Most times, a headline like that is over-the-top. This time, it’s Rep. Maxine Waters’ statement that’s over the top. Check out this video and tell me differently:
Next, check out this transcript of the exchange between John Hofmeister and Rep. Waters:
Hofmeister: I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of this American Congress, ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down and the $5 price will look like a very low price in the years to come compared with if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supply.
Rep. Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing…[long, awkward pause]…will be about…basically taking over and basically running your companies.
This isn’t the first time a liberal has made a statement like that. Hillary Clinton stopped one step short of Rep. Waters’ calling for a Chevezization plan. Here’s the YouTube:
Here’s the transcript of Hillary’s speech:
Hillary: The same is true of energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. We’re working to push this agenda forward. The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to those profits into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the right direction of independence.
The only diffference between Hillary’s statement and Rep. Waters’ gaffe is that Hillary would ‘only’ take the oil companies’ profits while letting the CEOs run the company whereas Rep. Waters would nationalize the oil industry. Thank God for Hillary’s ‘moderation’. I’d be worried if she was as radical as Rep. Waters.
Seriously, folks, this is a perfect illustration of the thin line between what’s called moderation and what’s called radicalism. Hillary is considered a moderate by those in the Agenda Media while all but the most radical columnists would consider Rep. Waters a radical. Shouldn’t conservatives ask what the bases are for those differing opinions? After all, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two philosophies.
In this post, I said that Republicans could be successful if they made opening up federal lands for oil exploration the centerpiece of their campaign. I know that John McCain opposes opening up ANWR but that’s his problem. I can’t imagine running on an agenda that will increase oil production wouldn’t be met with voters’ enthusiasm.
Cross-posted at California Conservative