Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

posted at 3:20 pm on June 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

According to Barack Obama, high gas prices don’t really constitute a problem for Americans. He stated yesterday that the reason for our anger is the rapid increase in prices, not the prices themselves. Obama claimed that Americans would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost:

Obama wants higher gas prices? Do the rest of the Democrats feel the same way? It certainly would explain why they continue to block domestic energy production in oil. It would also explain the bloated Lieberman-Warner bill, which would have imposed a heavy regulatory bureaucracy on the energy industry, along with rationing that would have both driven up prices and held down supply.

Mitch McConnell decided to attack this on the floor of the Senate today:

I think we need some clarification from the Democrats on this issue. Barbara Boxer claimed last week that the Democrats wanted to “address” high gasoline prices. Did they want to make sure they rose even further?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

How do you want that change to occur?

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Tap our own natural resources until viable alternatives are a reality and economical. If we just let the market work its magic instead of regulating shit to death, those alternatives will come sooner than later.

pullingmyhairout on June 11, 2008 at 4:58 PM

The utopian liberals think that if gas prices get high enough, everyone will move back to the cities where they are in control, the unions run all the public transit and utilities, and they get to tell us how we get to work and where we live. It’s a dream come true! Empty out the red states and the suburbs that vote Republican!

How much do you think your school taxes are going to go up next year because the school districts are being killed with high prices? Liberals wanted bigger schools so they could indoctrinate our kids easier, but it takes buses that get horrible gas mileage to get all those kids to the big schools. Add to that the minimum wage increase for bus drivers and janitors and secretaries and cafeteria workers that the liberals rammed through.

rockmom on June 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM

a two kids and a really stupid lab who thinks all wind wild critters are her friends.

typing too fast. sorry.
pullingmyhairout on June 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM

pullingmyhairout on June 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

“Our society can’t sustain feeding everyone with locally grown organic vegetables.”
I don’t know why not. And if our society can’t sustain itself in that way, we better switch to a society that can, because it is going to happen anyway sooner or later.

You need land. Look at any major city. And we have to talk about cities because you want people to live in apartments in close proximity to public transportation and their jobs. Where’s the land? There’s not enough land in the city to grow all that food. And the land may not be fertile either. So you have to grow it away from the cities and use trucks and trains to transport it to the cities. Like we do now.

“Very few people can live close to work”
Maybe not with each of them having a 2,500 square foot house and a backyard, but it is certainly possible.

Regardless of the size of your house or condo, what do you do if you loose your cushy job down the street? We live in a society where there is no longterm job security, even in government jobs. And moving is hard too, potentially financially devastating, especially if the housing market is tanking like now.

What? We should be renters instead. Sure, but I bet in your conception of the world, there is rent control. Rent control means there will be a housing shortage. It will be hard to find a place, any place, anywhere within yoour idealized commuting distance to your new job. Ask anyone who lives in the SF Bay Area.

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through. I hope you don’t vote.

SPCOlympics on June 11, 2008 at 5:02 PM

a two kids and a really stupid lab who thinks all wind wild critters are her

pullingmyhairout

The “wind critters” had me worried…

connertown on June 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM

My man Mitch!

moxie_neanderthal on June 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

pullingmyhairout on June 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

You can always start a indoor garden as well. Get your kids interested. Find alternatives to killing the rodents or use traps. I will give you, I would be worried about rattlers too, but it shouldn’t stop you.

upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:26 PM

So your answer is to simply drill more and we and our descendents can all just keep buying gas at $2.00 a gallon until the end of time. And people make “utopia” comments to me. Funny.
Things have to change. There is no way around it. How do you want that change to occur?

What is so hard about drilling and also trying to find new innovations? What are we that stupid that we can’t do two things at the same time?

terryannonline on June 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Yep, this is how they really feel. This could be such a winning campaign issue for republicans, if they didnt have their heads almost equally as far up their asses on it.

brak on June 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM

So I’m wondering, does he think that the price of arugula is fine, he just doesn’t like the speed at which it rose?

Consistency is everything.

PurpleWombats on June 11, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Barack is very fortunate at the high and quick rise of fuel prices. This way, even when they hit $10.00 a gallon when he takes the presidency, he can blame it all on Bush… and 60% of America will believe it, no matter how loudly and well we people who understand economics try to explain the realities to them.

Not saying Bush is NOT a part of the problem.
He knows better, but has become too timid to use the ‘bully pulpit’ at all. Besides, for him to tell the truth now would conflict with the agenda of the guy that he is hoping will be his successor.

LegendHasIt on June 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM

This sound-bite alone has the potential to sink Obama’s campaign.

Use it McCain, Use it !

stenwin77 on June 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM

SPCOlympics:

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.

So far, my thinking has followed reality pretty close during the past 8 years or so. There have been no surprises for me, and I’m doing just fine. I’m just sitting here laughing my ass off at those who thought their $2.00 per gallon/SUV/cheap food/fly-across-the-world-to-visit-your-friends/bomb-the-hell
-out-of-any-country-that-threatens-Israel’s-epansion-or-US-
hegemony world would continue forever. And its only just the beginning. I guess I am the nut-bag now, but within 5 years I will still be fine and you guys will be wondering what the hell happened. That’s fine, I am sure you will be able to use your usual defense mechanisms and blame the Democrats, or the “terrorists”. In a way, that’s why I am hoping McCain will win, so there will be no scapegoat.

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM

he can blame it all on Bush… and 60% of America will believe it, no matter how loudly and well we people who understand economics try to explain the realities to them.

Yep and in the video he blamed Bush. However, after saying this, can’t the GOP just throw this remark back at him?

terryannonline on June 11, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Oh, it’s just the automakers fault! Thanks Obama!

WisCon on June 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Well, they voted today to stop a Republican bill to open up drilling
50 – 200 miles offshore. Believe what you see. Democrats want higher gas prices. Double talk and b.s. is cheap. Actions count. All their actions point to them wanting high gas prices. They can’t come out and actually say it but actions speak loudly.

Sefton on June 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Wait for it…

“What I meant to say was…”

madmonkphotog on June 11, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Excerpts from the Communist Manifesto New and Improved 2008 Version, by “Dave742″:

Less demand for flying is another benefit of higher prices. Thanks for reminding me. People should be able to entertain themselves without having to fly somewhere 4 times a year to do so.

And

Then don’t eat [organic meat]. It is not necessary. I haven’t eaten any meat for 6 years, even thogh I love the taste of it. That’s the point. Sooner or later life is going to change for all of us*. My point is why not face the fact instead of yelling “drill more” every time there is a threat to the unsustainable American way of life.

*Awwww, Dave, you are clearly smitten with Michelle Obama’s vision for America and long for silly concepts like freedom to be a thing of the past:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Buy Danish on June 11, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Too bad McCain can’t use this against Bambi, but he basically agrees with Bambi.

MCCAIN ’08: VOTE FOR HIM, OR IT’LL BE YOUR FAULT

misterpeasea on June 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Well, he’s stupid to make this argument during a campaign for public office, but in essence BO is correct. Only at current or higher oil prices will there be sufficent incentive to invest in alt fuel technoligies. When oil was $50 a barrel, the market had not profit incentive to spend the billions / trillions on new energy R&D.

but at $100/b for oil, investing in wind, solar, fuel cells, battery technoligy etc begins to look like a profitable situation. problem is, oil is high not due to supply issues. it’s high due to speculators in the commodities market. mr soros says the true cost should be around $75/br. hence, don’t invest in alt energy stocks just yet.

DrW on June 11, 2008 at 8:49 PM

Only at current or higher oil prices will there be sufficent incentive to invest in alt fuel technologies.

You mean movies about the glaciers melting and polar bears dying isn’t enough?

I’m sorry but I’m not buying. There has to be a better way to get people investing in fuel technologies than raising the prices of oil and food.

terryannonline on June 11, 2008 at 9:06 PM

James Buchanan
James Carter
Barack Obama

We survived the first two and were granted the best Republican presidents ever after their term was over. However, the Civil War killed 600,000 Americans and we are still suffering from Carter’s lack of foreign management. Therefore, let’s just skip the four years of an Obama disaster and elect the lesser of the two evils.

carbon_footprint on June 11, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Election ploys I guess! I heard on some talk show today that things would settle after the election. Let’s hope we are not all broke by then.

jeanie on June 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Election ploys

An election ploy? By whom?

terryannonline on June 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM

You know…I find it odd that the Dems (who for years and years now have had a little problem with taking money from the Chinese and others) keep blocking us from drilling for oil in our own waters…and now even admit they like the high gas prices! All the while the Chinese and a few other countries have signed agreements with Cuba to drill in the Gulf…up to 50 miles off OUR SHORES!!! Someone needs to go to congress and force these morons to watch the final scene of the movie “There Will Be Blood”, you know where Daniel Day Lewis uses the straw and milkshake analogy to explain to the kid why his oilfield is empty and worthless…
The Democrats are going to destroy this country, we will be a third world nation within a generation if they get their way.

BadMojo on June 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM

but within 5 years I will still be fine and you guys will be wondering what the hell happened.

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM

No, actually somehow I’m betting if things get bad people like you will end up on someones barbeque grill, not that I endorse cannibalism, but it does happen.

BadMojo on June 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Like the frog in the pot on the stove. Rrrrrbit!

SouthernGent on June 11, 2008 at 10:57 PM

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Oh, look, there’s a turd in the pool.

Hey, Dave, you’re an idiot. The price of oil isn’t up because we ran out of oil. It’s up because we refuse to drill for the oil we have found.

Known reserves of oil are greater now than when I was in grade school, and uneducated leftists like you tried to brainwash us into believing that we were running out of oil, and the population was going to grow exponentially until you couldn’t build a house.

Oil is up because of increased demand and government controlled supply. This is why voting for Democrats can be explained as a mental illness.

Jaibones on June 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM

This guy’s going to be a disaster. And it won’t matter with the MSM propaganda wing all the blame will be diverted and scapegoated. Everyone knows that economic collapse is caused by Racist Homophobic Oil Tycoons and their Christian Minions. The only answer is for government to take control of the means of production and guide the economy for the good of all.

ronsfi on June 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM

The only answer is for government to take control of the means of production and guide the economy for the good of all.

ronsfi on June 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM

And if only more people were educated they would make the connection between that philosophy and what the Bolsheviks were selling at the turn of the last century.

BadMojo on June 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM

If you thought oil was a limitless resource and prices would stay low forever, and bought an SUV and a house 30 miles away from where you work, then you are simply paying for your bad judgement. dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Dave, we are not running out of oil:

Myth: The World Is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)

- 2 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the United States Oil-Shale Reserves (USGS)
- 580 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Russia’s Arctic Ocean Shelf
- 400 Billion barrels of oil are estimated under the Arctic Ocean
- 175 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (AGS)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States (MMS)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 15 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Jack field in the Gulf of Mexico
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, United States (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the Illinois Basin, United States (USGS)

For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)

Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 11:57 PM

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Idiot……… why don’t you and freevillage go fornicate with yourselves……..

Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 11:57 PM

is right on the mark.

Idiot Dave, name one other country on this planet that isn’t trying to harvest it’s own energy resources?

Oh, by the way, in Southern Florida, those platforms just out of site are China and Cuba sucking American oil out from under us just to sell it back to us….. FOOL

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2008 at 12:36 AM

I was suppose to take my first trip to Europe this week with my parents but because of the ridiculous costs of plane tickets I can’t go now.

I’m very upset.

terryannonline on June 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Drill here, drill now!

Mojave Mark on June 12, 2008 at 1:43 AM

Windfall tax – blech.

Definition of ‘windfall’: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage

Oil companies expect to make a profit, they do all of the work/risk to earn that profit. The government, however, does nothing to earn the windfall that it gets in the form of taxes on the product and taxes on the oil company itself.

electric-rascal on June 12, 2008 at 1:48 AM

Did’ya notice in Barrys inverview vid near the end when he says “we just need to get more money in the peoples hands” talking about how HE’s gonna help with the high costs of fuel?

How ya gonna do that Barry? Your tax increases you’ve proposed are gonna suck money OUT of the people’s pockets not put money IN their pockets.

This guy is a vacant lot that weeds won’t even grow in.

44Magnum on June 12, 2008 at 4:11 AM

McCain could be capitalizing on domestic drilling, not acting like a friggin RINO about it. 80% of Americans want domestic drilling, can’t he read the polls?? If he really wants to win he should be pushing domestic drilling period.

Dollayo on June 12, 2008 at 4:41 AM

California moved a step closer to permanently protecting its shores from offshore oil drilling Monday when the House approved legislation to ban development in federal waters along all 76 miles of Sonoma County’s coastline and off the southern tip of Mendocino County’s coast.

The measure would more than double the size of two existing National Marine Sanctuaries near San Francisco and Marin – Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank. The newly protected zone would stretch from Bodega Bay to Point Arena and would extend about 50 miles off the coast – 2,093 square nautical miles, an area roughly the size of Delaware.

http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=76

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 7:07 AM

Missed Opportunity
Cramer welcomed Rep. John Peterson (R., Penn.) to the show to discuss his proposal to extend offshore drilling from 50 miles to 200 miles off the coast, and thereby open up potentially billions of gallons of oil reserves to the country.

The bill, defeated today in the Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment, would be a boon for the offshore drilling complex, said Cramer.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10420898/
Approval of the legislation would benefit Cramer favorites such as Transocean (RIG – Cramer’s Take – Stockpickr), National Oilwell Varco (NOV – Cramer’s Take – Stockpickr), FMC Technologies (FTI – Cramer’s Take – Stockpickr) and Schlumberger (SLB – Cramer’s Take – Stockpickr).

Peterson said he was surprised at the outcome of today’s vote. With the country already 60% dependent on foreign oil, he said every vote against increased production is a vote away from energy independence. He explained that with oil at $135 a barrel, policies against more drilling just don’t make sense.

Peterson said he doesn’t subscribe to the philosophy that if the U.S. drills for more oil, it will focus less on alternative energy sources. He supports investment in both increased fossil fuel production as well as investment in wind, solar, nuclear and other alternative sources.

Peterson said that prices for oil currently are where they are without any major disruption of supply. That could change drastically in the event of severe weather, a terrorist attack, or other major event, he said.

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 7:08 AM

Associated Press

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives,” Allard argued. But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

One of the key votes was from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said Sen. Ken Salazar had urged her to reject the amendment even though she personally thinks the moratorium on oil-shale development is unjust. Landrieu vowed to try to lift the moratorium when the large appropriations bill reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate in coming weeks.

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 7:08 AM

defeated
defeated
defeated

three strong reactions to increase domestic supply of oil defeated by democrates. this is an outrage. bloggers need to shout this from every rooftop. the democrates love high gas prices.

McCain should do a “me bad” admit he was wrong on ANWR and start putting drilling bills on the senate floor post haste.

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 7:11 AM

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 7:11 AM

I agree with you 100%; problem is that McCain is acting as if he were the Democrat candidate rather than representing the GOP… This clip is from powerlineblog.com

Things Change

They change especially fast in politics. John McCain thought he was running for Commander In Chief. Now it looks as though the economy–in particular the price of gasoline–will be the key issue in November.

The soaring price of gasoline represents a golden opportunity for the Republican Party. While most of them don’t say it out loud, the Democrats have long wanted higher gas prices as part of their desire to remake America into a land of granola, mass transit and windmills. Most Americans, however, don’t share the Democrats’ indifference to economic decline and would turn out in droves to vote for a party that pledges to get the economy going again, and relieve the pain at the pump, by drilling for oil.

House Republicans are doing a great job of getting this message out. Today Congressman John Peterson offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to ease federal restrictions on exploration of the outer continental shelf, which contains enormous reserves of both oil and natural gas. The Democrats defeated the Peterson amendment on a 9-6 party line vote, demonstrating, as Minority Leader John Boehner said, “cold indifference toward the problems of typical families and businesses in their congressional districts and across the country.” House Republicans intend to continue forcing votes on proposals to liberate our economy by developing our domestic oil and gas resources.

But it’s going to be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to get traction on the energy issue without help at the top of the ticket. Here, the problem is that John McCain long ago signed on to the anthropogenic global warming fallacy. As a result, his energy policies can scarcely be distinguished from those of the Democrats. This was in evidence this morning, when McCain appeared on NBC’s Today Show.

McCain did fine as long as the topic was foreign policy, but when the conversation turned to the economy, he was pathetic:

LAUER: All right. Gas, $4 a gallon. You know, Americans want to know that the next president of the United States, Senator, gets it, feels their pain. But when it comes right down to it, when it comes to the price of gas, is there anything that either you or Senator Obama can do about it if elected president?

MCCAIN: I think, clearly, we could give them a bit of a break for this summer. I mean, I ran into a guy — Senator Obama, as you noted, calls it a gimmick. I ran into a guy recently that owns three trucks, paying 24.5 cents a gallon for every gallon of diesel. He said, “Senator, that would help me a lot to make it through the summer.” So it was just a chance to give low-income Americans an opportunity.

But the real key to this is nuclear power, alternate energy. We’ve got to — solar, wind, tide, develop batteries. We have to embark on a national mission, a national mission to become energy independent.

Nuclear power has to play a big role in that, not only for energy independence…

LAUER: So enough of the debate about whether we…

MCCAIN: But also…

LAUER: … drill in the wilderness areas, because that’s still oil, oil, oil. Your energy plan will take us away from oil?

MCCAIN: Oh, it’ll have to. We have to. Not only because of the compelling reasons of the price of gasoline [Ed.: Huh?], but also because of greenhouse gas emissions.

Lauer wondered, sensibly enough, whether there isn’t something that can be done in the near term to relieve consumers and help the economy. McCain’s answer was a virtual reductio ad absurdum of his own energy policy:

Let me ask you this question: As Americans go to the polls in November to vote for the next president, what do you think we’re going to be paying for a gallon of gasoline?

MCCAIN: I’m not sure, because I think part of it depends on how it looks like we are making advances in — toward alternate energy. Look…

(CROSSTALK)

LAUER: Can we make advances in that short time?

MCCAIN: Oh, I think we can certainly show some progress in the development of a battery that will take a car 100 miles or so before you have to plug it in. And plans for — concrete plans to move forward with nuclear power plants — with a lot of other things.

Somehow I don’t think Americans will be driving a lot of battery-powered cars between now and November. As a final indignity, McCain joined the Democrats in beating up on America’s oil companies:

[T]he point is the oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways. And there is very strong and just viable emotion about their profits.

We’ve been down this road before. During the Carter administration, increases in the cost of petroleum contributed to devastating inflation and unemployment. Like today’s Democrats, Carter reacted with a combination of demagoguery and economic incompetence. He imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies and regulated the price of oil. Carter and most Democrats told the American people that the country was in economic decline, and they had better get used to it.

Ronald Reagan refused to accept this message of decline. He vowed to reinvigorate America’s economy and did so, in part by rescinding Carter’s disastrous price controls on energy. This year, we need another Ronald Reagan to stand up for prosperity and economic growth. Instead, with McCain’s miserable energy policies, the presidential race is starting to resemble a nightmare contest between Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis–only a Dukakis who knows what he’s doing in a tank.

The smartest thing John McCain could do right now is take two weeks off from the campaign trail to study the scientific data on the earth’s climate. He could familiarize himself with the latest scientific work, which has decisively refuted the global warming alarmists. He could meet with distinguished scientists on all sides of the issue. After two weeks, he could announce that his study of the issue has convinced him that the effect of CO2 on the earth’s climate has been grossly exaggerated, and as a result, he is tweaking his own energy policy in the direction of greater support for domestic oil and gas production. The benefits are obvious: high-paying jobs for Americans, not Saudis; enhanced national security; and above all, a recharged economy fueled by declining gas prices.

And, if anyone challenges McCain with the silly canard that we can’t drill our way out of the present gas shortage, he can reply: “Yes we can!”

Do that, and Obama will be lucky to carry the District of Columbia.

This election is all about “which one of these candidates will harm the American people the least”… Pathetic!

Keemo on June 12, 2008 at 8:09 AM

We are all going to have to raise hell on them, like we did on immigration, to break this logjam of morons in DC.

dogsoldier on June 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM

Even if the Dems were interested in enacting any policy to lower gas prices, it wouldn’t happen until after the election. The longer they can prolong the pain and get their minions in the MSM to continue to propagate the gloom and doom ‘the Great Depression Redux is near’ the happier they will be.
Nothing will happen until next year at the earliest. Enjoy $5 gas. (sadly the same would be true if the GOP held Congress and a Dem was POTUS)

MannyT-vA on June 12, 2008 at 8:34 AM

The GOP should spend millions over the coming months, pointing out to the American people that Democrats took over control of our government in 2006; Democrats have successfully taken legitimate problems and made them twice as bad. We have already gone over the numbers here at HA. Democrats promised to “fix” these problems with our economy, but have failed utterly, as predicted.

Keemo on June 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Hussein Obama says “Higher prices” as he pulls up to the congressional gas pump where his price is $0.00/gallon.

Wade on June 12, 2008 at 8:58 AM

Since when is Charles Krauthammer a “utopian liberal”?

corona on June 12, 2008 at 9:50 AM

This could be THE compelling issue for the Presidential campaign. If McCain can highlight the fact that the Dems are the ones keeping the gas price high, he can win. I doubt whether he will bring it up, though-all Obama would have to do is say, “That sort of ‘issue’ politics should be beneath the dignity of a Presidential candidate.” And McCain would knock it right off the table. I know it doesn’t make sense. I know it, but I expect I’m right. Obama can say he’s insulted about anything, and McCain can’t apologize fast enough.

Doug on June 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Keemo on June 12, 2008 at 8:09 AM

I agree but i was thinking of congressional elections more than the Presidental;. We can’t do much about McCain he is an idiot. we can make the American people understand that it is Congress that is costing them money. Maybe if we do that and BHO does win his coattails won’t be too long

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Campiagn ad writes itself.

It use to be the people in China rode bycycles and we drove cars. Now the democrates want to reverse this and have Americans ride the bicycles and the Chinesse drive the cars. Why do they hate America so much?

Can we question their patriotism yet? Or must we wait until we are all walking to work?

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 10:18 AM

MannyT-vA on June 12, 2008 at 8:34 AM

I disagree. If Congress made a clear statement that we will drill for our own oil and at the same time defended the dollar, raised interest rates by a .25%, and made it clear that the SPR was open and available. Oil will come down $50.00 in about 3 days. the economy would explode upward in a major way.

unseen on June 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM

O/T Breaking,

Supreme Court issues opinion to allow detainees to challenge detention in U.S. Legal system.

This is HUGE.

Squid Shark on June 12, 2008 at 10:26 AM

The greatest threat to the modern world has a new number 1:

1. Green Radical Enviromental Communism
2. (a close second) Radical Islam

Petroleum is the number one influence on the world economy. It affects everything, from what we wear to how we fight wars.

The market will find a solution to this problem, when we have a real shortage. We don’t now. And because of our dangerous policies the number one threat pays for the number 2 threat.

A perfect and terrifying storm

tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 10:46 AM

The Demoncrates almost passed an energy bill that would allow the Chinese to drill off our Coast. I guess it matters where the money comes from for supplying us our oil.

Let’s review, Carter gave away the Panama Canal to the Chinese, Clinton tried to give away the harbors of L.A. to the Chinese, now Obombem and his cronies want to allow the Chinese to supply us with oil derived from out property.

There is plenty of unexplored land in China, let the Demoncrates who appear to worship the Chinese as our saviors because they own so much of our debt, move to China

MSGTAS on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM

That’s fine, I am sure you will be able to use your usual defense mechanisms and blame the Democrats, or the “terrorists”. In a way, that’s why I am hoping McCain will win, so there will be no scapegoat.

dave742 on June 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM

It can’t be the democrats fault. They did not vote to stop drilling in the U.S..

Johan Klaus on June 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM

For those worried about the strength of the dollar, hold onto your hat…We are sending 600 billion dollars a year to oil producing countries…Most of whom don’t like you or me…The trade deficit which was on the way to normalizing before the inflation in oil prices is now spiralling out of control. Go Harry, Nancy, Dick, and your future leader Barry et al…You are setting us up for a National Security Crisis that may make 9-11 seem trivial in comparison. But hey, other countries will like us more because instead of using our own resources we are bankrupting ourselves buying from foreigners, I mean we are protecting the environment…

Nozzle on June 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Obama wants higher gas prices? Do the rest of the Democrats feel the same way?

Yes. Maybe. It is a central tenet in the Church of Obama that $4-$5 per gallon gasoline is just and fair. It reinforces their stated aversion to SUVs, provides a disincentive for our over-consumption (relative to the rest of the world), and gives economic incentive to their “alternative energy” initiatives. To them, it simply seems like the correct price, to spur social change.

I’ve had this conversation with Obama supporters. I work at a research university, so I am surrounded by PhD’s. There is no outrage at all over gas prices. Instead, the outrage is for the Republicans who want to encourage more oil drilling. They see them (and me) as Neanderthals, rejecting the light of truth and pitifully escaping into the darkness of the past.

If that sounds condescending and elitist… welcome to my world. Anyone who cheers on the increasing prices of a base commodity to encourage their social agenda is an elitist, lefty snob.

Of course, it appears that the Republican candidate doesn’t quite grasp the basics of the problem, either.

blueguitarbob on June 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Barry and the hate America elite long for the day when Americans have parked their SUVs for mopeds, bikes and the local bus transit…But, like the Hollywood hippocrates, the Clintons, the Gores, and the Kerrys he will never join you on the bus. He and Michelle will be in the private jet club vactioning in…Pick your destination…Aspen, Rio, Monaco…I have no idea where these people go but no matter. The rest of us won’t be joining them…

Nozzle on June 12, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Democrats want gas to be expensive because then people will drive less, and it will help the “environment” MANBearPig!

They don’t care that it costs you a sh**load of money to get to work.

Chakra Hammer on June 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM

This sound-bite alone has the potential to sink Obama’s campaign.

stenwin77 on June 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM

No, it doesn’t. It should, but as noted ad nauseum on the other thread, our f**king idiot candidate McCain abandons the issue by being intellectually incapable of understanding what led to high gas prices.

I wonder if he thinks that by pandering to the great number of environmental nitwits in this country, he is making himself more electable. Has he not considered the number of people who buy gasoline?

So, no, Sten, we get exactly “dick” out of this valuable issue.

Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM

My brother is one of the rare honest liberals that I know. He agrees with Oshambi – he likes high gas prices and has wanted them for years. He has the Prius, and puts his family of five in it, even on surprisingly long trips.

I salute him for supporting Oshambi, since he is actually one of the few voters liberal enough to agree with that dissembling douche. As for the 18 and 19 year olds who can’t name a single policy that they understand or agree with, eff ‘em.

Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Don’t worry – this is not the Barack Obama he’s known for the past 20 … er, 46 years.

PurpleWombats on June 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

yeah, and I’d like to see Obabmi lose in Novemember. Looks like neither of us will get our druthers.

second digit on June 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Gas did not jump from $1.25 to $4.25 overnight – it WAS gradual ! And my extremely limited driving now has been gradual to, and will completely stop when gas hits the insane price of $5 a gallon, which will probibly happen soon. I guess Obama wants us to gradually revert back to the horse and buggy !!!!

LODGE4 on June 13, 2008 at 7:41 AM

All:

dave742 writings sound like Dave Lindorff. You can read his rants at:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

They are quite amusing!

Poway on June 13, 2008 at 8:50 AM

My man Mitch!

moxie_neanderthal on June 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

moxie,
A true story (I witnessed it)about Mitch McConnell, the gentlemen Senator from Kentucky

When Mitch first ran for the office of senator, Kentucky was completely dominated by the Democratic Party. This unfortunate situation meant that, for decades, Kentucky state politics was notorious for open corruption, graft–You name it. Eventually, the entire mess was investigated by the FBI during the 80s and their iron grip was loosened after several powerful politicians (including former governors) were convicted. High-profile investigations shook the powerful Democratic machine and allowed Republicans to gain a toehold in state politics.

This situation was among the factors that helped McConnell to defeat Walter Huddleston, an entrenched, powerful senator. This democratic competition was a senator infamous for his enforced milking of local industries. During Huddleston’s reign, Republicans in the state were forced to support Democrats financially or suffer being shut-out of the possibility of gaining a hearing by their representative. In certain industries, being shut out of the national political dialogue about business can be fatal.

I was present at a large organizational meeting of businesspeople who invited Mitch and Huddleston to speak at their annual dinner. The president of the organization, a Republican, had spent years groveling at the feet of Huddleston. In fact, most of the organization’s membership was Republican, but kissed Huddleston’s ring out of political expediency.

This weak soul made the very, very bad decision to slight McConnell by seating him away from the main table where the Democratic Senator was placed with great fanfare.
To add insult to injury, the little weasel introduced Huddleston as the predicted winner of the election. The rest of us were not consulted about our president’s decision, and did not realize what had occurred until McConnell arrived and was shown to his table. A wave of shock and dismay went round the room, but everyone froze, not knowing what to do. I remember my father watching the disaster unfold, and cursing our idiotic president under his breath.

McConnell took a moment to review the seating arrangement and consider Huddleston’s introduction. Then he silently pivoted and left the dinner. His face was a study in fury.

Needless to say, many people in the room deeply regretted that night. That organization lost McConnell’s good will; while Mitch went on to become a great advocate for his state and an outstanding state institution.

Moral of the story; never underestimate the underdog, never insult an intelligent, strong person in order to please someone else, and never turn your back on your own party.

ragnell

Ragnell on June 13, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

ARROGANT, CLUELESS, IDIOT…

byteshredder on June 14, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

ARROGANT, CLUELESS, IDIOT…

byteshredder on June 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Here’s what I think Bush should do:

When Congress is in recess but the stock exchanges are open he should announce that he signed executive orders allowing drilling in all of the places where it is prohibited AND he is waiving environmental blockages to building refineries.

The oil and gas price drop would happen so fast that Congress would be stuck – by the time they got back in session, the “damage” would be done and anything they did would raise the prices back up.

darwin-t on June 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM

bayam on June 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM
All these politicians are just playing games by claiming that our energy problems would go away through more drilling in the states.

So, a larger supply would not lower prices. I did not know that Dr. Thomas Sowell was wrong on the law of supply and demand.

Johan Klaus on June 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM

See the mainstream media still campaigning for Obama? The “Change” sign as large as life in the background and I’m presuming this “interview” is not at his campaign headquarters.

He STILL hasn’t said what he’s planning on changing (if he gets in), but just his ideas, like the gradual increase to unmanageable gas prices, are downright arrogant, inexperienced and scary.

waterfall on June 14, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3