Obama and CNN: Against Low Gasoline Prices (Sheppard Smith: Guest Villain on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network)

The headline is NOT hyperbole. It is a fact. How can anyone vote for Obama in the face of that turth? Well, you have seen that they WON"'T if they are faced with high gas prices. That was Obama's lesson this summer--one of about 10 thousand things he did not know which are hurting him.


Segue to CNN today, and John King. He had one of those "panel" discussons with two CNN regulars . One o ws Eirc Erickson (or however he spells his name) of redstate.com. (who, unfortunately, has become less and less good, as he is tainted by CNN). The other was an Obama supporter and leftist (whose name I did not bother to notice). The subject was mainly ridiculing Michele Bachmann's perfectly reasonable "promise" that gasoline would go under $2 a gallon in a Bachmann Presidency. Why not? Donald Trump says that in these economic times, and maybe in condiderably better times, oil should be selling at $30 a barrel (not more than 80, as presently, and toward a 100 in Brent). Ut was bit kibg agi tgat gasoline sold for less than $2 a gallon, and oil $30 a barrel. It is DEFEATISM to say that those times are long gone. You woul dthink that at least CNN would approve the GOAL of bringing gasoline back to $2 a gallon You woul be wrong (not kidding or exaggerating here at all). Now you might also think that even the hpocrites at CNN would be reluctant to jump; on Michele Bachmann for "overpromising", aftea all of the outrageous promises that Obama made, and failed tokeep (and is still making, with no intention of keeping them or ability to do so). You would be wrong again, as the hypocrisy of CNN knows no bounds. But that is another article (or 100).


Why would it be BAD policy for us to achieve $2 gasoline? Do the American people agree with this? Not a chance. But the Obama supporter in the panel stated exactly that: "Anyway, it would not be good policy for us to have $2 gasoline." You may not realize it, and Obama may not say it, but that is EXACTLY the position of the Obama Administration and the Obama EPA. Their position is that it would be undesirable to encourage the use of fossil fuels with low oil and gasoline prices. I kid you not. I am not makig thi sup or exaggerating. If President Obama did NOT ffeel this way, he would have shown much more URGENCY about oil drilling. If Democrats did not feel this way, we would be drilling in ANWR--have COMLETED the project--well before now. John King, of coure, did not blink an eye at the assertion that it would be bad policy to have $2 gasoline, or ask why his panelist ddoes not have any compassion for PPOR and MIDDLE CLASS people. The conclusin is obvious, as the headline correctly says: The Obama Administration and CNN oppose substantially lower gas priiices (because of this obsession with "green" energy). And they are not interested in developng our fossil fuel resources. Michele Bachmann is interested, which is reason enough to elect her President (or someone else who thins like her, but she is the only one with courage to say these things). Politics aside, the question remainss: Do the American people really believe that it is "bad" plicy to have $2 gasoline? It was Eric Erickson, of redstate.com, who broke in and said essentailly that, although he said so with such ttimidity anddiffidence that I know I will never vote for HIM for anything (and don't recommend redstate.com).


Note what CNN did NOT do They falsely said that a President had no control over gas prices. That is a lie. It is ture that the President does not have total control, but the President does have a lkot to say about the price of oil and gasoline, You would not know it if you watch The Liar Network (CNN). Am I saying that President Obama is responsible for high gas prices this summer? Darn right I am. Obama has INTENSIFIED the restrictions on fossil fuels, including restrictions on drilling, that began in the 20th Century (drilling in ANWR failed by ONE VOTE--if I remember right--in 1998, due to oppostion of peole like Obama. Obama himself, although he seems to forget it, has been part of the DEMOCRAT attempts to restrict drilling since at least 2004, when Obama was elected aas a United States Senator. Yep. This is one of the obvious, yet persistent, Obama LIES. Obama--when he ran for President--was PART of the mess in Washington--part of the MAJORITY in Congress beginning in January of 2007. Can you imagine how much Obama is condemning HIMSELF when he talks about the "mess" in Washington he "found" when he beecame President. Ntot only was Obama an important part of that "mess" before he becamed President, but he is tellng us that he did not LEARN how big a mess it was until he became President (despite his four years in the United States Senate).


But did CNN go into drilling, and what could be done to lower oil and gas p;rices? Not a chance. CNN was not interested, as CNN is never interested, in INFORMATION. CNN was only interested in a partisan attack on Michele Bachmann--an attack in which redstate.com really joinged. The only reference to the POLICY advocated by Bachmann was a dismissive reference to her website, and how she proposed to encourage the production of more oil.


Ah. Sheppard Smith, of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk--one of the many reasons I have tol you to boycott that network. Sheppard Smith, and the unfair and unbalanced network, are not interested in facts either. Days before CNN's assertion today that it is a bad idea to have $2 gasoline, Sheppard Smith ridiculed Michele Bachmann for the same "promise' of $2 gasoline. Smith was also not interested in the policy choices that Bachmann was advocating to bring that about. Smith was not interested in the history of oil and gas prices, and how long ago gasoline had been at $2 a gallon. Bachmann seemed to be sayingg that gasoline was $1.79 a gallon when Obama became President. CNN did not attack that claim, which would indicate it is true. Gasoline was certanly close to $2 a gallon during the depths of the recession Oil went to $35 a barrel, before beginning its rise to $110 (under Obama--the price reached this summer). "No facts, none of the time". That is the motto of the unfair and unbalanced network--includnig the awkward double negative showing the kind of "transparency" in delivering facts you get on that network.


How can we evaluage a candidate for President if we have a media not interested in facts or issues at all, but only interested in their version of negative political ads? Well, people could read this blog.!!!!! However, I have to acknowledge that is not happening. This explains why I am a cynic and a pessimist. We have a media interested only in "gotcha", and agenda, and really no one trying to get information out to the public except on the internet. I have said that Rush Limbaugh gives better informatin than CNN, because he does. But "information" is not his stock and trade. This blog is more aboutinterpretation and critique than information, but--unlike CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network--I am respectfl of the facts and don't distort them. What I say is facttual is factual. It has been almost forever since I have made a SUBSTANTIVE error (includin gon opinions, when events have established whether the opinion was right or wrong). Now you will see typos, proofreading (because I don't--too time consuming with my truly bad eyesight) and spell checking (ditto). It may be a chore for ou to wasde through these articles, but you get actual facts along with agenda. Yes, the agenda is there, but I tell you what it is, and it does not (substantially) affect my analysis of the facts. And when I say the ""agenda" is there, it is NOT a "partisan" agenda. I am a conservative, with certain maverick tendencies (agnostic, for one). I am conservative not as some sort of religious "ideology"--like you leftists out there--but as the best descrtiiption of what I like to believe is a CONSISTENT overall philosophy of life, government and politics. I don't care if the "Republiican Party", as an institution, prevails. I want conservative IDEAS to prevail, because that is what I believe is best for the country. In ouor system, by the way, there is a place forparty loyalists. Someone has to keep the parties from flying off in all directions. I am just not one of those "loyalists". I have no loyalty at al to the Republican Party that first attracted e wtih Barry Godwater and Ronald Reagan. That party forfeited all right to any loyalty, in my conservative view. It looked ike the Republican Party might be returning to a party of conservative ideas, but the past few months have pretty much convinced me that is not so I think the "final" (for this election cycle) test will be the Repubican Party reaction (ACTIONS, not jut words) to the Obama "jobs program"--including this truly terrible "payroll tax cut"), and to whatever "plan" this "gang of 12" comes up with. I expect the worst. Did I tell you I am a cynic and a pessimist? I know that this long, rambling paragraph has little to do with the rest of the article, but from time to time I like to let you know where I am coming from., and why "partisan" is really te wrong descriptioni for me--unliked for CNN.