Don't be fooled by the title of this blog. I don't discuss herbs very much here. This blog is general-purpose, although I do like ranting about politics and religion.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Evan Bayh: Statesman.

Over at The Washington Times they talked about how "presidential" Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh was sounding. This is part of the report on Bayh's speech:

       Mr. Bayh said President Bush should have responded to the September 11 terrorist attacks by raising the price of oil, the Indianapolis Star reports.

       Mr. Bayh, accusing Republicans of dividing the country, said Mr. Bush failed to summon Americans to "something more" after the terror attacks. The president, he said, should have urged people to accept potentially costly moves to lessen the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Excuse me? Respond to the 9/11 attacks by raising the price of oil? And that is the "something more" that Bush should have done in addition to invading Afghanistan and Iraq? If that's all the Times can say about Bayh that is "presidential", I sincerely hope that he never gets anywhere near the Presidency.

How on earth does raising the price of oil (by imposing an import surcharge, I imagine) help the country? All it does is increase oil company profits on domestic product, because they can then legitimately raise domestic crude prices to just below or equal to the surcharged oil. And then what? Pump more oil out of the ground domestically? The only way that would work would be to increase production out of the Alaskan North Slope, which would make the environmentalists (the Dems bosom buddies) freak out.

No, Bayh is an idiot. That's he's a partisan idiot is only a minor distinction.

The Times article apparently misquoted Bayh or took his remark out of context, so I take back the "idiot call". It was unworthy of me anyway to call him an idiot. But it sure seems funny that the Times would praise him for what is clearly an idiotic position.


  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Cass Dems said…

    I was at that speech, and the Times report in NO way resembles what Bayh said. What Bayh said was we need to spend more on research to move away from our dependence on oil.

    But then this is a report from the Washington Times via the Indy Star, two of the most worthless rags on earth. I would hope people would take any report from either of these papers with a grain of salt. And assume that a report combining the efforts of the two would make as much sense as a game of telephone, as played by 5 year olds.

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger Mike Clark said…

    And here I thought the Times was demonstrating it's dunderheadedness by praising a dunderheaded remark. My mistake!


Post a Comment

<< Home