Do Conservatives Hate High Gas Mileage?

I've noticed that, since the Bush administration, Republicans have taken the general position that Americans should have as much gasoline as they want, and there is nothing wrong with using as much as you want.

Nobody wants gas rationing, but if the Republican philosophy is "personal responsibility," why do they seem to be opposed to fuel conservation on a personal level? I read a lot of internet posts about people who hate the Prius, and they love gas-hogging SUV's, and they simply have no belief that we should try to deprive the Mideast dictators of their oil revenues and the environmental costs that come with it.

Why is gas guzzling good?

Because high mileage cars are part of the green initiative. The green initiative is for liberals only. Conservatives have to hate anything that liberals like.

Those are the rules.



One broad statement deserves a broad response, I suppose.

Because the all mighty free market will push fuel efficient vehicles if that is it's will and any government regulation or intervention is the devil.

The Prius is a mediocre car. That's why.

because driving a prius in the snow causes road congestion and/or accidents.

I love when it starts snowing and the plows haven't gotten to the roads yet seeing people in their little prius and other non 4x4 SUVs attempt to navigate the roads.

because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative.

once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

Because it is a good example of where government regulation succeeded. For those who ascribe to classical laissez-faire economics, this is herresy. And like any absolutist philosophy, contradictory evidence must be mocked, discredited, or buried.

Quote from Radeck : because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative. once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

Bingo

Because it puts less money into the pockets of oil companies?

I'm a conservative, and I have a Prius in the family. It's absolutely kick ass for what it is. The amount of people and cargo it can carry while getting 45+ mpg is friggin amazing.

If I'm actually doing the driving my mpg is usually 52+ it's just that someone has to have the A/C on even if it's 50 degrees outside!

So far 180,000 miles and it keeps on going *knocks on wood* I dunno if it will ever pay for itself over another economical car to be honest but it got the wife out of her gas guzzling 14mpg Jeep Grand Cherokee that was breaking down every 2 months so in that sense it's more than paid for itself!

I consider myself as a conservative and I drive a Yaris. I achieve 34-38 MPG and am happy when it comes to paying at the pump.

Can someone provide a specific example of what the OP is referring to in relation to the claims that there is nothing wrong with using as much as a person wants?

Quote from paperboy05 : Can someone provide a specific example of what the OP is referring to in relation to the claims that there is nothing wrong with using as much as a person wants?

It's not his claim. It's the claim of the "Drill baby, drill!" crowd.

Quote from ShengD : It's not his claim. It's the claim of the "Drill baby, drill!" crowd.

That's not that specific. Do you have something better?