Sixth District DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg has a Your Turn editorial in this morning's St. Cloud Times that's simply too error-laden to not fisk. Mr. Tinklenberg couldn't even get past the second paragraph before saying something foolish:

Yet, while commuters pay exorbitant prices for gasoline, truckers are in trouble with diesel fuel at well more than $4 a gallon, and farmers face concerns about energy and feed costs, Congress remains locked in a partisan faceoff.

As I pointed out in the comments, Congress isn't locked in a partisan faceoff. Nancy Pelosi's Democrats voted to adjourn for 5 weeks without Congress considering any energy bills where Republicans could offer an amendment.

Each of the non-energy energy bills that the Democrats offered were offered under a closed rule, meaning that amendments couldn't be offered by either Republicans or Democrats.

Here's another Mr. Tinklenberg's plan:

I advocate the following:

• Drill domestically for more oil. No matter how much more drilling we do, the United States still has only 3 percent of the world's total supply of oil, and consumes 25 percent of the world's daily supply. Domestic drilling is only one part of a comprehensive solution. Drilling in ANWR is not worth the risk, but a good place to start would be the 68 million acres the oil companies have leased but have not yet drilled.
• Negotiate limited additional exploration and drilling rights. Any new drilling permits should be approved on a case-by-case basis with oil companies required to post a substantial bond to guarantee site restoration and/or cleanup of any spills related to the drilling.
• Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development. American innovation is our key to an independent energy future. While there is general agreement in Congress that economic incentives are necessary to develop alternative energy technologies, the parties quickly split when the discussion turns to paying for them. We can start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and using the money to pay for these incentives.
• Increase miles-per-gallon standards for cars. While domestic automobile manufacturers are beginning to respond to market forces by building smaller, lighter and alternative-fuel cars and trucks, an incremental increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would assure that this trend continues.

First, let's dispose of the 3 percent myth:

MYTH: The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world's oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won't affect prices much if at all.

FACT: This estimate of 2-6% of the world's oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.

In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.
Resources from oil shale and additional oil resources that are likely to be discovered are not included in the estimates of American oil supplies.

Next, let's demolish Mr. Tinklenberg's CAFE Standards argument:

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America's dependence on oil by:

Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue "attribute-based standards," which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.

Here's another feature of Mr. Tinklenberg's plan:

Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development.

I wonder if that's Mr. Tinklenberg endorsment of Rep. Bachmann's <a href="http://michelebachmann.townhall.com/blog/g/82db6024-4e94-48f2-929c-cc1670b47a0c" target="_blank">Promoting New American Energy Act</a>. I'm betting Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't realize the fact that he's unwiitingly endorsed Rep. Bachmann's legislation.

Finally, there's this:

Maybe we can't afford to do everything, but the people are tired of doing nothing. It's time to move beyond false promises and political bickering and get started on the hard work and tough choices that will produce a forward-thinking plan that is in the best interest of the American people, not oil companies.

I'd first like to ask why "we can't afford to do everything." Is there something other than Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's Democrats preventing it? Would it cost the federal government anything to open up the OCS or ANWR or the Green River shale oil deposits?

Personally, I wonder what Mr. Tinklenberg is talking about in terms of "tough choices that will produce a forward-thinking plan." Since when is doing the common sense thing a tough choice? Since when is producing "a forward-thinking plan" a difficult thing? Might Mr. Tinklenberg mean that it's difficult for Democrats to vote for such a plan because their environutter allies would cut off the campaign contributions spigot?

While it's true that it would cost us money to write tax incentives for "for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development", it's also true that it's smart policy which should be implemented immediately.

Finally, isn't it true that the best way to diminish the oil companies' profits is to increase oil production? The only thing standing in the way of that are Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's Democrats.

Shouldn't Pelosi's and Reid's Democrats cease with their obstructionist tactics immediately? Shouldn't Mr. Tinklenberg call out his DFL allies for voting to adjourn without voting on the Republians' American Energy Act?

That's what should happen but we know that it won't. That'd take political courage, something that Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't seem to have an overabundance of.

Comments welcome at LFR.