Comments: Bush Blames Others For No Energy Policy - But GOP Tried To Eliminate DOE In 1990's

We do in fact have an energy policy,
its called the cheney energy policy, in
cahoots with big oil and some arabs. We are
all enjoying the benefits of that policy

Posted by paul r at April 29, 2005 05:16 AM

don't you like free markets, you communist? Ask Shell, ExxonMobil, and Conoco if the country's energy policy is working.

[/snark]

Posted by Flamethrower at April 29, 2005 06:04 AM

Plenty of blame to go around since 1973, on either side. Nobody has done anything to get the US off of crude.

Clinton had oil as low as $12 a barrel. Why would he have wanted to do anything else but burn crude? Can't blame him. He had other things on his mind anyways.

Posted by muckdog at April 29, 2005 06:40 AM

muck,

Can't you think and get a bj at the same time?

It's called multi-tasking. Maybe if Bush got his pole waxed a little more often he wouldn't be so uptight and snippy.

Posted by muckcat at April 29, 2005 06:47 AM

Muckkitty,

Thanks for the lovely imagery early in the morning.

Really.

Who needs coffee when you can get grossed out?

And let me just point out that the Democrats have tried to raise CAFE standards for years but the republicans, and any Dems that went with them did not matter, yes, the republicans, have blocked that effort every single stinking time.

And it wasn't the Democrats that got suv's that tax break, it was republicans.

Try to factor that into your obsession over President Clinton's good fortune, muckdoggie!

Posted by Duckman GR at April 29, 2005 07:10 AM

Well Duck Vader, CAFE standards are pretty meaningless. What their needs to be is some environmental leadership in spurring consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. The environmentalists have been MIA the past decade. All they seem intent on doing is stopping road and freeway construction.

Posted by muckdog at April 29, 2005 07:58 AM

Muck, even if you keep repeating the CATO and Heritage tripe about CAFE standards being meaningless doesn't make it so.

Posted by Steve Soto at April 29, 2005 08:09 AM

muck YOUR party and YOUR boy Wonder KIng are in control of the agenda and control what the media focuses on. Quit blaming everyone but the man and party that are more focused on Social Security's destruction, asbestos liability, changing Senate rules to pack the courts and pander to their base , protecting an unethical friend in the house, and getting a madman confirmed to the UN who tried to fire people because they said the intelligence didn't agree with said madman's predetermined opinion. YOU know things that most pople and the average individual does not consider a priority, doesn't care one hoot, or does not want even despite the crybaby bubble boy continuing to ram these issues down their throats everyday because he thinks he has a mandate and was sent by God.

Posted by emal at April 29, 2005 08:22 AM

Again, muck, what has Bush done about conservation? He's the President now and you can't defend his inaction by saying, "Well, Clinton didn't do anything." It's not about what others did or didn't do, it's about what the current administration refuses to do.

Do you really think the Reps in the House and Senate would have let Clinton do anything about conservation? That's a laugh and a half.

Posted by ann at April 29, 2005 01:19 PM

The environmentalists have been MIA the past decade. All they seem intent on doing is stopping road and freeway construction.

So muck, which way do you want it -- they have done nothing or something?

Please don't bother to answer.

Posted by at April 29, 2005 08:34 PM

Are all people who disagree with a conservative a communist? Can any neocon/under 25 elitist spouting their parents party line truly deny that the California energy debacle was NOT a result of pure crapitalism run amok due to ethics being unfashionable-the dollar is GOD- all hail to the Almighty. Puhleeze, and when Mr. Bush, (I respect the office and LOVE my country-40 years in the military/family background) the "acting" puppet said our energy needs had increased 12% due to industrial/economic growth, I choked on my banana as I sat in a parking lot surrounded by Tundrasses, Yukons, Suburbans, Expeditions. Let me say that again, puhleeze. To claim the inability to wring 2 more MPG out of the gashogs of Amerikan design and then push 60 mpg hybrids rings rather hollow, don't ya think?

The ANWR is Mr. Bush's Holy Grail. It should offend every patriot in America that he would want to rape the last, largest pristine frontier in our great country for a 2 year supply of energy to line his cronies pockets. How much more can they stuff into them!?!???

It disgusts me and it should every other thinking person in America. THIS attitude of gluttony is what the Arab/Muslim world detests about us, NOT our freedom.

Anne Gabriel

Posted by ANNE GABRIEL at April 29, 2005 10:48 PM

Hello fellow Left Coast readers/posters,

I've been wasting the better half of my Saturday trying to find some reasonably rational defense of W.'s "energy plan" as outlined in his press confrence. If anyone can point me to a link please do.

How can anybody call trying to talk the Saudis into dumping more crude on the market a sensible strategy?

I think if the looming energy crisis is explained as a clear threat to America's economy, defense, and our very existence as a industrial first world country this is one issue that could unite right wingers left wingers and any thinking person against Bush.

Talk about communisim. China is looking into buying Unocal. If this does not make the right take notice they should just give up any pretense that they actually care what happens to America and replace the framed Reagan picture with one of Mao.

Linked text

Posted by tuxedocat at April 30, 2005 12:20 PM