9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  August 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am

  Good old Paul-always at the top of the list of those competing for the title of “unintentionally hilarious liberal”.

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  August 8th, 2008 at 8:57 am

  I knew that one would snap you out of your Friday morning doldrums.
  But then there’s the frustrating fact that good old Paul is correct, as per usual. Stick with Krauthammer, Mike. He’s a licensed psychiatrist, y’know. (Which brings to mind the old saying: Physician, heal thyself.)

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  August 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am

  and exactly what is good old Paul right about in that opinion piece? He is putting the typical liberal spin on energy and the war in Iraq.
  As an example-
  No one is claiming that drilling is the only answer or a short term answer for that matter.However, it should be noted that prices have indeed fallen by around 20% I believe since the people who deal in commodity futures (that would be speculators to liberals) have begun to believe that congress will be forced to have some sort of compromise on exploration.
  The only reason for this optimism is not some silly belief that the Democrats will come to their senses and do the right thing but that they will do the right thing for the wrong reason. Public opinion polls and the pending election.
  And Pat, I’ll keep Charles and you can have Paul.

• 4. Mike Carroll  |  August 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  and, BTW, its nice to have something to have an intelligent discussion on for a change. I was afraid that your blog had descended to a debate society on political ads.

• 5. Pat Cunningham  |  August 8th, 2008 at 10:31 am

  Mike: It’s my guess that lower oil prices are prompted in great part by the specter of recession, which will significantly diminish demand. Of course, demand already has diminished as a result of people driving less and the collapse in sales of big vehicles. But , of course, you have right to think that the magic bullet has been the psychological byproduct of the move toward drilling for supplies that might not be forthcoming in my lifetime.
  As for the Applesauce video festival, I’m just trying to entertain the customers.

• 6. Menlo Bob  |  August 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  Krugman asserts that it would take years to pump offshore oil. Wrong. It would take about one year to get the wells off Santa Barbara pumping again. And the group that opposed those wells has signed on to a plan to do just that. Legislative action is all that’s needed.

• 7. hokumboy  |  August 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  Bob,
  I realize that the two terms can be synonymous in other conversations, but wasn’t Krugman talking of drilling rather than pumping? The expansion of off shore drilling is the gimmick the McBush crowd are screaming for. That’s not quite the same as pumping wells that have already be established.

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  August 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  Hoke: That’s a point I was going to make. Thanks. The new drilling will take years to produce anything.

• 9. Menlo Bob  |  August 8th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  How long will it take to bring Obama mystery fuel to market? 5 years, 10 years–if we’re using the same rationale then I guess we can’t go down that road either. Truth is those who’ve blocked oil exploration for the last 10 years have much to answer for today, but that doesn’t me doing nothing now. Years can be taken off the time by not allowing environmentalists to block a project in court. Alaskan oil wouldn’t have been brought online as soon as it did without legislation that allowed construction to proceed while legal challenges were underway.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed