WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama hammered by gas prices

posted at 9:15 am on March 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As Peter Allen once sang, “Everything old is new again,” especially in the Washington Post/ABC poll.  Barack Obama’s high disapproval ratings on the economy, Republican competitiveness against Obama, and anger over gas prices have all reappeared, along with the WaPo/ABC sample data on partisan composition.  That’s no coincidence, either:

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.

The potential political con­sequences are clear, with the ­rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.

Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high.

It seems that Obama’s dismissive advice last week that gas prices are always “spiking up” this time of year didn’t do anything to set minds at ease.  Rapid gas price hikes and the resulting increase in food prices quickly erode buying power in working-class and middle-class households, which means that fewer people will have money for vacations and impulse spending in 2012.  While the jobs reports have been mildly positive the last three months, the manufacturing reports were dismal in January, and the gas price spike is likely to lead to an economic slowdown and an end to those good jobs reports.

But that’s not the only influence on the new WaPo/ABC poll numbers.  After hiding the partisan composition numbers for the last two months, today’s poll includes that data from the last three presidential polls.  Let’s take a look at the D/R/I series, keeping in mind that the D/R/I from the 2010 midterm elections was 35/35/30:

  • March: 31/27/36
  • February: 34/23/37
  • January: 32/25/36

The February poll from which the WaPo/ABC series derived its previous Obama approval numbers gave Democrats an 11-point edge and undersampled Republicans by 12 points in relation to their 2010 turnout.  This survey has a difference of seven points in the gap.  Let’s take a look and see how Obama’s approval numbers line up with that in mind:

  • Overall approval: 50/46 in Feb, 46/50 in Mar (8 point difference in the gap)
  • Economy: 44/53 in Feb, 38/59 in Mar (10 point difference in the gap)
  • Deficit: 38/58 in Feb, 32/63 in Mar (11 point difference in the gap)
  • Afghanistan: 53/43 in Feb, 46/47 in Mat (9 point difference in the gap)

Interestingly, the WaPo/ABC poll had never asked about gas prices before this survey, and the last time they polled on energy policy was in … August 2009.  Obama is at 26/65 on gas prices and 38/48 on energy policy, after having been at 55/30 in August 2009.  Otherwise, the decline in Obama’s numbers is almost entirely a function of their absurd sampling bias in previous polls.  Imagine what it would be if they actually had a survey where Democrats and Republicans had parity in line with the last national election.

The last two months, I hammered the Post and ABC for not releasing this data.  Looks like I was correct in assuming it made them look bad.

Update: You have to love Jim Geraghty’s headline: “Unstoppable Incumbent Now Trails Romney Again.”  He also notes the difference in sample composition, as well as this interesting result:

They asked, “Do you think there’s anything the Obama administration reasonably can do to reduce gasoline prices, or do you think gas prices have risen because of factors beyond the administration’s control?” They found 50 percent responded the administration can do something; 45 percent said “beyond their control.”

Back in May 2006, 62 percent thought that the Bush administration could do something about the price of gas, and only 35 percent thought it was beyond their control.


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

One thing we can all do to make our cars burn fuel more efficiently is get new tires. Old tires with bad tread are not only unsafe, but they lower gas mileage, and that increases gasoline usage. Increased gasoline useage raises gas prices, and high gas prices make 0bama cry.

So get new tires for your vehicle: your car will handle better, your family will be safer, and you’ll feel less pinch at the pump! It’s what we have to do as loyal Americans to help 0bama keep gas prices down!

Wait–tires are made of what, and a new set of tires now costs how much?

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Ha ha, you fluking loser.

msupertas on March 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

No, no, no.

Tune-ups! We all need to get tune-ups! The carburetors on all the street cars manufactured in the last twenty years simply aren’t working efficiently enough, and it’s our fault for not getting tune-ups!

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Actually, we just need to get our algae-converters installed and all will be well.

(What? There’s no such thing as an algae-converter? Damn.)

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Universal economic solution by Obama: remake all ATM machines into air pumps.

Archivarix on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist. They should’ve been willing to abandon power and let the GOP own all of these issues for the last 30 years. But nope, the Dems abandoned the Left and embraced neoliberalism. Oh well. If they lose, its their own fault.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Yet another opportunity. All Obama has to do is add more subsidies and price controls until gas gets “down” to four bucks a gallon – nationalising the oil industry and wrecking the rest of the economy in the process – and every step of the way he can say he was just doing what the people wanted.

logis on March 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM

The left-wing gossip site whose name rhymes with “Talker” recently ran an article entitled, more or less, “Gas prices are rising the way they always do”.

It was a great example of how the left is going to bend over backwards to remind the public that the president has no control, none, zero, zilch, nada, over the price of gas, and we need to accept the new normal.

The comments on that article, over-whelmingly made by leftists, were revealing. They were split between people citing all the post-2008 articles they could from other leftist sites to show the POTUS has no control over gas prices, and people saying high gas prices are a good thing that will force greedy, selfish, polluting Americans to abandon their cars and start using high-speed rail.

There was a self-thinking minority of commentors who pointed out that Steven Chu and Candidate 0bama himself said that higher energy prices were necessary and good. The “best” defense any progressive commentor could muster was to say those comments were made in 2008, and were somehow therefore non-binding.

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

This is all still Bush’s fault, right?

AZCoyote on March 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Somebody’s disenchanted with the 100 MPG carburetor he ordered online.

swinia sutki on March 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM

@carnac:

When it doesn’t get that high ($5/gallon) it will have been because of Obama-the-Great! By November, he will have “saved” us all.

Ooops, too late:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/its-an-obama-world-gas-at-5-a-gallon-green-light-bulbs-cost-you-50-each/

GrassMudHorsey on March 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

If free-market conservatives (that term is not synonomous with the GOP) had been in charge of the federal government for the last thirty years, gasoline prices, energy prices, and unemployment generally would be far lower than they are now.

There would me more refineries, pipelines, oil wells, and nuclear plants on US soil, our dependence on foreign oil would be lower, and the private sector would be thriving.

As a bonus, the Fiskers and Solyndras of the world would not be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers to produce nothing of value or practical use.

The nation’s waters would be cleaner, and food would be cheaper, because there would be no subsidies for the polluting and inefficient ethanol industry, an issue where farm state Republicans are every bit as guilty of feeding the beast as farm state Democrats.

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Future quote, “if it wasn’t for me, gas would be $7 per gallon.”

eagleriverboy on March 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I think gasoline prices are too high because there are two oil men in the White House…

Haliburton… HALIBURTON!!!!!!!!!

Khun Joe on March 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

“Universal economic solution by Obama: remake all ATM machines into air pumps.” — Archivarix on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

He’s already encouraged monetary inflation…

sistrum on March 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist

Odumba$$ is our socialist, alternative fuels prez on steroids. What fluking planet are you living on?

msupertas on March 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

An incredible amount of wealth and opportunity destroyed for what?

tom daschle concerned on March 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

If free-market conservatives (that term is not synonomous with the GOP) had been in charge of the federal government for the last thirty years, gasoline prices, energy prices, and unemployment generally would be far lower than they are now.

There would me more refineries, pipelines, oil wells, and nuclear plants on US soil, our dependence on foreign oil would be lower, and the private sector would be thriving.

As a bonus, the Fiskers and Solyndras of the world would not be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers to produce nothing of value or practical use.

The nation’s waters would be cleaner, and food would be cheaper, because there would be no subsidies for the polluting and inefficient ethanol industry, an issue where farm state Republicans are every bit as guilty of feeding the beast as farm state Democrats.

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Hallelujah

msupertas on March 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist. They should’ve been willing to abandon power and let the GOP own all of these issues for the last 30 years. But nope, the Dems abandoned the Left and embraced neoliberalism. Oh well. If they lose, its their own fault.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

There is nothing inherently evil or detrimental or harmful in the use of fossil fuels. Putting it as simply as I can: fossil fuels are the most efficient means of furnishing power which is required to maintain and advance any kind of human civilization. In fact, with every step technologically forward, usage efficiency increases at a geometric rate, resulting in vastly less waste or pollution of the environment than was the case even a decade ago. This is called ‘progress’.

Please note, too, that the alternative energy sources of which you and yours are so enamored are each in turn unsustainable, either short- or long-term. Those battery powered electric cars? The energy to run them comes from conventional power sources, and the batteries themselves are constructed of very hard to extract and refine rare metals–which are extracted and refined using conventional power sources and additional human resources not employed in the construction of conventional automobiles. And then, of course, there is the amount of resources and energy entailed in the disposal of those batteries. Wind power? Again, wind power is an exercise in waste and resource and land usage far in excess of the benefits of its energy output. In case you are unaware, the turning of the blades inherent to the design of a wind turbine creates a gyroscopic forces that create enormous stresses on the moving parts of the machine, causing parts to wear out quickly which in turn requires armies of maintenance workers to replace those parts, as well as the enormous amounts of additional resources and (typically very conventionally generated) energy to make them. And so on. Name an alternative source to fossil fuels and I can easily point out how and why those alternative sources are not remotely viable as a basis for civilization.

The Left believes there is no such thing as objective truth, that perceptions shape reality, and that wishing for a thing–whatever that thing might be–will somehow magically supersede the laws of nature. Believing those things is unserious and immature. By the way, this is not to say alternative energy sources shouldn’t be researched, investigated, or pursued. We should always look for a better way. However, better ways are historically not found by a command economy led by ideologues who think humanity is a chancre sore on the face of Mother Gaia.

troyriser_gopftw on March 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Obama reaction: “We’re gonna need a bigger slut.”

fogw on March 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist. They should’ve been willing to abandon power and let the GOP own all of these issues for the last 30 years. But nope, the Dems abandoned the Left and embraced neoliberalism. Oh well. If they lose, its their own fault.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Here in New Hampshire, we pay some of the highest electricity costs in the US.

Why is that?

Because 30 years ago the Democrat Left ran our utility company, Public Service of New Hampshire, into bankruptcy.

Why did they do that?

Because PSNH dared to want to build 2 nuclear reactors to generate electricity. A Far Left group called the Clamshell Alliance enlisted the aid of their willing ally, Democrat New Hampshire Governor Hugh Gallen, and PSNH’s fate was sealed.

Only one of the units was built. And our electricity costs have not gone down, they have gone up.

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM

@originalpechanga:

When President Obama was inaugarated, gas was $1.87 per gallon costing $37.40 to fill up a 20 gallon tank. At my corner stations, gas is $4.39. The $2.52 difference is $50.40 on that same tank. That’s over $2500 per year MORE going to those oil companies PER CAR.

Uh, no.

Oil companies make just under 10% net profit on their operations. So for fun, let’s take your $4.39 as a benchmark- best case, the eeeevil oil companies are making 44 cents a gallon x 20 or $8.80 per tank. Multiply that by the 50 fill ups you used, and we get $440 per car. And that’s assuming a full 10% net profit.

Looking at what the fed/state/local govt makes on a gallon of gas in Chicago, the town where obie one the dummy comes from we see that it’s about 90 cents for a $4/gallon of gas.

(Source: http://www.wgnradio.com/…/wgnam-john-williams-gas-tax,0,4838691.story)

So the governments make over twice as much per gallon of gas as those eeville companies that, I dunno, actually make the gasoline.

Why no complaints about the gov’t in this picture?

GrassMudHorsey on March 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM

One thing we can all do to make our cars burn fuel more efficiently is get new tires. Old tires with bad tread are not only unsafe, but they lower gas mileage, and that increases gasoline usage. Increased gasoline useage raises gas prices, and high gas prices make 0bama cry.

So get new tires for your vehicle: your car will handle better, your family will be safer, and you’ll feel less pinch at the pump! It’s what we have to do as loyal Americans to help 0bama keep gas prices down!

Wait–tires are made of what, and a new set of tires now costs how much?

MidniteRambler on March 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Tires are expensive. We need a law to force car insurance companies to provide free tires. Think how much money we will save!

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Tim Graham @ Newsbusters has some interesting observations on this new WaPo “poll” here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/03/12/washpost-buries-most-numbers-page-one-bad-obama-poll

Excerpt:

The Post pollsters loaded their survey with that question: “Fifty percent of Americans see the Obama administration as having the power to do something about the cost of a gallon of gasoline; 45 percent say the administration has no such control.”

This is how ABC and the Post relive the Jimmy Carter years. Liberals then always said gas lines and high prices were out of Carter’s control. Then President Reagan came in and decontrolled oil prices and gas prices dropped dramatically.

The Post pollsters also loaded their survey by asking which party, Democrats or Republicans, “Cares more about issues that are especially important to women” — code words for condoms and birth control pills. That was a 55-30 gap, Democrats over Republicans. They put that finding into their graphis on page A4.

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Odumba$$ is our socialist, alternative fuels prez on steroids. What fluking planet are you living on?

msupertas on March 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

When liberalism/socialism fails they always blame the person in charge.

Because, y’know, it just couldn’t be that liberalism/socialism failed. The Obama just did it wrong.

Ampersand on March 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM

These poll breakouts always show such a high independent count.

I suspect the independent category is being used to cover a multitude of statistical sins.

But then I ask myself, if you are going to fudge the numbers so much, why not just make ‘em up in the first place? I suppose it has to do with people getting paid to perform the exercise, kinda like the global warming industry.

perries on March 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Obama reaction: “We’re gonna need a bigger slut.”

fogw on March 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I am really grateful I did not have a mouthful of coffee when I read that or I’d be cleaning off my monitor.

redmama on March 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Anyone who believes one word that the Washington Post and/or ABC presents is a brainwashed, leftwing, nutjob lemming. Most polls are manipulated by leftwing radicals to propagandize the lies and deceptions of Obama and his totally corrupt administration. Only a babbling fool would consider the MSM as being relevant.

volsense on March 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM

You can’t deflect your way to lower gas prices.

Obama: Deflect here, deflect now.

EMD on March 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Given your successes with Solyndra, the Volt and pond scum, that’s a pretty safe prediction.

Chuck Schick on March 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

As I’ve said, gas prices ALONE is enough to defeat Hussein.

What we need to do is stop him from draining the strategic reserves and giving it away to try to get himself re-elected.

Obama is truly in a box on this issue. I’m sure he WANTS lower gas prices right now as it’s harming his election chances (the only thing he cares about, he doesn’t give a crap about the People), but his party won’t allow him to do anything that would fix this issue.

He’s against any form of energy production that would result in the actual production of energy.

wildcat72 on March 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

USA Today described $3.65/gal as ‘good news’ last August so one imagines they will be doing cartwheels as this year advances.

jangle12 on March 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Obama reaction: “We’re gonna need a bigger slut.”

fogw on March 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.

Literal LOL!!

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

When liberalism/socialism fails they always blame the person last conservative in charge.

Because, y’know, it just couldn’t be that liberalism/socialism failed. The Obama just did it wrong.

Ampersand on March 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Maybe more accurate?

msupertas on March 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Time to start up the sticky note campaign, again.

Fallon on March 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Apparently you know nothing about energy density or the fact that a modern society relies on energy to function.

We can’t give up petroleum energy any better than we can give up food.

Chip on March 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist. They should’ve been willing to abandon power and let the GOP own all of these issues for the last 30 years. But nope, the Dems abandoned the Left and embraced neoliberalism. Oh well. If they lose, its their own fault.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Live by foreign oil, die by foreign oil.

You do realise that solar, wind, etc., are not “new” technologies, don’t you?

Tell us, in what century do you think the first electric vehicle was developed?

Hint: It wasn’t the 20th.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Live by fossil fuels, die by fossil fuels. Democrats abandoned alternative fuels and a serious critique of our reliance on oil in order to not appear socialist. They should’ve been willing to abandon power and let the GOP own all of these issues for the last 30 years. But nope, the Dems abandoned the Left and embraced neoliberalism. Oh well. If they lose, its their own fault.

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Some honest advice…

…learn more about energy from a scientific standpoint, before attaching political ideologies to an opinion.

But, that aside, you’ve just illustrated the achilles heel of liberal/progressive politics, which is the willingness to appear to be something other than what they really to achieve and maintain political power. The whole scheme is a house of cards in a society that values the basic tenets contained in the DOI and the Bill of Rights, unless they are successful in deceiving the population long enough to render the principles of liberty irrelevant by Federal and international statute.

The mindset of the liberal is that that a State can engineer and produce a more perfect human for the needs of the so-called “collective”. They will never admit that the premise is inherently flawed, which is why these social experiments always continuously move toward a complete police state as the ever increasing effort to control the “desired” outcome meets resistance, falling production outputs, and rapid deceleration of currency values. Eventually, those that were foolish enough to buy the liberal lie see quite a few of their own core beliefs scrapped as the power is well enough consolidated that, generally speaking, most of these folks are more valuable as compulsory workers than as useful political pawns. The only real reason to continue the scheme at that point is to reap all the benefits at the top of the absolute power structure. All achieved with minimal bureaucracy once complete control opens the door for the ruthless to maintain order and complicity through the efficient use of all manner of fear and intimidation.

At this point, whether or not the belief that the State is or isn’t capable of producing a perfect human is irrelevant, it’s too late for any philosophical retrospect, the matter is solved. The perfect human sits at the top, or else your mother will be raped and slowly disemboweled in front of you and your children.

But, then again, I don’t expect you to ever admit it, so I’m not quite sure why I even wrote this.

Saltysam on March 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Again, wind power is an exercise in waste and resource and land usage far in excess of the benefits of its energy output. In case you are unaware, the turning of the blades inherent to the design of a wind turbine creates a gyroscopic forces that create enormous stresses on the moving parts of the machine, causing parts to wear out quickly which in turn requires armies of maintenance workers to replace those parts, as well as the enormous amounts of additional resources and (typically very conventionally generated) energy to make them. And so on.

Name an alternative source to fossil fuels and I can easily point out how and why those alternative sources are not remotely viable as a basis for civilization.

troyriser_gopftw on March 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

-
The lefty libs and ultra wacko greenies all see alternative energy the way a high-schooler sees their latest crush… All dreamily amazing with no faults what so ever.
-
You nailed the one thing that is so easy to point out about wind. Anyone who looks on the web will find videos of dead turbines…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A773toLrCkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n5S7-ukSyo&feature=related
-
I’ve even seen videos shot near wind farms that were not about wind farms and there are 20 to 50 percent of the turbines not rotating…
-
I separated and made the last part bold because that is as dead on and condensed a statement of truth about the whole oil/alternatives as I seen.
-

RalphyBoy on March 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM

libfreeordie on March 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Point of order, but given what President Downgrade and his national party of socialists are trying to do with the concept of Liberty in this country, I believe you people have given up the right to us that term to describe yourselves.

Do you understand what I’m talking about?

Chip on March 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Gas prices are rising. Electricity is rising. Food costs are rising. Unemployment is rising (regardless of the BS numbers you are being fed). Foreclosures are rising (again). The only thing falling is Obumbles in November. Count on it.

dddave on March 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM

WAR!: In “Dangerous Liaisons”, the Glenn Close character is being bullied into sexual submission by the one played by John Malkovitch. She DOES NOT roll over and take it. She DOES NOT compromise. A three-prong battle strategy to counter the elite media and Obama’s minions is provided at the link. We are in TOTAL WAR.

Mutnodjmet on March 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Given how volatile and cyclical that gas prices are, I’m surprised to see the President’s political enemies harping on this. The price-per-gallon is almost certain to go down before the election, because it always does. (go here and click the “SixYear” tab.)

Why would the GOP want to ride an issue that will almost certainly turn against them by election day? (Not counting Newt Gingrich’s campaign, which will also be an artifact of history by then.)

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

So you’re saying President Barack Hussein isn’t responsible for Downgrading the energy supply?

Is that the Keystone of your argument?

Chip on March 12, 2012 at 12:36 PM

When liberalism/socialism fails they always blame the person last conservative in charge.

Because, y’know, it just couldn’t be that liberalism/socialism failed. The Obama just did it wrong.

Ampersand on March 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yep; remember after the election Bammie said “this time, you’ve got me”?

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM

In “Dangerous Liaisons”, the Glenn Close character is being bullied into sexual submission by the one played by John Malkovitch.She DOES NOT roll over and take it. She DOES NOT compromise. ~Mutnodjmet

I try not to base my life on Glenn Close Films.

Afterseven on March 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

BTW, How is pointing out the reality of how the President has
Downgraded the country “harping on this”?

Chip on March 12, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Brrrr! New high for Arctic ice cover: Greenland and Alaska Have More Ice This Year Than In Previous Record Year

Another serious blow to the AGW hoax.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Can’t have the green algae and eat it too.

The timing is horrific for the One.

Wait until the food prices go up, the economy slumps across the world, and in the U.S., flying, tanks to be filled…unemployment, all will be affected.

Too bad the opposition has such wussies. A jelly fish bank should beat this arrogant liar, and his experimentations.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

So we totally disregard that gas isn’t usually this high this time of year or that Obastard and Chu have stated they want high gas prices? What issues should people discuss? Rubbers and birth control pills? What else should we ignore the economy, joblessness, etc? Enlighten us and tell us what issue is important to us.

bbinfl on March 12, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The big issue with gas prices is Obama being caught between a rock and a hard place. The Federal Reserve has been steadily printing money for years now to prop the economy up, which has lead to inflation, which is the primary driver for the current high gas prices. The obsession with wiping out oil companies and oil exploration is an additional problem, but not the main one.

The problem for Obama is if the money printing stops, the economy’s going to tank again. So he can either accept accelerating deflation, and the resultant job losses that would entail, or he can accept higher gas prices. He appears to have chosen the latter as the lesser of two evils.

Of course he could also cut government spending big time to reduce inflation, but there’s basically zero chance of that.

Doomberg on March 12, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Bingo – we have a winner!

cigarcamel on March 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Price for a gallon of regular.

July 2008. $4.10 gas. Bush lifts drilling ban.

August 2008. $3.74

September 2008. $3.65

October 2008. $2.66

November 2008: $2.07

December 2008: $1.66

January 2009: $1.84

February 2009: $1.96

March 2009: $1.91

April 2009: $2.06

May 2009: $2.44

June 2009: $2.67

July 2009: $2.61

August 2009: $2.64

September 2009: $2.59

October 2009: $2.49

November 2009: $2.67

December 2009: $2.60

January 2010: $2.67

February 2010: $2.65

March 2010: $2.75

April 2010: $2.86

Drilling ban goes into effect

May 2010: $2.79

June 2010: $2.70

July 2010: $2.75

August 2010: $2.75

September 2010: $2.72

October 2010: $2.82

November 2010: $2.87

December 2010: $3.05

January 2011: $3.08

February 2011: $3.48

March 2011: $3.57

April 2011: $3.88

May 2011: $3.91

June 2011: $3.65

July 2011: $3.70

August 2011: $3.60

September 2011: $3.66

October 2011: $3.46

November 2011: $3.37

December 2011: $3.23

January 2012: $3.44

February 2012: $3.72

Source: Consumer Reports

Resist We Much on March 12, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Why would the GOP want to ride an issue that will almost certainly turn against them by election day? (Not counting Newt Gingrich’s campaign, which will also be an artifact of history by then.)

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

-
How about because Barry really is making normal energy price fluctuations worse… and more damaging to American families.
-

RalphyBoy on March 12, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Justice just blocked the TX voter ID law.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I love how the Democrats talk about how it takes several years for gas production to come on line, and then in the same breath take credit for the increased production of oil and gas during Obama’s 3 years in office while dismissing that it may be the result of the policies of the Bush administration.

Just because it feels like Obama has been president for an eternity doesn’t make it so, thank God.

moo on March 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The WH Energy Stratergy (sic)

Our leaders are going for production! They back drilling! Have you forgotten the billions in loan guarantees?

Just because they were for Brazil and a Soros linked firm, that shouldn’t matter. We all love deficits here.

The real play is the State Department working to diffuse the Iran crisis. A political solution connected to the domestic production now being produced to drive the price down. Te jingoistic Repubs are certainly being used as “bad cop” to bring Iran around. Google the Iranian praise for our Chief.

The Israelis are also showing forbearance.

To save lives and suffering, I pray that something works out. I am worried about the cost in the long run.

They need parking in New York but we shouldn’t give anyone the tools to turn the whole thing into a gravel lot.

IlikedAUH2O on March 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I know,
Barry’s gonna ask us to get “bigger tires” as well.

For example, going from a 185/60/14 to a 185/65/14 will take 3% fewer revolutions per mile (859 vs 887)

Heck, cut out the whole wheel well and go to 185/75/14 and gain 9S% fewer rotations!

(Of course, they may not even make the tires, but why would I research that, if I was a governmental ecoterrorist agent.)

Wow! NEW TIRES FOR EVERYONE!

Oh wait…nasty oil needed to make those tires. But think of the taxes we’d bring in as we force people to change their tires.

And the speeding tickets too! With a bigger tire the speedometer will read lower than actual.

/sarc

ProfShadow on March 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Justice just blocked the TX voter ID law.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The story you link to says DOJ “objects” to the law. Does that mean they have actually cancelled it?

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM

If this were an election year…

… this would make a pretty devastating campaign commercial.

What? Oh.

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Time to start up the sticky note campaign, again.

Fallon on March 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

We ordered 100 from here.

That’s 25 for dh, 25 for me, 25 for my mom and 25 for dh’s dad.

And if we need more, we’ll reorder.

CJ on March 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Re-posting because it deserves to be re-posted:

There is nothing inherently evil or detrimental or harmful in the use of fossil fuels. Putting it as simply as I can: fossil fuels are the most efficient means of furnishing power which is required to maintain and advance any kind of human civilization. In fact, with every step technologically forward, usage efficiency increases at a geometric rate, resulting in vastly less waste or pollution of the environment than was the case even a decade ago. This is called ‘progress’.

Please note, too, that the alternative energy sources of which you and yours are so enamored are each in turn unsustainable, either short- or long-term. Those battery powered electric cars? The energy to run them comes from conventional power sources, and the batteries themselves are constructed of very hard to extract and refine rare metals–which are extracted and refined using conventional power sources and additional human resources not employed in the construction of conventional automobiles. And then, of course, there is the amount of resources and energy entailed in the disposal of those batteries. Wind power? Again, wind power is an exercise in waste and resource and land usage far in excess of the benefits of its energy output. In case you are unaware, the turning of the blades inherent to the design of a wind turbine creates a gyroscopic forces that create enormous stresses on the moving parts of the machine, causing parts to wear out quickly which in turn requires armies of maintenance workers to replace those parts, as well as the enormous amounts of additional resources and (typically very conventionally generated) energy to make them. And so on. Name an alternative source to fossil fuels and I can easily point out how and why those alternative sources are not remotely viable as a basis for civilization.

The Left believes there is no such thing as objective truth, that perceptions shape reality, and that wishing for a thing–whatever that thing might be–will somehow magically supersede the laws of nature. Believing those things is unserious and immature. By the way, this is not to say alternative energy sources shouldn’t be researched, investigated, or pursued. We should always look for a better way. However, better ways are historically not found by a command economy led by ideologues who think humanity is a chancre sore on the face of Mother Gaia.

troyriser_gopftw on March 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Just Sayin on March 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM

The overall impression he gives regarding high gas prices, especially after his kabosh on the keystone pipeline, is that frankly he just doesn’t a damn.

oregano on March 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Excuse me, give a damn.

oregano on March 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

This can’t be. The unemployment rate has plummeted from 8.3% to 8.3% this month!

forest on March 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

From what I understand, if we were still using the same base numbers as when BarryO was e;ected, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%.

Odd how those base numbers seem to change, just at random.

Siddhartha Vicious on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2