The author’s blog claims that Obama is not to blame for rising gas prices in America, and Republicans are incorrectly blaming Obama as a way to boost their presidential campaigns. I believe the author intended his audience to be liberals and environmentalists since he negatively criticizes Republicans and dismisses their arguments, sometimes without much evidence. The author seems like a credible source for a liberal blog since he explains the issues in the manner geared to liberal readers while supporting them with evidence for the most part. However, I found him to be less credible on the points where he simply stated Republicans were in it for the money without fully addressing their arguments.

The author claims that there are four prominent “lies” that Republicans are proclaiming regarding Obama and the rising gas prices. First, the author claimed that Republicans are inaccurately placing the blame for gas prices on Obama when the real problem is the fact that the United States does not have enough oil itself and the rise in gas prices is a result of issues between Saudi Arabia and China. To make this point the author points out how many barrels of oil the U.S. produces itself and how much it gets from the largest producer, Saudi Arabia. He further states that the most logical explanation for the gas prices comes from the fact that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil and China is the most desperate consumer, meaning that Saudi Arabia can keep rising the prices because China must, and will, purchase oil at whatever price Saudi Arabia sells it at. I think the author’s explanation is very logical and pints to specific evidence, including numerical evidence of barrels produced. Additionally, I think it makes sense how China’s demand can have such an effect on gas prices worldwide, especially since Saudi Arabia is such a dominant seller.

Second, the author claims that Republicans are incorrect in stating that Obama has no energy plan, and he quotes Obama recently proclaiming his energy plans to use other forms of energy to make the U.S. self-sufficient. While the author does have evidence in the quote by Obama stating his policy and Bloomberg stating America is the closest it has been to energy self-sufficiency in nearly twenty years, I did not find that particularly persuasive. Since it is a quote by Obama himself stating his plan, that does not demonstrate that Obama has actually implemented a plan that is right now doing much to make America more self-sufficient, which I think is the root of the Republican criticism.

Third, the author argues that Republicans live by the mantra of “drill, baby drill,” and criticize Obama for not doing more domestic drilling to effectuate energy self-sufficiency. The author claims Republicans are wrong on this point because even if Obama did drill in the ANWR, it would take ten years for it to be used as gasoline. Moreover, the author argues that increasing the use of natural gas, as Republicans urge, is too dangerous and would lead to disastrous environmental consequences. I think the author’s evidence and logic do support his points that those specific solutions offered by Republicans may not be sound; however, I think he dismisses natural gas solutions too quickly, and he did not address oil drilling suggestions by Republicans in areas other than ANWR.

Fourth, the author states that Republicans claim that Obama does not have an effective energy strategy because he has exaggerated the potential environmental consequences. The author criticizes this Republican argument by purporting that Republicans have no energy strategy and are only interested in the oil and gas industry because those companies largely support Republicans financially. I think the author’s evidence of how much the oil and gas industry contributes to Republicans does support his argument that Republicans want to continue to pursue those industries. However, I think the author should consider other evidence of why Republicans want to pursue those industries, perhaps job creation and the abundance of those resources. It seems his logic there may be too liberal-biased. Furthermore, he did not address whether or not the environmental consequences were exaggerated; he should have put on evidence explaining more about the detriment to the environment if he disagrees with that part of the Republican argument.

Author's Blog Entry