. Perhaps in about 20 years of this, our prices per gallon will approach those in Europe. Then our air will be cleaner, our carbon dioxide emission will be lessened, our public transportation infrastructure will be much better developed, and more jobs will have been created, jobs which cannot be off-shored to the Chinese et al.

  10. Wagonwheel wrote:

    The overall problem is this Congress, whose dysfunction has bred uncertainty, which is impeding the growth of our economy.

    Really? When President Obama took office, there were 142,187,000 employed people in this country. By January 2010, that number had dropped to 138,500,000 — a loss of 3,687,000 jobs — and had just barely increased, by 770,000 jobs, to 139,330,000 by January of 2011. By January of 2012, the number had climbed to 141,637,000, a still-too-small increase of 2,307,000, but nevertheless the strongest job growth during the President’s three years in office.

    In plain language, job growth in this country picked up when the 2009 Stimulus package had exhausted its projects and the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and stopped as much of the President’s economic meddling as possible. Your editor does not believe that is a coincidence.

  11. WW wrote:

    In my view, we should have done this long ago, like the Europeans did, by raising taxes years ago. It forced them into greatly enhancing public transportation. You know this, Yorkshire, from your own traveling experiences. If we had followed President Carter’s lead, we would have greatly enhanced our own public transportation system. Instead, we put all our resources into cars and roads and bridges, a gross waste, in my view. Now that has come home to roost, and we suffer as a result. Its a lack of vision on our part.

    We are not Europeans, and the United States is a very different ares. The Europeans have a much higher population density, which changes the equation for public transportation. And we have public transportation where it is reasonable and feasible, primarily in the cities, and along the densely-populated northeast corridor.

    More, we put our money where the public wanted us to put our money. I understand that you don’t approve, but the American people like the individually owned automobile, and do not wish to part with it. Those are the free choices taken by the people.

    I favor a gradual increase in federal taxes on gasoline, to force us to cut back on consumption of gasoline, and to begin to develop public transportation alternatives to private cars. Perhaps in about 20 years of this, our prices per gallon will approach those in Europe. Then our air will be cleaner, our carbon dioxide emission will be lessened, our public transportation infrastructure will be much better developed, and more jobs will have been created, jobs which cannot be off-shored to the Chinese et al.

    Then run for office on that platform; see how many votes you get for a promise to raise fuel taxes.

  12. The only acceptable purpose for taxes is to do the Constitutionally required business of government. Tyrannically forcing people to lose their Liberty is not an acceptable reason, nor is Tenth Commandment-violating wealth redistribution. And I will vigorously oppose any person or Law which pushes taxes to steal Liberty or to violate the Tenth Commandment.

    All day.

  13. “The only acceptable purpose for taxes is to do the Constitutionally required business of government. ”

    Do you speak with as much authority on this as you do when making predictions of hyperinflation?

  14. “Then run for office on that platform; see how many votes you get for a promise to raise fuel taxes.”

    It takes vision, conviction, and courage for a politician to propose such a thing, but it has to be proposed continually, until the truth dawns on the resistant.

  15. Wagonwheel says:
    February 23, 2012 at 17:55

    The tragedy is, Yorkshire, that you and ropelight actually believe this.

    In my view, we should have done this long ago, like the Europeans did, by raising taxes years ago. It forced them into greatly enhancing public transportation. You know this, Yorkshire, from your own traveling experiences. If we had followed President Carter’s lead, we would have greatly enhanced our own public transportation system. Instead, we put all our resources into cars and roads and bridges, a gross waste, in my view. Now that has come home to roost, and we suffer as a result. Its a lack of vision on our part.

    You know, this may suprise a lot of people, but the US Interstate System when introduced in the mid 50′s by Eisenhower and was modeled on Germany’s Autobahn system and originally called the National Defense Highways. It went as far as to have one mile of every five to be a straight roadway and realtively flat, and unobstructed to act as emergency runways for the Air Force as was done in Germany in WW2. In Maryland, there is a highway called the Baltimore-Washington Parkway that was built as such in the 50′s. But the weird thing was, it was built from Ft. Meade, to DC and straight to New York Ave and paid for by the Feds in disguise as a scenic Parkway. Now when MD asked for it to connect to Baltimore to Ft. Meade, the answer was do it yourself. So, from Baltimore to the Ft. Meade exit, it is MD’s road. From Ft. Meade to DC, it’s a Federal road patrolled by the National Park Police.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

  16. Shoo, fruit fly! Before I get out my can of Raid and spray you with it!

    You can’t use Raid John—it contains petroleum products—and there’s a shortage.

    What you won’t be reading in the liberal news is that the rising price of fuel is also causing massive inflation in food, goods, and services across the entire nation. Just read “this” in a morning report:

    “Analysts say gas prices could reach $4.00 a gallon by mid-summer”

    Hello!!! earth to “analysts”—-We’re at $4.33 right now in Humboldt County, California, and our President says he can do nothing? Sounds a lot like his “do nothing Senate” and his Gestapo’s at the EPA that have choked off energy production across the entire nation. 67% of the people in this nation wanted the Keystone Pipeline to proceed Mr. Obama, yet you can do nothing?

    Joke of the morning, (via the dummies at DU):

    LINCOLN — A new poll sponsored by a group opposing the Keystone XL crude-oil pipeline indicated that 63 percent of those surveyed were against or leaned against the controversial project.

    Well, Duh!

  17. I am driving less these days. Hopefully, with whatever I can save at the pump, I will give to the Republican candidate to knock that do nothing dolt out of the oval office.

  18. “One of the inflationary producer is good ol’ “Quantitative Easing” which has devalued the Buck. ”

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

    —-
    The inflation rate in United States was last reported at 2.9 percent in January of 2012. From 1914 until 2010, the average inflation rate in United States was 3.38 percent reaching an historical high of 23.70 percent in June of 1920 and a record low of -15.80 percent in June of 1921.
    —-

  19. “Hello!!! earth to “analysts”—-We’re at $4.33 right now in Humboldt County, California, and our President says he can do nothing?”

    As has been shown earlier, the price rises have nothing to do with supply but are the result of speculation.

    Do you want Obama to nationalize the oil futures market?

  20. Excellent posts, Ms Anna Nova, because you are dealing with documented facts.

    Here is what one typically gets in return:

    “This President is a piece of crap. Gas goes up, home heating oil goes up, and the President goes on vacation. Piece of crap.”

    “Shoo, fruit fly! Before I get out my can of Raid and spray you with it!”

    Impressive!!! :(

  21. As has been shown earlier, the price rises have nothing to do with supply but are the result of speculation.

    Funny how the media — and the Left — didn’t make that point when the last president was in office. It was the “The president is just enriching his oil pal buddies” garbage.

    Continue your laughable hypocrisy.

  22. “Funny how the media — and the Left — didn’t make that point when the last president was in office.”

    Uh-huh. So I’ve presented evidence that the recent price rise is due to speculation, and this is somehow supposed to prove that other earlier price rises are also due to speculation, and that I am a hypocrite for not pointing this out?

    So if a doctor showed you evidence that your current pain was due to a broken bone, you’d complain that he didn’t make the same claim for an earlier pain, and he was therefore a hypocrite?

  23. Uh-huh. So I’ve presented evidence that the recent price rise is due to speculation, and this is somehow supposed to prove that other earlier price rises are also due to speculation, and that I am a hypocrite for not pointing this out?

    Precisely. Because speculation was in large measure responsible for the prices increases under Bush.

    Rising gas prices used to be big news, but not so these days. Although the national average climbed to $3.56 on Feb. 20, setting a February record after going up nearly a month straight, there was far less coverage than in 2008. Broadcast networks repeatedly covered the rise under the Bush presidency. Gas prices bounced around eventually reaching $3.56-a-gallon on April 24, 2008.

    The Business and Media Institute analyzed broadcast network news references to gas or fuel prices between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20, 2012 and from March 24 and April 24, 2008. BMI found that in the 2008 period there were more than 4 times as many gas prices stories, news briefs or news headlines on ABC, CBS and NBC as there were in 2012 (97 to 21).

    Coverage during the time periods differed not only in quantity, but in tone as well. During Bush’s tenure, gas prices were a huge economic threat and cause of suffering. The networks also used the high gas prices to attack the administration. In 2012, the networks aired mostly matter-of-fact stories on the rising gas prices, and worried primarily that they would hinder the economic recovery, not that they are making people suffer.

    Dismal broadcast network reports about “skyrocketing” gas prices filled the newscasts in 2008. There were reports about businesses closing, airlines struggling and truckers protesting — all because of the high prices. One ABC report said families were facing the “tough choice” between food or fuel. Others said that “wallets were running on empty” and consumers were told over and over that there was no relief in sight. But by the end of November 2008, prices had collapsed to $1.82.

    The networks weren’t simply reporting the painfully high gas prices in early 2008 though, in many cases they were exaggerating them. NBC’s “Today” focused on Redwood City, Calif. on March 6 where regular gasoline cost $3.99, according to the photograph NBC aired. The national average for gas that day was $3.19 a gallon. Ann Curry also failed to tell viewers that California has the highest state gasoline tax in the nation, a whopping 45.5 cents a gallon at that time.

    On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages. The Business and Media Institute documented this trend in 2007, 2006 and 2005.

    But now, in 2012, gas prices stories are very different. “[W]e’re seeing gas prices creep up every single week,” said one ABC reporter after delivering a positive economic report about the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing in on 13,000 for the first time since 2008. One CBS story just pointed out that if certain steps are taking against Iran, gas prices everywhere could move sharply higher.

    Although the time periods BMI analyzed were the same length and ended with the same national average price for gasoline, due to price fluctuations they were not identical. In 2008, prices rose from $3.26 to $3.56 in the month we examined. In 2012, prices were already higher ($3.38 on Jan. 20).

    http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/networks-hype-rising-gas-prices-4-times-more-bush-obama

  24. Bush’s monetary policies partially to blame for high energy prices? Sure. Obama’s? Sure:

    The Obama administration’s monetary policies have added approximately 56.5 cents to the price of every gallon of gas you pump, according to a report by Republicans on the congressional Joint Economic Committee report.

    http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b0772383-bdb9-4ee8-af50-26c68f10aa8d&ContentType_id=6ef5e4f8-e031-47b7-876c-607548c5dceb&Group_id=5f0df72f-2378-489f-99d2-2ad0754b74ed

  25. Last month, the president promised that his administration was “taking various measures to deal with oil prices, and (is) watching out for price-gouging.”

    This is the sort of rhetoric that beleaguered consumers, aching from soaring fuel prices, are vulnerable to. Obama is giving them a straw man on which they can vent their frustrations. But their focus should be on the presidential candidate who said while campaigning in 2008 that under his environmentalist regime, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    On the day Obama took office, gasoline was $1.83 a gallon. On Tuesday, according to the American Automobile Association’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report, the national average was $3.87. While electricity prices haven’t yet necessarily skyrocketed, gasoline prices sure have.

    Obama could have prevented this. But he’s done nothing to push crude supplies up and thereby bring gasoline prices down. In fact, it appears that his goal is to reduce domestic supply. Among the energy roadblocks his administration has thrown up:

    • An illegal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

    • The rescission of permits that had already been issued for drilling in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska.

    • The withholding of air permits for drilling, prompting Shell to walk away from an estimated 27 billion barrels of Arctic oil.

    No, the oil in those reserves would not be in tomorrow’s pipeline. But the promise of more oil in the future has an effect on prices today. The opposite — a future of artificial scarcity — is the reason oil is currently trading at elevated levels.

    Despite its denials, the administration has also increased gasoline prices through its promotion of a weak dollar. Because oil is traded in U.S. dollars, those who sell it on the open market demand more dollars for the same amount of crude because those dollars are worth less.

    This administration includes an energy secretary who has pined for European — meaning $8-a-gallon — gas prices. But the White House would rather the public remain ignorant of its role in driving prices higher. So it cynically kicks off probes of investors and oil industry executives that will turn up absolutely nothing.

    http://news.investors.com/article/570276/201104261839/the-gas-price-blame-game-and8212-round-36.htm

  26. Anna Nova says:
    February 26, 2012 at 19:14

    So if a doctor showed you evidence that your current pain was due to a broken bone, you’d complain that he didn’t make the same claim for an earlier pain, and he was therefore a hypocrite?

    Funny you should make this remark. For a month of August, 1998 I had extreme pain in my knee. At times unbearable. Then one day I heard a scrunch and the pain went away, but I could not stand up. I was taken to the ER with the thought of a bad knee. The knee was x-rayed and there was little damage, given a soft splint and sent home. I saw and Orthopedic doc the next day and the ortho doc couldn’t see much in the x-ray and went home. Went back to the ortho doc a little later and he saw something. He then x-rayed my thigh and found a broken femur. Funny thing was, there was NO PAIN. And no, he wasn’t a hypocrite, he didn’t know the whole story which is like a lot of libs. Once he knew the story, we figured out why. Libs don’t learn from mistakes.

    (Note: The Editor can verify this as improbable as it sounds) added Ys

  27. ” Uh-huh. So I’ve presented evidence that the recent price rise is due to speculation, and this is somehow supposed to prove that other earlier price rises are also due to speculation, and that I am a hypocrite for not pointing this out?

    Precisely. Because speculation was in large measure responsible for the prices increases under Bush. ”

    FIRSTLY, I refer you to the hasty generalization fallacy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

  28. SECONDLY, your cite from a group of Republicans demonstrates that said group is either unaware of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or is simply lying. The price of oil has risen against all currencies, and there is no economic evidence that “quantitative easing” has been responsible for the decline in the value of the US dollar since, alas, the US dollar has been roughly stable for the last six years.

    See here http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=EUR&c2=USD&days=3650

  29. THIRDLY, your second cite is outright lying.

    It states:

    “Obama could have prevented this. But he’s done nothing to push crude supplies up and thereby bring gasoline prices down”

    This is a lie.

    http://www.enviroknow.com/2011/05/15/oil-production-up-under-obama/

    —-
    Incredibly, none of the Republicans hammering Obama for supposedly strangling domestic oil production bothered to check the data.

    While domestic production declined each year under President Bush, falling from 5.8 million barrels per day to less than 5 million, production (XLS) has increased 11% since Obama came into office. It would have increased even more if a pesky oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hadn’t intervened.
    —-

  30. So in closing:

    i, Oil price rises are not due to restricted supply – Obama has increased domestic oil production over Bush.

    ii, Oil price rises are not due to a weak American dollar – the dollar has been roughly stable for the last six years.

    iii, Oil price rises are due to speculation.

    iv, The only way for Obama to “do something” about this would be for him to nationalize the futures markets.

  31. And, indeed, a better example of the Republican group you cite lying.

    They state:


    Titled The Price of Oil and the Value of the Dollar, the study notes the value of the U.S. dollar has declined 14 percent since the Federal Reserve began its program of quantitative easing in November of 2008.

    They used the trade-weighted balance and deliberately cherrypicked November 2008 concealing the wider history, as can be seen in this graph

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TWEXB

    Based on the trade-weighted balance, the anomoly isn’t the post Nov 2008 decline – it’s the PRE NOV 2008 spike during the midst of depression.

  32. koolo quotes a politically motivated screed pretending to be factual:

    “But the promise of more oil in the future has an effect on prices today. The opposite — a future of artificial scarcity — is the reason oil is currently trading at elevated levels.”

    Hardly “artificial scarcity”, when Iran has cut off the Brits and the French from crude, thus increasing demand and prices, outside of the control or influence of the Obama administration.

    Also, it is well known that speculators have driven the price of oil higher by exploiting the oil supply fear based on increased tension and turmoil in the Middle East. This was inevitable based on our neglect of dependence on foreign oil by our leaders since Jimmy Carters initiatives abandoned by his successors over three decades ago.

    President Obama’s policies are aimed at renewing efforts toward energy independence and alternative energy sources. What efforts did the Cheney/Bush administration take re energy independence? Answer: None that I am aware of.

    Finally, take note of the latest regarding the Keystone XL pipeline which you Conservatives on here were all down on the President:

    “Under fire from Republicans over high gas prices, President Barack Obama on Monday cheered news that the Canadian company hoping to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico would press ahead with a US-only segment of that controversial project.”

    So now untangle your panties from the wad, and get off the political screeds, will ya?

  33. WW wrote:

    Hardly “artificial scarcity”, when Iran has cut off the Brits and the French from crude, thus increasing demand and prices, outside of the control or influence of the Obama administration.

    Really? Hasn’t President Obama been pushing for increased sanctions against Iran due to their atomic weapons project, including this?


    Obama orders Iranian Central Bank freeze in new wave of sanctions


    Executive order halts transactions by Iranian bank in US, despite concerns that it may drive up petroleum costs

    Chris McGreal

    Barack Obama has ordered the freezing of Iranian government assets in the US, including transactions by the Iranian Central Bank, in tightened sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

    The White House said the executive order by the president “re-emphasises this administration’s message to the government of Iran – it will face ever-increasing economic and diplomatic pressure until it addresses the international community’s well-founded and well-documented concerns regarding the nature of its nuclear programme”.

    The new sanctions, which also include the threat of prosecution for foreign financial institutions if they do certain kinds of business directly with Iran, also appeared timed to fit in with measures introduced in other countries, including Britain which has already moved against Iran’s banking system by cutting it off from London’s financial sector.

    Even if you support the sanctions — which I do — are they not a direct action by the President which increases the price of crude oil?

    This is gong to be just another one of those things that you’ll have to spend the time between now and November trying to explain away. The President of the United States gets the credit when things go well, and the blame when things go badly, whether they were his doing or not. That may be unfair, but that’s simply the way it is. If Americans believe that things are going well, or at least getting noticeably better, he will be re-elected; if they don’t, he won’t.

  34. WW wrote:

    Finally, take note of the latest regarding the Keystone XL pipeline which you Conservatives on here were all down on the President:

    “Under fire from Republicans over high gas prices, President Barack Obama on Monday cheered news that the Canadian company hoping to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico would press ahead with a US-only segment of that controversial project.”

    So now untangle your panties from the wad, and get off the political screeds, will ya?

    Translation: under political pressure, the President tried to take a middle way out, one which does not approve the project, but which holds open a window of hope that eventually he might. It’s nothing but a lie, of course, because he will never approve it, and you will cheer him for not doing so. The only real solution is to have Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum taking the decisions and not Barack Obama.

  35. Translation: it’s an election year and Obama’s disastrous energy policies have resulted in the skyrocketing prices he intended (and which in an unusual moment of candor he himself predicted) however, in order to have a chance at reelection Obama must evade direct personal responsibility for inflicting such high levels of economic pain on so many of the people he needs to vote him back into office so he can complete the task of bankrupting Uncle Sam.

    Obama’s plan: lie his sorry ass off and expect brain dead, boot-licking sycophants to enthusiastically swallow the kool-aid again.

  36. SINP writes

    So now untangle your panties from the wad, and get off the political screeds, will ya?

    Yeah. Except that my “political screed” has a lot more basis in reality than, say, your “political screed” regarding diversity now, doesn’t it?

  37. ropelight wrote:

    Obama’s plan: lie his sorry ass off and expect brain dead, boot-licking sycophants to enthusiastically swallow the kool-aid again.

    Hey, it worked for him once!

  38. But I already noted the sign from a previous Democratic President which isn’t up on the Resolute Desk this time. He wanted higher energy prices, and his most loyal supporters think that higher energy prices are just dandy, but now that they’re worried that higher gasoline prices might cost Teh Won some votes, well maybe the buck really doesn’t stop with this President.

    Of course, if President Truman’s famous sign isn’t on that desk, President Obama does have something else on it:

  39. “Yeah. Except that my “political screed” has a lot more basis in reality than, say, your “political screed” regarding diversity now, doesn’t it?”

    Right, koolo, move the goal posts: We’re not talking about diversity here, now are we. Moreover, I demonstrated your lack of facts. Moreover, take our Editor, for example, and ropelight as well.

    You all make your assumptions about your opposition, including their motivations, than you perpetrate a contrarian attack. That is making use of the well known fallacy known as the “straw man fallacy”, which is discounted in a legitimate debate. Usually it is a sign of desperation which produces this unimpressive behavior by some; and, it is a constantly used tactic of Rush Limbaugh et al. When are you folks going to wean yourselves off of Rush and his ilk and return to your better senses? If you do this, then there is a greater possibility that you will vote for President Obama, leaving your fragmented and aimless party leaders behind in the dust. Can we Americans now count on you folks to do this? :)

  40. SINP writes

    Right, koolo, move the goal posts: We’re not talking about diversity here, now are we. Moreover, I demonstrated your lack of facts. Moreover, take our Editor, for example, and ropelight as well.

    I know we’re not talking about diversity — if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, I said my links about gas prices make a heck of a lot more sense and are based in reality a whole lot more than your drivel about diversity.

    You demonstrated nothing about my supposed “lack of facts.” You claim we’re “partisan;” you, in fact, are engaging in precisely the behavior you are chastising us for — seeking to absolve Obama from blame for high prices whereas when it was Bush in office it was all his fault. If you bothered to read my posts from last night, I said that speculation is a lot of the problem for the prices now; it was too, under Bush. And Bush’s policies led to a weak dollar which didn’t help either; Obama’s policies are also pro-weak dollar.

    [Insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  41. koolo, if you want to make reference to a previous point, or wrap together a few points, then use the reference vehicle to do so. [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    And regarding hypocrisy, we all do it, you too koolo! Here is an example of both hypocrisy and assumption by William Teach in the topic article, together with some sniping and snarking:

    “This will be a purely political speech, one in which Obama ducks all responsibility, and one in which he provides no true solutions. The phrase you’ll be hearing in your head is “suck it up, buttercup. Buy a Volt.” Because energy just magically appears from unicorn farts in Obama World. And one in which the taxpayers pay for his gas for the 17 car motorcades and unnecessary fossil fueled flights to campaign events and vacation spots.”

    Meaningless political dribble that!

    Regarding copy and paste, you are making assumptions and projecting, again. If I copy and paste, I either use quotation marks, or block quote, with the appropriate acknowledgment(s) and/or reference(s). Do you?

    By the way, weak dollar policies are a mixed bag. For one, it helps our exports, including the excess gasoline which we have been producing and exporting, thus it helps our trade balance and helps American businesses, an advantage. And yes, the weak dollar makes import prices higher, a disadvantage for importing crude oil, for example. A strong dollar does the opposite. This dollar issue is not as simple as you imply, koolo!

  42. Wagonwheel has rejected a great many facts. A great many. Thus, Wagonwheel has welcomed to himself a great delusion. [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] As evidenced in every thread he enters on this site and on the previous site. And as evidenced in his dishonorably named site that barely gets any attention at all outside of the Conservative/Libertarian folks who frequent this site and frequented the former site.

    I seem to remember something Wagonwheel said about the impact of blog sites, something that would guaranteed declare his site the dismal failure that it is. Let alone the hyper-partisan, deceitful, socialistic nature of his dishonorably named site, [Insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  43. Regarding copy and paste, you are making assumptions and projecting, again. If I copy and paste, I either use quotation marks, or block quote, with the appropriate acknowledgment(s) and/or reference(s).

    That is a flagrant lie! How many times, Wagonwheel, have DNW or I demanded you give “appropriate acknowledgment(s) and/or reference(s)” to your quotes and you adamantly refused to do so, claiming we would not accept your sources? Shall I have to actually quote you actually refusing to do what you have dishonorably claimed you “always” do?

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  44. Wagonwheel, I suspect the reason you spend next to no time at all on the much more widely read Patterico’s Pontifications is because you know you’d never survive the knowledge-filled attacks against your propaganda there. You made a stupid, propagandistic comment over there and immediately got marked as a parody, because most Conservatives don’t think anyone is stupid enough to believe what you push. [Not deleted, because this refers to Wagonwheel's comment, not the person individually. Nevertheless, it is hostile in tone and definitely pushes the edge of the envelope. -- Editor]

    You would never survive that site because it is filled with attorneys, educators (including college professor level), and multiple more graduate-degreed folk who would eat your lunch and take your milk money. They would demand a ‘higher level of troll’ after any period of your commenting over there. Because your arguments are so very easily hand-waved with facts, [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  45. “That is a flagrant lie! How many times, Wagonwheel, have DNW or I demanded you give “appropriate acknowledgment(s) and/or reference(s)” to your quotes and you adamantly refused to do so, claiming we would not accept your sources? Shall I have to actually quote you actually refusing to do what you have dishonorably claimed you “always” do?”

    Yes, please do, Mr Hitchcock.

    [Three paragraphs deleted, one of which was a blockquote of another commenter. Please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  46. Don’t worry, Wagonwheel. My blog has probably ten times the readership your blog has. And people have gotten to know [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] from both my blog and the Editor’s two blogs. They have also gotten to know your abject refusal to remember anything from both my blog and the Editor’s two blogs. [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Why, I wonder, did a very well educated commenter on Patterico’s Pontifications immediately suspect you were doing a parody? It’s because he knew [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] would push the exact thing you pushed over there. [Insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  47. Mr Hitchcock, you continue to violate the Comments and Consent Policy, thus dragging the blog into the sewer, again!

    Nevertheless, I await your evidence for your allegation. You have yet to come up with any!

  48. Lookit, Wagonwheel, if you are going to continue your well-known passive-aggressive and dishonest mud-slinging, I will most definitely sling mud onto you. But the mud I sling will be neither passive-aggressive nor dishonest, as opposed to your necessarily both passive-aggressive and dishonest mud-slinging. [And the Editor will have to delete such. -- Editor]

    You made your bed. Now you have to lie (both non-inclusive definitions) in it.

  49. Wagonwheel, you are the one who has dragged this site into the sewer, along with your long-time internet Socialist friend PIATOR Anna Nova. It is not any of the Conservatives who have done nothing except respond to your outlandish and lie-filled Socialist, racist, anti-American passive-aggressivve attacks. And we have repeatedly, ad nauseum, proven your total disregard for history (and what you have personally previously said) to be [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]. And we have repeatedly, ad nauseum, proven your own dishonorably named site — that you depend on a Conservative and his money for its very existence — is so very dishonorably named, because [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  50. A major reason why the previous site was shut down was because of your poofter friend. It had nothing to do with me, as is evidenced by my being one of the first and still one of the very explicit few with administrative access to this site. And as the Editor very clearly said, any tie between you and me automatically goes to me as the victor of said tie. That means you are most definitely arguing from a very weak position, and that you need to very carefully shore up your position before levying your continued false claims against me.

  51. “Hitch, expecting honesty or forthrightness [Quoted characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Mr Editor, please add ropelight to your list of violators of your Conduct and Content Policy.

    And ropelight, while you are at it, you need to present evidence for your insult, which will not excuse the insult but will at least give some idea of what is generating your untoward behavior.

    Because we disagree on many issues does not give warrant for these personal attacks and insults.

    I can understand your frustration because your party is fragmenting before your eyes, fragmenting for the exact angry and disturbed behavior which we are currently witnessing in this thread.

    You folks are helping to pave the way for the President to win a second term and for the Dems to prevail in the upcoming elections, as I see it. You ought to take that into account!

  52. SINP writes

    koolo, if you want to make reference to a previous point, or wrap together a few points, then use the reference vehicle to do so. Much of what you write is snark and snipe, therefore worthless to me, like your last sentence above, all signs of weakness.

    See? I actually bridge the gap by stating that neither Presidents Obama and Bush really have (had) little control over gas prices, and that a portion of each’s policies have had some negative effect on such. And what do I get? The usual SINP swill about “meaningless snark” yada yada yada. I did more gap bridging in my last comment than you have in your entire tenure at your barely visited blog.

    As for copying and pasting, how often have you invoked the name Rush Limbaugh in here? As said, you must open a text file and just copy and paste the man’s name in your comments instead of actually forming an original thought.

  53. SINP writes

    Because we disagree on many issues does not give warrant for these personal attacks and insults.

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor].

    I can understand your frustration because your party is fragmenting before your eyes, fragmenting for the exact angry and disturbed behavior which we are currently witnessing in this thread.

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Mr Hitchcock, you continue to violate the Comments and Consent Policy, thus dragging the blog into the sewer, again!

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Hmm … I see a pattern.

  54. “As for copying and pasting, how often have you invoked the name Rush Limbaugh in here? As said, you must open a text file and just copy and paste the man’s name in your comments instead of actually forming an original thought.”

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Not forming an original fault? Is that your charge, koolo? It looks like you have once again joined the bandwagon labelled “insult”. What is wrong with you people today?

  55. I think this piece pretty well encapsulates the anger and frustration we see evident, especially in the last few posts by Conservative Republicans on this thread. who are [Insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor], expressing their frustration by personal attacks on the opposition:

    “f the various expressions of right-wing hysteria that have flowered over the past three years—goldbuggery, birtherism, death panels at home and imaginary apology tours by President Obama abroad—perhaps the strain that has taken deepest root within mainstream Republican circles is the terror that the achievements of the Obama administration may be irreversible, and that the time remaining to stop permanent nightfall is dwindling away.

    “America is approaching a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the Nation will be unable to change course,” announces the dark, old-timey preamble to Paul Ryan’s “The Roadmap Plan,” a statement of fiscal principles that shaped the budget outline approved last spring by 98 percent of the House Republican caucus. Rick Santorum warns his audiences, “We are reaching a tipping point, folks, when those who pay are the minority and those who receive are the majority.” Even such a sober figure as Mitt Romney regularly says things like “We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy,” and that this election “could be our last chance.”

    The Republican Party is in the grips of many fever dreams. But this is not one of them. To be sure, the apocalyptic ideological analysis—that “freedom” is incompatible with Clinton-era tax rates and Massachusetts-style health care—is pure crazy. But the panicked strategic analysis, and the sense of urgency it gives rise to, is actually quite sound. The modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-grounded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests. And this impending doom has colored the party’s frantic, fearful response to the Obama presidency.

    The GOP has reason to be scared. Obama’s election was the vindication of a prediction made several years before by journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Despite the fact that George W. Bush then occupied the White House, Judis and Teixeira argued that demographic and political trends were converging in such a way as to form a ­natural-majority coalition for Democrats.”

    Read the rest here.

  56. SINP writes

    Your assumptions are worthless, koolo, especially without evidence.

    It’s not an assumption. You invoke Limbaugh’s name almost daily.

    Not forming an original fault? Is that your charge, koolo?

    No, I said thought not “fault.”

    I think this piece pretty well encapsulates the anger and frustration we see evident, especially in the last few posts by Conservative Republicans on this thread. [Qouted insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor], expressing their frustration by personal attacks on the opposition

    Gee … sounds just like SINP and other progressives from 2002-2008!

  57. This site has recently seen a very dramatic rise in readership: we are up to an average of 269 visits per day, and the vast majority of the increase is due to Google searches along the lines of media coverage gas price increase under bush. The new readers are finding this particular article, and having this thread devolve into just a string of personal insults hurts this site!

    Your editor understands that there is little admiration or mutual respect between Wagonwheel, John, Koolo and Anna, but characterizations of people’s arguments should refer to the arguments themselves, not the individual.

    The Editor is not currently very happy.

  58. I will not at all complain about all those red letters covering up what I wrote. But I direct your attention, Wagonwheel, to the material that I provided which was not covered up in red letters. Read to your edification, or don’t. Your radical Leftist opinion, with its built-in racism and logic-free agenda, mean nothing to me, except to draw the Irish out of me.

    I’m part Irish, part Mexican, part Indian (feather), part Scots, part Germanic. I’m part other stuff, too, but the parts I mentioned suggest a very definite volatility, especially to those who choose to be wholly untruthful and wholly passive-aggressive, such as Wagonwheel.

  59. My previous posted prior to [added] reading [end "added" for clarification] the Editor’s red-letter addition. However, I cannot guarantee my previous would have changed. It may or may not have been posted, but had it been posted in light of the Editor’s red-letter addition, it likely would not have changed. Because I respect Truth Before Dishonor.

    Edit: brackets added after posting made. JH

  60. For clarification of my own heritage, I am plurality Irish, although one of my brothers very visibly shows the Mexican/Indian (feather) heritage we have, and my sister very clearly shows the Germanic/Scandinavian heritage we have. My other brother, who is more dark-skinned and dark-haired and heftier musculatured than either my Germanic/Scandinavian sister or my Irish self, but less dark-skinned and dark-haired, while still heftier musculatured than my first younger brother, maintains his very stoic truth-oriented attitude as an English Professor at a public University. In fact, there is a site that grades professors, which various students graded him poorly because he *gasp* demanded excellence out of them! And he’s mainly an ESL professor!

    Ohio University (notice “State” is not included in the name)

  61. Thank you for your work in enforcing the Comments Policy, Mr Editor.

    You appear to have missed John Hitchcock’s insult at February 28, 2012 at 14:18.

    In the meantime,

    John Hitchcock writes: “Because I respect Truth Before Dishonor.”

    You have yet to show us the basis for your claim that the US would experience hyperinflation “just around the corner”, which I assume means next year. To make claims of this nature without any evidence would be both dishonest and dishonorable.

  62. “Translation: it’s an election year and Obama’s disastrous energy policies have resulted in the skyrocketing prices he intended ”

    This would include the disastrous energy policy of increasing domestic energy production 11% over his predecessor?

  63. This would include the disastrous energy policy of increasing domestic energy production 11% over his predecessor?

    Example of post-modern refusal to examine context or anything else.

    Most of the increased production came from permits issued prior to Obama’s arrival in the Oval Office.

    Production on Federal lands decreased by double digits, where Obama has a say, while production on both State lands and Private lands, where Obama has no say increased double digits. So, no, Obama gets no credit for increased production, which all occurred outside his power to prevent, while getting all credit for decreased production in the areas where he indeed has power.

    If you, PIATOR Anna Nova, wished to even attempt an honest debate, you would acknowledge the areas where Obama and his administration have control has had a very marked decline in production and those areas where Obama and his administration have no control have had a very major and marked increase.

    Again, any increase in domestic production is in spite of Obama’s actions, and not because of it.

    Hint: Obama’s contempt of court decision in a Federal court. Yes, Obama was found in contempt of court surrounding his refusal to allow domestic oil production in Federally controlled areas of the US, despite Federal law preventing Obama from doing exactly what Obama did.

    “Study to shew thyself approved” is just as relevant today as it was the day it was written, and the day it was included in the Jewish Sacred texts and, later, in the Christian Sacred texts. And you, PIATOR Anna Nova, are among the most wanting regarding that particular Jewish and Christian Sacred Scripture, because none of your “studies” can show you to be “approved” of Providence. None, whatsoever.

  64. “Most of the increased production came from permits issued prior to Obama’s arrival in the Oval Office.

    Production on Federal lands decreased by double digits, where Obama has a say, while production on both State lands and Private lands, where Obama has no say increased double digits. So, no, Obama gets no credit for increased production, which all occurred outside his power to prevent, while getting all credit for decreased production in the areas where he indeed has power..”

    Do you intend to show a source for these statements, or will it remain forever a mystery just as the source for your claim about hyperinflation?

  65. “Most of the increased production came from permits issued prior to Obama’s arrival in the Oval Office.”

    Pardon me, but if you are agreeing that there has been increased production, then any price rise cannot have been due to Obama’s policies restricting domestic production.

    The price rises are due to speculation, not decreased production.

    What exactly should Obama do here? Nationalize the futures markets?

  66. PIATOR Anna Nova, quit moving the goal posts. Admit the regions of the US (which you have never been a resident of) under which Obama has control has seen double-digit declines in oil production since Obama got into office, while all other US lands have seen double-digit increases in oil production.

    Admit that, because it is an absolute fact. To deny that fact is to lie.

  67. “PIATOR Anna Nova, quit moving the goal posts.”

    Here’s where the goal posts were set:

    http://www.journal14.com/2012/02/22/senator-obama-rising-gas-prices-are-president-bushs-fault-president-obama-rising-gas-prices-are-someone-elses-faulty/#comment-11751

    —-
    Incredibly, none of the Republicans hammering Obama for supposedly strangling domestic oil production bothered to check the data.

    While domestic production declined each year under President Bush, falling from 5.8 million barrels per day to less than 5 million, production (XLS) has increased 11% since Obama came into office. It would have increased even more if a pesky oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hadn’t intervened.
    —-

    That’s where the goal posts were.

    Now, you are agreeing that production has increased under Obama, but you are attempting to dispute that he is responsible.

    That is you changing the goal posts.

    But HERE IS YOUR PROBLEM. You have agreed that domsetic production increased under Obama, regardless of whether he is responsible or not. And yet prices have increased. THIS MEANS THE PRICE RISE IS NOT DUE TO LACK OF PRODUCTION as I have been stating all along.

    Which means that all the screaming about Obama standing in the way of production is pointless – increased production will not decrease prices that are rising due to speculation.

    So, once again, what do you propose Obama do to decrease prices – nationalize the futures markets?

  68. Well done, Ms Anna Nova. You have successfully demonstrated how the rhetoric from the right does not match the facts.

    Another example is that TARP, as odious as that was, and the stimulus, two thirds of which were tax cuts which they should love, were both claimed to be ineffective because the President and Dems led the way, yes, led the way to preventing us from falling into Great Depression II, and started us on the road to recovery.

    A corollary benefit involved rescuing workers and their families from desperate living circumstances by providing extended unemployment benefits and expanded food stamps programs. Yes, we are indeed our brothers’ keepers!

    Galatians 6:1–2 (NKJV)
    1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Comments are closed.