Bush blames Democrats for high oil prices....WHAAAAT?

It's crazy, especially since they have like 68 million acres they have already been given to drill.

What I am mad about is that he is still in office. I guess there isn't anything that this current administration has done that is impeachable. (wrong!)

Yeah ole Dubya is a hoot. I didn't think he could sink much lower but he's always a surprise. He manufactures the oil crisis to benefit his buddies, then when things are getting REALLY desperate he wants to throw yet ANOTHER bone to the oil companies. The guy really sets a new definition of sleaze.

They have done lots of stuff that is impeachable, but the Democrats do not have enough of a majority to mount a serious impeachment effort, and I don't think they have the stomach for it, knowing how painful and distracting it would be for the nation. We have enough problems now, without adding the turmoil of an impeachment process. And Bush will be out of office before they could complete it. Some people think we should do it anyway, just because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Certainly if it can be proved that he deliberately lied to Congress and the American people to get us into the Iraq War...that should be grounds for impeachment.
Proving it might be difficult, though. I am sure they covered their tracks very well.
If the tables were turned, and it was a Democrat in office, you can be sure the Republicans would be hard at work on impeachment. Clinton's antics, while deplorable, were insignificant compared to Bush's malfeasance, but Republican hard-liners believe in a scorched-earth approach to politics.

They have covered thier tracks alright. Remember how the emails were suddenly classified or missing? You are right, though, it would be a terrible distraction from our new election that is only months away. He will be gone soon enough. I do not think I can take one more clip of him kissing and bowing and scraping to the Saudis. The scene has truly disgusted this American voter.

Oh yes, and the new script has already been passed down. I know this because Anne Northup, Bush-yes-woman and former Congresswoman who is going to waste the 300K she took from oil companies to run again, once said she couldn't respond to a question until she got the new script, announced that the Democrats are responsible for the gas prices here yesterday.

<-------------------------- Queen of the run-on sentence.

And who, exactly is stupid enough to swallow Bush's assertion? I mean other than the few Bush-loving whackos remaining.

Pitiful flail, even for Bush.

You tell 'em Bert! Nothing is too outrageous for Republicans to claim. They call Democrats the ones who run up the national debt, when Bush's war has run us into debt and devalued the dollar like there was no tomorrow.
Did anyone listen to Keith Oberman tonight? He explainined how the 'Enron Loophole", something McCain voted for, is allowing the commodity gamblers to control the stock market then rake off the profits from the results of their actions. The Enron Loophole is what is allowing a lot of legal,but dirty, dealing to run up the price of oil. I don't understand it and haven't explained it very well. It needs to be investigated.

More oil drilling? More nuclear? The Bush administration has sabotaged the clean and safe alternatives that we need instead. The Bush administration has also been a disaster for the economy. McCain doesn't look much different. Obama should point out that we need better technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, fuel cells, electrolyzers, car batteries, V2G, plug-in, pyrolysis, etc.

Right, Sam. And conservation.

To blame the dems is like a rapist blaming the woman, saying if she would have just willingly consented it would not have been a rape. Thus it is all the woman/dems "fault". Just more of the ole blame game ...

Because it is so related to this thread, I post below recent comments I made on a similar thread:


How many have went past the "sound bites" of all of this USA-ALASKA oil issue ??? How many have watched the video on U-Tube by Lindsey Williams about how the companies up there are hiding the truth from us ???

Check this out: www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147 ... it is so much more than a sound bite ... and well worth the time spent IF one REALLY cares about the Oil Issue.

PS ... could it be possible that the price of oil being jacked up as it is, could be a manufactured event to get us folks to release ANWR to those folks ... ?? While we think there is a shortage and they know what they have, and want to add to it, will serve their purposes for a very long time ... later claiming; "surprise surprise ... gee, I guess there was more oil there then we thought" ... how many people here really think these people are above all of that ???

Thank goodness we are Americans and we will prevail. Wind farms, solar farms, hydrogen powered cars. This is only the beginning. WE ARE The INNOVATIVE culture.
We will survive. WE WILL OVERCOME. I have always said education and the freedom to experiment and to initiate is our greatest assest.

The way the neocons approach this is fiscal insanity. It's like Bush is saying, 'We're not broke, we still have money is our savings account! And if you won't let me use it all up, you're anti-American!' Solar, wind, wave, geothermal- this is the interest we earn daily by living on this planet. Tax breaks for oil companies give preference for spending the principle. Nuclear is a pandoras box of pestilence that appeals to a short-term desire to get something for nothing. (I started my career in nuclear power, yes I know the science.) Children live for the moment, adults are supposed to plan for the future and listen to their consciences.

Bush is a dickhead........what else is new? The Republicans have had their run and it is almost over...I hope. But who allowed the Republicans their unbridled, free run? The Democrats who DIDN'T stand up to them. The Democrats in Congress have ENABLED the Republicans by being too weak to take a stand against the Republicans. So the Republicans have exploited the fact that the Democrats are too afraid of confrontation to actually DO a damn thing.....sure, they wave their arms and jump up and down and cry "foul" and threaten, but WHAT exactly have the Democrats DONE to stop the antics of Bush and company?

You want to assign blame for the totally fucked up past 7 years? Blame the dickhead...but blame his yellow, chicken shit, two faced enablers too.

Sam: "Obama should point out that we need better technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, fuel cells, electrolyzers, car batteries, V2G, plug-in, pyrolysis, etc."

Yes, he should. Democrats are not taking advantage of these situations to point to the alternatives. Obama's response (at least, the one reported in the media) was pretty weak. He just said that drilling wouldn't help much. He didn't take the opportunity to point out that this is the kind of significant change his campaign keeps talking about. I don't know that he understands how crucial this issue is. While I'm not prepared to agree with Michael H.'s assessment of democrats, I think they should be much stronger in pointing out these kinds of new directions that can and should be taken. Too many missed opportunities like this don't spell a super-majority in congress in November.

While w. is busy blaming democrats for blocking oil drilling of the U.S. coasts, a Japanese company is presenting a car that runs on water.

Which technology represents "the way forward"? Developing increasingly complicated technology to drill for oil in greater depths, or developing technology to use other fuels? I would say - why drill for oil, at great expense, off the coasts when you can just use the water?

It's true Bush blamed Congress for not signing on to drilling offshore. He doesn't remember his own brother (Jeb) telling him NO drilling off the Florida coast? So, we drill.. it won't be for another 10 years or more before we benefit. "What he failed to mention was data released recently by his own Department of Energy that shows, unequivocally, that drilling in the arctic refuge will have no effect on today's high gas prices," Shogan said. "At peak production, two decades from now, the amount of oil speculated to be available in the refuge would lower gas prices by less than 4 cents a gallon.

We buy the majority of our oil from CANADA. Opec sets the prices. (right?)

The Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 did not set out to discriminate against Canada, America's biggest supplier of oil. But that is the effect of banning federal agencies from buying alternative or synthetic fuel, including that from non-conventional sources, if their production and use result in more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. Transforming Alberta's tarry muck into a barrel of oil is an energy-intensive process that produces about three times the emissions of a barrel of conventional light sweet crude.

The potential is there. According to the Energy Department, the U.S. is the 3rd largest producer of crude oil in the world (only Saudi Arabia and Russia produce more oil than we do), and we are far and away the largest consumer of oil, using 25 percent of the world's consumption every day. That makes the U.S the largest oil market in the world, and therefore actions in the U.S. help determine world oil prices.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Ask_this.view&askthisid=111

The history is there. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has in the past found that U.S. oil companies intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market in order to drive prices up. In March 2001, the FTC concluded an investigation into a spike in Midwest gasoline prices and found that one firm chose not to sell its excess supply because that "would have pushed down prices and thereby reduced the profitability" of its existing sales. "An executive of this company made clear that he would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower margin." The FTC didn't find any violations of antitrust laws because there was no collusion. But, it concluded: "In each instance, the firms chose strategies they thought would maximize their profits."


"For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline," Bush said.

Ha! I don't think that will be our most pressing concern from now on. FOOD will be our most pressing concern in the years to come.

The oil industry is a monopoly that must be broken up. It should be made into a public utility, since that's what it is. Meanwhile, it comes as no surprise to anyone that a white house made up entirely of former oil company executives would magically find ways to hyper-inflate the price of energy.

While we definitely do need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels, and this can be achieved rather aggressively with a combination of much higher CAFE standards (which republicans have blocked for decades now) and an aggressive push to bring multiple renewable sources of energy on line as quickly as possible, it should be mentioned that there is actually no known oil shortage at this time.

Even in this country, tens of billions of barrels are known to exist in tapped, but unproduced wells, and just a couple of months ago, a US geological study revealed that somewhere between 500 to 700 billion barrels of oil exist in wells in western ND and surrounding area. If the latter amount holds true, this would represent nearly three times the reserves known to lie underneath Saudi sand.

Now, granted, oil reserves do not necessarily mean oil production, and the reason that this ND oil has been untapped to date is because it's not easy to bring to the surface. In fact, it wasn't until recently that drilling techniques were developed that allowed this oil to be tapped. Producers will reportedly drill up to one mile down and up to one mile across, in order to draw this oil to the surface. No easy task, I'm sure.

Additionally, no amount of oil at our doorstep will change the fact that we are currently at 97% refinery capacity. The oil companies conspired in the 1980's to stop building refining capacity, so that they could more easily manipulate the price of gasoline and diesel at the pump. There are internal memos that prove this.

It's also important to recognize that the push to open more federal land to drilling is NOT about finding more oil. As has been demonstrated, the oil industry already has over 10,000 permits to drill in these parts of the country, and has access to tens of billions of barrels of oil that they simply are not tapping. They want control of MORE reserves for two key reasons:

1) The value of a given oil company is largely based upon its known oil reserves.

2) Oil companies are allowed to keep larger profits when the federal government hands them our land to drill on.

As with everything else, the crux of the biscuit lies in profit motivation. We really need to dissolve this industry altogether and make it a public utility.

I wonder if we will ever be able to repair the damage that these monsters have caused our country.

"The oil industry is a monopoly that must be broken up. It should be made into a public utility, since that's what it is."

Haha... Clark (the commie) Chavez looking to privatize the 'monopolies'. Hey Clark, do you even know what a monopoly is? You do realize there are many oil companies, not just one. You dummy.

Dems need to get out of the way and let us drill, build nuke plants, mine shale and all the other things that help to keep oil prices high.

Viva la Bush!!!!!!

"Hey Clark, do you even know what a monopoly is? You do realize there are many oil companies, not just one. You dummy. "

We can always count on you to bring us the most scintilating, rational response from the "right," can't we? Never the blind partisan, always wallowing in pure fact, rather than partisan hyperbole...you are truly a magnificant specimen to behold in action.

Meanwhile, read and learn (if you're capable, that is):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm





"Dems need to get out of the way and let us drill, build nuke plants, mine shale and all the other things that help to keep oil prices high. "

Really? The oil industry already has the rights to tens of billions of oil reserves that they refuse to drill. What is going to motivate them to drill tens of billions more? Something tells me that they LIKE the fact that they can create the illusion of a shortage in the market.

Nuclear energy is a loser. Not only does it require massive amounts of fossil fuels in order to build and operate them, but there is no viable solution to getting rid of the nuclear waste. This is NOT the answer. It's merely another way to make us more dependent on fossil fuels, and put the entire nation at further risk.

"Mine shale?" For what, pray tell? Gonna make some bricks?

You're right about one thing, though...everything that you've mentioned HAS kept our oil prices high, indeed.




"Viva la Bush!!!!!! "

Indeed. I LOVE paying $4.00/gallon for gas that cost $1.30 or so when he stole office. It's awesome!

Good Article, Bert.

I about fell out of my chair the first time I heard this blamer-line laid out. What a crock!

Reports state that American oil companies currently drill on only one quarter of the leases they hold.

Why in the heck should gov give them more places to drill when they aren't even drilling half of what they've already been given?

Oil companies saying they don't have enough viable places to tap, is a boat that don't float.


I could not sit through all of Jerry Kays video. I heard something right at the outset that confirms my think on what the oil companies are doing.

Dude (Lindsey Williams) said that if government would let oil companies start tapping the northern slope of Alaska, gasoline could-would be $1.50 per gallon by the end of one year.

What clearly computes from Lindsey's statement is that oil companies could and would supply us with gasoline at $3.00 cheaper per gallon, while simultaneously funding the most massive expansion of their industry's operations in decades.

If they could afford that, then there must definitely be some serious profiteering going on now.

Anyway, this is what's expected in our day and age. Republicans blame everything on the Democrats. They take no fault upon themselves; ever.

They wholly seem to see themselves as chosen ones from an above station.

Bert, when I read the bit of the article the email notification of your post gave me, I had the same reaction you had to this incident--the same reaction I experienced two hours ago when I read Bush's comment in the newspaper. With all the evidence to the contrary, Bush is self-deceived and has been running the country on self-deception, not on a diverse viewpoint that I might not agree with, but could tolerate as part of a democracy. The tragedy is that being in a leadership position he has influenced so many people to his self-deception.

On June 5, I heard some excellent speakers at UNEP's North American celebration of World Environment Day. Their messages indicate its very possible for our country technologically to emerge from the energy mess if we let go of the old ways of doing things that brought us to this point and develop new ways of facing and solving problems.

"On June 5, I heard some excellent speakers at UNEP's North American celebration of World Environment Day. Their messages indicate its very possible for our country technologically to emerge from the energy mess if we let go of the old ways of doing things that brought us to this point and develop new ways of facing and solving problems." And this Verie, may be the unpolished gem in all this. The prices of fossil fuels have finally exceeded the point at which it is cheaper to go on as before..burning anything we can get our hands on. The financial incentive may have been reached that will cause us (force us) to further develop others forms of energy production.

"Blind idiot Liberals..... "

Another outstanding refutation. You continue to represent the views of the republican party so eloquently and brilliantly. I'm sure they're very proud to have you as a spokesman. I can only imagine the number of democrats and independents that must flock to the GOP everytime they are blessed with a snippet of your astounding wisdom and impressive intellect. We certainly do not deserve to be in the presence of such a brilliant literary mind.

Michael, as I said in the article, the Dems have been spineless in opposing Bush. For the first term, they had an excuse...they were in the minority and were being run over. In the current term, your characterization of them is correct. They have rolled over, let the Republicans minority control the agenda with their threatened filibusters, and vetoes. They should have forced both the filibusters and the vetoes, brought government to a halt, and held it up for the American people to see. I don't think even Bush could have stood the political heat. But they didn't. They caved. I don't have much use for Pelosi.
On your point above, about the price of oil being finally high enough to trigger some serious effort on alternatives, I agree, but there is the danger that the oil-powers-that-be will suddenly pull the rug out to torpedo those efforts. They have done it before, and the geothermal projects and solar farms went belly-up. This time, we should be smart enough to not let that happen. Fool me once...

Bush is self-deceived and has been running the country on self-deception, not on a diverse viewpoint that I might not agree with, but could tolerate as part of a democracy. The tragedy is that being in a leadership position he has influenced so many people to his self-deception.

Nicely said, Verie. This is a big problem across the board, not just with oil prices.

Sharon, What other choice do we have?
Bert: excellent article, I'll be back later to read the comments.
New nickname: Dubya WHADDASCHMUCK!

Wilka

Clark? He's not worth it. I just ignore him. Don has joined the ranks of those I will continue to ignore. They're both brainwashed, ideological and reformed sheeple.
Let it be, sir. They're not even worth recognizing.
BTW-Great comments otherwise.
Wilka

While w. is busy blaming democrats for blocking oil drilling of the U.S. coasts, a Japanese company is presenting a car that runs on water.

Steve...don't hold your breath waiting for a water-powered car. Did you read the detail on how it works? Uses a heated boron element to reduce the water. (reduction is the opposite of oxidation) which means it creates boron oxide. So...two problems...gotta keep replacing the metallic boron and what to do with the oxide. The article says that the oxide can be "converted back into metallic boron."
Sigh. Water is a very stable compound. It takes a LOT of energy to separate it. If boron oxide is a stronger compound than water, how much energy will it take to separate that back into metallic boron and oxygen? There is no free energy lunch. The closest you will find is atomic fission/fusion, and we all know the problems with that.
But if you are extracting chemical energy, the laws of conservation of energy are cruel and relentless. The water-powered car is a joke.

I wouldn't necessarily call any alternatively powered vehicle a joke at this point. While there may well be obstacles and limitations with each variation, the fact is, any move away from fossil fuels is a grand step in the right direction.

France has developed a vehicle that runs on compressed air. The "fuel tank" is made of carbon fiber, and is built to stand up to the necessary 4,200 psi required to fill it, in order to allow the vehicle to operate for 100 miles or so. Is it the perfect solution for everything? Of course not. But, is it a viable offering that SOME will find a worthy solution? Absolutely.

There's also much being done in the way of electrics and hybrids these days. The next 5-10 years are going to see dramatic changes in the way we move from one place to another, I believe. I welcome any and all options, as the quest for freedom from fossil fuels gets under way. We have to realize that this journey, although begun decades ago, is only really beginning now, as fuel costs reach the point where alternative sources of energy are becoming realistic options.

Clark...I certainly agree that we need lots of options for powering vehicles, but there are some hucksters out there pushing things that just don't make sense. This reminds me of the cold fusion mania of ten years ago. I got sucked in on that one. Maybe that's why I am leery of these "miracle" schemes. I even wrote an article awhile ago about a guy who was promoting a car that ran on sea water. Here is the link.
The problem with stuff like this is that when it is publicized, it gets people all excited, and then when the truth comes out, there is disillusionment, and it hurts the credibility of the REAL programs.

Bert, I agree with almost everything you say ... except " There is no free energy lunch. "

There are truths to that also of course, but it is just what the existing energy moguls would have everyone believe ... because they insist upon SELLING for PROFIT and CONTROLLING the entire industry ... that is what they are all about and everything they are about hinges upon keeping us folks believing what they tell us ...

I know nothing at all about the "water car", and it may well be idiotic, but even if it were not, "they" would want us to believe that to be the case ... conspiracy (yes, here I go again) is a fact in this world, the Big Boys conspire against all of us for the control to profit from us ... it is really that simple in essence ... then the "devil" is in the details ... which "they" do their very best, and that has become excellence itself, to keep us all fooled and criticising any of us (insisting it is ALL a "joke") that just might come up with something for our own betterment ... such as Zero Point Energy !

There have been extremely intelligent people working very seriously in the ZPE field for decades now, the technology exists to benefit we the people of the entire world ... but the people working in that area are being blocked from success in two ways, they are denied patents, and thus, they are denied the start-up investment capital needed to get going ... both of those denials being forced on them by the existing "powers that be" ... YES ... CONSPIRACY ...

Many years ago a fellow named Tesla had a lot of the science all figured out involving this field of endeavor ... but the "money people" of his day stole it all away from him and it is suspected that they even "caused" his untimely death in the process ... that information has been since further developed in great secrecy and is now been designed into military weapons systems that have not yet been divulged to us common mortals, and also into energy supply systems just waiting for the exhaustion of the profit potentials existing now in fossil fuels (and that excuse to imperialistically gain territory around the world) at which point the "controllers" will ask for development funds and tax breaks from us to replace the existing system with the "new" one that they will also charge us an arm and leg for ... but they will have scared us so in the process that we will be thankful for the opportunity to pay them whatever ... business as usual !!!

So liberals are against:
drilling for oil
nuclear power
mining oil from sources such as shale
windmills (see story)

However, you will never see a liberal do anything REALISTIC to provide new energy sources. Their answer is typically to do with less, but only do as they say, not as they do.

Don H., you are not bright enough to figure it out, but you have a serious mental problem, a conservative pathology in fact.

"So liberals are against:
drilling for oil"

Liberals are wondering why oil companies are sitting on the tens of billions of barrels of oil reserves that they already have permits to drill, rather than drilling away.



"nuclear power"

Figure out a way to make it safe, and to dispose of the waste safely, and you've got us. Meanwhile, as long as insurance companies refuse to allow me to insure my house against fallout from a power plant disaster, count me (and most of the rest of sane America) out, thank you very much.



"mining oil from sources such as shale"

Shale is, and has for decades, been obtained from shale. What color is the sky in your make-believe world of liberal-bashing bullshit?



"windmills"

This is a terrific source of future energy, and holds great promise, due to amazing advancements in the past several years. Already, signficant wind farms have sprung up in parts of the country, and we will soon see massive (and I mean MASSIVE) turbines appear offshore as well. Impressive technology.




"Don H., you are not bright enough to figure it out, but you have a serious mental problem, a conservative pathology in fact. "

You HAVE to admit though, that his absurd nonsense provides a level of comic relief that's hard to find elsewhere on this board! Were it not for these manical loonie toon wingnuts, I wouldn't have NEARLY as much fun here as I do!

and some people are dumb enough to believe him

As Ruth McGill said above, high energy prices are due in part by the speculators, which began as a result of the Enron Loophole, which of course, Republicans will not address.

Instead, they blame lack of drilling in the U.S.

"You HAVE to admit though, that his absurd nonsense provides a level of comic relief that's hard to find elsewhere on this board! Were it not for these manical loonie toon wingnuts, I wouldn't have NEARLY as much fun here as I do!"
Clark Kent

And it provides a nice contrast between intelligence and stupidity!

However, you will never see a liberal do anything REALISTIC to provide new energy sources

Don...that is demonstrably untrue. Windmills do have some problems with wildlife kills, but they are not categorically opposed. Solar and geothermal are encouraged by us evil liberals. But the greatest enerrgy source of all, one that is adamantly opposed and criticized by your own vice president Cheney, one that is completely lfree and nonpolluting...is CONSERVATION. And we crazy liberals are very much in favor of that one. Cheney said it wasn't important, that we should just drill more. If you agree with him on that, then...I guess the other people here are right about you after all.

"Liberals are wondering why oil companies are sitting on the tens of billions of barrels of oil reserves that they already have permits to drill"

How many times are you going to repeat that liberal talking point before you actually back it up? Where are these tens of billions of barrels?

"Cheney said it (conservation) wasn't important, that we should just drill more. If you agree with him on that, then.."

When did Cheney say that? Where do you people get this stuff from?

All you moonbats can say what you like, but liberal environmentalists are the ones who have been preventing progress on finding more energy sources in the USA. And that is what Bush was referring to. Go ahead and play dumb.... there is a vast population of people that would agree more so with me.

Okay, here is what he actually said.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy,"

I guess you had to see the sneer that accompanied it to get the full meaning.
Spin it however you like. The way I read it, he is saying conservation just makes you feel good but isn't worth much. In the same discussion, he advocated drilling, drilling and more drilling.

Don, that oil is "in the ground" ... just needs to be pumped up via the holes (wells) already drilled. :-) View the video link I supplied and then come back and defend your "leaders" some more ... tell us how it is all liberal lies, that "your" leaders would never stoop that low because it isn't low, it's just good business practises to "you" folks on the right who blame the left when it snows even.

Watch this ad. Then tell me why the debate centers around drilling for oil.

Bert: "Steve...don't hold your breath waiting for a water-powered car."

I have no particular investment in a water-powered car. I do have an investment in a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. w.'s bs re: drilling off-shore and in ANWR is just digging the hole deeper. Keep listening to this psychotic logic and watch how much worse things can get. After all, we're where we are because too many of us have listened to these psychotics for too long.

So instead of talking about a water-powered car, maybe we can talk about the Honda Clarity, which is being leased in CA, where there are hydrogen stations. Or how about
Toyota plug-in Prius, which Toyota says will be available by 2010.

BTW, a water-powered car may not be too far-fetched. This may be a different technology, but it shows what is possible. Saltwater into fire 2 (John Kanzius) At any rate, it's better to talk about how we can develop other forms of energy than talk about drilling for oil off our coasts and in ANWR.

Steve...I agree with you completely. I did not mean that we should not pursue other technologies. What I am saying is that there are some charlatans out there, and the John Kanzius article that you cite is an example. Click the link that I posted in an earlier comment addressed to Clarke. It addresses Kanzius and his claims. He is a fake. I guarantee it..

Bert. My point is that democrats have to learn how to set the agenda. Playing defense to republican psychosis isn't a winning strategy. Obama is failing at this presently. McCain has begun to set the agenda, and Obama is playing catch up. Discussions of drilling for more oil is the same flawed strategy. What's needed is a new vision - otherwise, when "liberals" are accused of obstructing drilling, nuclear, etc., that's what sticks in an uninformed public's mind. No - a new vision on energy is needed, and so far, the dems aren't making the case.

Bert. Well..., the Toyota plug-in Prius and the Honda Clarity are not hoaxes. Neither are the Chevy Volt or the Tesla.

I agree with you about setting the agenda, Steve. Obama needs to take the initiative, and he has not done that yet.
And you are also right about the plug-in Prius. The Clarity is a longer-term solution, but a good design exercise. The Volt remains an unknown. Is GM really serious? The problem is the battery, of course, and they are committed to Lithium Ion, which is the best available at the moment, but there are problems. Lithium is not an abundant element. The batteries are expensive, and subject to overheating. If anybody started producing lithium batteries for cars in any quantity, there would be an immediate worldwide lithium shortage. The engineers on the project are tearing their hair out at the moment, and the project is 10 weeks behind schedule. Planned introduction is fall of 2009, and it is looking doubtful. We need a new battery technology that uses abundant, cheap materials. I wish GM luck, but right now it looks like they may have bet on the wrong horse.
The Tesla is wonderful! A great, Lotus-based design. The battery costs somewhere north of $25K, and the car costs $100K. It's a specialty car that shows what can be done with a battery-powered car, and I am glad they built it. But it doesn't solve our problem at all.

Fred ...

First let me say that there's enough blame to go around on this one. Democrats, republicans, oil execs, OPEC, etc.

But your point is shallow. You say generically that Bush blames democrats for high oil prices, but you don't tell us anything he said to support that. Is it because democrats are blocking every viable drilling opportunity? Is it because, even though their are thousands of leased drilling sites, that local democrats have made it impossible for the oil companies to use them? Is it because they won't allow tapping of shale, which could provide 400 years' of energy? Or is it because they support renewable energy sources such as dams and windmills, but just don't want to be able to see them from their mansions and vacation houses?

And republicans are not without blame on this one. I think we all recognize that, whether is 10 years or 100 years, oil is not in endless supply and we MUST seriously look outside todays paradigms. Republicans must support efforts to explore new sources and new uses for existing sources of energy. Natural gas powered cars, geothermal heating and cooling, solar, wind, etc.

It's the same old argument with our government. This all or nothing congress (republicans and democrats) and president are to blame for a laundry list of problems and the only thing that will get them resolved is a change of attitude.

Fair comments, Dan. The moonbats don't like fairness though....

If the whiners want to conserve and bring down energy prices, turn off your electricity, stop driving, and grow your own food and make your own clothes. Get off the industry based lifestyle. And good luck with it....

Bush made energy a top issue in the 2004 election. He told us that we were 'addicted to oil' and that it was hurting us by sending so much money to the Middle East. He said there were many alternative energy sources but that needed R&D as well as using oil resources we have in this country. He was ignored.

Don: "If the whiners want to conserve and bring down energy prices, turn off your electricity, stop driving, and grow your own food and make your own clothes. Get off the industry based lifestyle."

Do you knowingly misrepresent, or are you just uninformed?

Lee Scott, CEO, Walmart

Google's 1.6 MW Solar System

End use efficiency.

Don: "He told us that we were 'addicted to oil' and that it was hurting us by sending so much money to the Middle East. He said there were many alternative energy sources but that needed R&D as well as using oil resources we have in this country."

Good examples of the "say one thing, do the opposite" nature of the w. administration. But tell me, what has he done about any of it?

You're absolutely right about this, Bert. And as far as off-shore drilling, the oil companies have 68 million acres of land on lease that they are not drilling on. They want demand to be high and supply to be low. It's about GREED, folks!

And Don, Bush's family is invested in the oil busines from way back. And he has no interest in R&D for alternate sources. His biggest supporter during his election campaigns were the oil companies. Come on, stop drinking the Kool-Aid! You've been watching FOX too much.

And "grow your own food"? Where in Orlando do you live, Don?

Don is a moron whose brain has been liquified by far too much exposure to rightwing propaganda. I appreciate him spouting off his mindless nonsense, though, because it gives normal people the opportunity to see just how badly a human mind can be damaged by that propaganda.

Here's one that gets me. The Bushies and the rest of the oil company defenders in Congress oppose any attempts to impose excess profits taxes or cut the oil depletion allowance because "they would just raise their prices even more."
Well, Geez, I guess that's true of any business isn't it? So I guess we should just stop taxing businesses completely and they would all be so grateful that theywould cut their prices and we could all buy stuff for almost nothing.
Since the whole Iraq War is about getting hold of their oil, and the oil companies will be the beneficiaries, it seems to me that THEY should be paying for the war...well, the financial part anyway. American families who are losing their loved ones over there are paying the REAL cost. But why don't we put "war tax" on the oil companies and make them pay for the war that they caused. Yes, they caused it by financing the campaigns of Bush and his oil-buddy friends in Congress.

Bert: "But why don't we put 'war tax' on the oil companies and make them pay for the war that they caused."

It's called "externalizing costs". Taxpayers pay for the war. Taxpayers pay oil companies to find more oil. Oil companies don't pay for oil retrieved from federal lands. If the driving public had to pay the real cost of a gallon of gas, instead of paying hidden costs through taxes, then renewables would have long since put oil companies out of business. Of course, that's what they mean by "free markets".

Obama needs to start pushing a new energy agendy - soon - or we will have at least another 4 years of this crap.

Divide and conquer ... what dualism is all about ... place a void or gap (/) between people so they can fight with each other ... (+/-) ... while "those" (the REAL controllers hiding in anonymity behind their wealth) who placed that void in place, go on calling the shots unnoticed because we are too bust arguing and blaming each other to notice ...

Big business as usual ... we are ALL being had ... and in "effect" doing it to each other, just what "they" want ... but then half of us have been convinced by "them" that there is no such thing as "them/they" ... so that half acts as apologists for the "they" that supposedly does not even exist ... a strange world of smoke and mirrors.

Truly a "hell" on earth for the "normal" people at the bottom of the heap ... while "they" live as the gods in wealth and freedom to jet around the world on their whims ... and "their" apologists give them the verbal and voting support to assure it all ...

The UNIversal Truth is that there is a God who has a Spirit (=) that for the seekers of real truth, will find that Spirit (=) bridging the voids of (/) duality (+/-) with Spiritual Cooperation INvolving the Trinity of (+=-) ... the BET, the Basic Equation of Truth which is the UNIversal Basis of what God's Creation REALLY IS from a spiritual perspective of heavenly potentials ... that being a relative Utopia ... something denied as possible by the apologists for the evil "them" that actually run "this" hell with the help of "their" apologists ...


I would bet that a very few would understand what I have just said ... and those few probably only coming from the ranks of the half that are NOT apologists because the apologists only deal in sound bites from FAUX (For All yoU Xenophobes).

IMnsHO.
Jerry Kays, Jun 20, 2008, 1:30pm EDT

Bush is, was, and ever shall be a moron. One of his first acts as President (and I lived in Texas at that time) was to shut down almost 35% of the Texas oil fields. THAT was one unpopular move! His other major stupidities are 'way too numerous to mention, but suffice to say, the name "Bush" has become a joke, and it will take may subsequent Democratic administrations to BEGIN to repair the damage he has inflicted on America.

Carla, they're not drilling on the 68 million acres because there's notenough there worth battling through the local beaurocracy. There's enough shale for decades, if not centuries, which should buy us the time to develop cleaner, renewable sources that we need.

Clark ... you're getting back to insulting rather than making points. You're much more effective when you keep your eye on the ball.

For all you naysayers who says Bush has done nothing, the issue only comes to fore when you moonbats start choking on the price of gas. But lets go back a few years and listen (probably a first for many of you) to what Bush was saying:

Bush Administration Takes the Lead on Energy Conservation June 2001

Air Force Working to Conserve Energy Sept 2005

Countless examples can be found... problem is, nobody is listening. The news people don't make these top stories, and the President has very limited powers in what he can do.

You may all resume your ignorance and bias.

"..for the evil "them" that actually run "this" hell with the help of "their" apologists .."

Ha ha.... I feel for you in your 'hell'. You sound pitiful. I doubt God would consider your existence a hell on earth, and surely very few people in America (the apologists) know what true down and out, dirty water, bug crawling, eating rotten food poverty is. Well written though :)

And I know most of you wonder why I'm such an apologist for Bush. It's simple, he's not nearly as bad as all of you make him out to be and if I don't say, very few on Gather will. No man is perfect... Not Bush, not you, not I. But he is a good, decent man with far too many detractors -- which only hampers any good intentions he has. And that's been going on his entire term.

In America today, liberalism = negativity.

In America today, liberalism = hope. Bush = disaster. McCain = Bush
Don = Bush = McCain.
I can't say for sure, Don, but you might be right that Bush means well. It's really hard to tell, though, when you view the propaganda that he and Cheney subjected the Congress and the American people to in their campaign to justify the Iraq War. History will show that the war was a disaster for America...ir you need to wait for history to demonstrate what is f**king obvious.
In defending Bush, you are pushing us down the path to national disaster.

You do know that Clinton signed into law in 1998 the Iraqi Liberation Act. I'm sure you've seen all the liberal politician quotes BEFORE 911 about Saddam and the fact that he was a threat. And remember, only 22 voted against the war. So you guys can scream till you're blue in the face about how it was all Bush lies. I still say we are better off with Saddam dead and there is HOPE for Iraq with that disgusting thug dead. Sorry Bert, you lose on all points.

And shame on you libs for putting up a fight against the changes we've made from Saddam to democracy. Shame!

The Bush lies misled the American people AND the Congress. Everybody trusted the President and his wonderful people to tell us the truth. Of course, they voted to support the President. The neocons took advantage of the shock of the WTC attack to push their agenda for world domination. The propaganda machine went into high gear immediately. You are using the RESULT of Bush's lies to justify his actions. A strange knid of doublethink. You would have a hard time finding many objective observers who would claim that Iraq is better off today than they were under Saddam. Saddam to democracy! That's a real laugh. It's Saddam to theocracy, Saddam to civil war, Saddam to complete chaos. We will end up leaving Iraq poorer, humiliated, with a lot of kids dead in the process. I am really dismayed that you are crowing about this, Don. You are suffering from an extreme case of self-delusion.
Oh, and on the statements by Democrats ten or fifteen years ago...Sure, they deplored Saddam, but Clinton didn't INVADE the country. Only your warmonger imperialist Bush did. And the nation is paying a terrible, terrible price for his idiocy.

Bert: "...the nation is paying a terrible, terrible price for his idiocy."

The nation was 80% in favor of w.'s decision to go to war with Iraq. Only a few opposed the war. As you know, I am no fan of w., but I think fair is fair. The nation was in an idiotic frame of mind at that time, and it took at least 3 years for people to begin waking up. Now, only around 25% approve of w.'s administration. I guess Don is among that 25%.

Don: "Bush made energy a top issue in the 2004 election. He told us that we were 'addicted to oil' and that it was hurting us by sending so much money to the Middle East."

And like any addict, he now wants to "drill" in more difficult and remote places, because the easily accessed ones have been spent.

Re: sending money to the mideast....

The nation was 80% in favor of w.'s decision to go to war with Iraq.

OF course we were! We were told by our leaders that Saddam was on the brink of starting nuclear and chemical attacks on Israel! WMD's!! WMD's!!! What the Hell were we or the Congress supposed to think in the face of their propaganda blitzkrieg?
As I said to Don, you are using the RESULTS of Bush's lies to justify his actions.
The reason his approval rating is down to 25% (what are those people thinking?) is that the truth has come out.

What the Hell were we or the Congress supposed to think in the face of their propaganda blitzkrieg?

Being the paranoid, doubting Thomasina that I am, I thought they were full of crap and using it as an excuse to start a war for no good reason.

I did eventually, Sandy, but in the beginning...I have to admit...I believed them.
I guess I am just a gullible farm boy at heart.

When they found Saddam can you tell me how much cash he had on him?

think it was half a million, but what does that have to do with anything, Don?
How many other ruthless dictators that we do daily business with do you want me to cite who can lay their hands on billions?
You are gettin' kinda short on ideas here, Don boy.

Well, Saddam and his billions (food for oil = money directly to Saddam for oil) coupled with the fact that Saddam was the only leader to cheer 911, coupled with the 911 attacks, and it is CLEAR to any fool that Saddam would have, had he not already, funded Al Qaeda to help it with future attacks. You see, the Al Qaeda attack on 911 was a complete success from their perspective, and Saddam was an enemy and would have seen Al Qaeda as the perfect proxy to set further attacks on us. Of course, there were many other reasons for going into Iraq, but that, in my opinion was numero uno. And that's my opinion and I don't really care if liberals agree or disagree with it. Thankfully, sensible people were in control of the White House at that critical time.

Your ignorance of Sunni/Shi'a differences is impressive. Sunnis wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda! They spent 10 years fighting the Shi'a in Iran! Do you know NOTHING of MIddle East politics?

"Sunnis wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda!" ... "Do you know NOTHING of MIddle East politics?"

That's funny, I thought Al Qaeda is a Sunni Isamic group. What the hell do you know? Obviously very litte when you talk out of your ass like that.

Okay, you are right, Don. Al Qaeda is Sunni based. I knew that Saddam and Osama were enemies, though. Here is a paragraph from a Wikipedia historical analysis:

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Osama bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia by sending "jihadist" warriors from Afghanistan to repel Saddam's forces. After the Gulf War, bin Laden continued to criticize Saddam's Ba'ath regime, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted. Bin Laden told his biographer that "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."

I don't think a Muslim could say anything much worse than that about another Muslim.

"the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."

And that comes from an extremist, but the truth is that Shia and Sunni -- the average man on the street in that part of the world generally consider Sunni and Shia as bretheren in faith. The main differences are in how they choose their religious leadership.

Bert: "...you are using the RESULTS of Bush's lies to justify his actions."

Hardly!!! I'm commenting on how sheepish the American public was, along with the "liberal media". I opposed the war from the beginning.

Bert: "The reason his approval rating is down to 25% (what are those people thinking?) is that the truth has come out."

Actually, for those of us, who were paying attention at the time, the truth was painfully obvious. People, who were leaving the administration, e.g., Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, were saying it fairly clearly. The McClatchy news service was asking questions - no one was paying attention, including democrats. So don't give me that line about being lied to (although that is also the case). The American public was an easy target for manipulation - and that has not changed.

Sandy: "Being the paranoid, doubting Thomasina that I am, I thought they were full of crap and using it as an excuse to start a war for no good reason."

Thank you!!!

Steve (I quote my-own-self): "The American public was an easy target for manipulation - and that has not changed."

Just look at the public's unexamined compliance with the upsurge of nuclear energy talk as a legitimate alternative - nothing examined - no questions asked. Same with McCain's suggestion to drill off the coasts for oil. Even Bush said that we are addicted to oil. If Obama is worth his salt, he will tell America that it's time for rehab.

Actually, dealing with our energy woes could be profitable.

Steve...thanks for your very perceptive comments. I must admit that you are much more objective about this than I am. Moreover, you may be right that we, the American people, deserve a lot of blame for not standing up and telling Bush and his bunch that they were full of crap. The American people are not as involved in their government as they should be, and I am certainly as guilty as any of my fellow citizens in that respect.
So...when a renegade bunch gets into power, bad things can happen. At least, now that we recognize the problem, we should be able to throw the rascals out.
Let's hope that happens in November.

Well it's clear by the comments in this thread that liberals/dems and conservatives/reps are more interested in blaming the other side than actually solving the problem.

Politics as usual.

Dan: "...liberals/dems and conservatives/reps are more interested in blaming the other side than actually solving the problem."

See my link above, "...dealing with our energy woes could be profitable."