Barack Obama surrogate Bill Richardson shamefully prostituted his foreign policy street cred today by both hitting at John McCain and blamming President Bush for the Russian invasion of Georgia.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said McCain’s campaign “is run by lobbyists that represent Georgia and other countries.”

“He takes huge amounts of money from oil companies that are profiting in the (former) Soviet Union and many parts of the world,” the Democrat told ABC News, attempting to depict a conflict of interest for McCain.

Richardson, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, said the crisis vindicated Obama’s pledge to rebuild US alliances in Europe that were strained under President George W. Bush.

“This has been one of the failures of the Bush administration, failing to build a strong relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, so we’d have the kind of influence to persuade them to stop some of these very, very dangerous efforts within their territory,” he said.

Richardson really ought to be embarassed at this awful display of political posturing such a fuid foreign policy and security issue. Georgia is an ally of the US and our other allies whom Richardson spins to suit his own political objectives. Of little matter to Richardson is the fact that Georgia is both a democracy and who’s troops serve alongside US troops in Iraq.

The Washington Post spelled out the reason why increased demonization of “Big Oil” by calling for a windfall profits taxes are wrong:

Making Exxon surrender money that is now falling into its lap would not necessarily affect its longer-term plans or incentives. Indeed, some of Big Oil’s “windfall” already will go to the government: The more profit the companies earn, the more corporate income tax they pay. But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump — thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.

The Post does a wonderful job of telling its readers why increasing taxes on oil companies will backfire on everyone. Dems continued use of “Big Oil” as a demonizing mantra is archaic. The Post editorial writers seemed to even mock its use.

So the Dems are attempting to demonize their way out of this with a an outdated populist message that is falling on more deaf ears all the time. Speaker Pelosi’s line in the sand on drilling continues to be a drag on Dem credibility on energy as Republican’s in Congress stayed in Washington to grandstand in a way thats kept the issue burning. They’ve lost a reliable ally in the Post, too.

Sigh. Geez, is he always going to be this bad. This…..about that silly drilling thing.

Clinton appointee Fredrico Pena said that Obama was only talking about the 68 million acres that had been ok’d by congress for drilling.

Ummmmm, Mr. Secretary (and Senator Obama) , there aint no oil there.

Here’s more about Dem talking points that are, well, lies:

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Mineral Management Service, there are nearly 68 million acres of federal lands (onshore and off) that are part of non-producing leases as of fiscal year 2007. This is in contrast to 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil. So, there are 68 million acres of leased land on which companies aren’t extracting oil, but Obama went too far when he said oil companies “haven’t touched” them. As Bureau of Land Management Petroleum Engineer Bill Gewecke, who manages the onshore sites, told us, he “wouldn’t say untouched, [I] would say undeveloped.”

That’s because these leased lands that don’t contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management’s Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.

The Wall Street Journal has a take down of Barack Obama’s call on Friday for a tax on “windfall profits” to pay for additional stimulus checks. Dem use of the “windfall profits” mantra is fast and loose with ecomomic realities. For businesses, profit margains is the accurate way to measure any business’ success.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any “windfall” tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we’re missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

So, oil companies make about a 10% profit on its investment. As Obama and Durbin want to tax Exxon again on top of being taxed already. With the average oil company profit being at less than 9%, the only way that oil companies can sustain vaibility would be to raise its prices at the pump. Anyhow, how do oil companies compare to othier industries in profit margains: The WSJ tells us:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

Obama’s increasingly bizzare statements about the issue continues to impress. What he refers to as our “addiction” to oil he says can be dealt with by simply making sure you have enough air in your tires. His proposal at additional taxes on oil companies will only result in increased cost at the pump - a cost whose burden will be felt greatest by working families.

The WSJ goes further in its overview and closes with the following:

The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

So what is Obama’s and Durbin’s motivation? Is floating the windfall profits tax a trial balloon for voters? As both men know implementation of additional taxes on the oil industry will result in higher costs at the pump one can only wonder what their motivations might be.