With a good interview, ten to twelve minutes can be quite revealing. So it was this morning listening as I usually do to Bill Reddish’s AM Salisbury program. Today he interviewed Democrat Congressional hopeful Christopher Robinson and definitely scored some points in his verbal fencing.
As you may know from my coverage of the recent SU Democrat forum, Robinson is one of the cut and run brigade, trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (If you believe Clarice Feldman of the American Thinker website there’s only 200 or so foreign al-Qaeda fighters left in Iraq.) Regardless, the surge has worked and we’re getting ready to draw down our numbers in that country. However, Robinson opined that perhaps the terrorists are waiting on our election results; after all, they’re a very patient lot and have no problem with spending lifetimes trying to achieve change. In any case, Robinson noted that we need “to focus on things at home.”
The one domestic focus he chose to talk about was energy independence. Christopher thought we should be “resolute about conservation” because he didn’t want to look for new oil (we “need to start listening” to environmentalists – as if they haven’t had their say for the last thirty years) nor did he wish to consider nuclear power (we “cannot continue to pollute the atmosphere.”) I guess what’s left is solar and wind power, neither of which are ready to provide the amount of energy our economy needs at a lower cost than oil and coal do. This even with nearly $100 a barrel oil and expensive anti-pollution measures required to burn the regional high-sulfur coal.
A statistic Robinson cited was that from 1977-85, we reduced our dependence on oil overall by 17 percent, including 50% on Middle East oil. What he didn’t go into was what happened in that era economically, particularly under President Carter. I remember the gas lines and the price going up to a dollar a gallon. One particular memory I have of that era was the old-fashioned mechanical gasoline pumps which had to be retrofitted or replaced since the pricing mechanism only went up to 99.9 cents. While as Robinson opines, “Jimmy Carter was right on energy conservation,” he was also the President who popularized the “misery index” and holds the record for the highest numerical average. And while some of the decline in oil usage can be traced to Americans buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars (remember the Chevette or the Dodge Omni?) I think more of the drop is a result of the economic slowdown that plagued the Carter years, part of the overall malaise in America at the time.
And if Robinson believes that we need a Carteresque solution to energy independence, you will definitely need to recall just what Jimmy Carter advocated, like this example. One part of the reason that imports dropped was because President Carter set import quotas on oil.
I liked Bill’s retort on the oil issue. Drilling and transport is safer than it was 30 years ago, and I think the twin masters of environment and exploration can both be served. Then again, I’m convinced that Democrats do like to share misery equally, creating government dependence, and one way to do so is by squeezing the supply side of energy and creating the high prices that naturally reduce demand. It worked like a charm during the Carter years, which explained why the misery index got to the heights it did.
I also need to comment on one other thing Christopher Robinson said about Jimmy Carter, that he was a “fiscal conservative.” If Robinson’s idea of fiscal conservatism is a President who created two new Cabinet-level agencies (Education and Energy) and the bureaucracy that goes with them, give me the real thing like Reagan’s tax cuts.
All in all, it was a revealing interview about how liberal Democrats think. As I said, a good interviewer can bring out a lot in ten minutes if you’re willing to listen to what is said and Bill Reddish accomplished that goal this morning.
If Robinson opposes nuclear energy because he doesn’t want air pollution (I didn’t listen to the interview, but that seems to be what you are reporting here), then he’s better do a little more research. Nuclear energy releases no air pollution. Yes, there is radioactive waste that is produced, but that, too, produces no air pollution. Perhaps he’d better head over to the other side of the Bay and take a tour of the nuclear facility at Calvert Cliffs. I went through there a few years ago and it was quite educational. I doubt Robinson would be anti-nuclear if he really knew anything about the energy source.