CNN analyst on Obama’s oil-speculation crackdown: What is he talking about?

posted at 6:01 pm on April 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

We’re done for the time being with the old shiny object so here’s a new shiny object to play with: O calling on Congress to beef up regulations on oil speculators. Watch the clip below for a snippet of his Rose Garden remarks plus the amusing reaction from CNN’s Ali Velshi, who can’t understand how Obama could walk away after claiming that “this is how we solve the problem” of higher gas prices. In fairness, here’s what he said:

We’ve got to continue the hard, sustained work on this issue. And as long as I’m President we’re going to keep placing our bets on America’s future — America’s workers, America’s technology, America’s ingenuity, and American-made energy. That’s how we’re going to solve this problem once and for all.

He’s not saying that cracking down on oil speculators will solve the problem, he’s saying an all-of-the-above approach on energy will solve it, of which punishing speculators is now apparently one part. That said, Velshi’s right that this is essentially a gimmick that won’t do much to lower gas prices. (Romney attacked Obama today on precisely that point.) What you’re seeing here, a la the Buffett Rule, is the White House hyping a small part of a potential solution with undue fanfare to get voters’ attention. Obama himself admitted recently that the Buffett Rule won’t do much to reduce the deficit but that didn’t stop him and Biden from delivering four speeches on it in four days. The public tends to assume, I think, that when the president carves out time to address a policy matter publicly, that matter must be important and pressing. If he addresses it repeatedly in a short span, imagine how much more important it must be. That’s why, I think, Paul Ryan described the Buffett Rule as “pixie dust” when it comes to deficit reduction: Obama’s never presented it as a magical solution but a low-information voter who isn’t tracking his every word may very well think it’s a magical solution given how much attention O seems to be paying it. Same thing here. We’ve got a Rose Garden ceremony, we’ve got Holder and Geithner standing beside the podium — obviously, to borrow a phrase from Biden, this is a big effing deal. But … it really isn’t. It’s just basic retail stagecraft designed to show that Obama’s doing something about gas prices, the 2012 equivalent of “message: I care.” Presumably Reid will push a vote on it sooner rather than later and the GOP will filibuster, and that’ll hand O a new talking point about the “party of oil speculators” or whatever.

Exit question: How many of these weekly or biweekly shiny policy objects do most voters remember on election day? They’re here for a week and then gone for two months and then back for a few days and then gone again. For instance, until Politico wrote about it this morning, I’d completely forgotten about Obama’s idea of a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies — and I’m someone who keeps up with politics day to day. Does any of this crap really register with voters, even in an impressionistic way (e.g., “Obama’s proposing solutions”)? How many voters on election day will be able to explain the Buffett Rule in a single sentence, or even in multiple sentences? The shiny-object strategy of campaigning seems less and less a strategy designed to win votes and more a strategy designed to give these endless campaigns something to talk about for a few days.


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

Velshi’s right that this is essentially a gimmick that won’t do much anything to lower gas prices.

Fixed.

Good Lt on April 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Stuck in his crawl.

rogerb on April 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Harvard boy be speakin some serious code . . .

BigAlSouth on April 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

It’s the charlatan’s latest meme.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Or you could open more land for exploration, like Bush did. Viola, the bottom dropped out.

John the Libertarian on April 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Uh oh! A relatively negative article on ObaMao. I guess that means it’s time to balance things out with some bogus Left-wing agitprop on Dear Leader’s behalf. Or who’s up for some more “GOP civil war” diversion, huh?

cicerone on April 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Is “shiny object” the new catch phrase now…?
This is like the 20th time I have read it in a week.

I don’t like it.

NeoKong on April 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Planting seeds here and there and hoping that they’ll grow in the public’s consciousness.

The voters who will decide the election are particularly prone to this type of stuff.

Cynical but smart.

SteveMG on April 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Velshi isn’t long for CNN with this kind of honest, thoughtful critcism and analysis.

Just what the heck does he think he’s doing?

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

open anwar
lease more fed land for exploration
issue more drilling permits
open up more offshore leases
approve the pipeline from CA
encourage more coal and oil shale technologies

i’m a relative dumb a$$ and even i can figure out how to lower our demand for oil

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I still don’t understand how speculators in futures can affect the market price of oil. In the end it all comes down to the market price when the contract comes due and the speculator either makes or loses money based on the market price at that time, right?

Mark1971 on April 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The OBOZO / d-cRAT socialist “energy policy”= NO ENERGY except that from taxpayer-funded, eco-nut, crony capitalism / crony socialism companies (which, of course, ALWAYS waste all of the taxpayer money, go bankrupt and produce NO ENERGY).

OBOZO has become the equivalent of Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi, only with him it’s: “NO ENERGY FOR YOU!”

TeaPartyNation on April 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The shiny-object strategy of campaigning seems less and less a strategy designed to win votes and more a strategy designed to give these endless campaigns something to talk about for a few days.

You’re just figuring this out now?

Dack Thrombosis on April 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The biggest manipulators in the oil markets are the Federal Reserve Chairman and the king, lord Obama himself. Those two dunderheads, by printing trillions, flooding the economy with two and a half rounds of quantitative easing, shutting down the Gulf of Mexico, and stopping oil supplies from our neighbors to the North, have forced oil prices to go up. Then President moron has the nerve to blame “speculators”. Get a clue Obama.

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Well you just have to know bho is going to blame every human on the planet but him for everything he has done to crater and make gas prices higher? bho told us when he ran last time what he had in mind and by golly he is doing it! I just hope people realize how much more they are paying for everything with what bho is doing pitting the oil/gas/coal business against anyone but bho?
Gads, I do detest bho!
L

letget on April 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

He will continue to present shiny objects to distract everyone from their malaise.

Grunt on April 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Wolf had a report today from cnn’s WH correspondent that pulled an Obama quote from a few months ago blaming the prices on the mideast turmoil instead of speculation and then also pulled a quote from Holder from last year about investigating speculators before noting that the DOJ has done nothing about it during the last year.

It was shocking!

rw on April 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

That dolt who is President believes that oil extraction is OK everywhere other than America.
I have a different take than Velshi. I think Obama is planning a few show trials right before election.

pat on April 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM

you should go to copy Jim Geraghty’s piece in National Review today.

Obama has said this EXACT SAME THING four times in the last four years!! Yet here he is again..

AirForceCane on April 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

open anwar
lease more fed land for exploration
issue more drilling permits
open up more offshore leases
approve the pipeline from CA
encourage more coal and oil shale technologies

i’m a relative dumb a$$ and even i can figure out how to lower our demand for oil

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

We’ve got to continue the hard, sustained work on this issue. And as long as I’m President we’re going to keep placing our bets on America’s future — America’s workers, America’s technology, America’s ingenuity, and American-made energy. That’s how we’re going to solve this problem once and for all.

Blah, blah, blah, green energy subsidies, blah, electric cars, blah, blah, unicorn farts …

/Team Hope n Change

VibrioCocci on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

to be clear, in Austrian that means we have 57 States!

SDarchitect on April 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

“The public tends to assume, I think, that when the president carves out time to address a policy matter publicly, that matter must be important and pressing.” Any member of the public who still believes that applies to this President shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

natasha333 on April 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

O’s a lot of talk on energy. “We’ve got to continue the hard, sustained work…” What a bunch of hooey! He’s all talk, and no work.

More accurately, working hard to cut energy production, as called for by agw proponents.

Hard work my rear. What’s hard work is all the Orwellian double speak he does to cover up his anti-energy agenda. Like “an all of the above” energy policy, when it’s effectively none of the above, unless it’s bird killing windmills or algae ponds. We got to give his rear the boot if we are going to get back to having plenty of affordable energy, as the economy needs.

anotherJoe on April 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Drilling Permits Approved:

Clinton: Up 58%
Bush: Up 116%
Obama: Down 36%

Source: BLM

Reminder of the Day: Obama’s Drilling Permatorium

Resist We Much on April 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

If you create a world glut of oil, then supply and demand forces tales effect. Satisfy the demand and the prices will lower. I do believe making speculators pay the full price for oil futures will stabilize oil prices and keep the volatility down. I don’t know why they don’t do that now.

Kini on April 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

“Almost” only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and pant combustion.

Christien on April 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Exit question: How many of these weekly or biweekly shiny policy objects do most voters remember on election day?

None.

DrStock on April 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

It’s those darn speculators fault that gas prices are so high and if you don’t believe me, go ask O Reilly. So, the President does watch Fox News. I wish I could hibernate until November.

DDay on April 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Obama would make a great president of a cargo-cult… “Look. I’m waving the flags toward the sky! The gods will send the big birds back and solve our Hershey bar shortage!”

Marxism is for dummies on April 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

If it existed, then someone would be making billions off of it today. Do you have any good ideas?

DDay on April 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Oil prices went up shortly after Zero made his speech. He desperately wants to blame somebody else for the price of gas.

dogsoldier on April 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

seeing as it’s the only solution that obamas brought to the table regarding gas prices, i would say velshi is right that obama is saying “this will solve the problem”. an “all of the above” approach means nothing, that’s not a solution that a president can lead on. he needs to give a speech on what *exactly* he proposes. so far, it’s been to go after “speculators”.

that won’t solve the problem…

it’s clear that obama practices the art of repeating something again and again until it sticks. that’s what he’s doing here. read some lib blogs and you’ll see how they repeat what he’s said, almost like a mic check ala occupy.

jetch on April 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I heard somebody on the radio say what we really need is a crack down on the green energy speculators particularly the WH and POTUS himself.

multiuseless on April 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

If it existed, then someone would be making billions off of it today. Do you have any good ideas?

DDay on April 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The original quote was talking about increasing supply then ended with the bit on lowering demand, which is where lexhamfox’s quote comes from.

And who needs a new way of lowering demand? Obama and his policies are doing just that by strangling the economy and the only billions being made from that are by the people who are getting subsidized for Obama’s unrealistic dreams that oil will stop mattering next Friday.

Betenoire on April 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

More BAD NEWS shoveled out for O’Bummer…

O’Bummer has lost CNN !!

Eyes are opening UP…Finally!!

BigSven on April 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM

WTH ????
.
Ali Velshi supported Ø on every conclusion he came to in his policy address: speculators add as much as 20% to the market price of a barrel of oil; regulators need more sophisticated tools and more bodies to do the regulation; futures traders need to put down higher percentages of investment based on some idea of market price, either current or future.
.
Ali Velshi supported every conclusion except that it will “solve” the oil supply problem; only drill, drill, drill will do that and that’s something Øbama didn’t mention nor did Ali Velshi. This is lefty course-correction BS, not criticism.

ExpressoBold on April 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Barry’s building his Truman v Congress case.

If Mitt takes Ryan, then Mitt, through extention, is owned by the GOP Congress and its record.

If Mitt doesn’t, than Barry runs against the GOP Congress and tries to make Romney sell them out, hoping to suppress conservative voters.

IMO, Barry has no interest in a second term under the current conditions. He’s openly talked about his disdain for a triangulator like Clinton. He wants want W had, and if he can’t, then he’ll sow class warfare derision and make Romney’s entry a President as resentful as W’s was in 2K.

budfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Betenoire on April 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Thanks for the clarification. And yes Mr. President is doing quite well in lowering demand. But I would say his friends are losing billions, ours.

DDay on April 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Would love to hear Sarah Palin’s reaction. Put ‘em side by side; ask the electorate to compare and contrast. Then decide which one actuay understands the ins and outsof energy policy and which one’s repeating talking points.

Cleombrotus on April 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM

more cops on the beat to monitor activity in energy markets

What cops are these?

theperfecteconomist on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

We have to keep pounding this issue.

The world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. As such, the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale is a potentially huge new source of oil, and must be central to any discussion of our continental energy security. Shale and other new sources of oil, like oil sands currently being developed in Canada, offer important new North American energy supply options.

In 300 years, we could have an ass kicking alternative energy plan.

mike_NC9 on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

oops. Meant to include link for the above quote. Thanks.

mike_NC9 on April 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I bet Obama could not even explain what he means by “speculation”, but it would be fun to hear him try.

DrStock on April 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

ok, you got me

make you feel nice and special acting like a jerk?

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM

In 300 years, we could have an ass kicking alternative energy plan.

mike_NC9 on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Isn’t that what we have “Captain Kicka$$” for? Somebody get that Captain Kicka$$ image from the old Bp spill threads. I always loved it.

DrStock on April 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM

We’ve got to continue the hard, sustained work on this issue. And as long as I’m President we’re going to keep placing our bets on America’s future — America’s workers, America’s technology, America’s ingenuity, and American-made energy. That’s how we’re going to solve this problem once and for all.

Ya gotta give the guy credit for something. He’s mastered the art of using many words to not say anything.

Cleombrotus on April 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then. lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

WTF for? Do you think anything our govt does to “lower demand for oil” will be emulated anywhere else on the planet? Hells no, the emerging economies of India, China, Russia and pretty much everyone else would just be laughing their asses off at such US foolishness, pretty much like they already are. No thanks.

Harbingeing on April 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Community organizer in chief…

d1carter on April 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

In 300 years, we could have an ass kicking alternative energy plan.

mike_NC9 on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Awww…reminded me of one of my favorite Obaama oil songs…..
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81011718/

congma on April 17, 2012 at 7:28 PM

congma on April 17, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Hahaha! Opie Lauer was cracking me up!

mike_NC9 on April 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So does Barry think the oil futures traded only in the NYMEX? Can he control speculation in ICE, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange,or markets in Asia? The traders will just move the trading oversea. It is just as easy to trade there as here with computer linkage.

galtani on April 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Ninety-nine bottles of beer shiny objects on the wall, Ninety-nine bottles of beer shiny objects.
Take one down, pass it around, Ninety-eight bottles of beer shiny objects on the wall.

Obama Campaign-2012

hillsoftx on April 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I don’t like it.

NeoKong on April 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Agreed…stick with simple…‘LOOK..SQUIRREL!!’

BigWyo on April 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

More BAD NEWS shoveled out for O’Bummer…

O’Bummer has lost CNN !!

Eyes are opening UP…Finally!!

BigSven on April 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM

…not to worry…It’s just a feint for the public…they’re just trying to throw us off their scent…they’ll be back with the herd in no time!

KOOLAID2 on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

“Cops on the beat to monitor energy market?”

I think he is losing it. Really.

Bulletchaser on April 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM

The professional left is upset at Obama’s rank incompetence. They know Obamacare is going down and they are going to blame Obama. They see him setting back the left side of the politcal spectrum 40 years. They can’t fault the ideology of the left so they will fault Obama…

Theworldisnotenough on April 17, 2012 at 8:24 PM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging people from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

That could be done in conjunction with or instead of opening up new land for exploration.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM

The Republicans had better have some good, solid soundbites punching holes in “blame the speculator/blame the Republicans” nonsense when Harry Reid gets off the dime and introduces Obama’s latest sham-wow trick. Get your thinking caps on, boys and girls. You have been forewarned.

onlineanalyst on April 17, 2012 at 9:05 PM

It’s not complicated, even an affirmative action Harvard man should be able to figure it out.

The oil speculators use whatever knowledge and information they have in trying to predict the future supply and cost of oil.

When an oil supplier comes to the speculator selling oil futures for $120 a barrel, one of the things the speculator looks at is US government energy policy. If our government is acting stupidly, as it currently is, restricting drilling in the US, then the speculator has to accept the $120 a barrel price and pass that high price through to the consumers.

On the other hand, if the oil supplier comes to the speculator selling oil futures for $120 a barrel, but our government is smartly approving and encouraging oil drilling and exploration, then the speculator tells the $120 oil seller to “go fish” I’ll only pay $75 a barrel and then passes that lower cost on the consumers.

I have to guess that this simplicity is beyond the experience of a former community organizer.

RJL on April 17, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then. lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

WTF for? Do you think anything our govt does to “lower demand for oil” will be emulated anywhere else on the planet? Hells no, the emerging economies of India, China, Russia and pretty much everyone else would just be laughing their asses off at such US foolishness, pretty much like they already are. No thanks.

Harbingeing on April 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM

If we were developing our plentiful natural resources, we could be selling that product to emerging economies and thus achieve a favorable balance of trade and increase our revenues without ever soaking the taxpayer.

A chart of the “speculative” cost of taxes on oil contrasted with the much tinier profit of oil companies would shoot the Moron-in-Chief’s argument down the drain– the same drain where his crony alternative fuels plan has cost the American taxpayer.

onlineanalyst on April 17, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Ya gotta give the guy credit for something. He’s mastered the art of using many words to not say anything.

Cleombrotus on April 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Obama subscribes to Talking Points Memo. He has a symbiotic. circle-jerk relationship to that blog.

onlineanalyst on April 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM

We’ve got problems. Barry’s got platitudes. Must be more of that ‘leading from behind’ thingy.

GarandFan on April 17, 2012 at 9:25 PM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging people from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Did you write several of the pages for the Obamacare bill?

Indira Ghandi in India and the ChiComs had and have been working on the issue for some time. Lots of success there, huh? The demand is even higher in those countries.

Take your Brave New World /Central Command ideas elsewhere, champ.

onlineanalyst on April 17, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Presumably Reid will push a vote on it sooner rather than later and the GOP will filibuster, and that’ll hand O a new talking point about the “party of oil speculators” or whatever.

And Bill O’Reilly will cheer.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 9:31 PM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging peoplethe peasants from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Ein weld, ein ordnung. Sieg heil!

S. D. on April 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging people from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Did you write several of the pages for the Obamacare bill?

Indira Ghandi in India and the ChiComs had and have been working on the issue for some time. Lots of success there, huh? The demand is even higher in those countries.

Take your Brave New World /Central Command ideas elsewhere, champ.

onlineanalyst on April 17, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Ha! You beat me to it OLA. Like people all over the world are going to tone down reproducing because of idealistic nonsense like that. Snort.

fullogas on April 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM

If we had made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging peopleMitchell Heisman’s progenitors* from having children, that would reduce demand and price for solar power and windmills. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world and reducing the number of idiotic and lefty commenters here at Hot Air.
Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Fixed.

*”parents” may not apply so I played it safe with progenitors.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 9:54 PM

open anwar
lease more fed land for exploration
issue more drilling permits
open up more offshore leases
approve the pipeline from CA
encourage more coal and oil shale technologies

i’m a relative dumb a$$ and even i can figure out how to lower our demand for oil

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

ok, you got me

make you feel nice and special acting like a jerk?

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Take it easy. It was a gentle nudge and if I wanted to be a jerk it could have been much worse.

I actually think reducing our demand for petroleum very important. Petroleum markets aren’t rational and the cartel of cheap producers can manipulate markets. Worldwide demand will only go up and our own reserves won’t ever make it as cheap as it was again. Many of our reserves are viable precisely because of high prices and new technologies. Those reserves are most valuable to our economy as exports.

A big reason for the price increase is because of the confrontation with Iran and the associated sanctions and risk being priced in. You can’t demand that we confront Iran and then bitch about oil prices being high. As both Republican and Democrat Presidencies have told us, there is no ‘magic wand’ (Bush) or ‘magic bullet’ (Obombster) which the government can use to impact a vast global market.

Only a combination of alternative sources of energy will reduce demand and dependence… and even then we will still feel the impact of petroleum prices. The economy which employs the most efficient throughputs will succeed and be competitive.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 11:18 PM

open anwar
lease more fed land for exploration
issue more drilling permits
open up more offshore leases
approve the pipeline from CA
encourage more coal and oil shale technologies

i’m a relative dumb a$$ and even i can figure out how to lower our demand for oil

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Perhaps you should share some of your ideas for lowering demand for oil then.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

ok, you got me

make you feel nice and special acting like a jerk?

DrW on April 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Take it easy. It was a gentle nudge and if I wanted to be a jerk it could have been much worse.

I actually think reducing our demand for petroleum very important. Petroleum markets aren’t rational and the cartel of cheap producers can manipulate markets. Worldwide demand will only go up and our own reserves won’t ever make it as cheap as it was again. Many of our reserves are viable precisely because of high prices (along with new technologies & techniques). Those reserves are most valuable to our economy as exports.

A big reason for the price increase is because of the confrontation with Iran and the associated sanctions and risk being priced by the markets. You can’t demand that we confront Iran and then complain about oil prices being high. As both Republican and Democrat Presidencies have told us, there is no ‘magic wand’ (Bush) or ‘magic bullet’ (Obombster) which the government can use to impact a vast global market.

Only a combination of alternative sources of energy will reduce demand and dependence… and even then we will still feel the impact of petroleum prices. The economy which employs the most efficient throughputs will succeed and be competitive.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

How many of these weekly or biweekly shiny policy objects do most voters remember on election day?

Good question. My guess is the shiny policy object that happens either just before, or after the convention.

Let’s face it, we Americans don’t have a long memory. The 24/7 news cycle has made most of us ADD.

ccrosby on April 17, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Exit question: How many of these weekly or biweekly shiny policy objects do most voters remember on election day?

I don’t think they are specifically for voters to remember on election day. They are made to bump up the polls week by week.
We can expect to see another hundred of these between now and Nov, just to gain a point or two in the polls…week by week. The LSM will be complicit in reporting these poll numbers: Obama is up by x%. Their thinking is this will pull people to vote for this idiot.

OccamsRazor on April 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM

I suppose it doesn’t occur to most (if not all) liberals that he’s just trotting garbage out there for them to snatch up and scarf down, assuming (rightly) that they are idiots enough to believe that, his myriad strawman burnings, and his fantasy ‘ain’t really gonna do that but I’ll pretend I will until I win’ promises.

I’d hate to be a liberal. What would it be like to be that sheepish and stupid?

Hard to imagine.

Wolfmoon on April 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

For instance, until Politico wrote about it this morning, I’d completely forgotten about Obama’s idea of a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies — and I’m someone who keeps up with politics day to day. Does any of this crap really register with voters, even in an impressionistic way …

Just like the Clinton years, there has been scandal after scandal, government over-reach after government over-reach to the point none of us can remember everything this narcissistic, statist marxist has done. The good news is that the effect is cumulative, i.e., we all (except for the stupid koolaid drinkers and usefull idiots) remember them negatively with an overall negative impression of Scooter. That will work in our favor this year.

AZfederalist on April 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Does any of this crap really register with voters, even in an impressionistic way

Yes it does. Most voters are almost totally uninformed and uncritical about government policies and their effects. They can be swayed by the impression that a forceful leader is talking to them about real concerns. Months later they don’t remember much of what he said; they do remember the affect it had on them.

When I was a child it was much worse. We had even a worse economy and unemployment problem. Most of what many people knew about what government was doing about these problems came from one source, FDR’s fire side chats on the radio. Most people were disposed to believe almost anything he said. He was a very forceful speaker.

Today, people can be well informed if they are disposed to be so. It would be much better if more people were so disposed.

burt on April 18, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Have you ever had one of those recurring Nightmares.

You think you are safe by waking up, but fall asleep and back it comes.

I thought I was safe after waking up January 1981….

jaydee_007 on April 18, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Many of our reserves are viable precisely because of high prices (along with new technologies & techniques). Those reserves are most valuable to our economy as exports.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

We don’t export crude oil. Why would you write something this stupid?

blink on April 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM

I’m going to take a stab at it;

If we developed all of the Resources we had, and combined our Resources with those of Canada (Utilizing the Keystone Pipeline) we’d be in a position to make our own North American version of OPEC and yes, we would Export Crude Oil.

jaydee_007 on April 18, 2012 at 3:28 AM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging people from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

you just hang tight bud. obama’s world war he is inciting right now, will take care of a lot of that ‘problem’ for you. happy?

t8stlikchkn on April 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Let’s face it, we Americans don’t have a long memory. The 24/7 news cycle has made most of us ADD.

ccrosby on April 17, 2012 at 11:32 PM

i think you give “us” too little credit. ronnie believed in us. when you have a real leader. who educates, rather than distracts with shiny objects, and actually LEADS. we will be fine. the future after Nov is actually very bright. i can hardly wait.

t8stlikchkn on April 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM

If we made a serious effort to reduce world population by discouraging people from having children, that would reduce demand and price. It would also have other benefits, including reducing suffering around the world.

Mitchell Heisman on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Hell, why just reduce suffering? If we exterminate the entire human population, we could eliminate it!!!
And lower demand for oil to boot!!!

Where’s the down side?

/faceless O-care Death Panel administration bureaucrat

VelvetElvis on April 18, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Speculators are “speculating” that because of Obama’s energy policies the price of a barrel of oil will go higher and higher so they can make money by bidding up the price. That’s why when Bush announced the opening of new areas for exploration and a plan to increase production, the speculators were not willing to bid higher for fear extra oil on the market in the future would drive prices down. So the cause of speculators bidding higher is………………….OBAMA! Duh!

artman1746 on April 18, 2012 at 8:05 AM

This is just more lame bread and circus from Halitosis Nero.

Fail.

GrassMudHorsey on April 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Exit question: How many of these weekly or biweekly shiny policy objects do most voters remember on election day?

My leg STILL gets all tingly thinking about the first TV I ever bought with a V chip.

MNHawk on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Miniature nuclear reactors in every vehicle. *BOOM* Problem solved….hmmm maybe Iran is on to something after all.

StompUDead on April 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I will tell you what registers with me. Obama is one elected person, we have 500 plus other elected officials and when Obama does not get his way, he passes whatever by Executive Order. Why are we standing for this?

HOOLiBAR6 on April 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Many of our reserves are viable precisely because of high prices (along with new technologies & techniques). Those reserves are most valuable to our economy as exports.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

We don’t export crude oil. Why would you write something this stupid?

Only a combination of alternative sources of energy will reduce demand and dependence…

Name one alternative energy source that will reduce demand for oil and explain how.

Overall, maybe you should study up on this issue before you make yourself look any more foolish.

blink on April 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM

We do export raw crude and petroleum products.

An obvious alternative energy source is natural gas.

You are the one who needs to brush up on the subject.

lexhamfox on April 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The voters who will decide the election are particularly prone to this type of stuff.

I’m not so sure that’s it. I think it’s more a plan to keep peoples’ minds off of the core issues by maintaining a constant barrage of trivial talking points. Obama will win if he can manage to keep the electorate from focusing.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on April 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM

“None of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight

Good takedown by Velshi. Exit question: Where have these questions been for the last three years?

Freelancer on April 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Yup, federal regulations will really impact the 90% of speculators who are not in the United States.

Nathan_OH on April 18, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Generally speaking, I believe that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Smart people tend to believe in more plausible or more realistic ideas about how the world works; that’s why they are considered smarter than those who believe in crackpot ideas.

So here’s my question. We have a president who is promoting the conspiracy theory that fuel prices are high because of speculation. Clearly he thinks his voters are stupid enough to fall for this. But Obama is so consistent in his promotion of ideas like this, that it begs the question: what if he really believes this crap? And what if he believes higher taxes will grow the economy? And giving more money to solar and wind energy companies will save the earth from global warming?

Either he’s the biggest liar in generations, or he really is so stupid that he believes the things that come out of his mouth.

J Baustian on April 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM