Why does Kevin Drum hate caribou?

The Washington Monthly blogger again proves he’s a neo-centrist squish with the statement he would use ANWR as a political trading chip. This is an appalling blogpost that needs extensive quoting:

ANWR’s weird totemic quality has always baffled me. As near as I can tell, the environmental damage from drilling in the tiny portion of ANWR at issue would be pretty modest.

Uhh, Kevin, 123,000 caribou of the Porcupine herd whose summer calving grounds would be disturbed would disagree strenuously.

Personally, I'd look at ANWR as a bargaining chip. I don't have much interest in drilling there, but I'd be willing to trade it away if Republicans were willing to support a serious climate policy in return. This means cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) in order to price the externalities of carbon properly; it means serious research into clean energy technologies (and, yes, regulation of dirty technology); and it means real efforts to spur greater energy efficiency.

For more on the controversy over ANWR, including the possibility that drilling there could affect a treaty agreement with Canada over the protection of the Porcupine Caribou herd, see here.

Also, Kevin, if you’re OK with drilling in ANWR, are you also OK with harassing polar bears near oil rigs?

You know, this is not just your stupidest post of the week, but, the stupidest of the month, if not the last couple of months.

Drum has again shown the delusional hyper-Obama Kumbaya centrist squish side of his blogging.

It's kind of like Diane Feinstein being a wasted Senator from California, because she’s on the conservative side of California Democrats.

If Washington Monthly wanted a California blogger, couldn’t it have gotten a more liberal one?

Update:And now, just 48 hours later, the Flip-Flop Blogger™ is giving McCain, putatively a Drum-type “reasonable Republican,” a needling over an environmental issue.