More on ANWR

Gads.. I hate contention amongst the ranks. Kind of like a family argument--no one feels good about it, but sometimes it just has to happen. King writes:

UPDATE: I appreciate the comments of Guy and Psycmeistr, but to them I continue to ask -- didn't we already know this about Kennedy? After all, we know the votes aren't there if ANWR was a simple up-or-down vote, otherwise why stick it in a budget bill that can't be amended from the floor? Have a full discussion of the issue and an evaluation of the costs and benefits and take it to the people. The way to get Kennedy and others to pay attention is through a promise of votes, not the withholding of campaign funds as Hewitt threatened. (I note I heard not a word about this today.)

I understand perfectly where King is coming from; the thing about it is, even if Kennedy and Coleman have both had a long-standing "aversion" to drilling in ANWR (and/or other domestic sources of oil), I question the logic they provide for their reasoning. It was a wrong position to take then; it is a wrong position to take now.

By the way, I do not advocate witholding campaign funds from Kennedy or Coleman. What I do advocate is to apply pressure on them to make the right choices.

The ready availablility of energy, now as well as in the future, is not a "small potatoes" issue, IMO; and is worth fighting for in terms of both the present and future health of our economy, as well as in the interests of our national security. It may not pass muster as a "litmus test", per se, but it's still an important issue to be ignored at their own peril. For if oil prices skyrocket again come election time, and they (Kennedy & Coleman) are perceived as having been sitting on their thumbs up to the third kn uckle with regard to this issue (the "butter side" of the "guns and butter" equation), there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hell to pay at the ballot box.

(Filed under RINOS, Energy Madness, Elections)