Replies

If Iraq goes badly it's because Muslims have to kill each other and others to feel "right", leaving Iraq won't solve that it would make it worse and spread terrorism even more and destroy a young democracy before it's even out of diapers.

And gas prices wouldn't be so high if we were building more refinaries, which Democrats oppose.

If we were using shale oil technology, which democrats oppose.

If we were building more nuke and clean coal power plants to reduce our need for imported oil, which Democrats oppose.

If we were drilling in ANWR, which would exceed the supply provided by the Prudhoe Bay supply, which Democrats oppose.

If we were using more wind power, like Californias wind farms that sit idle, which would reduce our need for oil for electricity production, and that oil could be added to oil for automobile supply, which Democrats oppose because some blind birds don't see them.

Or if we didn't force the U.S. oil companies to make over 120 DIFFERENT blends of unleaded and diesel gasoline, which adds at least $1.50 to the cost per gallon. The environmental lobby is MOST responsible for the price of gas. State and Federal tax per gallon is .40 to .50 cents per gallon. The average oil company profit per gallon is only about a nickel to a dime PER GALLON, compared ot that $1.50 or more per gallon it costs having to refine, store, transport, and keep seperate all those different blends of gas for different states. Senator Allen is pushing legislation which would eliminate over 100 of those blends from the market, allowing the oil companies to make just some of the cleaner burning ones, which would still operate on all vehicles still on the road today, that would drop the price per gallon by nearly half as soon as it's fully in place because the oil companies will be freed of BILLIONS of dollars per year in extra expense. But Democrats oppose it.

So the high gas prices are 100% the fault of perfectly good common sense enviromentally friendly legislation that the liberal Democrats, even as a minority, are able to block, because of their liberal media lap dogs. If anything, the liberal opposition to any kind of legislation that would incrase supply will be what effects the election. I believe that more Americans know the truth behind who is at fault for gas prices than is ever admitted in the media. It isn't the Republicans. :) That's just my opinion though.

Anytime I hear someone I know who is a Democrat complaining about high gas prices, I tell them we should build nuke and clean coal plants, use wind technology, drill in ANWR, and build more refinaries, and they always say "YEAH! That would help!" And then I tell them to call their Democrats they keep voting for and tell them to quit blocking the legislation that would make that happen.

I totally know what you're saying, but I think the gas price backlash will not be against Republicans, because it's clearly not the Pubs who block legislation that would ease the price and increase supply and decrease demand, and any half way intelligend voter will know that thanks to the blogs, and radio and emails and FOX news. :)

Everyone chooses their occupation or profession based on their ability and desire to satisfy themselves and the people they care about. Most simply take the first job that will pay enough money to keep the respect of their family. Professionals prepare systematically to do something more than that. Journalists go into journalism to be part of a profession which is at the top of the pecking order. First and foremost, journalism promotes the idea that journalism is the most important profession. And that implies pecking at all the other chickens in the barnyard.

Water is so important that if somebody shuts someone else's operation down they are said to have "shut his water off." Does someone take their importance by providing good water to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the possibility of quality degradation in the water supply, and about how expensive water is. Peck.

Everyone needs gasoline and electricity. Does someone take their importance by providing energy to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the environmental and international political impact of producing energy, and about how expensive energy is. Peck.

Everyone needs, or will need, health care. Does someone take their importance by providing health care to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the reliability and expense of health care. Peck.

The nation needs police and military. Does someone take their importance by providing security to the public and the nation? Journalism's reaction is to question whether they do their job adequately without brutality. Peck.
And so on. In general, anyone who aspires to respect based on doing things, and who is a natural for membership in the Republican Party, is a natural target of journalism.
Who does journalism not peck? Only those who sell out any independence from the idea that journalism is the only thing that matters. Those people, it calls "liberals." Or "progressives." Or whatever high-sounding label they prefer. Which is why people who are rich enough, tend to buy off journalism by taking on journalism's political coloration. Especially, but far from exclusively, those who inherited their money.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate