It is smart if gasoline prices continue their retreat of the last few weeks, but if prices spike up again towards the $5.00 mark, Democrats could throw away a lot of their expected gains in November. Right now, I would predict gasoline prices to continue to slowly decline through the rest of the summer.

But remember, when you start saying you will support more drilling, you might eventually get called to actually vote for more drilling. There will be congressional elections in 2010, too.

I'm real tired of the GOP half-truth that increased drilling will 'help' with gas prices.

Yeah, too little too late. About as much as the 2 cents a gallon you can save by getting a Kwik Trip or Super America card.

If after all this then the American people are still drinking that koolaid then we deserve to go down the tubes. At some point we need to grow up and face facts or we don't deserve a good country.

In a similar vein I wish the reality show "Black Gold" would show what a tiny amount those oil wells will provide in the global energy picture but that will never happen.

Instead we get artificial drama over every busted bolt and an upside down bar graph showing the drilling 'competition.'

"Democrats see no need to make major concessions..."

Hey! That never stopped them before!

If you can take her at her word. Americans have proven for a couple decades now that they don't really care to follow politics and public policy to the degree necessary for the country to be considered a self-governing democracy and not just a country that has periodic if largely symbolic elections.

However, Pelosi and Reid have been pretty useless in their respective positions, so I'm not holding my breath even with a substantial majority in both houses of Congress. Especially now that oil may actually go below $100.00 a barrel before the election. The economic middle-class and wealthy can actually live quite fine with $3.50/gallon gas.

I don't pretend to understand the sudden and remarkable decline in the price of oil, but one can almost predict that Americans will begin to relax and return to "fuelish" habits if oil goes and stays below $100/barrel for any length of time. I'm actually sorry that it's getting cheaper. The longer gas stayed above $4.25/gallon, the better for the country and world in the long run.

The downside: a McCain veto.

The arrogance of the Democrats is breathtaking.

McCain will hopefully open his mouth and kill off his chances -- but barring that he has a 50-50 chance of winning (I actually think he has a 60% chance of winning, after all, Americans voted in GB twice).

I think a lot of independents are acting like New Hampshire primary voters -- going for the other guy just to give a big FU to all those who think this election is over.

The downside? Get bitten by a sleeper issue. As Stuart Thiele [a.k.a. Professor Pollkatz] has persistently argued, there's a strong inverse correlation between Bush's popularity and the price of gas. A *very large chunk* of the American public's disillusionment with the Iraq War was its failure to lead to cheap gas [I'm perpetually amazed at the intelligent people I know who bought that line]. One of the striking findings of the new WP/Kaiser survey of low-wage workers is that they consider it a top priority of the federal government to get gas prices down. This is going to be a big problem for a party that appears to be wedded to the "eat your broccoli" approach to energy policy. Obviously, we are in fact going to have to eat our broccoli, but saying so won't get people flocking to the polls for us; indeed, I suspect that it's this issue, more than the Lindsay-and-Paris silliness, that's driving the current tightening in the polls. This issue needs to be neutralized now; otherwise, there won't be a long term to make improvements.

Rather than not pass any bill, why not pass a bill through Congress that Obama likes and have Bush veto it? Or pass a bill through the House that Obama likes and have the Senate filibuster it? If it looks like Democrats are doing something, the issue works better for them.

Perhaps, one of you guys can clarify this point, but it is my understanding that the Congressional ban on offshore drilling expires on Sept. 30th of this year. If this is true, then Congress would need to pass the ban, and the President would need to sign it into law, in order to stop potential drilling offshore.

Since the only ones who want to stop offshore drilling are the Dems Leadership, what member of Congress would be stupid enough to vote to re-instate the ban and with it higher gas prices in October of an election year?

Is Pelosi really that stupid or just a mole planted by the evil mastermind Karl Rove?

This is going to be a big problem for a party that appears to be wedded to the "eat your broccoli" approach to energy policy. Obviously, we are in fact going to have to eat our broccoli, but saying so won't get people flocking to the polls for us; indeed, I suspect that it's this issue, more than the Lindsay-and-Paris silliness, that's driving the current tightening in the polls. This issue needs to be neutralized now; otherwise, there won't be a long term to make improvements.

Excellent post. I don't have much to add except this further reinforces the silliness of Kevin's recent criticism of Obama for minor amounts of pandering on energy issues, especially given the superiority of the Obama's energy proposals compared to McCain's.

Also, Kevin's notion that Obama's failure to maintain a monotonous "eat your broccoli" message on energy means he isn't serious about implementing his proposals (i.e. if he's not setting the foundation now, it won't happen later). First, Obama needs to win in order to have a chance at implementing them. Second, this post suggests that Obama and Pelosi may actually be working from the same playbook - forgoing some horrible compromise on energy issues now in order to pass something more worthwhile when they have the votes come 2009. Forest for the trees.

The House should try to pass a good bill and ignore the Senate or Bush. When it goes to the Senate, they can show that McCain is _never_ bipartisan when it comes to lining the pockets of the rich.

Sorry to be so passive aggressive, but some responses to comments I made several days ago have been irking me. A commentor claimed speculators in oil stocks and futures effect the price of oil. This in not true. Prices are set by suppliers in response to what they think demand will be. Speculators make money by guessing at what both suppliers and consumers will do. The only speculators who can do this without risk would have to have an inside track to the oil suppliers and would be acting illegally.
In response to my comment that population growth should be considered when environmental problems are considered, a commentator huffily said it was all about 'allocation of resources, not population' and noted that the US pollutes much more than India or China do, with bigger populations. This seems to beg the question as to what will happen to the earth's environment as the living standards of China and India rise to become more like that of the US. A nice summary of some of the effects of geometric population growth is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-stein/sustainability-primer-par_b_117076. The effects of consumption and population growth to me call into question even the morality of those who fight not just abortion, but birth control of all kinds. Humans are not willingly going to go back to living in yurts and subsisting on berries. Progressives who want a better life for both Americans and our fellow men in other nations had better start thinking about population limits. The British equivalent of the AMA is already issuing pleas to the British public to limit family growth.

Gas prices will continue their decrease through the November elections- book it. There's simply no way that the oil companies will allow the most friendly regime in US history to be replaced by someone who promises to move us *away* from oil dependence. And how better to help their friends in the Grand Oil Party than by lowering the price for their product at the most politically advantageous time.

-Z

Ever since Democrats began trying to regulate the oil market to remove excessive destructive speculation the price of oil has gradually gone down.

Clearly there will be market regulation and comprehensive oil policy legislation.

Whether Republicans vote for either will be interesting. They've been yelling they're for everything, but especially drilling.

Democrats need to look at the recent Repub & Dem proposal and see if there are ways to incorporate it with the House bill and improve it before it comes up for a vote. It's likely to be a complicated job, but there are political incentives for both sides to do it.

Neither wants to look like they're letting gasoline prices stay high with an election just around the corner.

It is really remarkably disgusting to listen to the Republican Congresspersons who have remained in session during the break, whining and wailing and demanding that the Democrats hand over more of the public's valuable resources to the Republican Party's financial backers in the oil corporations. The Congressional Republicans really, really deserve the spanking that the voters are going to give them in November. What a bunch of whining, sniveling little brats they are.

...while allowing for some new oil drilling.

But whatever happen too telling big oil to drill the lease they already have?

Dems HAVE already conceded on issue, and now will be opening up previously protected areas for big oil. Once again Nancy DOESN'T know her power and she telling Dems to go ahead and conceded on the issue, they just don't want you to know they conceded.

It's just like that FISA Bill, if Dems can lie to us, about what they are doing then they will. They've already conceded, so now we're just getting this big lie.

And fuel alternatives!!! Dems want to HAND 9 billion dollars to US automakers to come up with something else, no strings attached, which means there will be no real improvement. Hell it could be natrual gas powered vehicle. If we ain't giving a way taxpayer money to Bush's no-bid contracts - than we giving to automakers who could have re-tool already if indeed they had as much incentive to improve as Honda and Toyota did.

Corn fuel isn't really a good alternative either. It's just a big money giveaway - same as Bush does for his big oil buddies.

I half agree. Waiting out Bush (and getting at or near a cloture-free Senate) are both smart.

Spouting bullshit whilst waiting? Not so smart.

Any bill passed while George Bush is president will inevitably be a horrible kludge, so why not wait? What's the downside? That Republican members of Congress will continue to play dumb games in an empty chamber for a while longer?

Hell, I was saying the same thing about FISA.

I think this is not a smart move on Pelosi's part. Congress hasn't passed much of anything this year, and people are aware of that. This action gives the impression that dems are not interest in even tackling the energy issue. In addition, Obey is threatening to table the 9 funding bills that are pending, because he says the republicans will want to attach off shore drilling to each bill. That's nuts. A government shut down Oct 1 is not going to help the democrats in the race this fall. And since Pelosi is seen to be sweet on Obama, maybe some of the bad karma will rub off.

I think Kevin's view ingores: (1) that passing a law this year does not preclude passing another law next year; (2) if there are issues important to America that need to be addressed, it is the job of Congress to address them; (3) voters will not take kindly to such a clever strategy; and (4) 40 republican senators can block anything they have a mind to regardless of the electon results.

Right on, Freelunch. I also thought it odd that Hon. Sen. McCain would criticize Hon. Sen. Obama for voting for an energy bill that had some elements that Senator Obama didn't like, but the GOP insisted on. In case Senator McCain is unclear, this is sometimes known as bipartisanship. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain is touting his toeing the party line and not letting any fool Democratic idea pass the Senate (too bad there's all that gridlock, by the way).

Brian, that's why we need to ensure that there aren't 40 obstructionist idiots left in the Senate.

optical weenie wrote: "This action gives the impression that dems are not interest in even tackling the energy issue."

More drilling for oil is not "tackling the energy issue". It is avoiding and denying the energy issue. The "energy issue" is that we need to phase out ALL fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

If the Democrats refuse to increase oil drilling, it shows that they are serious about tackling the energy issue, and the Republicans are not.

Anyone who proposes "tackling the energy issue" with more oil drilling is an idiot and/or a bought-and-paid-for tool of the oil corporations.

So why didn't this conclusion apply to FISA?

bosn at 4:23 PM:

Couldn't agree more, but the issue you're addressing requires calm, mature assessment and discussion, as well as demonstrated competence in government. I agree that population growth lies within the circle of proximate causes for resource use and allocation; as a matter of policy, however, the overall anxiety level in this country has to be lowered quite a bit before it can be directly addressed, I think. This country still has 100 m. evangelicals who might balk at being told how many kids to have. A level of trust must be built before such an existential issue can be addressed.

This country still has 100 m. evangelicals who might balk at being told how many kids to have. Posted by: Conrad's Ghost

I think you're off by a factor of almost 10 there. There is no way that nearly 1/3 of the nation is comprised of conservative Christians, "evangelicals" or otherwise. Regardless of what surveys say, there aren't even 100 million Americans attending church on a regular basis, and Catholics, at about 25% of respondents, still make up the largest percentage of any one "Christian" group.

so kevin...you are saying that bush is a LAME DUCK?

Ouch. that's HARSH!

LOL

hopefully this won't blow up in our faces.

just tryin to be optomistic here...

Thanks to anonymous and Augustus for the broccoli meme. Reality-based = broccoli-munching. Eat your broccoli! Yes you can!

a commentator huffily said it was all about 'allocation of resources, not population' and noted that the US pollutes much more than India or China do, with bigger populations. This seems to beg the question as to what will happen to the earth's environment as the living standards of China and India rise to become more like that of the US.

Or as the population of the US rises to become more like that of India or China. The benefit to the environnment of individual belt-tightening by 10%, either nationally or globally, is zero if the result is that we all feel comfortable having 10% more children. The commons will be as abused as before, but we'll all be poorer.

(This is great for the employer class: 10% more labor to work for them, for 10% lower wages! But not so good for we the laborers)

Limits on child bearing will exist whether the enthusiasts for limitless human population growth on the planet want them to or not. The question is, whether the limits should be imposed by agreed law on a wealthy human population, or whether they be imposed by nature, via all but two of your children dying of poverty every generation.

a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling.

If the dems can get past the "either/or" mindset and do both (conserve and pursue alternatives and also open up new local energy sources) I'm all for it. This whole "it's one or the other" mindset held by both parties pisses me off.

SJRSM wrote: "This whole 'it's one or the other' mindset held by both parties pisses me off."

This whole "we want more oil to burn" mindset pisses me off. We need to stop burning ALL fossil fuels as quickly as possible, not dig up more of them to burn.

It really is a case of "one or the other": either we stop burning fossil fuels, or we make the planet Earth inhospitable to life and destroy any chance of a future for the human species.

So, why didn't she use that kind of reasoning with the FISA bill???!