Very insightful comment, isn’t it?

Posted by: eric at April 21, 2004 10:40 PM

Cute line…from a tribal prince.

Posted by: David at April 21, 2004 11:09 PM

Nice little effort there by the Saudis to de-rail the Bush re-election.

Posted by: FH at April 22, 2004 01:53 AM

The Saudis do not want Kerry elected President I assure you. They rightly intend to, and will, assist Bush

Posted by: Seminole 6 at April 22, 2004 04:23 AM

If that’s true, Seminole, I hope Bush has the sense to tell them, “Thanks but no thanks.” We don’t need no sninkin’ help from people like that. Let them fight their own stinkin’ tribal wars, and stay the hell away from ours.

Besides, Bush can and will win without Saudi help. Americans are too smart to fall for Kerry’s transparent insincerity.

Posted by: Brambles at April 22, 2004 05:18 AM

Screw Bandar. There are few things on the face of this earth I hate, but aristocracy is one of them. Theocracy is another. He manages to represent both at once. The only, and I mean only, thing to look forward to in an al Queda takeover of Saudi Arabia would be the princes of the blood hanging black-faced and bloated from every telephone pole, traffic sign, and milepost from Jedda to Dhahran. Sadly, the terrorists wouldn’t wipe out the whole monstrous tribe, as some unknown fraction of that cancer is al-Queda.

Posted by: Mitch H. at April 22, 2004 07:46 AM

Gas Guzzling Kerry Blasts Bush on Environment

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and his mega-rich wife Teresa Heinz own a gas guzzling private jet, an energy-eating power yacht, have five mansions that consume thousands of gallons of oil to heat and cool - and keep a fleet of SUVs running night-and-day outside their Beacon Hill mansion.

But that didn’t stop Sen. Kerry from blasting President Bush’s environmental record yesterday.

“Being responsible about the environment is not some goo-goo, do-gooder, silly notion that you embrace once a year on Earth Day,” railed Kerry to a Florida crowd. “It’s important to life itself.”

Really?

It doesn’t seem particularly important to the Heinz Kerrys, whose Gulfstream V private jet gobbles up thousands of gallons of jet fuel annually. Dubbed the “Flying Squirrel” by Teresa, this $35 million gas guzzler features a plasma TV, two bathrooms, fancy mahogany and burlwood paneling and gold-plated fixtures, according to Boston radio talker Howie Carr.

So far reporters have had little to say about the contrast between Sen. Kerry’s staunch environmentalism, along with his wife’s decision to turn the Heinz family endowment into a green crusade - and the would-be first family’s energy-wasting lifestyle.

It’s not a pretty picture. In fact, the Heinz Kerrys burn through so much gas, oil and electricity that their personal energy consumption would probably put a significant dent in the Alaskan oil reserve - that is, if Sen. Kerry and his environmental buddies ever dropped their opposition to drilling ANWR.

Take the top Democrat’s $800,000 yacht “The Scaramouche.” The Kerry campaign has yet to release figures on how much marine fuel this beaut eats up just to keep the Massachusetts Democrat sailing in style. But it must cost a bundle.

And the Heinz Kerrys don’t seem to be particularly big fans of that old environmental slogan, “Think Globally, Act Locally.” Their neighbors in Beacon Hill, for instance, have been grumbling lately about the fleet of Secret Service SUVs the candidate and his wife keep out in front of their palatial digs - with engines running 24-hours a day.

“One resident complained she couldn’t sleep with the exhaust,” reports the Boston Herald, “so the Secret Service agreed to move the vehicle away from her bedroom window from 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.”

Of course, the Heinz Kerrys’ Beacon Hill mansion is just one a five palatial residences the would-be first couple maintains around the country, in addition to digs in Nantucket, Georgetown, Idaho and Pittsburgh - each one churning through oodles of energy just to keep temperatures comfortable should John and Teresa decide to drop in.

Not too shabby for the ketchup heiress and her hubby - who, by the way, actually met at a 1992 Global Warming conference in Rio de Janeiro. No doubt John and Teresa nodded in agreement as the Rio conferees condemned the U.S. as an energy-hogging environmental outlaw.

Kerry should clean up his own act, don’t you think?

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 22, 2004 07:48 AM

Al-Lat - “Being responsible about the environment is not some goo-goo, do-gooder, silly notion that you embrace once a year on Earth Day,” railed Kerry to a Florida crowd. “It’s important to life itself.”

Uhhhh. Okay. Let’s see. He’s also Catholic only during an election year and he’s also charitable only during an election year. The rest of the time he’s a Liar. MOF, he gives Liars a bad name.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 22, 2004 08:41 AM

Brambles, the reality is that a major oil supplier could make it much harder for Bush to be re-elected, if they pursuaded other producers to join them in keeping supply tight and prices high.

That would also make it harder to fund what we need to to in the war on terror.

So while I’m no fan of the Saudi royal family, it is worth noting - and it is basic honesty to note - that they have by and large been an important source of stability in oil supply and oil prices over the years. And that has contributed a LOT to US and global economic growth.

Moreover, the oil prices throughout the Middle East have sufficient investments in financial markets that they would, if they really were willing to take a personal loss, move markets somewhat. Were you around when George Soros and his fund singlehandedly sank the value of the British pound despite the efforts of the Bank of England to prop it up?

Don’t kid yourself that such a thing couldn’t happen again, with significant impact on the economy in the short run and hence on the election.

Posted by: rkb at April 22, 2004 08:48 AM

Ugh - clicked Post rather than Preview.

That should be: “fund what we need to do in the war on terror”.

And, “oil princes … have sufficient investments”.

Posted by: rkb at April 22, 2004 08:53 AM

What I can’t understand is that Kerry slammed Bush a few weeks ago for not getting our “allies” to increase oil production…. Now he’s saying that Bush is only talking to our “allies” about increasing oil production as part of an election gimmick. What am I missing here?

Posted by: kh at April 22, 2004 09:40 AM

Al-Lat, where did you get that report - especially the part about the running SUVs? I tried googling for it and could not find it. If true, I’m also wondering if it’s the Ketsup/Kerrys’ decision to leave those running or the Secret Service’s.

Posted by: samuelv at April 22, 2004 09:55 AM

Drill.

ANWAR.

Now.

End of problem.

Posted by: GDubya at April 22, 2004 10:50 AM

rkb, I see where you’re going, but in my book a deal with the devil is a deal with the devil. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not normally a black-and-white guy, I allow plenty of room for shades of grey. But if Bush needs Saudi help to get reelected, we’re all (including Bush) in DEEP trouble.

Besides, the war in Iraq should have substantially reduced the Saudis’ ability to blackmail us. We should be able to turn around and say, “If you try to turn off your spigot, we’ll lean on the Kuwaitis and the Libyans and others in Opec, and get them to increase their supply.”

Dammit, after the hundreds of our men who’ve died in Iraq, we can’t STILL be at the mercy of the Saudis, can we?

And anyway, I still think Kerry doesn’t atand a chance, whatever the oil prices.

Posted by: Brambles at April 22, 2004 11:01 AM

GW - I read recently that Alaska has authorized drilling offshore from Anwar (why does that name just seem appropriate for oil exploration?) The oil in Anwar would be extracted via side drilling.

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7252~2077435,00.html

Posted by: kh at April 22, 2004 11:27 AM

Well, the oil belongs to SA and if they wish to manipulate the price for whatever reason, there’s little we can do to stop it.

I think this has really bacfired on Kerry though. At one point it appeared that he was advocating for higher gas prices.

The spin o rama’s only gonna get going faster and I am really interested in watching what, if any, impact the blogosphere’s gonna have on the election.

Such fun!

Posted by: skip at April 22, 2004 11:32 AM

Right now the Saudi’s have NO ability to affect pump prices in the USA. He is 100% correct when he says that pump prices are the result of a bottle neck in refining capacity. You can thank the greenies for that. The Saudis can pump at top speed and all it will do is make the backlog at the refineries in Texas larger. That is a fact. No ammount of spin can make a refinery magically appear. The reason why there are not any new refineries being built is the reglatory cost impossed by the environmentalists. Fookin greenies are not going to be happy until the reach their ludditte goal of destroying modern civilization. That involes millions starving to death. Instead of Saudi princes twisting in the wind, we need sierria club members. That would acomplsh a whole lot more. Plus there aren’t as many of them so it would save on rope. How is that for conservation?

Posted by: ableiter at April 22, 2004 12:15 PM

ableiter- You may be right about the lack of refining capacity, but the price of crude would definitely drop if OPEC would increase production, which should produce lower gasoline prices.

Posted by: Phil Winsor at April 22, 2004 12:34 PM

“The reason why there are not any new refineries being built is the regulatory cost imposed by the environmentalists” While some of this consists of environmental considerations ( the environmental industry itself is BIG $ for little or no cleanup ), another component is the increasing socialist trend in the US towards price control eg pharmaceuticals, utilities, communication, health insurance costs, etc

Posted by: hound at April 22, 2004 12:45 PM

Interesting? More like condescending. Especially coming from a guy only 3 generations removed from illiterate desert brigands. We had been a democracy for 7 score years by the time his great-grandfather killed and fucked his way into becoming king of Arabia in 1932.

Posted by: Moonbat_One at April 22, 2004 01:17 PM

PW, so? That means the refineries make more profit, not that the price will go down. Supply and demand. You are thinking that the supply is what comes out of the well. It is not. Unless you are burning crude oil in your SUV, which I doubt. Supply is what comes out of the refinery as far as petrol goes. If they took it right out of the ground then pumping more would help.
Hound, I used to help Build refineries. Phillps is building new ones in South America mostly. BP and Armco in the ME, I think. A new refinery ran about 4 billion in the early 90’s depending on what kinds of chemicals you wanted out of the secondary processing. That was in Venezuela. In Texas the same plant would have ran 10 billion. So the money went into someone else’s economy. And out of ours. No choice. Any CEO that threw away 5 or 6 biillon of his shareholder’s money would soon be job hunting. Rightly so.

Posted by: ableiter at April 22, 2004 01:49 PM

PW - is that because price is influenced by anticipations of shortages? I’m trying to recall my economics theory. There isn’t a shortage at the pump now, but reduced production at the well causes uncertainty about the future - so price increases. Increase production at the well, and uncertainty decreases. This assumes that uncertainty caused by well production isn’t replaced by uncertainty about refinery production.

Posted by: KH at April 22, 2004 02:29 PM

Lest we forget, the Oil Producers are going to sell their product, and it really matters not who the President happens to be. Folks on the East Coast (like the Kerry-Catsups) have to heat their 50 rooms cottages and the Bush-Bin Ladins (tongue in cheek here) have to cool their caves. It all takes energy, and the third world needs it even more than we do. Do we have an effect on the cost of crude? Yes. Do our politics have an effect on the cost of crude? Yes. Does our (potential) effect on the states in the ME effect the cost of crude? Yes.

Senator WindSock-WindBag is doing nothing more than being himself. It is ‘okay’ if he argues for lower gas prices, but it’s a freakin’ bribe if the President’s administration gets a commitment for that very thing… What’s new?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 22, 2004 02:53 PM

I think Kerry’s reaction to the news will ultimately make him look foolish.

On the one hand, he wants action against OPEC and then when this “deal” was hinted at he explodes.

He has to find a way to say something like: George Bush is doing exactly what he said he woudl do and that is outrageous. The American people won’t stand for a president that keeps his word.

Plus it’s probably all BS anyway, What’s his name with the book, Woodward is trying as hard to relive Watergate as the rest of the left is trying to relive the 60’s.

Reminds me of that Springsteen song: glory days, yeah, they’ll pass you by!!!!

Posted by: skip at April 22, 2004 04:56 PM

yes, we’re all getting bewildered by the hypocricy coming from the Macauliffe/Kerry camp. OPEC still is pumping more than its quota anyway, and once the US stops buying reserves, the price could drop some. Saudi concern is that high prices ( $40 barrel) could quench demand and slow down the global recovery, creating bunkers awash in surplus petro. If kerry truly was an environmentalist, he would be FOR higher prices, because that is the only thing that will make people conserve…

Posted by: hound at April 22, 2004 06:21 PM

One of the underappreciated impacts of environmental changes is that there really isn’t one gasoline called “regular” anymore. Each region’s gas is a little different. Heck, there are at least 3 kinds of “regular” right here in Minneapolis! ANyone that makes a product realizes that the more you can streamline production, the cheaper you can sell your product.

Posted by: billhedrick at April 23, 2004 09:32 AM