A while back Chad Schuldt, one of the Hiildebrand Boys, lied about ANWR being in the 2003 Energy Bill that Tom Daschle failed to stop a Democrat lead filibuster on. Now Ken Blanchard takes Schuldt to task for more misstatements on ANWR:
I think a lot of the points he makes are valid, but I can't help commenting on this one:
To understand why Republicans are being intellectually dishonest when they use the price of gas to justify drilling in ANWR, first realize that any oil we are able to suck out of the earth there won’t even reach consumers for a decade or more. How is that going to bring down the price of gas when I have to go fill up my pickup next week?
I think that the charge of intellectual dishonesty is very unhelpful in this kind of discussion. Its enough to argue that the other side is wrong; do we really need to question one another's motives? I don't need to know whether Chad honestly believes the argument he is making here, so I am willing to assume that he does. Its enough for me to point out that its very silly.
Lets assume hes correct about the 10 year time lag between opening ANWR to drilling, and the flow of ANWR oil onto the market. If, then, we had opened ANWR ten years ago, we'd have the oil now, wouldn't we? And whose fault was it that we didn't? I imagine it was folk pretty much like Chad, making the same arguments he is making now. And if we do open ANWR now, then we will have the oil ten years from now, won't we? And so we won't have to listen to this argument again.
Blanchard doesn’t want to call Schuldt a liar on this, but history shows Schuldt to be a consistent liar on issues such as ANWR and Social Security. So I will assume he is a liar until he agrees that Blanchard was right and he was wrong. So look for hell becoming frozen over.
