« Retail Mysteries | Main | Belfast on the Euphrates » Huckabee's Zero-Energy Economy12 Dec 2007 12:24 pm Mike Huckabee's views on global warming seem to be firmly in the good-for-a-Republican camp, so it's too bad that he (once again) doesn't appear to have any understanding of the policy issues and says things like: "we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is." That is bold. Visionary, almost. Kind of like Curtis LeMay's plan to bomb 'em into the stone age, but in reverse. Comments (19)
Give the guy a break. I strongly suspect that given the chance, Huckabee would correct that to "dependence on foreign oil." One can disagree with the guy for other reasons, but nit-picking his verbal slips seems a bit petty. 
OK, maybe he meant "free of dependence on foreign oil" within a decade. That still means he has no idea what he's talking about, because that's pretty close to impossible. Not to mention that, even if we weren't actually using any foreign oil, the international oil markets would still affect us just as much as if we were. The comment is stupid no matter how you slice it.
Not, I hasten to add, that "independence from foreign oil in ten years" is any kind of realistic goal.
Give the guy a break. I strongly suspect that given the chance, Huckabee would correct that to "dependence on foreign oil." One can disagree with the guy for other reasons, but nit-picking his verbal slips seems a bit petty. Isn't seven years of tolerating verbal slips which betray a stunning lack of familiarity with the issues because "you know what he really meant" enough?
The comment is stupid no matter how you slice it. Well, on its merits, it's no stupider than the "Islamofascist threat" meme or the "illegal immigrants are destroying America's quality of life" one, or the "lower taxes create higher revenue" one, or that old chestnut, "Social Security is headed toward bankruptcy." I mean, every single GOP talking point is based on factually wrong information. In that context, Huckabee even mentioning moving away from dependence on foreign oil seems like a laudable attempt on his part to acknowledge reality.
Yes, I think a crucial difference between Huckabee and (say) Giuliani is that the Huckabee campaign has *no* policy staff, while the Giuliani campaign has a large, knowledgeable, and mostly insane (foreign) policy staff. Personally, I'd much prefer the former situation...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/11/eveningnews/main3605907_page2.shtml Sadly, the CBS News transcript is slightly different, saying: "we ought to declare that we will be oil free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is." Not nearly as visionary as the previous statement. Ridiculous, but not visionary.
Total independence from foreign oil within a decade is perhaps possible, but it would be a titanic effort, so probably the most fair and balanced translation of Huckabee's puzzling statement is this: I have no plan of action to do anything, so perhaps we should settle at making a bold statement, even if it is a hyper bold statement like ending energy consumption, or ultra bold statement like ending energy import. Do not bother my beautiful mind with details.
I'm going to give up energy consumption for Lent.
Maybe he's anticipating the rapture to be right around the corner.
Hasn't Fred Thompson already achieved the Zero Energy Campaign?
Kind of like Curtis LeMay's plan to bomb 'em into the stone age, but in reverse. There's a PBS documentary that came out a couple of years ago I recommend on George Wallace. Very interesting couple of hours of TV. Well, they show some footage of a press conference with Wallace and LeMay. Seems the former chose the latter to be his running mate -- back in '68 I think. Anyway, some reporter asks LeMay a national defense-related question, and before you know it LeMay has launched himself on a colorful, Dr. Strangelovian soliloquy about nuclear deterrence. Make that nuclear war. Lots of stuff about radiation, and throw weights, and megattonage, and the like. He's really getting into it. It goes on minute after agonizing minute for George Wallace, who is standing next to his running mate looking mighty uncomfortable. It's all he can do to resist pulling the microphone away from LeMay. Wallace -- no dummy he -- is clearly ready to explode. You can just hear his brain waves screaming "Shut the fuckup you crazy muthafuckah! I know you're a wack job but I thought you had enough sense not to display it to the national press corps! I'm serious! Shut the fuck up! Silence! NOW!" And of course, LeMay, now completely in his element and utterly oblivious to his boss's angst, is quite cheerfully and enthusiastically expounding on how we can vaporize the Soviets, and what we need to do to insure victory in a nuclear exchange. Anyway, it was a truly hilarious scene. And yes, also a tad scary.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't consume energy, I only degrade it. You have to obey ALL of the laws of thermodynamics, not just the ones you agree with.
You have to obey ALL of the laws of thermodynamics, not just the ones you agree with. That's the kind of hidebound conservative thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
I hesitate to comment, with El Cid and omellet already outclassing anything I might write for sheer snark, but this 'zero-energy-imports' thing always gets me. Being from the Northwest originally, I am very aware that a lot of Alaska's petroleum production gets put on tankers that are then highly competitive for deliveries to Japan or Korea. I don't know the numbers, but I have certainly read that, while America is the biggest oil importer in the world, it's also a big oil exporter. This makes sense: just as tankers from Alaska aren't so very far from Japan, many of our refineries are a lot more conveniently supplied from Venezuela than from Alaska. There is of course, also the gaming-the-markets issue: quite a while ago, there was a kerfuffle when it was exposed that American oil companies were selling Alaskan oil to Korea at a price below then-unusually-high US west coast prices, which resulted in further tightening of US markets and spiking gas prices.
Sadly, the CBS News transcript is slightly different, saying: "we ought to declare that we will be oil free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is." Once again, Daily Kos is lying about Republicans. (Not that "oil free of energy consumption" makes complete sense either, but it is a lot better than the lying "quotation" that Daily Kos posted.) In any event, I don't see how being oil-independent in 10 years is any more fanciful an idea than, say, the left wing idea of reducing carbon emissions by 90% by 2050.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't consume energy, I only degrade it. You have to obey ALL of the laws of thermodynamics, not just the ones you agree with. Hey, thermodynamics is just a theory, like evolution. There are gaps somewheres, I think, and maybe this Huckabee perpetual motion thing will pan out!
The DailyKos quote doesn't match the CBS quote.
Comments closed December 26, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
". Kind of like Curtis LeMay's plan to bomb 'em into the stone age, but in reverse."
Stone them into the bomb age?
Of course, there is a way to be free of human energy consumption in this country within a decade, but I don't think complete annihilation would be particularly popular, even with the GOP base . . . .
Posted by Dan S. | December 12, 2007 12:35 PM