"the piece stands as an extraordinary act of editorial cowardice."

Good to see Ezra finally writing about a subject he knows intimately.

Limbaugh is scum and drove me to left at a young age. He's just a lying bully.

As you get older, though, you come across more and more scum on the left, like Petey for example.

Some policy stances in modern conservatism are about doing things that serve conservatives' interests. No doubt that for many conservatives, the prospect of investing the money that goes to SS taxes would be appealing to them. A flat tax would be nice, too: everyone loves paying a lower rate in taxes.

However, stuff like global warming denialism and drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve are cultural artifacts. Like wearing t-shirts and baggy jeans with exposed underwear, they're a way for conservatives to recognize one another as "part of the team" and express their contempt for their long-time enemy Al Gore.

Rush plays the role of the fashionista for conservatives: he tells them "what's in" and "what's out" in terms of what they should be believing and saying to each other in order to express their conservative identity.

Why anyone would need to read an 8,000 word essay about an AM radio celebrity is beyond me. Maybe next we can get a profile about Madonna! I'm sure it will be fascinating.

You're missing a critical point about President Carter.

Carter is the most prominent symbol of liberal internationalism around. He recently wrote that we should make Palestine a real-honest-to-goodness country. He believes we should talk to foreign leaders, respect their positionts, and work /with/ them.

That's not what conservatives do. They don't negotiate. They don't hold talks. They bomb and threaten to bomb.

So talk of revoking Carter's passport while abroad is not just some for-good-measure dig.

It's an attack on liberal internationalism. Conservatives recognize Carter as "them". As other. As different enough that he does not belong in or to America. That is, it's unamerican to be internationalist.

Blah. Mixup on my part when referring to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The point I was trying to express is that it's a Refuge. It was set aside as a Refuge where you're not supposed to drill. If you want to drill there, what's the point of setting it aside as a refuge?

The point, of course, it to tell Al Gore to shove it up his behind, and that's why they want to do it. And by advocating drilling there, you send out a signal that you're part of the Republican team.

It is not the true conservative that falls for the Limbaugh line, though I believe it safe to assume them rather content with the way those who put flag waving above constitutional law and common sense are deceived by him.

Limbaugh has found a way to earn tens of millions of dollars, thus puts honesty behind him and embraces hyperbole and rancor, not as a political tool but simply for profit.

yesterday, by pure coincidence, i happened to both read the nyt limbaugh profile and watch, for the first time, jonathan demme's documentary, "jimmy carter: man from plains." in juxtaposition, carter comes across as someone who has dedicated his life, imperfectly, to finding agreement amongst people who disagree, while Limbaugh dedicates his life to using the disagreements of others to his own advantage. At best.

Maybe we should do something about it, like say, bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" so we can get fair and balanced radio and tv across the board. Maybe, lets see, could that be part of change we can believe in, oops, no he does not want that, sorry, never mind, nothing to see here...

kcbill13, I actually couldn't care less, one way or the other, whether radio and tv was "balanced."

If some idiot wants to use the radio for spouting off his idiocies to a bunch of easily-manipulated listeners, I don't see why the radio station should provide equal time to someone to argue the opposite view. This isn't the high school debating society.

The radio is full of many, many channels. Bringing back the fairness doctrine strikes me as some kind of anachronistic relic like decreeing that all graphic novels adhere to the comics code.

More important would be the promotion of local radio and local ownership so that the free radio that everyone can tune in to serves the interest of the local communities and provides greater choice to listeners. But if some people want to hear Rush rant uninterrupted all day, let them.

Ultimately Limbaugh has been terrible for conservatism. The Republican presidential candidates crammed themselves into his tiny corner of unpopular positions. Now they're stuck there.

Come to think of it, conservatism has been terrible for conservatism.

Anyone checked out the author of the piece? It's supremely funny that Limbaugh would whine about the NYT to the guy. The guy isn't an employee of the Times. He just writes an occasional piece for them. Chafets isn't a liberal. It sounds like either Limbaugh didn't research the guy(not suprising), or is just doing his usual whine.

..believe Limbaugh to be the intellectual soul of contemporary conservatism.

Thanks for posting this, Ezra. After reading the NYT article, I wondered why trees had to die for it.
I long ago decided to ignore the NYT Magazine due to its mutation into a People Magazine for sophisticates, but decided, for some stupid reason, to read the Limbaugh piece. I guess my digestion was too unproblematic.

Sorry!...
'Anonymousr', v.s.
is me.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Abraham Lincoln
8/24/1855

[they didn't like Catholics or immigrants, either - white protestants only]

Ignorant nativism is a persistent theme in US history. Limbaugh's update to know-nothingism is just what the Republican party needs as a 21st century platform. I'm surprised that throwing the UN out of the US wasn't in his action list.

Does Blackwater provide a black helicopter for Rush to travel in?

Tyro, don't forget that drilling in ANWR is loved because the government does own the land. In private property the property owner gets the oil wealth. On government land, oil companies pay below market rates and so those who drill get the wealth. Its another way to transfer wealth to the rich.

Any reporter that gets interviews with powerful politicians or people like Rush Limbaugh is worthless. The powerful only give interviews to safe reporters. Do not be fooled there are “tough questions” that these people know they must answer and so they allow reporters to ask but make no mistake the interviewed is calling the shots. Think about Barbra Walters she did not get a name by making trouble for the Powerful.

The NPR show On The Media had a very interesting interview with Zev Chafets, who wrote the Limbaugh piece. Bob Garfield, the host, asked him what he thought about Limbaugh's persistent use of ad hominem attacks, mean spirited diatribes based on false information, etc. Chafets bristled and asked him to give examples. Garfield then rolled out about a half dozen of the better known examples. (eg: The NAACP should give riot training in liquor stores.) Chafets started his reply be saying "I don't want to be an apologist for Limbaugh," and then proceeded to be an apologist for Limbaugh. "Well, it's not my sense of humor, but..." Garfield was very mostly even tempered, but he was having a hard time masking his dislike for Limbaugh and the piece Chavets wrote.

I heard the On the Media Piece as well. Chafets repeatedly made reference to "the rest of the liberal media," and other things that made his own biases crystal clear.

And by the way, is there a better interviewer than Bob Garfield? This man deserves a higher profile.

Here's the link to the On the Media interview.

No mention in the interview about Limbaugh's declining audience size and who it attracts for advertisers. No attention to asking the question"why here, why now" to do a Limbaugh profile. This might have made sence in 1992, but ridiculous now.

I've got $5 says Limbaugh agreed to co-operate only if the Times agreed to stay away from his three failed marriages.

Why am I not surprised at the utter dishonesty of the opening of this article? Chafets is a far right-winger with neocon leanings and is the former spokesman for right-wing Israeli PM Menachem Begin of the right-wing Likud Party. Why on earth would anyone, especially a Limbaugh assistant, expect him to write a "hit piece" on the U.S.'s most popular right-wing propagandist? Because it would appear in the NY Times??? Puh-leese, we're talking about the NY Times that published the Bush regime's lies about WMD's.

Sounds like the NYT hit a home run with Rush. Let's face it Liberals, 9/11 actually happened, and Rush is Red Hot and your Air America is down the tubes. I only discoved big rating numbers for Rush, couldn't find any declining ones as previously mentioned by Liberal Blogger. Near as I can tell, Rush is doing better that CNN and MSNBC combine. I wonder how much Enza Klein makes a year, and if he donated 2.2 million to the Military Veterans Fund. Hint: Rush Did. I rest my case. PS. Jesse Helms was a great American, and a defender of liberty. Sorry: I had to just throw that one in. Looks like the military has Iraq turned around also, sorry, I had to throw that one in also.

That wasn't a profile of Limbaugh so much as it was a blowjob.

The most jarring portion of the article is where Chafets sympathetically recounts the time when poor Rush's feelings were bruised when President Clinton made a joke at Rush's expense. It seems that Chafets will forgive Rush a dirigible full of hate speech so long as it has the flimsiest of Rush-hilarity-humor covers (funny, how race-baiting and homophobia just never seem to get old when in the hands of a master craftsman like Rush). But turnabout is most definitely not fair-play, when it is aimed at Rush.

Esoth, if Rush were not the sort of person who loves to dish it out but can't take it, he would not be a conservative in the first place.

Conservatism only thrives because liberals are not the sort of people willing to stomp on their necks. Conservatives are too weak and too insecure to handle having opponents other than those who don't strike back. It's why they couldn't bring down Clinton: he struck back. Yeah, Rush got his feelings hurt, but tough luck, I guess.

The core difference between a liberal and a Rush-style conservative isn't explained by politics, policies, or history. It's more likely to be psychological development. The meanness and hostility among "conservatives" emanates from the same place as abused children. You don't mock minorities, women, or different nations unless you're too damaged to see and feel your own humanity.

The core difference between a liberal and a Rush-style conservative isn't explained by politics, policies, or history. It's more likely to be psychological development. The meanness and hostility among "conservatives" emanates from the same place as abused children.---

the difference is 400 million bucks actually. They wouldn't pay if people didn't want to hear, unlike Air America in which American's needed to be paid to listen.

Brave "anonymous" echoes boy-bitch Ezra in the bitterness of the loo-zer left which clings to "racist bigot" as a Helms obit.

What about drunken murderer for Teddy the Fat Traitor? The psychological paranoid schizophrenic ultra-left BS coming from Klein just shows he's an unread second-rate loo-zer like Air America, subsidized by a corrupt ultra-left elite which prefers terrorists to patriots.

Pelois & McGovern are bolstering FARC & opposing free trade with Colombia for the same reason Alger Hiss traduced his country's interests---pure treason.

Well, it's apparent that many here didn't read the article. Failed marriages - mentioned. Drug addiction - mentioned. Debating the rise and fall of conservative influence - mentioned.

This startlingly objective article must have been a grand slam because so many of you are all wiggly about it.

And obviously Klein doesn't really understand conservatism because he'd realize that Barry Obama is tacking hard to the right to appeal to those conservative tendencies that are the norm in the vast land between the coasts.

A guy like Klein, who's a pimple on Rush's ass, is probably just looking for the big guy to give him the attention he so desperately craves.

I always get a chuckle out of losers who never listen to Rush trying to analyze him.

Rush is mostly an entertainer. His form of entertainment is the "boys around the bar" lets-poke-fun-at-the-politicos, something people having been doing forever. Could have been either liberal or conservative. When he started it was right after the Fairness Doctrine and talk radio was just a sidelight, AM was trying to play music then. He improved on and defined that genre, like Oprah, and makes his millions.

A guy like Klein, who's a pimple on Rush's ass

Not quite. The pimple on rush's ass was removed under surgery after Rush received a medical waiver for the draft due to it. I don't believe Ezra was involved. But, yes, Rush is very closely associated with ass pimples.

"boys around the bar" lets-poke-fun-at-the-politicos

As anyone can tell you, this crowd of people is the most hyper-sensitive bunch of crybabies you've ever saw, which is why Rush was so personally hurt Clinton mocked him, even after Rush spent his life making fun of chelsea and screaming at his African-American callers to "take the bone out of your nose."

More to the point, actually, is not so much that Rush is an "entertainer." It's not quite his job. His job is to get his listeners "on the same page." What the Republicans want him to say, he says. So that his listeners can say it. So that the families of the listeners hear it, and so on.

I listen to Rush almost everyday and he's a tool. Yesterday, he was virtually screaming at an old man who congratulated him on turning bologna into 400 million and then proceeded to say once again "man-made global warming is a hoax." Rush Limbaugh, who barely graduated high school in a family of highly successful and intellectual oligarchs is now a climate scientist!

Still, you want analysis. One day, a couple of years ago, this tool is bragging about some golf tournament he attended, apparently hosted by Michael Irvin, among other. Limbaugh relates that Irvin is a just a great guy and Irvin takes him to introduce him to Terrell Owens. On the way Irvin opines "don't believe what they say about him. He's a great guy." Limbaugh concludes the story with "you know what? He was a great guy."

This is Limbaugh's world: two drug addicts (one caught with crack and two 15 year old prostitutes) serving as character witnesses for one of the biggest clowns in the world. That's Limbaugh in a nutshell, constantly awed by celebrity and constantly trying to please his aristocratic father.

The irony meters going to short circuit reading the comments - talk about your worst stereotypes of dogmatic intolerant liberals. Rush is a fantastically successful entertainer and a pioneer in his field. Don't like? Don't listen? Thanks for playing.

The bottom line of all this is the bottom line. Rush has millions of listeners...Air America (George Soro's) attempt to compete with Rush crashed and burned. This is because liberals rant, rave and basically enforces the fact that there is no such thing as a logical liberal. Much of this hate toward Rush is just jealousy. So it goes.

You just don't get the man do you? If what he had to say didn't resonate with a large amount of people he'd have been off the air years ago...think Air America... He's iconic...love him or hate him he's been one of the most influential people in U.S. political history and all he is is a radio show host. Isn't his life really the American dream? Finding what you love and being wildly successful doing it. The paycheck ain't bad either.

YEAH USAJOHNNY's dead on. Jesse Helms loved what he was doing and he was successful. Tim McVeigh loved his "work" too. So, did Eric Rudolph and Huey Newton. We should take our hats off to these american originals!

First, ANWR may have been set aside as a refuge from drilling oil when it cost $15 a barrel but times have changed. The nation's future is at stake and if we don't find a supply side fix for this oil problem while we work toward an alternative we could just find ourselves in a true depression.
Second, I understand that it isn't "progressive" to think that everyone pays their way in America but that is how it should be and a flat or a consumption tax is a great way to ensure that everyone has a stake in how taxes are spent.
Thirdly, privatizing social security is a great way for people to gain a maximum toward their retirment and keep the government form spending maddening amounts in a national pension. If you want to see the damage that pensions can do just look at the auto industry.
Fourth, School vouchers are an exercise in choice and I thought liberals were all for freedom of choice. Well, that only applies if you want to murder your child not educate it!
Fifth, kicking out Jimmy Carter is an inside joke among conservatives and if you don't get it, guess what, you're not one.
Sixth, just in case you don't watch the latest news figures on global warming we have been stable and/or decreasing in global temperatures for the last 5 years. I wish someone could show me how the increased levels of CO2 and decreased temperatures over these years jives with the "hockey-stick" graph Gore presented. Do you people not believe in the cyclical properties of nature? Don't lie, global warming is you wanting to control me.

Timb: Wow...typical though. Let's throw crap at the wall and see if something will stick. Can't we as Americans get past this? There is no comparison between most of the individuals you mentioned and Rush and you know it. You know good and well what I intended...but because I might have a different point of view you have to slam my post...sad, but typical...

Rush Limbaugh is the admitted conservative credited with single handedly saving all of AM radio along with the thousands of jobs occuring from it. I guess the progressives hate him due to his highlighting the lies that liberals regularly tell.

What has any noted liberal accomplished lately? The faux Global Warming scare? [Wishing someone would send some of that my way soon.] Redefining getting addicted to 'recreational drugs' as being the same as getting addicted by a prescribed pain killer? They absolutely failed in causing America to lose in Iraq after spending millions to advertise that 'fact' . . . .

Just color me absolutely unimpressed by liberalism.

if the commenters are a representative sample, there sure seem to be a lot of people who profess some degree of animosity toward Mr. Limbaugh but seem to know him pretty well. Pashley nailed it: Limbaugh is an entertainer, got himself a contract for 400 Million, because he gets the rubes on both sides of the political spectrum. Including several commenters in this thread.

Good job taking things out of context, mischaracterizing conservativism, and demonizing conservatives. I can see why you're the darling of the left.

http://www.foutsc.blogspot.com/

--Nietzsche is Dead

Jesse Helms loved what he was doing and he was successful. Tim McVeigh loved his "work" too. So, did Eric Rudolph and Huey Newton.

Good job proving other people's points.

Timb

Global Warming is a hoax, & Rush is on to frauds like you. I listened to the same obnoxious old fart from Philly who was ragging libtard BS for five minutes---the guy is a representative libtard, just like yourself.

About twice as many scientists have posed objections to ANTHROPOGENIC GW as have supported it unconditionally. But you don't read about that in the NYT, so you as a libtard assume that there are no objections.

Rush is endowed by God & destiny to defrock every phony libtard who makes stupid assertions---that's why I like the guy. Screw the IRCC.

Limbaugh reference=troll bait.

Jeff,

Your post is kind, considerate, thoughtful and informative.

You must be some kind of ignorant racist homophobe.

Salt's Dictum: Whenever presented with intelligent debate, Liberals call names or change the subject.

Love to all.

Not that I am an expert on the subject, but I do have training in the sciences (Chemical Engineering)...BUT
1) I have never seen ANY evidence that would suggest to a critical mind that the earth is quickly warming
2) I have never seen any evidence that would suggest, given the earth is warming, that humans are responsible.

Just for the record, I consider myself an environmentalist and as such often agree with people who believe in global warming on the sorts of actions that should be taken. Nevertheless, I am amazed by the weakness of the arguments used to prove global warming is caused by human activity and CONSTANT appeals to authority on the matter.

Well, there's conservativism and then there's the Republican Party which has no coherent political ideology and is a "political party" in name only. What they are is an organized racket maintain to see power and enrichment for them and theirs.

Sure, they have a few honest conservatives among them, the beards that obscure their true purpose which is to obtain political power, which they will do anything, no matter how morally repugnant to so, such as their vote-caging schemes, their voter registration purges and their fake voter fraud complaints. Once in power, they will reward their friends and allies with government cnotracts and entich themselves. That is their true purpose. That's why they can be for the balanced budget before they were against it. That's why they can oppose imperialism one year and embrace it the next. They have no guiding star no sacred tenet other than power. That's why Limbaugh is their perfect spokesperson - a moral vaccuum, a bottom feeder, a greedy maw and nothing more

I challenge any of you, including the author, to challenge Rush to a debate-if you think he's not intelligent, go right ahead. I daresay he'd leave you struggling to defend your positions.

It's still shocking after all these years of Limbaugh's craven hate, bigotry and hypocrisy that he is still held up as an intellectual light of the right.

He's the perfect RWA hero, a radio personality who can't hear.

Hey, christian,

You have once again proven:

Salt's Dictum: Whenever presented with intelligent debate, Liberals call names or change the subject.

What point of any substance do you have to offer to the discussion?

Love to all.

I believe the conservatives won this argument because there are 2.485 million people with 100+ IQs sitting there with their pinky fingers extended in a droopy, flaccid manner but as yet there exists no emoticon to convey that concept.

And for all you Limbaugh-scientists out there, here's that wacko liberal organization NASA on Global Warming:

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

I’ve been listening to rush for almost 18 years. His good humor, witty insight to politics and life, and his genuine love of this great country have earned him a prominent mention in future history books. Rush shines the light of truth on liberal snobs who look down their noses at regular people and think they are too good for America. He is the Will Rogers of the 21st century.

Salt, believe it or not, I was one of Rush Limbaugh's favored callers on his KFBK Sacramento talk show in the 80's that led to his national stage. I was a reluctant fan. I met the men three times, and we liked each other. I know of who I speak.

But he changed into a real sociopath and I have listened to his growing hate, bigotry and hypocrisy. Calling out Jerry Garcia as "another dead doper" before Rush gets hooked on heroin is some kind of karma, isn't it? If Rush showed the least bit humility or charity -- y'know, what Jesus preached -- I'd be more man who gets Presidents to bow before him.

Somehow that posted before I could fix it. Sorry. Here's the last line:

If Rush showed the least bit humility or charity -- y'know, what Jesus preached -- I'd be more empathetic. I mean, this is a man who gets Presidents to bow before him.

The lower orders do indeed need someone to palliate their exclusion, make them feel they have a voice, however strictly censored, provide an emotional outlet for shame and resentment at repeated meritocratic reversals.

christian,

Thanks for real data. Democracy works so much better when our debates are intellectually honest and respectful of other intellectually honest views.

Check out:http://climatedebatedaily.com

A great site that offers both sides of the climate debate, an issue NOT settled by science, despite Gore and Hansen's (NASA) assertions to the contrary.

Also check out George Carlin on Saving The Planet: (rough language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Love to all.

christian,

I actually don't listen to Rush as much as I used to. He is a political entertainer more along the lines of Jon Stewart or Mark Russell than a conservative foundational thinker. I don't care for that kind of entertainment for very long.

But I think it shows a weakness when Liberals criticize Rush for being Rush. Why is a radio host your focus? Why not the idiots of both parties (and Ind.Sanders and Chaffee) of the 8% approval Congress who are trying to ruin this Great Republic?

Don't tread on me!
(and love to all.)

James Wolcott provides much background on the author of this piece. He really sounds like a jerk.

Salt, this "he's just an entertainer" line is not the truth. Right after Bush became prez in 2000, it was reported he was going to use the phrase "global warming" in an upcoming report and Rush started calling him GeorgeALGOREBush - Drudge pimped that headline all over his site.

A week later or so, the phrase was stricken from Bushspeak and the GOP continued on its merry anti-truth path. Rush influences Presidents and politicians. And that's scary.

get a room you mos

I think only young liberals thought Helms was a marginal conservative figure. As someone from NC who has watched this guy ruin this country since I was 18 (I'm now 54), believe me, he's a seminal figure in modern American conservativism, perhaps even more influential than Reagan. He paved the way for Reagan.

For the Rush fans and detractors, he IS nothing more than an entertainer. The idea that "history books will remember him" or "he challenges Presidents" is just plain not true in 2008. It probably was somewhat true in 2000, as Rove's strategy was to appeal to the DavefromBoca crowd.

But, we're talking about a man who "is the soul of the conservative movement" and couldn't come close and, I mean, couldn't come close to stopping the most hated RINO in the senate from being his Party's nominee.

Limbaugh is an insecure jokester with a sad personal life, a daddy complex, and several million dollars under his prodigious. Good for him, but he long stopped moving debate in this country.

Oh, and notice how the article claims Rush has superpowers on the air (he speaks extemporaneously, he remembers what callers say, he did the show deaf, etc) and yet, I've the video broadcasts of him consulting notes and everyone who has listened for three minutes knows one must make EVERY point to the call screener before Limbaugh takes the call. Yet, there's no mention of the call screener, the person who predicts the future for this delicate genius.

This writer may have been davefromboca.

PS Dave, I noticed you couldn't defend the drug addicts vouch for character. Nice hero you have there.

“don’t forget that drilling in ANWR is loved because the government does own the land. In private property the property owner gets the oil wealth. On government land, oil companies pay below market rates and so those who drill get the wealth. Its [sic] another way to transfer wealth to the rich”

While simultaneously accusing those of us on the right of being intellectually diminutive, the left continually flaunts their unabashedly ignorance of even the most basic economic principles.

If an oil company pays the federal government even a below market rate, drills, retrieves oil, refines it into gasoline and sells it on the American market, please tell me how this is bad? The government receives revenue it would not have had otherwise in the form of mineral leases for the land. High paying jobs are created for those who drill and those who refine. (Again the federal government receives taxes from the income of these new jobs) They sell the gasoline domestically (once again, the government gets their share in taxes), and thusly increase the supply of gasoline, reducing the price. The higher domestic supply means less overseas oil, which in turn means less money funneled to terrorism. Oil company stock gets more valuable, (and, Oh my!, yes some wealthy people make money) and people with mutual funds or pensions that invest in these companies achieve retirement security.

Hmm… oil is sitting right now in the ground, undisturbed. If we get it out we will:

1. Create higher revenues for the federal government in the form of mineral leases, income taxes, fuel taxes, and capital gains.
2. Create jobs.
3. Decrease dependency on foreign oil.
4. Increase national security.
5. Create wealth.
6. Improve the strength of the U.S. dollar.
7. Increase the retirement funds of millions of Americans.
8. Pave the way for oil companies to fund alternative energy even more (right now they fund alternative energy research more than any other group).

And the reason for NOT drilling is………Polar Bears? Caribou? Don’t insult my intelligence with these answers. The part of ANWR that oil companies want to drill in is a tenth of a percent of the entire area.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.