Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
Joe Escalante ·
Feb 8, 2011 at 10:45pm
Is it just me or did the media constantly tie rising gas prices to President Bush (both of em actually) and then stop talking about them when prices fell? Now it's the opposite. If I remember correctly, it was like a concerted effort on all fronts to take advantage of rising fuel prices to drive Bush approval numbers south.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
So let's see...
Gas Prices go up and Bush, the Oil Man is at fault. Along with the greedy Oil Companies and the Nasty Speculators.
The G.W. Bush announces a lifting of the Ban on offshore drilling and on the very same day Gas Prices begin a steady decline.
And they stayed down up until another President implements a Moratorium on Offshore drilling (in violation of a Court Order) and prices have steadily increased since the Permitorium began.
Nope, no connections there. Just a funny coincidence. Sorry folks, NO dots to connect at all.
Dec '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
The doomsday scenario of global warming caused by carbon emissions; the confiscation of oil companies’ profits—ours, not OPEC’s; the taxpayer subsidies for Government Motors’ inept instigation of electric cars; these schemes of authoritarian statists have long abandoned the American dream of individual mobility.
Power to the people is now their anathema, freedom an impediment to their collectivist control. They try to take away our energy, but they cannot take away our spirit. The rising price at the pump will sooner than later lead to their downfall.
Oct '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
it was the high gas prices that caused the great recession in 2008. not deregulation.
Jun '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
This is a winner for the Republicans. No amount of spin from the MSM is going to make a consumer feel good about paying $100 to fill up his SUV. And "green" energy is still generations away. In addition, the cost of hybrids and electric cars is just out of reach for average Americans. In my neck of the woods "green" is an expensive vanity for wealthy libs. Republicans in the House need to make the case for exploration and production of fossil fuels everyday. Opportunity is knocking.
Dec '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
A few months prior to the 2004 election, a coworker predicted that the price of gas would start to go down prior to the election in order to help George W Bush win. He said that after the election the price would pop back up even higher.
After the election, when nothing of the sort happened, I pointed out that his prediction was wrong. His reaction was to blame it on incompetence, i.e. Bush tried to do this but failed. No matter the facts, these people will twist them around until they are right.
Jan '11
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
The media's take on price of gas?
Yawn. Been there, done that.
Kind of reminds me of the media's interest in the body-counts from Iraq and Afghanistan since November, 2008.
By the way, how many US Attorneys has Mr. Obama replaced?
Oct '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
I remember hearing a Democratic senator blaming Bush for not exploiting Iraqi oil. I couldn't believe it.
Dec '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
I recall that in 2008, as public anger at rising gasoline prices mounted, even Nancy Pelosi had to state publicly that she favored getting the price of gasoline back down. This, even in the face of her proposals to use taxation to increase the consumer price of fossil fuels to drive energy policy.
Now, of course, since the next major election is over a year away, nobody in the White House or among Democrats in Congress sees anything wrong with the rising cost of gasoline: it's doing what they hoped it would do all along to make their green schemes seem sensible.
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
I remember this exactly. I was offended by it. This issue is a winner for Republicans only if they can articulate it without the MSM, which is a real handicap.
Foxman: A few months prior to the 2004 election, a coworker predicted that the price of gas would start to go down prior to the election in order to help George W Bush win. He said that after the election the price would pop back up even higher.
After the election, when nothing of the sort happened, I pointed out that his prediction was wrong. His reaction was to blame it on incompetence, i.e. Bush tried to do this but failed. No matter the facts, these people will twist them around until they are right. · Feb 9 at 6:02am
Dec '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
It's not the Executive Branch, it's the corner gas station. We have always been at war with the corner gas station.
Jul '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
~Paules: This is a winner for the Republicans. No amount of spin from the MSM is going to make a consumer feel good about paying $100 to fill up his SUV. And "green" energy is still generations away. In addition, the cost of hybrids and electric cars is just out of reach for average Americans. In my neck of the woods "green" is an expensive vanity for wealthy libs. Republicans in the House need to make the case for exploration and production of fossil fuels everyday. Opportunity is knocking.
In the current climate, folks are looking at how they can reduce their outlay on conveyances. Personally, if I am going to spend that kind of money on a car, I think I'll go for a red 66 Mustang.
Of course, solar power cells produce the amount energy required to make them in only 30 years. After that, it's all gravy. And don't ask about windmills. We'll need to crank out a bunch of coal if we want to go green. Go Obama!
Dec '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
Sisyphus
Of course, solar power cells produce the amount energy required to make them in only 30 years.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious. Where did you get that figure? Is there a web site?
Edited on Feb 10, 2011 at 10:59amJul '10
Re: Pegging the Price of Gas to the Executive Branch
Foxman
Sisyphus
Of course, solar power cells produce the amount energy required to make them in only 30 years.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious. Where did you get that figure? Is there a web site? · Feb 10 at 8:23am
Edited on Feb 10 at 10:59 am
The figure was used in a debate on talk radio, but I had seen similar numbers before. I found a ghost of a DOE EERE statement that supported it, but the site has been changed and does not discuss such metrics now. I found some scholarly papers addressing the metric, but they were choc full of unrealistic assumptions. I found a convicted greenie writing and editing for IEEE Spectrum (definitely non-peer-reviewed) claiming 1-4 years for modern photo-voltaic cells (Sahara years to Moscow years). This is an even lower payback time than the papers I ran across assuming things like cloudless continuous 100% equatorial noon day light.
So I assume that that 30 year number assumes some number of cloudy days and a rotating Earth and higher refraction at higher latitudes and that greenies have latched onto a more misleading number because they can.