As oil prices hit record highs, Teague offers experience, sensible solutions, plus; Clinton saber-rattling on Iran a throw-back to Bush Era diplomacy

Record oil prices usher in new calls for strong leadership:

Oil prices hit a record high early Monday, with a barrel of U.S. light sweet crude reaching $120 per barrel for the first time, before falling slightly to close at $119.97, also a record. With middle- and low-income U.S. consumers hurting at the pump, new calls have emerged from voters for leaders who understand the very real and constraining effects that rising petrol prices have on family budgets.

Fortunately, in Harry Teague, voters in New Mexico's Second Congressional District have the opportunity to elect a leader with both solid experience in, and ties to, the oil industry and an understanding that the U.S. must take bold, immediate steps to reduce its dependency on oil and lower gasoline prices. Some of Teague's critics, most notably his opponent in the upcoming Democratic Primary, Bill McCamley, seek to utilize the former Lea County Commissioner's ties to the oil and gas industry, loathed by many of the Democratic voters who will decide the party's nominee on 03 June.

However, those interested in true progress on the issue of energy independence (such as your humble blogger) understand that reducing fuel prices will require lawmakers to establish a serious, forward-looking dialogue with oil executives. Teague, who already has strong inroads in this industry, would serve as an effective conduit between concerned citizens and power players in the oil industry.

As a representative from New Mexico, Teague would have a strong interest in encouraging oil executives to invest more in renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, which stands to produce an economic windfall for, and create hundreds if not thousands of well-paying jobs in, New Mexico. Moreover, Teague's business prowess as a self-made millionaire would help him approach financially-motivated oil men with a proposal that is realistic and focused on the economic bottom line.

Those who think that solutions to our country's current gas price conundrum and rapidly climbing oil prices can be crafted without input from leaders of the oil industry kid themselves. What we need are strong, progressive voices in Washington, who understand that creating a more sustainable, cost-friendly energy future in the United States requires open dialogue between oil producers and voters. Fortunately for voters in New Mexico's Second District, Harry Teagues represents such an option.

Clinton Rattles the Saber on Iran:

In recent comments, Democratic presidential contender and New York Senator Hillary Clinton that, if she were president, an Iranian attack on Israel would trigger a U.S. response that would 'obliterate' Iran. This alarming statement conjures up mental images of President Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, in which he labeled Iran as part of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' with whom Washington would engage in no diplomatic talks and to whom it would offer only stiff and, if needed, aggressive resistance.

This short-sighted policy has engendered the rapid decline of U.S. standing in the eyes of the world. What used to be a country considered a benevolent power and honest broker in the cause for international peace has come to be seen more as a hegemon bent on downgrading the power of others in the interest of guaranteeing its own security and predominance. Moreover, the Bush Administration's almost absolute lack of willingness to hold diplomatic talks with adversarial players has stoked the wrath of millions across the Middle East and the broader Muslim World.

With this in mind, Clinton's comment that she would, as president, seek to obliterate Iran if it levied a military attack on Israel frustrates those interested in seeing the U.S. recapture a more sunny standing on the international scene. Sure, an attack by Iran on Israel should warrant a serious response, just as any violent attack by one country on another would. However, stating so point blankedly that she would take steps to 'obliterate' a sovereign state and the millions of inhabitants living within it goes too far.

Perhaps Clinton's comments were intended solely for the administration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, when stating something so potentially inflammatory, it seems strange, indeed misguided, that Clinton would have left the interpretation of her comments to chance. What was she thinking, and is this a sign of what voters can expect under a Clinton Administration? That is, more of the same fear-mongering, closed-off diplomatic stance promoted so strongly (and perilously) by George W. Bush? Voters beware...