The 2008 Presidential Debates: It’s Energy Independence Stupid!

The candidates need to focus. We believe there is one primary cause of America’s current problems. It isn’t Wall Street. It isn’t Main Street. It isn’t corruption. Quite simply, it is dependency on foreign oil and natural resources.

There are many nations we purchase oil from; they are not all rogue.  But what nations have led to problems for the US and yet still profit from selling us their oil directly or indirectly?  Iran, and for every barrel we purchase, we support their nuclear endeavor. Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists were born. Russia, which is now invading Georgia.

Now we even talk about attacking Iran or defending Georgia when it is OUR OIL money that is supporting Iran and Russia.

We are allies of Israel. It puts us at odds with ourselves and our own policies supporting Israel while we depend on her worst enemies for the bulk of our oil.

We realize that we purchase much or our oil from allies and local nations.  Please read our series on natural resources to find out who we depend on the most for our oil, but even those nations have seen their currencies advance strongly in the face of our dollar’s collapse as our economy weakens and our deficit rises.

This election could still go either way, but the advantage is currently with Obama.  We believe, however, there are many closet voters just waiting for their opportunity to elect McCain instead. It is popular to say you are for Obama, or to just hate Bush, but we believe that many Americans that take these positions are really not in favor of Obama’s policies, inexperience and lack of spending discipline.

When Clinton ran for President the first time, he came up with a slogan. It narrowed the issues and allowed America to identify with his ideals and his campaign. That slogan was, “It’s the economy stupid”. It focused his objectives and gathered a nation around him to fix our economic problems.

We face a myriad of problems, but most have been brought on by our dependency on foreign oil.

1. 9/11 brought on by our presence in the Middle East to protect our interests with respect to foreign oil.
2. War in Afghanistan against the Taliban.
3. Two attacks on Iraq, the second of which led to occupation. There is little doubt that many consider this a war over oil. Well, if we didn’t need their oil, it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?
4. A huge Federal deficit.
5. More pollution outside the US because we don’t use our own advanced technologies to tap the resources we need.

It’s energy independence, stupid!

In Retrospect, Palin Is NO NIMBY. Heroic Speech Questions Obama’s Double Speak

In her September 3rd speech accepting her selection as the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Palin astutely stated, “U.S. reliance on imported oil poses a national security risk, and energy policy should include everything from expanding domestic drilling to finding alternative fuels”. 

The Democrats appear to think we should continue to import our resources while we take decades to bring on alternative fuels, but with the NIMBY attitude of the US, that isn’t going to happen any time soon. We need to break the ecology extremists that would save a chicken at the expense of a human life. These liberals would see our economy crushed before they would stop sending huge amounts of American currency to the home of the terrorists that executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Palin went on, “”We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Palin showed that she has more savvy and is more cognizant of America’s situation than the Democrats which are still planning on addressing our national deficit by blocking energy advances in America and continuing to import foreign oil at huge expense.

We are NIMBY’s. It has to stop. It has to stop now. the Democrats support NIMBYism and are desperate to continue to add to our national deficit and to discourage the tapping of US resources and inherent creation of US jobs.

These policies, combined with a set of programs that would cost nearly the national deficit with no logical explanation of how to pay for them, has driven us away from Obama.

Obama has a chance to sway the moderates like us to his side, but it isn’t lying in his commercials. He has to answer several questions.

1. How do we reduce our dependency on foreign oil ASAP? We have a hint. It isn’t ethanol.

2. How do we pay for 400 billion dollars worth of Democratic programs with only what Obama states is a small tax increase on those making over $250,000?

3. How do you roll back Bush Tax Cuts without raising taxes? Aren’t raising taxes and rolling back tax cuts the exact same thing?

4. How can you say you will solve Social Security Problems by taxing people a decade from now, when you know you can’t possibly even be in office by then? Wouldn’t that just be deferring responsibility to your successor?

Those would be our questions to Obama in the debates, and we are not CBS, a pandering network in Obama’s pocket.

If you, our readers, can provide the answers to any of these questions above, we welcome your input, because we sure can’t.

Part III: Obama Versus McCain on Natural Resources & Fossil Fuels: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!!

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is McCain’s opinion.  We believe it panders a bit too much in an attempt to get votes.  While we agree with Obama on Trade, this is an important facet of trade, and John is much more realistic in his approach than Obama.  However, he spends most of his time sounding overly NIMBY.  We have cut out many of his positions from his site.

Many, like those of Obama, are nonsense pandering to the conservationists and not making a stand to show us how narrow minded we can be.  Climate change happened over centuries, we cannot fix it in 4 years guys.  Don’t patronize us, get real!

From John  McCain:

Open Space

Economic development is essential to a strong American economy but urban sprawl shouldn’t be allowed to expand unabated at the expense of our remarkable wild and scenic public lands. Instead we should promote responsible growth and encourage state and local officials to implement open space initiatives and establish green corridors within our communities. This will require strengthening federal tools like Land and Water Conservation Fund that emphasizes recreation and the protection of wildlife areas.

Climate Change and Energy Independence

Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Not only does our dependence on foreign oil bring about sizable national security risks but the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.

John McCain has announced The Lexington Project, a comprehensive energy and climate strategy to provide America with secure sources of energy, ensure our continued prosperity, and address global climate change. This plan includes the elements necessary to achieve these objectives by: producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air, addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources.

This strategy recognizes that we must reexamine our national energy policy and enact reforms that allow the market to do more to open new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives to develop clean and renewable energy technologies. The most direct way to achieve this is through a cap-and-trade system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions.

We have an opportunity for American agriculture to be a major player in the pursuit of energy independence through the development of bio diesel and cellulosic energy. In moving forward, we must integrate environmental policies that maintain quality wildlife habitat near and downstream of farmland. The past quarter century shown that environmental stewardship programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program have helped reduce wetland loss, improve water quality and minimize soil erosion. As we build our new energy economy, these programs should be recognized as good agriculture practices central to sustaining healthy ecosystems.

Our Response:

All that is fine John, but it is a solution for fifty years from now, we need a solution now.  But John expanded on this view.

John Continues:

“The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies, not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America,” McCain said Tuesday.

Our Response:

Finally someone with some guts, although we would call it energy independence which, in turn, leads to energy security.  If we were independent of foreign oil, we would not be at war in Iraq today, and it is highly likely we would not have experienced 9/11.

John is now supporting offshore drilling to tap our resources, and we are glad to see someone finally has the guts to support offshore drilling in the face of naive self-centered NIMBY conservationists?  Are we finally breaking away from the “prima donna” attitude and accepting some responsibility for ourselves?  Maybe not…

“When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a ‘refuge’ for a reason,” he said.

We are getting mixed messages, but at least we are hearing some approach to providing access to US natural resources that sooner than later will reduce our dependencies on international oil and our trade deficit.

It is absolutely foolish to assume that anyone will stop drilling, destroying their habitats and killing other human beings to provide for our needs if we will not provide for our own.

One liberal diatribe makes this quote: “According to your best estimate, when will “drilling here and drilling now” reduce the price of gasoline in the United States?”  You don’t have to ask the candidates this question, you know the answer.  Sooner than if we take no action at all.  A central argument against taking action has been that results are not immediate.  By this argument, you should never attempt any long term objective.  If you can’t deliver results today, it is too late.  And year after year, while you maintain that “can’t do” attitude, other nations will eat you alive and your trade deficit will soar as you continue to import natural resources you already have for blood money.  Had we strongly pursued energy independence ten years ago, we would likely be independent today.  We didn’t do it.  Why?  It wasn’t because we believed in our environment and it wasn’t because we cared about pollution, etc.  It wasn’t cost effective.  Ten years ago, imported oil was cheap.  But as it turned out, the deluded idea we could import our resources has resulted in the loss of huge numbers of human lives and cost us more economically than we ever imagined.  That is hindsight, but we don’t need hindsight now to know we need to fix the problem and to see we have the resources to do it within our grasp.

The answers we are reading from the candidates also skip over a major problem we face in the US with respect to gasoline prices.  We do not have enough refineries.  Build them, with new technologies and governed by our laws.  To hell with the special interests.  If we don’t do it, someone else will and we can guarantee you it won’t be in their citizens’ interests or ours.  It will be in the name of money.

The liberal side completely escapes us as does John’s desire to pander to them.  We believe we should drill anywhere feasible, Alaska, Offshore, wherever we can.  Build refineries.  Accelerate the use of coal for petroleum, tap oil shale, and build alternative energy sources in the face of NIMBY self-interest groups.

Through it all, we guarantee you, the US will do it much cleaner and with much more consideration to the environment and human rights than any other nation on earth.  Get used to it.  We consume.  Why destroy our economy in our wake?  Take responsibility for ourselves!  It will yield results.  And if anyone asks you for a date for when it will deliver results like the liberal diatribe above?  Ask them for a date when we will be independent of foreign oil if we don’t take action.  Hypocrites need not apply!

Read Obama’s Position: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process