Nothing much has changed in the world economy over the last few years to explain the steep rise in oil prices this year. Demand has increased a few percentage points but prices have gone through the roof. Economics 101 tells us that the problem must be on the supply side. Saudi Arabia has always been the swing producer that ramped up production when prices got too high and scaled it back when prices got too low. But that is no longer happening.
This chart shows that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up by a factor of six, from $20 in 2001 to $120 in mid 2008. Moreover, the price doubled in just the last 18 months. Why would that be? Could it be that the Saudis want a change in Washington in 2008? What better way to ensure the defeat of the incumbent’s party than to drive gas prices through the roof?
Why would the Saudis want the GOP to lose? Firstly, the don’t like what we are doing in Iraq. We are creating a Democratic Muslim country that may undermine the Arab dictatorships that currently dominate the Middle East. We are also unleashing Iraq’s potential as a competing oil producer. Secondly, they don’t want us exploiting our own untapped oil reserves and reducing Saudi Arabia’s ability to manipulate oil supply. So, electing a Democratic President increases the chances the US will fail in Iraq and increases the chances the US will not start drilling in earnest.
The proof of this claim will be seen in 2009. If oil prices drop dramatically, especially if Obama wins, we’ll know that the supply was manipulated to influence the US presidential elections.
Rachel Lucas writes:
Sorry, I know lots of you who feel that way are very wonderful people who I really do respect, but I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: I think your plan is sh*tty. You’re going to get Obama elected, you realize that right? If you’re cool with that, more power to you, but I for one will NOT welcome my new Dumbass Overlord Obama. There are two new reasons for that today.
First: He has no f**kin’ clue what Memorial Day is for.
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
That’s via Hot Air, where you can also see that when McCain pointed out the error, this was the response:
Obama’s camp declined to hit back, with spokesman Bill Burton saying “Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation’s veterans, not a day for political posturing.”
Jesus on a battlestar. We have a whole holiday to honor veterans; it’s called VETERAN’S DAY. Memorial Day is for the ones who died while serving, and it’s a pretty simple concept, and you’d think presidential candidate would be capable of making that distinction but you’d be so wrong. [Bad words asterisked by me]
The whole Obama camp doesn’t have a clue.
But this is of a piece with Obama’s world view where “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Obama couldn’t be more wrong about what the US military is doing, just as he couldn’t be more wrong about Memorial Day, or Veteran’s Day, or the way to deal with our most dangerous enemies.
McCain would never have made those mistakes; he doesn’t have the Anti-American pro-Marxist world view that led to those gaffes. Whatever his faults, McCain is the only viable choice in 2008.
My wife recalls seeing a demonstration involving the Reverend Jesse Jackson. He was marching along speaking directly to the TV cameras, making a speech. What the cameras didn’t show were Jesse Jackson’s assistant walking backwards, in front of Jackson, flipping the cue cards as Jackson spoke. The viewer would be impressed at how good Jackson was at speaking ex tempore while marching in a demonstration. Except that he wasn’t.
I was reminded of that story when I read how poorly Obama performed without a teleprompter. That speech did not make the national nightly news.
Now Betsy notes how the Obama campaign is manipulating the crowds at his rallys. She quotes a Financial Times report:
About three-quarters of the 9,000 people who turned up to see Barack Obama at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Friday evening were black. Yet, the section of seating directly behind where he spoke was filled overwhelmingly by whites.
The Obama campaign would not say how seats were allocated but it appeared as though a conscious decision had been made to ensure that television pictures showed the senator against a backdrop of white faces.
The TV crews would do truth a favor if they showed the crowd, the whole crowd and nothing but the crowd. Of course, the producers and editors would be uncomfortable at letting the people know that Obama is winning because blacks are voting for him en masse.