Move the protest into the future (UPDATED)
Okay, I'll admit it: I like the tactic the House's GOP caucus has taken with regard to the protest against adjourning for a vacation while the people of this country are still paying for a poor energy policy.
If only they could get more publicity. . .like, for example, if Pres. Bush would have reneged on going to China for the opening ceremonies because he felt the cost of gas for Air Force One was too much . . .or if Sen. McCain would get his butt and the cameras disposed to cover his butt back to the steps of the Capitol to cover a full day of the happenings there. . .but I digress.
I see a trap about to open, though, and I hope the GOP has the foresight not to fall into it.
At this time 3 weeks ago, I paid $3.92 for a gallon of gas. Yesterday, I paid $3.54. And I'm no economist, but I gotta believe it will continue going down--not because "global demand" will find an equilibrium, as the Dems like to say, but rather because of Bush's move to lift the executive order on OCS drilling.
You see, the "market" knows that the world is one great legislative action away from seeing U.S. supply becoming a key factor in the overall global supply. If that happens, prices will fall--and right now the market is hedging their bets.
But what happens if that great legislative action never happens or appears to be delayed indefinitely? Well, on Nov. 5th we'll know for sure, but I am very confident in saying that IF Pelosi keeps her majority OR if Obama wins the White House, these prices on gas will be a thing of the past. And we'll quickly be wishing for the days of "only" $4/gallon gas.
And THIS is the angle that the GOP needs to start attacking. Yeah, it's easy to get headlines and supporters when the gas is $4 a gallon. But where were these protesters in the months before the peak prices? Answer: nowhere. Because we as a people didn't get totally ticked at $3/gallon gas prices, or even at $3.25.
And the Dems see how these prices are trending, and they're just hoping that by the time the GOP convention rolls around that our gas prices are SOMEWHERE around $3.25. If it gets there, then they can honestly expect zero backlash for their policies over the summer.
Unless the GOP starts laying the groundwork. And I mean NOW!
We need to argue that the prices are falling not because of an adjustment to global demand, but rather because of Bush's move to lift the executive order. We need to stress that the market's prices are suppressed right now simply because of the fear that the U.S. might actually start producing it's own oil. And we need to paint the picture of energy costs for the next two years if Pelosi's people prevail with the majority in the election.
And then we need to hit hard on a theme that may actually strike home: there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat as long as Pelosi is in position to control the agenda of the House of Representatives. A vote for ANY Dem is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and a vote against the interests of the people of this country--and our country deserves better than that. (h/t: Hugh Hewitt)
UPDATE: Timely. "(U)nless there is a collapse in oil demand within the next five to ten years, there will be a serious oil 'supply crunch' - not because of below-ground resource constraints but because of inadequate investment by international oil companies (IOCs) and national oil companies (NOCs).
An oil supply crunch is where excess crude producing capacity falls to low levels and is followed by a crude 'outage' leading to a price spike. If this happens then the resulting price spike will carry serious policy implications with long-lasting effects on the global energy picture."
It's simple, folks: if we don't find a way to increase oil supply, we will be paying out the wazoo for our gas. The problem isn't "lack of oil"; it's "lack of desire to get the oil". While drilling and the shale may not be the only answer out there, they certainly ARE the answer that holds the best short-term potential to help keep models like this from coming true. Hello, Pelosi!
I find it funny that the left gets all in a tizzy about environmental models that are based on some really. . .loose assumptions. But they can't get even remotely exercised about the models that show economic doom if they continue to be stubborn on energy.
If only they could get more publicity. . .like, for example, if Pres. Bush would have reneged on going to China for the opening ceremonies because he felt the cost of gas for Air Force One was too much . . .or if Sen. McCain would get his butt and the cameras disposed to cover his butt back to the steps of the Capitol to cover a full day of the happenings there. . .but I digress.
I see a trap about to open, though, and I hope the GOP has the foresight not to fall into it.
At this time 3 weeks ago, I paid $3.92 for a gallon of gas. Yesterday, I paid $3.54. And I'm no economist, but I gotta believe it will continue going down--not because "global demand" will find an equilibrium, as the Dems like to say, but rather because of Bush's move to lift the executive order on OCS drilling.
You see, the "market" knows that the world is one great legislative action away from seeing U.S. supply becoming a key factor in the overall global supply. If that happens, prices will fall--and right now the market is hedging their bets.
But what happens if that great legislative action never happens or appears to be delayed indefinitely? Well, on Nov. 5th we'll know for sure, but I am very confident in saying that IF Pelosi keeps her majority OR if Obama wins the White House, these prices on gas will be a thing of the past. And we'll quickly be wishing for the days of "only" $4/gallon gas.
And THIS is the angle that the GOP needs to start attacking. Yeah, it's easy to get headlines and supporters when the gas is $4 a gallon. But where were these protesters in the months before the peak prices? Answer: nowhere. Because we as a people didn't get totally ticked at $3/gallon gas prices, or even at $3.25.
And the Dems see how these prices are trending, and they're just hoping that by the time the GOP convention rolls around that our gas prices are SOMEWHERE around $3.25. If it gets there, then they can honestly expect zero backlash for their policies over the summer.
Unless the GOP starts laying the groundwork. And I mean NOW!
We need to argue that the prices are falling not because of an adjustment to global demand, but rather because of Bush's move to lift the executive order. We need to stress that the market's prices are suppressed right now simply because of the fear that the U.S. might actually start producing it's own oil. And we need to paint the picture of energy costs for the next two years if Pelosi's people prevail with the majority in the election.
And then we need to hit hard on a theme that may actually strike home: there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat as long as Pelosi is in position to control the agenda of the House of Representatives. A vote for ANY Dem is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and a vote against the interests of the people of this country--and our country deserves better than that. (h/t: Hugh Hewitt)
UPDATE: Timely. "(U)nless there is a collapse in oil demand within the next five to ten years, there will be a serious oil 'supply crunch' - not because of below-ground resource constraints but because of inadequate investment by international oil companies (IOCs) and national oil companies (NOCs).
An oil supply crunch is where excess crude producing capacity falls to low levels and is followed by a crude 'outage' leading to a price spike. If this happens then the resulting price spike will carry serious policy implications with long-lasting effects on the global energy picture."
It's simple, folks: if we don't find a way to increase oil supply, we will be paying out the wazoo for our gas. The problem isn't "lack of oil"; it's "lack of desire to get the oil". While drilling and the shale may not be the only answer out there, they certainly ARE the answer that holds the best short-term potential to help keep models like this from coming true. Hello, Pelosi!
I find it funny that the left gets all in a tizzy about environmental models that are based on some really. . .loose assumptions. But they can't get even remotely exercised about the models that show economic doom if they continue to be stubborn on energy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home