In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Paranoia Strikes Deeper" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/opinion/krugman-paranoia-strikes-deeper.html?_r=1&hp#), Paul Krugman writes:
"Oil prices are set in a world market, and America, which accounts for only about a tenth of world production, can’t move those prices much. Indeed, the recent rise in gas prices has taken place despite rising U.S. oil production and falling imports."
America can't move those prices much? Oh really? America is blessed with enormous quantities of oil shale, which translate medium-term into energy independence, and this resource will ultimately make a difference. Meanwhile, if Obama wants to control oil speculation, he can release strategic oil reserves, as was belatedly discussed with UK Prime Minister David Cameron earlier this month (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-oil-reserves-idUSBRE82E0UM20120315). In addition, Obama could have also sent a message to the markets by agreeing to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed, as advocated by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/nocera-the-poisoned-politics-of-keystone-xl.html).
Krugman observes that Romney has conveniently bought into the claim that gas prices are higher owing to an Obama administration plot; however, he thinks that Romney will reject such conspiracy theories after winning the Republican nomination:
"If and when he wins the nomination, Mr. Romney will try, as a hapless adviser put it, to shake his Etch A Sketch — that is, to erase the record of his pandering to the crazy right and convince voters that he’s actually a moderate. And maybe he can pull it off.
But let’s hope that he can’t, because the kind of pandering he has engaged in during his quest for the nomination matters. Whatever Mr. Romney may personally believe, the fact is that by endorsing the right’s paranoid fantasies, he is helping to further a dangerous trend in America’s political life. And he should be held accountable for his actions."
My guess is that Romney, after being nominated, will indeed adapt his candidacy to middle-of-the-road America. But does this make him a dangerous demagogue, or is this all part of the game?
In this respect, perhaps Paul can tell us:
• What happened to Obama's past promise to acknowledge Armenian Genocide? Had Obama honored this commitment, I don't think he would now be able to count Turkey's loathsome Prime Minister Erdoğan as one of his best buddies.
• What happened to Obama's campaign promise to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay? Answer: Nothing.
• What happened to Obama's promise to bar lobbyists from working in the administration on issues related to their prior employers for two years? Answer: Conveniently ignored.
• What happened to Obama's promise to bring US troops home after becoming president? Obama declared in October 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ9vKX73UZ0):
"I will promise you this – that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."
Well, the troops came home from Iraq in 2011, but not on schedule, and Obama significantly escalated US involvement in Afghanistan.
Oh goodness gracious me, even Democrats are not to be trusted! Yawn . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment