So when will Congress act on gas prices? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added
posted at 9:45 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Across the nation, gas prices have shot over $4 per gallon, and there appears to be no ceiling in sight. The economic shock continues to appear across the broad spectrum, raising retail prices on any goods coming to market, while wages cannot keep pace. As the buying power of Americans continues to erode, will Congress finally act to broaden supplies?
The average price of regular gas crept up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend, passing the once-unthinkable milestone just in time for the peak summer travel season.
Prices at the pump are expected to keep climbing, especially after last week’s furious surge in oil prices, which neared $140 a barrel in a record-shattering rally Friday.
While Americans who have to drive will feel the biggest squeeze, the increased prices also translate into higher costs for consumers and businesses, who will be forced to shoulder increased costs for food and anything else that needs to be transported.
“I don’t think we’ve felt quite the full impact of $138 or $139 a barrel oil,” said Jason Toews, co-founder of fuel price research site GasBuddy.com.
Gas prices rolled past their latest threshold Sunday, increasing to $4.005 a gallon overnight from $3.988 the day before, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.
Congress has put a tight hold on drilling and refining in the US for decades, and this is the inevitable result. The US sits on billions of barrels of oil within the continental shelves, billions more on the interior, and billions in ANWR. Yet we insist on going cap in hand to the Saudis for higher production rather than take some responsibility for our own energy needs, preferring to keep our landscapes while we demand that others exploit their own resources for our benefit.
We could shift some of our reliance on petroleum to nuclear power, on which Europe and Japan largely rely for their electricity. However, Congress under both parties has shown even less courage in standing up to the environmentalists on nuclear power than they have in domestic drilling. The coal industry could produce massive new sources for energy if they were less hamstrung. Yet Congress continues to look for unproven solutions while ignoring the workable solutions in front of them, and their dithering has produced an inflationary environment that resembles the 1970s.
Last week, Barbara Boxer tried to push through the Lieberman-Warner bill, claiming that it would address gas prices. It certainly would — by driving them much higher through over-regulation of the energy industry. The energy industry does not need further regulation. They need Congress to get the federal government out of its way so that it can add more supply to the market, which is the only way prices will fall.
We have asked for expanded nuclear power and domestic drilling for at least two decades. Every time the subject comes up, we get reminded that these solutions take seven years to have an effect. If we had acted seven years ago in the aftermath of 9/11, when it became clear that energy would involve national-security issues, the benefits would have started to arrive right about now — and oil speculation would have never climbed to its current state.
Drill here, drill now, and at least we can expect to pay less in a few years. In the meantime, let’s get started with nuclear and coal while researching as many possibilities for renewables as possible.
Update: NBC’s Today Show asks its two experts, Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett, about the solution, and both agree:
Cramer is exactly on point here. We need to be less selfish and start producing as much of our own oil as possible.
Update II: Jazz Shaw has a moderately dissenting opinion, and a must-read, at The Moderate Voice.
Update III: It was the Today show on NBC, not CNN. Must have had CNN on the brain today. I blame it on the Southern California air. Thanks to the readers who e-mailed me the correction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Pelosi and Reed will rely on the stupidity of guvment school graduates, believing voters will solely blame Bush for gas prices. Action by this Congress now? Hell no – Democrats will gladly bankrupt your family or business to win a Presidential campaign.
Congress has become Public Enemy #1 by intentionally creating an oil and refining shortage. Will McCain lay claim to this issue and announce a comprehensive solution all Republicans can rally around?
I don’t expect that anyone will do anything to correct this artificial shortage. Too many Washington fools have bought into the notion that CO2 is pollution. Hey, Jackasses, have another Diet Coke and enjoy the fizz!
T J Green on June 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
The case for nuclear power:
* Nuclear power emits no gases because it does not burn anything; it provides 73% of America’s clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an immense amount of energy.
* If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can.
* A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana.
* Spent nuclear fuel is shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much in one day.
* We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually containing toxic heavy metals.
* Nuclear power’s carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.
* In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a year.
Source: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
GREAT! We can do that after we get ourselves out of the mess we’re in. DRILL!
Oink on June 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
and add to that a few dozen nuclear plants…we would be in business.
Just to remind, some of our refineries in the U.S. helps Chavez.
right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I feel your eastern pain at the gas pump. San Diego County has had gas over $4 gallon for over a month. Current price, $4.399 gallon. Hi-test over $4.50. Diesel? Try over $5.
Get used to it. Purchased 5 gallons the other day for my lawn mower. $24! On the bright side, the Governator has announced a drought so I may give up my small patch of front lawn so that the Delta Smelt can live. Want to hear something really funny? Local outfit has been trying to get into desalination, all the local eco-freaks are coming out of the woodwork with lawsuits against it.
GarandFan on June 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Agreed, & I’m disappointed that even HA voters in the poll above seem to be rejecting nuclear power. Renewables beating nuclear 23% to 9%???
jgapinoy on June 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
No, that’s how we’ll get out of the mess we’re in.
jgapinoy on June 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
The AOL hot seat poll should be changed to add an item for “all of the above”. I say we drill here now for the medium term and start building nuclear plants like crazy for the long term. I currently use mass transit, and it’s a sensible approach for people in/near cities with mass transit options. It also makes sense to put some effort into exploring renewables. Most of the work on renewables should come from the private sector. With oil prices this high if those renewables are going to be cost-effective they should be able to now.
Jill1066 on June 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I hope I’m not the only one writing my Congress critters twice a week about this crisis!
MCPO Airdale on June 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
That’s the point Oink. In order to get ourselves out of this mess, we have to start nuclear now. It takes several years for a nuclear plant to go online.
If Washington announced tomorrow our intent to devout our attention to Nuclear and Hybrid technologies, our ahem “friends” in Saudi Arabia would start to drop their crude prices to deter our goals.
They want to keep us under their thumb.
natesnake on June 9, 2008 at 11:41 AM
This also has an impact on our infrastructure. The price of asphalt has skyrocketed, too. Local governments will not have the money to complete scheduled road repairs during the summer construction season because they cannot afford the increased price of asphalt. This vicious circle just keeps getting worse.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM
That’s because most of the people voting in the poll don’t realize how safe Nuclear is. They believe that we were mere moments away from destroying the eastern seaboard with three mile island. They believe that Nuclear is always just one ticking time bomb, and if we use it, we’ll just destroy everything.
Lot’s of people are just stupid, which explains how we got John McCain as a Nominee, that SOB shouldn’t be President of the VFW, much less of the United States.
Snake307 on June 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
It isn’t just the aphalt. Concrete and the cost of mining gravel pits and getting it to destinations asking has gone up as well.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I certainly don’t disagree with drilling. However, there are roadblocks at the refining level that need to be removed before refineries can even contemplate dealing with a huge new supply of crude oil. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way to put that into perspective and turn it into a sexy, election year issue.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Concur, get the government out of the way, and let the marketplace decide…
Most people, if given the option, would CHOOSE an electric car for short distance driving, if it fit their needs. Most families would end up with one gas guzzler, and one electric I’d bet… but the “gas guzzler” would be a deisel electric hybrid, like the trains are now…
Romeo13 on June 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Chernoble comes to mind. I was a small child in Alaska when it happened and they were worried about the cloud that could come our way.
Only problem is that we use a heavier concrete base then those in other Countries.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
No, problem with the poll is that Nuclear will not help the economy in the next 10 years or so, while drilling can start helping much sooner.
It really does NOT take that long to drill a well, once you get the job started…
Romeo13 on June 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
This morning I witnessed most amazing political metamorphisis. All the democrats at work (80% of the group) announced their disaffection with the party, disgust with the media and support for McCain because he’s not Obama.
Practically the entire building complex was out in the parking lot this morning discussing this. A big topic of the conversation was the recent action to put the oil shales off limits and wonder of wonders, Fred Hiatt’s op-ed.
Yellow Dog democrats, talking like conservatives.
Wonder of wonders.
Beto Ochoa on June 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Rush, the EPA in the State is who to contact for Refineries.
Best advice I can give you is to give them a call and start a petition with your law makers to make EPA waive certain “envirnomental laws” to build one.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Were I to vote in the poll you added to the top of this post, I would vote for “all of the above.” Why not?
Babs on June 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Romeo you are correct. It also depends on where it was drilled and what they drilled through. Most take anywhere form 30 – 180 days.
Only problem is pipelines and making them quickly, which is time consuming.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Another main problem……Democrats are still stuck in the 1970’s. The fail to recognize, or cannot get out of their THC-induced fog, that technology has improved in 30 years. Nuclear power is not scary. Emissions from coal power plants are having a lessened environmental impact.
Along with drilling and yada, yada, yada, the government should INCREASE the amount of TAX BREAKS for companies that invest in technology for new fuels and/or lowered emissions of fossil fuels. Increase the supply of gas and diesel to meet our demands while unleashing the creative American spirit. It won’t be easy, but we could give a big middle finger to the regimes that currently supply us with oil.
Another positive for drill and refine her/drill and refine now? Crushing the economies of those dictatorial regimes. Call it “liberty advancement” in those lands. Reagan used a similar principle with defense spending to crush the Soviet economy.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Okay, conservatives shut down the phones to stop Kennedy/McCain’s immigration fiasco. Why aren’t we shutting down the phones on this one? We need to start a ground roots movement.
Sue on June 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Perspective:
Natural background radiation from rocks, soil, water, and cosmic rays exposes people living in the U.S. to about 300 millirem per year on average (a millirem is a unit by which radiation is measured).
One chest X-ray gives a person a dose of 10 millirem.
Residents of Denver are exposed to 700 millirem per year from natural radiation.
People moving from the Chernobyl area to Denver would be increasing their level of radiation exposure.
Residents of the area around Three Mile Island nuclear plant, which had a reactor meltdown in 1979, received on average an exposure of 1 additional millirem. If they had moved to Denver they would have increased their radiation exposure sevenfold.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I am with you Dr., I would rather have nuclear in many ways.
Just wish it was easier for those who want to build, then having to deal with red tape at all intersections.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Subsidize plants to process tar sands and coal liquefaction. And nuclear.
Bill C on June 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
U.S. deaths from the operation of nuclear power in over 40 years of operation: ZERO.
Deaths from Chernobyl since the accident in 1986: 60. (Most of these fatalities were suffered by emergency workers in the plant.)
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person’s total share of the waste would fit into one soda can. Of that, only a trace is long-lived. In France, where nuclear fuel is recycled, waste is drastically reduced, so that the lifetime total for a family of four would fit in a single coffee cup.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM
WHY A CHERNOBYL CAN NEVER HAPPEN IN THE U.S.
The Chernobyl reactor accident occurred under worst-case circumstances that involved the worst design, management by political hacks, and lack of a containment building. If the reactor had been contained there wouldn’t have been a dispersal of radioactive material.
All reactors in the United States, Europe, and Japan are enclosed within multiple barriers of containment. Reactor buildings are made of walls of dense concrete and steel that are 3 to 5 feet thick. The reactor fuel is enclosed in a thick steel pressure vessel. The buildings are negatively pressurized to prevent outflow of any emissions. In 1979 at Three Mile Island, a partial reactor meltdown occurred. Thanks to the reactor vessel and containment building, there was no large-scale release of radioactive material to the environment. Containment buildings are the most robust structures on earth. A plane flying into one would be crushed, although hitting a target that small is virtually impossible.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Ah….you’ve read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.” Great book.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM
New idea for a T-shirt:
“BE LIKE FRANCE……NUCLEAR POWER NOW! (and with better personal hygiene)
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
In 1988 Sandia National Laboratories performed a test to find out what happens when an aircraft impacts a massive, hardened target, such as a nuclear power plant. A rocket-propelled F4 Phantom jet rammed into a 12-foot thick slab of concrete at 500 miles per hour.
The maximum penetration of the concrete in this experiment was 2 inches. Dramatic video here:
http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Actually, my source is here.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM
And Congress would do what exactly? I’m not being argumentative but any real effect (as compared to political stunts like gas tax holidays) requires years in the making. Congress and a third of the Senate and the Presidency are facing an election year. They’ll field angry calls and agree that something needs to be done but nothing will happen between now and the election and nothing will happen afterwards when they’ve secured employment for the next few years.
highhopes on June 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Congress can not be expected to do the right thing.
They’ll raise taxes. That’s a certainty.
Kini on June 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I had some isotope injections for medical testing a few years ago. I couldn’t get into the plant for about 6 weeks! couldn’t even come near the portal monitors. Medical exposure is not tracked so I have no idea what my dose was from that little shot.
This may be true today. Don’t know, haven’t kept up with the background readings there since retiring. I assure you though that this was not true in 1987.
I know that’s what was released by the NRC, but I doubt that it was even that high.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Oldnuke on June 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Do you think they would use adds for the children of Chernobyl? I wouldn’t put it past them.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I see. So it is now the role of the government to steer prices. How conservative of you.
freevillage on June 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM
And you don’t think it is other governments and countries who steer consumer goods as well?
Do you live in a bubble?
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Without a doubt. However, the most common health care issue for those children is thyroid cancer, fortunately a highly treatable form of cancer.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Guess I missed that part. I hope this isn’t another hit and run job. Can you tell us why the gas pump price has doubled since the Dems gained Congressional majority?
a capella on June 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Of course, you know the only thing they would show are possibly adnormalities.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
WELL, that’s great 2 business reporters agree, we need to drill here!!! Now, if you could convince THE HOUSE and SENATE to go along with this plan… How long before we take OUR COUNTRY back from the ENVIRO-WACKOS, who would all be happy if we LIVED in CAVES and used candles for LIGHT!!!! We need to do this NOW, to stop sending MONEY to people who HATE us, or worse want you and I DEAD… THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE 72′ OIL EMBARGO… Did that give us any clue of things to come??? No, we let the WACKOS and the courts decide our FUTURE… No like LEMMINGS we are paying $140.00 for $50.00 a barrel OIL… NOOOO, they decry, even if we started drilling today, we would see no results for 10 years… YEP, that’s right!!!! But, let me whisper this tidbit in your EAR… THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID IN 72, AND IN 76, AND IN 84, AND 92, AND 2000, AND 04, AND, OH MY GOSH in 2008… So, when do we start using our resources and drilling in ANWR, off the west coast, and off the Florida coast??? I mean HELL, CHINA in the name of CUBA is drilling off the coast of FLORIDA closer than we are allowed to drill by LAW. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
pueblo1032 on June 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Ed, your poll, as well as previous articles, confuses two separate energy issues: fuel for vehicles and energy for the production of electricity. We have both in ample supply to provide for our own needs for a long time. You can’t ask whetehr we should drill for more oil OR increase the use of nuclear b/c we should do both for different reasons.
We have enough coal to never need to go nuclear but nuclear is worthwhile simply to combat pollution.
The only solution to gas prices is to increase supply either via drilling or by utilizing our vast stockpiles of coal to create a domestic coal–>gas industry.
Regarding the use of oil and gas as fuels for home heating and energy produciton I think all homeowners should be given incentive to switch over to electric or gas heating to save oil for transportation and natural gas shold be saved for use on homes.
DerKrieger on June 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Thank the Democrats as usual for a crappy Economy. If we’d have been harvesting our own resources, we’d still be at 2.00$gal prices.
tx2654 on June 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Exploit the resources you have. Too much money is going abroad, making potential enemies rich at our expense.
infidel on June 9, 2008 at 12:31 PM
So in India the subsidies of the price of gasoline are 3% of their entire GDP. Wow. Think about that for a moment. Just the SUBSIDIES of gasoline in India are 3% of their GDP.
If I have oil to sell why wouldn’t I want to just push the price up higher and higher if the customer is willing to place that price burden on the backs of its tax payers?
When you subsidize the goods that I sell I am going to push up the price of my goods in any way that I can.
gabriel sutherland on June 9, 2008 at 12:34 PM
SA emergency meeting? Positive propaganda in the name of Islam?
Connie on June 9, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I wish I knew why the Bussard Fusion Reactor never gets mentioned. It seems very legitimate, it’s research has been funded by the United States Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Bussard believed that the system had demonstrated itself to the degree that no intermediate-scale models will be needed, and noted, “We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system”[7] Since August 2007 with a new U.S Navy research contract, he intended to build two more designs to determine what full scale model would be best (WB-7 and WB-8), and with them, conduct and publish the results of dozens of repeatable tests. He then planned to convene a conference of experts in the field in an attempt to get them behind his design. Assuming his design would have been backed, the project would have immediately moved to a full-scale demo plant construction.
gmoonster on June 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM
It looks like India needs less foreign aid.
As for the prices … as long as we keep buying on price increases, the price will continue to go up. It will only go down if a price increase causes demand to drop.
Welcome to the free market. You only lower a price by reducing demand, or by increasing supply.
Kristopher on June 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
If you take June 2007 as your base, then gasoline prices have risen more in the last year than the previous 40 years.
If you take January 2007 when the democrats took over Congress as your base then the price of gas has risen more since then than in the previous 50 years.
meci on June 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM
My guess is the Dem Congress will make major changes when they start losing constituents. Not a minute sooner. Gas at $5 should do the trick. Right now they don’t mind higher prices. They get to blame it on Bush, the war, etc. Additionally they are big supporters of subsidized mass transit and they are steadfastly against oil for energy. Yes, I know they are idiots.
The other benefit is to state governments. Many states tax gas as a percentage of the price as opposed to the fed tax which is fixed. They like higher prices–to a point.
Despite the naysayers, McCain is not an ideologue, He can be persuaded to change his mind. He is already changing his mind on ethanol. He will change his mind on global warming and drilling as the facts continue to emerge.
If he would pick Sarah Palin as VP, she would change his mind.
patrick neid on June 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM
At least as important as more drilling is BUILD MORE REFINERIES! The ones we have are ancient & extremely inadequate.
jgapinoy on June 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Out here in California, I’m represented by Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate and Sam Farr in the House. These people are the problem. A million e-mails won’t fix the problem with these guys. Sad, but true.
trigon on June 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I think if the government got out of the way of domestic energy development in a big way, we wouldn’t have to wait seven years to see an impact. Between the response of speculators and OPEC you would see sub $100 oil fairly quickly.
Just pulling the trigger would probably burst the energy bubble.
Stephen Macklin on June 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Of course, there should be a combination of efforts. None can stand – long term – by themselves.
I did a check list a while back to help resolve our dependence issues – here are a few:
1. Quit blocking the building of 8-10 nuclear plants – we need them now. If not blocked, some would be coming on line now.
2. Quit blocking the importation of Canadian sand oil (at VERY favorable terms) through a ridiculous technicality designating it as “alternative”. If we don’t buy it, China is pushing to do so.
3. Quit throwing roadblocks in front of the recovery of shale oil in our Western states. Just last month, a move to pave the way was voted down in committee 15-14
4. Stop the idiocy of blocking drilling in a postage stamp size plot of ANWR. It was designated for drilling – the reason for its creation – and it is a canard that there is little oil. Likely 10+ billion barrels. Enough for 5% of our daily needs for well over a decade at a minimum.
5. Stop blocking the off shore drilling. We go ga-ga over Brazil’s success, and we have equivalent estimates off our own shores. CHINA IS DRILLING via Cuba closer than are we.
And for the ecologically minded (of which I am a sensible one) there is less spillage from drilling – on shore or off – than occurs shipping oil via ship halfway around the world.
6. Quit blocking refinery construction. We have not built one in 30-years. Moronic. There is some movement on this, but the attempts to block them continue.
7. Remove the 54 cent per gallon tariff on Brazil’s sugar ethanol. It is getting blocked not to protect sugar farmers, but the corn ethanol racket.
8. Give all levels of support to the new nano-titanate batteries – which gives indications of enabling a truly useful commuter car.
9. Give all levels of support to the new nano-solar films that can, at a minimum, be a viable supplement to the grid – at or near grid pricing.
10. Give “clean coal” a chance to prove itself or not. I have my doubts, but the numbers seem to show that they have got the problem (at least mostly) licked. If it works – what a deal. If not, shut it down.
11. Phase out subsidies for corn and soybean ethynol, and intensify the efforts to produce ethynol from sawgrass, kudzu, and (my favorite) algae. More productive per unit, and does not risk spiking food prices.
I’m sure there are others. I responded to the RNC that nary a dime would be sent until this (and some other issues) become leading planks.
I say these things believing that pouring petroleum into gas tanks is a poor use of the resource – it has other chemical uses.
I also realize that it is a ten year journey to rid ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil. One that could (and should) have started ten years ago (Obviously well before that, but if started a decade ago, we would be reaping benefits today).
What I am not willing to do, is collapse the USA economy so that anti-capitalists can claim ecological purity.
Vote for those who will attack these issues and get them moving.
maninthemiddle on June 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Where has he been persuaded that he was wrong? He said his amnesty scheme was a mistake but what he really meant was that it was a mistake to not sneak it through after becoming president. McCain is even out there endorsing Kyoto and that is so 1994! Nope, it’s clear that the man is incapable of the kind of mental flexibilty you attribute to him. Let’s not forget he has been especially vindictive against social and evangelical conservatives becuase he is still holding a grudge over the 2000 election!
That’s not the place of a VP. She’d need to be McCain’s head cheerleader. It is also unlikely a man like McCain will continue the very good POTUS/VP working relationship that Bush/Cheney have had. People like John McCain don’t have the personal integrity and self-assurance to share power with others.
Ronald Reagan said “There’s no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.” John McCain has always been one of those I did it all by myself kind of guys.
highhopes on June 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
“freevillage” is so dense and unstable he just MUST be fissionable!
The reason nuclear isn’t higher on the poll is the perception (accurate) that it won’t be the first online if we start it now, and there are improvements in associated technologies needed.
1. Start on refinery capacity.
2. Start drilling, particularly offshore as other countries are starting to access those resources now.
3. Start working on new nuclear powerplants.
4. Continue working on better batteries and other electrical storage devices.
5. Continue design work on alternatives.
Merovign on June 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I’m with Merovign – why choose ‘one’ way? Every possible measure that can undermine the value of ME jihad juice should be undertaken immediately.
heroyalwhyness on June 9, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Wish the poll would have allowed for two seperate answers. I picked “drill for more oil,” but “go nuclear” would be another component of my energy strategy.
I like the idea of renewables, but they are a ways off and someone is going to have to show me some economic feasability before I really buy into a given renewable energy technology. I’m not saying such a thing is impossible … but we’re nowhere near close to it yet.
O/T – Ed, you really look like Costanza in the picture next to the poll … sorry, just making an observation.
thirteen28 on June 9, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Hope you are right. But, how did he make up his mind to begin with, given the facts aren’t in as you say? That’s what I worry about with him.
Who was he trying to please with his premature decision, and why?
JiangxiDad on June 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I’ve been complaining about the liberals blocking any attempt to start drilling here to reduce/eliminate our foreign dependence for years, but the same people whining about gas prices are the same who put these puckered up liberals in office. Most of whom are too old or just too stupid to function in that capacity. I sit here in California also, secure in the knowledge that Boxer, Feinstein, and Pelosi are looking out for me and my best interest. What a load!!!
.
We don’t live in a democratic government any more than Russians or Iranians. We don’t have a single dictator, but 100 in the Senate Dictatorship and 400+ in the House Dictatorship. None of these morons represent their constituants, it’s all about the individual and whatever warped mentality they have going on upstairs. And there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.
stacman on June 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM
The Democrat congress is going to solve a problem whose continuation will only increase the votes for their candidates? I don’t think so. Then some weenie Democrat back bencher will say, “It felt so good doing somithing for the good of the country that I’d like to do it again.” What would it all lead to? No, they need a screwed up economy to win the election and they will give it to us.
snaggletoothie on June 9, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The price of oil is not going up, the value of the dollar is simply going down the toilet. It’s only when you measure the price of oil in a has-been currency like the US dollar does it appear as though the price is rising. If you measure the price of oil in a stable commodity, like gold, you’ll see that oil is at the same price it was in the year 2000. If your savings is in US dollars, I suggest you do something about it.
dave742 on June 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Sure they do. Your mistake is thinking that the “folks back home” are the consituents. Congress is one big club and, once in, a member will essentially become more and more concerned about staying.
John McCain and his deals with Feinstein and Kennedy are a perfect example of a crusty old politician who has lost all moral grounding and is more concerned with power than policy. He bargained away Constititional rights in the name of reforms that only mattered to Congress. He was willing to grant wholesale no-questions-asked amnesty in order to pump up his standing with the Hispanic vote. John McCain formed a group of Senators to thwart presidential nominations that wasn’t pre-approved by 14 self-appointed dictators.
There is simply nothing that McCain won’t do for personal political power. Whatever he once was, John McCain is an ruthless amoral politician who doesn’t care about anything but his own status. Consider that before voting for McCain who, with a Democrat Congress, is going to have more political power than he deserves. It is like handing crack cocaine to an addict and trusting him to be responsible.
highhopes on June 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Oil, like so much else, is a global market, and any that we find will not shock prices down to 1998 levels; it will get absorbed into the global supply and likely have a surprisingly small (but nontrivial) impact. The larger impacts on the price of oil are foreign demand and instability. China emulating the private-transport-dependent U.S. keeps demand up, while an Iran with a nuclear weapons program, promoting terror across Iraq and beyond, helps keep prices high as everyone hedges their bets. That’s why oil-rich nations like Russia and Venezuela back a state that has little in common with them ideologically. And it’s working. And we’re letting it.
That only works if enough oil-dependent vehicles are replaced with plug-in vehicles: Chevy Volts, electric trains, etc. At this point and at these prices, oil and nuclear don’t directly compete, the former being used for electric appliances and the latter being used for heat and transportation. It would be more accurate to say that we should switch to electric (which some people agree with while others don’t), and, to keep electric prices down, go nuclear (among other things we could do). It’s a long way until the days of Mr. Fusion.
calbear on June 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Feingold not Feinstein (as if there is any substantive difference between the two).
highhopes on June 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM
the libs, including mccain, don’t want us to drill because they think it is a sin against their god, gaia, mother earth.
and they are perfectly happy with high gas prices, because we’ll drive less, and won’t be able to afford the EVIL SUVs which are destroying their god, mother earth.
and the appeal of good jobs, and lower prices for consumers are nothing compared to their environmental religion.
right4life on June 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM
absolutely…get a euro account from everbank.
right4life on June 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I’m not against any of those things per se, however, looking at it logically, I think the first option should be Mass Transit.
Of course I realize that Mass transit is not an option to huge tracts of the US, but where it is it should be further encouraged and potentially even incentive-ized. It’s certainly not a silver bullet, not even close, but it’s not a bad place to start, and the quickest to put into effect.
beefytee on June 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
It is not a “rejection”, it is that we can vote for just one, so the priority is to get oil.
Most everyone would agree it is a multi pronged attack on energy. No one thing is a solution. But the priority is bringing oil back down to a reasonable cost.
It is a triage of energy…
right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Yes. And the follow-through would destroy ME power.
Connie on June 9, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Can I vote to build a time machine, go back 30 years, and both drill like crazy and build nuke plants then? Sounds like the kind of measure Congress would support since it’s completely impossible but it sounds good.
aero on June 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM
World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030, according to the US-based Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) annual report. Demand will hit 118 million barrels per day (18.8×106 m3/d) from 2006’s 86 million barrels (13.7×106 m3), driven in large part by the transportation sector.[11][12]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Demand_for_oil
While I agree that the US needs to produce more oil, ANWR and other US sources are a drop in the bucket. The United States simply doesn’t hold significant crude oil deposits unless you include shale. According to the White House ANWR has the capacity to produce 1 million of barrels of oil per day. While that sounds like a lot, keep in mind that the US consumes 20 mil barrels a day. Any additional capacity will slip into a far larger global market that’s experiencing strong growth in demand due to China and India.
Nuclear might be the best alternative that should have been aggressively built out of the last 30 years. At this point, though, even with less regulation a nuclear power plant takes 8 + years to build. You simply cannot build out nuclear quickly enough.
The US needs to be more aggressive and the government has to shoulder some of the R&D costs instead of relying completely on corporations and silicon valley to develop altnerative energy sources that can be brought online quickly and compete with fossil fuels on a cost basis. The space program wasn’t expected to put a man on the moon through venture capital investment alone, and alternative fuel technology development shouldn’t be any different. American scientists can solve this problem- time and money are the constraints. Some technologies, such as solar thermal, are already competitive with natural gas and coal on a cost basis. The US simply has to take aggressive action and invest in the R&D and major infrastructure costs that will start to address this problem.
bayam on June 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM
but its a million barrels a day we don’t have to buy from chavez or the arabs.
given the incompentence of our government over the last 30 years nothing can be done quickly.
there aren’t ANY. We end up with things like ethanol, so we feel good about ourselves while others starve. and we don’t need to waste more government spending on some politicians pork barrel project.
right4life on June 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Those who go to Wiki for their sources might want to check other avenues. Wiki is known to be to darn easy to manipulate and does not have all that great of information.
Nice, glad you feel so confident in our Banks and Economy.
You mean according to DOE and USGS in a report for the White House. ANWR is a USGS project.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Seriously, why aren’t people marching in the streets yet over this? I can’t because I can’t afford to stop working long enough to go march in the streets. Nor can I afford to pay for the gas or a plane ticket to get to DC where marching might have an impact. I suppose I might go carry a sign around for a few hours if someone organizes a march in my city to support drilling here and now and/or building nuke facilities ASAP, but no one’s organizing anything. They’re just grumbling as they bend over and grab their ankles every week at the pump. They’ll protest against the silliest things, but they won’t even put a bumper sticker on their cars for this.
Do people really have no clue about what’s causing the high gas prices? And if they really think it’s all Bush’s fault and not the fault of Congress’s habitual capitulation to environuts, why aren’t they marching in protest of Bush and his presumed terrible policies? No matter why they think it’s happening, surely they realize that something can and should be done by somebody somewhere. Why aren’t people marching?
aero on June 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM
You answered your own question aero.
But you can go to your State Capital! D.C. at times and marching there won’t really make a difference if your Elected Official won’t return your calls either from D.C. or your State.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Great bumper sticker message. I believe places like Office Depot have printable bumper sticker sheets. As many of us as possible should print and display our own.
I’m going to make one and upload it for anyone who wants to download and print. It’s going to say:
Enough! Drill Here! Drill Now!
techno_barbarian on June 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM
right4life:
People here might prefer to more more patriotic and buy gold American Eagles. When the first bomb drops on Iran gold will hit $1,400.
dave742 on June 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Want to know how safe nuclear energy is? This
We have had over 12,000 reactor years of operation in naval ships and never a single release of any radioactive materials. Now the anti-nuke websites abound with “information”, but nothing substantiated. The worse being in 1986 (USS Guardfish), when a core overheated and the sub surfaced and fixed the problem.
The Russians, another problem, we aren’t the Russians.
More people will die this year of lightening strikes then have ever been killed by a U.S. reactor going astray.
right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM
No, no, no, no, NO! Mass Transit is a giant unprofitable, taxpayer moneysucking pit, outside of densely populated cities.
Growth and increased energy supply is the solution. Not contemplating how you can stuff your fellow man into cattle cars.
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Buying Euros isn’t unpatriotic, it’s good business. And I’m certainly hoping we can get through all thins without dropping bombs on Iran.
In the long run, bombs aren’t good business. You don’t want to go taking out thousands of potential consumers, or making them not want to buy American because we killed their child.
Surgical strikes, assassinations, that’s the kind of stuff I can get behind. That kind of stuff is good business.
beefytee on June 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Some of us have already.. bought the American Eagles and Silver Dollars… And sad but I have also started buying copper disks. Ever hear about it?
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Wow, I am impressed. What exactly is it you do that you will hug iran for money?
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Unfortuantely, it’s a global market and adding a million + barrels per day to the larger market doesn’t have much of an impact. ANWR and similar reserves simply aren’t enough to make a dent. Even at full capacity, I doubt that you’d see gas prices fall. Growth in global demand is simply too great. You either need alternative energy, or need to start drilling reserves that amount to a couple new Saudia Arabias.
bayam on June 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Hey Squid Shark:
Read in Cartalk about the Prius steering locking up. Even on cars not affected by the recall. You probably already know about it but wanted to give you a heads up. Scary!
prius steering problems
mrsmwp on June 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM
upinak:
Nope. I did see a news story about people stealing copper wire from construction sites. Also, manhole covers, brass fittings, etc. I guess that’s more profitable than collecting aluminum cans like in the old days.
dave742 on June 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM
My link didn’t work (Dallas Morning News stinks) but just google Cartalk/Prius steering problems.
mrsmwp on June 9, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Copper is used in everything electrical and is known for it’s antibacterial properties. It is becoming very expensive. I decided about 3 months ago to just buy these 15 lbs copper disks. I have made back what I paid for them. They aren’t cheap, would be like buying a silver or gold bar, but they aren’t that needed yet… though they may be soon. Even some mints are thinking about doing it.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Oh I’ll beat it out of them if I have to. Capitalism isn’t about hugs.
Coca-cola and the Berlin Wall. Yeah coke would like to teach the world to sing at $1.00 a can please and thank you. One of the best marketing moves in the second half of the 20th century was giving free cokes to those East Germans, Think of the difference if it had been Pepsi! You give a little America away and you get it back in spades. Coca-cola looked like the hero and simultaneously tapped into a brand new market…genius. No board meetings about it, no share holder approval, absolute genius…sorry I digress….a lot.
beefytee on June 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Umm yeah OK! Put a Starbucks in Iran, I want to see those results… as well as problems associated with having an American business there.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
ah, the “there is no perfect solution, so don’t do anything” arguement.
Lets see, if the Government was out of the way, ANWAR would already be producing, we would have more production off of California, and Florida, Oil from shale would be being produced…
The US currently only produces 57% of the oil we produced in 1970… and we are still one of the largest producers of oil.
Add in that there ARE NO REAL SUPPLY PROBLEMS!!! There are no shortages! People are able to GET GAS WORLDWIDE! So, why the HUGE increase? Drop in the dollar… which you can thank your Federal Government for…
You see, they KNOW that if we start to produce more oil, it won’t matter… it won’t affect worldwide prices because there really IS NOT SUPPLY PROBLEM.
They’re devaluing the dollar so that the mandates for Soc Sec, which are going to bankrupt the system, don’t cost as much in real terms.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I heard Beck say last week that all the nuclear waste we’ve ever generated, since the beginning of nuclear power could fit inside a high school gymnasium.
Is that really true? If so, what’s the friggin’ problem?
We need All American Energy sources intelligently and responsibly exploited.
techno_barbarian on June 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
upinak:
Sounds good, except they aren’t going to fit in a safety deposit box. I don’t want too much money in any metal sitting in my basement. If you have them at home, I guess you can put them on a barbell and excercise with them.
dave742 on June 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM
and I’m in finance. High Yield Corporate Debt precisely. Being that our fund revolves largely around high interest coupons, we’re not attractive to the Muhammad fearing investor, but indirectly more money on wall street, in the past, means more money on Main Street, especially as we continue to move towards a service based economy.
beefytee on June 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Because obviously, AmTrak has been such a HUGE success story! /sarc
dominigan on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM
It isn’t nuclear power that scares the Iranians and Saudis to death. It’s new technology coming out of silicon valley that is a total and complete oil killer. I’d vote for any Presidential candidate who promised to start the US on a crash course of building out as much solar thermal as quickly as possible.
http://www.ausra.com/
bayam on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Obviously inside of 5 years this is not a realistic business proposition. Top down with a place like Iran. Afghanistan is bottom up, Iraq is in the middle (and freakin tricky)…With Iran you build your consumer driven economy from the top down. Houses, Cars, LCD’s, netjets, then it trickles down.
The market is actually in place…it’s called “Star Box”, but as soon as we can get our companies in there, The gentlemen at Starbucks will offer what will seem like a crazy amount of money to buy out the persian fellows that run the knock off..
Currently the main problem with US companies in Iran, is the Ahmadi’nejad regime’s banning of US businesses. He has every right, we look like an enemy, and we will gring them into the dirt if we need to…so in a way, he’s just looking out for US business until he gets out of office…Thanks Mahmud!!! You’re one heck of a guy!!!
beefytee on June 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »