When did it become acceptable for a candidate for office to flat-out lie?
I have been pondering this query ever since Jesse Kelly—the GOP choice for Congressional District 8—started claiming that the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, and therefore, it’s unacceptable for Americans to be paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.
I realize that politics is a process in which spin, nuance and shades of gray are commonplace, accepted and even necessary. I get that. But this claim about the U.S. having more oil than Saudi Arabia, especially when that claim is tied to current-day gas prices, is a lie, pure and simple.
It is fact—provable, verifiable, absolute fact—that the U.S. circa 2012 does not have the oil that Jesse Kelly claims it does. This is not a matter of spin or nuance or shades of gray or anything that is debatable. Period. It’s a fact. Even if you stretch and extend to cover oil shale, the United States today does not have the technology to get usable oil from it.
And what happens when Kelly goes around spouting this bullshit? He gets the GOP nomination, by a wide margin; meanwhile, very few Republicans bother to call him on it. (Props to Martha McSally for doing so.)
This is not a left-right, Democrat-Republican problem; I use the Jesse Kelly example just because it’s one of the more-prominent and more-recent examples. No matter the party or the politics, when someone starts spreading blatant, verifiable falsehoods, other public servants and civic-minded folks have a duty to call bullshit. Period.
This article appears in Apr 26 – May 2, 2012.
I have to wonder about Mr Barber. I won’t call it a lie, but certainly a major flip-flop.
Barber chose to run in the CD-8 race to fill out the term of Gabrielle Giffords. No problem, he was closest to her in running the local office. But, he hasn’t finished the campaign for CD-8. He has already flipped and now is planning to run in the new CD-2. So much for “only” completing Ms Giffords term.
How much fuel is available in the US is, and will remain, debatable. Saying you will not run, then doing it anyway. is not.
John Holden
The U.S. is sitting on the world’s largest, untapped oil reserves — reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand — at today’s levels — for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil. Source:
http://kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
Part of the misunderstanding is that people do not appreciate the difference between “proven reserves” and the total mineral resource. The term “proven reserves” is a purely economic and legal construct, which has nothing to do with how much petroleum is on the planet. “Proven reserves” are that part of the total resource which have been precisely measured by extensive drilling and other means, and are “proven” to be economically recoverable with present technology. It costs money to make these measurements; exploration companies have little incentive to get too far ahead because of the expense.
Jonathan DuHamel, Geologist
So, you claim that Jesse Kelly lies, “flat-out.” Maybe you should check the facts before you make such a claim. What you probably didn’t consider is the shale oil reserves. (http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/) It’s debatable if the use of shale oil reserves would make a dent in the price of oil. It’s not a lie.
Do you consider yourself a reporter? Maybe you shouldn’t make such harsh claims when you’re ignorant on the subject.
Bart
Bart: Reread my editor’s note, and read Jim Nintzel’s analysis on the Range (linked to above). Even considering oil shale and other not-yet-practical sources, Saudi Arabia beats the U.S. A fact. Period.