Placing Blame For The Price Of Gas


Excellent visual aid put together by Doug Ross on who is at fault for the rise in gas prices:


So, in summary, House Republicans have voted to increase production of American made gas while the Democrats have voted against increasing that production.

Gateway Pundit puts it well:

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

And people wonder why we pay so much at the pumps. We have so much oil under our own feet on our own soil. Will they now, finally, allow us to go get that oil after the record close of the price of a barrel? Is this what will finally wake up the left that finding alternative fuels is a worthy endeavor but preventing our country from being held hostage by those who CAN get the oil under their feet is THE priority. Will we be allowed to go get this oil?

A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That’s three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion
barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

If the environmentalists and Democrats stay out of the way these new fields may bring us some kind of fuel independence. BUT….how will we refine it any quicker? Since 1976 not one new refinery has been built. One may finally be built 32 years later but it won’t be enough by a long shot.

But whats the rush? As John Hinderaker points out, the blame for the high price of gas is being misplaced:

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don’t seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that’s because most people don’t realize how different the two parties’ energy policies have been.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I keep dropping this chart in the comments section because I think it is important to repeat over and over and over again how much oil we have in the United States that could be recovered with NO harm to the environment:

And this chart is the MINIMUM amount of oil.

And just another reminder about what we are talking about in ANWR:

19.8 MILLION ACRES in ANWR and the proposed drilling site is 2,000 acres.

Do you code the image into the comment section?

Not sure how Mike’sA is doing it, Skye. But if you want to link to an image that resides on another website, you use an HTML code of

img src=”http://www.appropriate URL here”.

Enclose the URL section in quotation marks, and the entire HTML code using the greater than/less than brackets.

For example, I took Reagan’s picture for the Amazon “great communicator” ad in the FA frame on the right, right clicked for the mouse menu, and went to “properties” to see the URL for the jpg. Now I insert it below.

Of course, if the website you linked to takes it down or moves it, your pic disappears too… Is this what you are asking?

The democrats are winning. The price of gas was $1.44 per gallon in 2001 and increased to $2.10 in Dec 2006, an 11 cent per gallon, ‘per year’ increase. The democrats took over congess in Jan 2007 (gas $2.10) and as of today the price of gas has increased 0.12 cents per gallon, ‘per month’ for 17 streight months to over $4.00 per gallon. That’s a great record for a congress that promised to ‘change’ the direction of the country. I guess ‘down’ to a disaster is a direction, so they really didn’t lie.

This is truly a lame duck congress with roughly half the approval rating of the President. A fact that the media always fails to mention.

Thanks Mata! I wasn’t sure how much HTML was allowed in the comment section.

I was almost convinced Mike was employing one of the techniques taught at the BlackWater training course he recently atteneded.

Oh, was I supposed to mention that, Mike??

Hmmm..didn’t quite work

It’s really tough to give the exact code since, if I try this on a post or comment, the coding disappears and it’s looking for a genuine link. So let’s try it this way.

You open the code with a <

Then, no spaces inbetween the < and the begining of the code, you put:

img src=” … we’re now up to <img src=

after the = sign, no spaces, you do a “http:// then put the URL. Remember, you are enclosing the URL in ” or quotation marks

Close the URL with a ” quotation, and then a > again, no spaces

The only space is between img and src.

Now make sure that the image you are trying to link to ends in the .jpg, or .gif, .tif…. some picture format. It could be it’s not working because you are not getting the entire code from the picture’s properties. But that URL should be a http://www.something, and end in a .jpg etal

Several groups including greenies, environmentalists, socialists, and several smaller groups have a common interest in the obstuction of drilling for oil & producing gas in the US. With the prospect of $200/barrel oil and $6/gal gas, Americans will be forced to do one or more of the following: conserve energy, wean us off of our petrol-based economy, “save the planet”, weaken our capitalist economy.

Obstruction is the greenies goal, but they don’t have an end-game because they haven’t thought it through. Since we are obstructed from drilling for oil, building new refineries, building new coal power plants, building nuclear power plants, how are we to generate our power for transportation, heating, etc? Renewable or green power like solar, wind, hydro, wave, algae, etc? Great ideas, and they will help us, but at what cost? And what percentage of our energy would these renewable sources actually be able to provide? 10%? 25% at most?

What happens to our economy during this forced transition is really not the concern of enviros, etc. They would be happy if our country’s economy took a major hit. That would help to “save the planet”, forget about the fact that they have no currency with China or India. And the lowest income families take the biggest hit. For a party that fancies itself as the “champion of the poor, the disenfranchised”, the Democratic party is doing an unspectacular job. And their job approval ratings prove it.

Where did this BIG assumption that the World is in danger and everything on it is about to die? It seems to me that overall, Nature is pretty healthy. Yes, we should be good stewards of the Earth, but that does not mean we cannot use the natural resources God provided. If the Libbies and Greenies want to save the Earth, then they should stop driving their Mercedes SUV’s, buying electronics, etc. They should only buy existing/used products (i.e. recycled)…oh wait, I forgot about their hypocrisy.

One last comment…I have a single oil well on some land. It’s been there for 25+ years and takes up about 1/3 acre including the storage tanks. The cattle don’t care it’s there. The birds and insects don’t care it’s there. The grass, weeds and trees grow up around it and don’t care it’s there. Hmmm…seems to me that drilling in ANWR or other places is not as catastrophic as portrayed by the Left. There is initial upheaval of the land when drilling and setting up the oil wells. However, Mother Nature is very powerful and adapts quite well.

-FastRandy (v8 driver)

The Dems have no clue about economics and no real plan of any kind, they’re just mindlessly doing the bidding of various environmentalist interest groups they’re beholden to.
The saving grace is that all of that oil and gas that we have will continue to become more valuable as resources elsewhere on the planet are exhausted. Even if a Democratic Congress and a President Obama screw us over for four or eight years, it just means that it will be a later generation that benefits. Hell, maybe that’s even fair given the debt we’re saddling our kids with: ‘Hey, you have to pay off this $20 trillion debt – but luckily for you we were too stupid in our day to extract this oil here, and it’s worth $100 trillion…’.

We weren’t drilling in Anwar when George W. Bush took office and gasoline was less than one-third of its current price.

Well duh, Steve.

In 2000 and 2001/02, China was only importing about 45 million tons annually. By 2004, they had surpassed Japan and in the 75-80 million tons annually. In 2007, it was 163 million tons.

Now add India’s exploding needs to the mix.

And oh yeah, the US needs haven’t been shrinking either.

The point? Supply and demand is totally different today than in 2000-2001. Your quip of an analysis doesn’t compute with reality, guy.

On the other hand, had we started drilling in Anwar in the 90s, when Clinton whined that it “would take 10 years” before getting any oil, we’d be pumping that stuff into the market today.

Your quip of an analysis doesn’t compute with reality, guy.

Nothing Stevie posts ever comports with reality.

* Comment removed due to poster not reading all comments 🙂 *


If you are so eager to Hold Democrats accountable for that, are you equally willing to hold President bush accountable for this?

May 2001: Bush Abandons Deadline for 80 mpg ‘Supercars’

The Bush administration cancels the 2004 deadline for automobile companies to develop prototype “supercars” capable of getting as much as 80 miles per gallon. The supercar program—initiated during the Clinton administration—will be replaced with one that focuses on “longer-term technologies,” according to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The federal government has so far sunk $1.4 billion into the “supercars” program. [PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 5/10/2001]
Entity Tags: Bush administration, Spencer Abraham
Category Tags: Air pollution

Or does George W. Bush get the automatic conservative “Free Pass” on this one as well?

Phillie Steve, you have to get me started, eh?

I’m not partisan like you. I have plenty of disdain for everyone. Therefore I hold ALL politicians – regardless of party, and *all* Congress topping my list – responsible for the lack of foresight of our oil needs. Why we did’t build more refineries in over three decades, when the nation was developing at light speed, is unconcionable. Plastics, clothing, medical… so many industries making leaps and gains, all based on petroleum products. It’s not just cars and energy.

I’m disgusted that we did not use the options of nuclear plants, coal, shale, wind power, solar, hydro etal – all possibilities combined because Congress caters to enviromental lobbyists. This distributes the energy needs sources, and frees up more for the plastics, etal.

But that we continued the decades old trend of increasing our dependence on oil from the Middle East is more than unconcionable. It is nothing less than unforgiveable. And they did so, all in full knowledge of depending upon a volatile region of the world.

When terrorist attacks on the west were notably rising in the 90s, originating in the very region where we get oil, they still continued to blissfully ignore the repercussions of allowing those that wish our downfall to be in control of our economic bloodline. You might as well hand the enemy your entire arsenal and say “shoot me now”. All because our Congress would rather listen to a lobbyist lie about caribou than insure this nation has the oil we need.

Mandating higher MPG cars may have validity, in theory only. But 80 mpg with today’s projected technology, and the demand for performance cars by Americans, is not do’able for a reasonable price… or not do’able at all.

Get serious. If the auto industry could manuf a vehicle that suits America’s needs for speed on our freeways, comfort and size today – and for an affordable price – they’d be building it all day long. There’s a huge market for it, and meeting demand is just good American business sense. They are in the business of selling cars – regardless of their fuel.

And ya know, when they make ’em, we’ll buy ’em. We don’t need no stinking Congressional mandate to buy good products.

Just because Congress says “make it so” doesn’t mean it happens any quicker. It does mean they just made the progress more expensive, tho. Increased R&D costs to race the clock against govt penalties will be passed along to the end user. Not to mention perhaps an inferior product because of it. Take a 100 question test with a deadline, and you’re only able to finish 85 questions, and that’s what you got. You could have had 100 were it not for the damn stopwatch.

So what will we end up with? Trading outrageous car payments for lower gas budget, all thanks to Congress. ‘Course what do they care? They’re chauffered around in cars, all on the taxpayers’ dime.

What Congress is doing is shifting the supply/refining problem – which they themselves created -onto the backs of the auto manuf. That’s not an answer. That’s an expensive bandaid. So do I give Bush a pass for not mandating 80mpg cars? You betcha. Dumb legislation with nasty side effects. And a patch, not a cure. It needed to be shot down with a 50 calibre on sight.

A little dose of reality for you. The new HD format that eliminates NTSC? Congress mandated stations to do that by 2006. But the bozos still couldn’t wrap their pea brains around the idea that it costs millions for all aspects of broadcast production to change over expensive equipment, cameras. From shooting on location, the post production, the equipment needed revamping and recreating, to broadcast equipoment. That’s why it was delayed until 2009. It wasn’t possible to do it by the time Congress said to. Surprise, surprise.

However the free market was already working it’s way in that direction on it’s own. Those that choose to buy the HD setup could. Those that couldn’t afford it, didn’t. But you can thank Congress for the expense of buying a new TV next year. Anyone that doesn’t want to see “letterbox” (as you know it in the TV broadcast of films, or telecine as we called it in the industry) for general TV broadcasts, has to buy a new TV next year. Thank you, Congress, so very much….

The up side is, if you’re happy viewing a rectangular widescreen feed on a square TV, you’re gonna find some great deals. The down side is that there’s going to be a lot of perfectly good electronics going into the land fill. Oops Did they think of that?

The elected elite constantly dabble in arenas of which they have no knowledge, creating demands that put financial strains on a particular industry. And all in the name of some vague “good”. Will the broadcast stations make more money because of this Congressional mandate? Could we have survived, staying with the NTSC format? Of course. But nooooo… Congress created add’l overhead that for an industry that will take them years to recoup in depreciation, forced the viewing public into a new purchase, and just added a boatload of landfill waste. What jerks… and for what?

So do I give all of Congress and previous admins a pass who refused to allow domestic drilling. Absolutely not. They are totally to blame, and I’ll remind them, you and anyone else of that at every opportunity. It comes down to supply and refining first. They chopped that lifeline a long time ago, and refuse to mend it. I, for one, will not be a victim of the politics of “distraction” of blaming other industries.

Oh my gawd… there’s STEAM pouring from my ears!

Steve, that 80mpg story from a leftist source is great. I WILL hold the President accountable. I will not vote for him in the fall. Nor will I vote for anyone else who made a campaign promise like that and failed to come through. Or maybe you’re suggesting our President be impeached for that?

The deepest irony here is that Philly Steve and so many others who go on and on about “conservative” this and that, who rant and repeat stereotypes about “Republicans” and “conservatives” are in fact acting in direct contradiction to the very core platform that they will vote for in the fall: unity, seeing past party lines, CHANGE, changing the divisiveness, and instead…the perpetuate it by collapsing to labels, stereotypes, and blind obedience to party line rather than to reality.

yeah…CHANGE you can believe in. I surely believe Steve’s gonna vote for Obama, then CHANGE and stop labelling anyone who doesn’t agree with far left mantras as “conservative.”

too funny. Oh the irony…

Typical sarcasm, although you did vote for Bush AFTER he signed off on the largest increase i entitlements since the Great society (and campaigned for re-election boasting of it).

Will that apply to “President John McCain” when he failes to come through on his list of promises?

Some of John McCain’s promises:
Most American troops home from Iraq
The Taliban substantially reduced
Osama bin Laden is dead or captured
North Korea has discontinued its Nuclear program
The League of Democracies has solved the genocide in Darfur
There have been several years of robust economic growth in the US.
The US southern border is secure

Or will the George W. Bush “Free Pass” be extended to John McCain, until the last year of his second term and you will declare you “will not vote for McCain again. I personally predict zero Conservative accountability for “President John McCain”.

The fact is that neighter you, nor any other Conservative willever hold a Republican accountable, ono matter what he/she does or does not do. They can count on your vote 100% of the time (despite thos same pledges I saw on this very site last February declaring that “If McCain wins, I’m staying home!”. I knew that was a lie then, and siad so (and received heaps of scorn for making that very accurate point).

The “80 MPG” car was to have been a prototype, not produciotn. Prototypes set the stage for future production runs that might only do half to two-thirds of that, but still form an improvement…. Sort of like the demonstration efforts that President Bush is only now proposing aiming for 2015 (well beyond his responsibility, of course).

And, by the way, I am fully supporting Nuclear energy, now that the US is finally adopting the “French” model of a single set of standardized designs for the plants, instead of our past practice of designing each plant as if it were the first one every, vastly inflating what is already an expnsive process. Nuclear won’t solve everything, but it will help.

But I see your point. Everything is Congress’ fault. President Bush, as always, is not accountable for any of his actions as “The Decider”. Were you this strong in you belief when “Congress” meant Republicans? Or is that just an opinion you have added since 2006… to instantly dissapear the day that Republicans take control of Congress again, when accountablity will shift to… someone else?

And no, the free market does not always work. I do not share the Conservative religious belief that a “free market” approach is the first and only solution to every problem.

My observation regarding the American automobile industry is that, in times of cheap gasoling, they make the large, high-profit cars that are popular (a reasonable approach), then when gasoline is expensive, they run to the government for protection from imports that were designed for markets where the cost of gasoline is higher.

The fact is, it is in America’s national interest that we have vehicles that use the least amount of energy to move about as possible. It is a matter of National Security in my mind (or do you enjoy watching your $’s go to Daudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela?). Therefore, just as we collect taxes to fund our Army, Navy and Air Force (or, if you are a Republican, you spend the money and just putit on thecredit card), we have a national interest in “leveling the playing field”, but at a higher level.

If we had increased gasoline taxes back “when times were good” in the 90’s (and I blame President Clinton for putting forth a botched proposal and Republicans for pandering to their contributors in blocking it without a decent alternative), then we would have been able to better “afford it” then and likely be consuming less imported oil now (which Is a goal that your hero George W. Bush has proposed for seven years AFTER he leaves office).

Instead we’re funding Saudi Madrassa schools every time we go to the gas pump, thanks to decades of essentiall doing nothing on conservation.

Yeah, if the Democrats run someone better, I will hold him accountable in 2012. That said, I think the list you gave:

Some of John McCain’s promises:
Most American troops home from Iraq (Gen Petraeus to announce more reductions next month)
The Taliban substantially reduced (already happening)
Osama bin Laden is dead or captured (SecState Albright says we already have him)
North Korea has discontinued its Nuclear program (already discontinued and ready to be dismantled)
The League of Democracies has solved the genocide in Darfur (I have the least faith in this)
There have been several years of robust economic growth in the US. (housing collapse is supposed to end in late 08/early 09)
The US southern border is secure (McCain’s big on this one)

I think that’s very doable.

Conversely, will you re-elect a Democrat to Congress if they haven’t ended the war in Iraq by Nov 08, if gasoline prices are higher than in 11/06, if the economy isn’t better than it was in Nov 06, and if Bin Laden isn’t captured as Speaker Pelosi promised? I doubt it.


I agree with you on everything except the border part.

McCain, unfortunately, has proven to be miserable on this issue.

Phillie Steve, prototype or production. The govt, ordering a manuf to produce a product they’d be doing anyway for good business, is a worthless endeavor and accomplishes nothing. It will result in an inferior product, and increased cost to the consumer. Why do you believe it takes a Congressional mandate for a business to act in it’s own best interests for product demand?

Windfall taxes is a worthless endeavor and accomplishes nothing but higher prices to the end user and less supply.

Everything Congress is proposing are bandaids that do not address the problem. Living without oil use in our lives is not possible, unless you are willing to give up technology and advances. And I’ll guarantee that any auto prototype will end up using some petroleum based products in the design. Printed circuit boards to upholstery… not to mention the factory energy use to create the same – all oil needs.

Oil is the foundation of so much more than energy and gas. To attack a few industries with financial penalties and manufacturing demands (that would be happening anyway as a result of the free market) is NOT a cure for declining supplies and increasing needs. It’s just bait and switch of their own dereliction of duty and responsibility. They are avoiding the obvious cure because they are owned by the enviro lobbyists.

This is corruption you do not care to see?

See, there’s that dissent Steve. AC doesn’t like something of McCain’s. I do (‘course…I usually vote Dem).

There are other areas where I disagree as well Scott.

Of course, Stevie is not really interested in an intellectually honest conversation or debate. He is only interested in his self-imposed poor pitiful me victim status, dishonest projectionism, and unfounded generalizations.

I am no one’s victim. Unlike Conservatives who have declared themselves “victims” of Libaral conspiracies for years (Just ask you hero, Bill O’Rielly or any member of the Religious Right).

Regarding troop reductions in Iraq, Bush Administrations have been “announcing” troop reductions in time for every election. I will only believe it when they actuall do something AFTER an election.


regarding Osama bin laden and madelin Albright’s uninformed comment:

Osama bin Laden is alive, and Conservatives everywhere have given George W. Bush a 100% Free Pass on his “dead or alive” pledge. Not one Conservative, anywhere, including here, will utter even one word of criticism for the fact that, almost seven years after the September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden is still alive and free.

Nor will any Conservative, here included, state that they have even a slight problem with George W. Bush’s “Don’t care” quote about him.

Any Democrat who declared he/she did not “care” about the capture of Osama bin Laden would be pilloried by FoxNews for weeks. But never Geroge w. Bush for the same comment. Not now, not ever.

I hold that one example up as proof of the Conservative “Free Pass” policy for comments and actions about which they would scream “treason” from anyone else.

Your responses to this comment will prove my point.

I see that you have a cool graphic that, apparently you plan to post after all of my comments, as some sor of “proof” that i am wrong when I point out the fact that Conservatives will never hold one of their own accountable for anything,ever.

One question. Do you have permission from MGM, the coyright owner, of that picture to be using it here?

Just asking.

Come now Steve. I’ve said the inability of the Bush Administration to get UBL (and the Anthrax killer among others) is inexcusable, and I’ve said it for 6yrs now.

Please stop w the “not one conservative” bs.

One question. Do you have permission from MGM, the coyright owner, of that picture to be using it here?

Just asking.