Who dare call it fascism? Jeffrey Lord does:

…when faced with a disagreeable problem (in this case the lack of jobs) the answer for Obama always seems to get back to the manipulation of the political process to achieve the desired result.

Are Obamalanders uncomfortable with the free-market driven success of talk radio? Then they will “figure out ways to use the political process” to shut it down. In the case of talk radio, how else to explain the threatening Reid-Obama letter to Rush Limbaugh’s business partner? How else does one explain the attempt to retrieve the “Fairness Doctrine” from the dustbin of history? These are nothing more or less than the “use of the political process” to subvert someone else’s freedom. Period.

Are Obamaland followers hostile to oil? Do they hate SUVs? Do they think you have no right to heat or cool your own home beyond what they consider politically correct? Do they think you should pay $5 — or $6 or $7 or $8 or more — for gas at the pump to ensure you conform to the Obamaland world-view? Yes, they do think all of this and their Obamaland answer is inevitable. They will “use the political process” to stop drilling off shore in its tracks. So too with stopping the use of oil shale or ANWR or anything else that even hints at allowing average Americans their basic freedom to drive whatever vehicle wherever they damn well please whenever they damn well please. In Obamaland it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is gospel from the secular bible that they must use the political process to stop refineries from being built, to keep nuclear power plants from being built, to keep coal from being burned. Use the political process to forcibly mandate the temperature inside every single American home. As a matter of fact, why not just go all the way and nationalize the oil companies — this actually being suggested by Obamaland’s New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey.

He also has the full quote from Obama that I’d missed part of the first time around:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world’s energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we’ll be fine. Don’t worry about us. That’s not leadership.”

This is economic idiocy. Why in the world would energy consumption be expected to correlate with population? Yes, we have much higher per-capita energy usage than much of the world (e.g., Africa). But we also produce much greater wealth per capita than much of the world, and much of that wealth goes to make the world wealthier, in many ways. The notion that we should only use energy in proportion to our population is economic ignorance of the first rank. In other words, it’s exactly what I would expect from a Democrat, and particularly Obama. Though to be fair, there are a lot of economically ignorant Republicans as well, including their current standard bearer, by his own admission. But unlike Obama, he at least admits it.

…at Lileks’ place:

It happened when it usually happens, too – every gets home, flips on the air conditioner and turns on the TV, and the brittle infrastructure, held together at the moment with masking tape and some alligator clips, spazzes out completely. This will continue – there’s a controversy going on here about some new power lines and generating plants. A judge blocked the latter, because the utility hadn’t invested enough in wind power, as per the law. That’s the sort of sentence that makes your heart very heavy: a judge ruled that they can’t build the power plant. I’m all for trying everything – wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, switchgrass, algae, hydrogen, steroidally enhanced gerbils running in cages attached to generators, steam, hydro, shale, and installing small pedals in movie theaters people can push to power the projector, but DO SOMETHING. NOW.

The world has gone nuts. People complain about high energy costs, and the Democrats’ response is to fight every sensible attempt to increase supply, and tell us that the price isn’t high enough. And so far, they seem to be paying no penalty at the polls for it. It would help, at least a little, if we didn’t have a faux Democrat (at least when it comes to economics) at the top of the Republican ticket.

If ethanol is so great, why doesn’t he support its importation from Brazil? Surely it’s not because he’s in the pocket of ADM?

ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation’s largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.

Corn-based ethanol gets a 51-cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in courage in Iowa.

…Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt “our country’s drive toward energy independence.”

Really? The only thing it might hurt is Obama’s drive to the White House.

Must be that new politics. You know, “change”?

And it’s also amusing to note that the Democrats don’t want to wait for drilling to pay off, but they’re perfectly happy to wait for switch grass.

[Mid-morning update]

Further thoughts:

If it’s intended to cut the nation’s energy bill, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s intended to secure the nation’s energy supplies, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s designed to improve the nation’s relationship with a major Latin American trading partner, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, but, if, on the other hand, it’s just another example of good old porkbarrel politics, Obama’s ethanol policy makes a great deal of sense.

If ethanol is so great, why doesn’t he support its importation from Brazil? Surely it’s not because he’s in the pocket of ADM?

ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation’s largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.

Corn-based ethanol gets a 51-cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in courage in Iowa.

…Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt “our country’s drive toward energy independence.”

Really? The only thing it might hurt is Obama’s drive to the White House.

Must be that new politics. You know, “change”?

And it’s also amusing to note that the Democrats don’t want to wait for drilling to pay off, but they’re perfectly happy to wait for switch grass.

[Mid-morning update]

Further thoughts:

If it’s intended to cut the nation’s energy bill, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s intended to secure the nation’s energy supplies, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s designed to improve the nation’s relationship with a major Latin American trading partner, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, but, if, on the other hand, it’s just another example of good old porkbarrel politics, Obama’s ethanol policy makes a great deal of sense.