Over the weekend, POLITICMO decided to do a political experiment and ask both Missouri Senators Blunt and McCaskill a few of the same (or similar) questions and compare the answers side by side. To plainly see the contrasting views of these two Senators, look no further than the first question:
Was the Obama administration’s announcement to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve, coupled with 30 million from OPEC nations, a good step?
I think it is. One of the things that was great about it is it sends a message to speculators… and we’re trying to boost economic activity and getting gas prices down is part of it. It wasn’t a major release, but it was enough of a release to send a message.
No. It was a Fourth of July holiday step to try to get gas prices down in the short term. The strategic reserve is not designed for moments when the gas prices are heading down. The president would have a lot more impact on gas prices if he would have said we’re going to go after more American supply. We essentially have a moratorium in the Gulf and lots of other oil and gas that we’re keeping off limits at a time when we need to have more American energy of all kinds – not just oil and gas, but of all kinds.
It's clear who gave the more thoughtful answer. From McCaskill - all we get is a short term political games about sending 'messages', and from Blunt we get the long-term picture of American energy needs and a way to move forward.
Short-sightedness and pandering from the left; long-term analysis and realism from the right.
The more things “change” the more they stay the same.