The link between gasoline prices and his political fortunes have become too hard for him to ignore.
National Journal adds:
Republicans have repeatedly slammed President Obama over the unusually high prices, and Obama himself has noted his poll numbers appear to rise and fall with the price of gasoline. Many political strategists say that voter anger over near-record oil and gasoline prices could be a determining factor in the 2012 elections.
Of course, I predicted all of this already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This is how our political system works, Bobbo. Not quite sure what's news here. Seriously, though: what would you do differently if you were him?
@wally: I'd unblock the leases his administration has had on exploration and developement in the Gulf of Mexico since the BP oil spill. I'd also open up ANWR for drilling. Speculation, which is responsible for the current run-up of gasoline prices, would respond to to this as an anticipated increase in supply, and prices would go down.
Not much, and not for long. Our own reserves would not account for more than single digits in our consumption. Or so I'm told.
@wally: That's just liquid petroleum reserves. I'm not even taking into account oil shale reserves in the US, which according to news reports, are extensive enough to last for decades, if not centuries.
The reason oil shale has not been developed is not that Obama is blocking it, but because oil companies don't see it being economically viable yet. A recent Rand Corporation report on oil shale predicts that if oil companies decided to begin today, it would be 20 to 30 years before production figures rose to the point that global oil prices would be affected. When I asked you what you would do, I meant if you were president today and confronted with election-influencing gas prices?
@wally: Walt, anything done to affect price of gasoline is done to influence decisions made by speculators in the petroleum futures market. It is the anticipation of a tighter petroleum market based on Obama's restrictions that have created the current spike in prices (other factors also are at work, specifically increased demand by China and India). It's not a literal increase of supply that brings prices down, it is anticipation of such that speculatorts on the futures market react to.
A similar spike in oil prices during Bush's term was killed when the Bush administration announced loosening of restrictions on drilling in the Gulf/Atlantic coasts.
Well, no offense, but I'll take the Rand Corporation's word over yours. They believe that changes in 20 to 30 years IF the oil companies begin today will not have an appreciable effect on speculation for quite a while. And the sources I read attribute a much greater portion of the rise in gas prices to the unrest sweeping the Arab states than to anything Obama's doing. Kind of makes sense when you think about it, when you compare the relative amounts of oil involved.
@wally: I mentioned that other factors were at work. You mentioned the "unrest sweeping the Arab states." Of those, only Libya and Saudi Arabia have oil. Libya's shortfall is a drop in the world oil bucket; Saudi Arabia has already bought off its protestors. Syria and Egypt have no great oil reserves. Nice try, though.
Your weak little admission that other factors were at work followed a very clearly stated contention that it was Obama's restrictions that caused the current spike. So did Obama's restrictions cause the spike or didn't they? Or could it be that you, like the rest of us, don't really know for sure?
@wally: It seems strange that the prices spike didn't occur until after the BP oil spill and Obama's decision to restrict exploration. Occam's Razor again, Walt. It worked in the case of Weiner, it's probably at work here. I know you hate for your golden boy to accept any blame for the screwed-up economy (Look! Bushbushbushbush!), but, two and a half years in, that lame excuse is wearing thin.
@wally: and, frankly, the "sources you read" aren't to be trusted when it comes to criticism of a Democrat office-holder. That's the painful legacy of media bias, Walt; currently half of the country doesn't trust the MSM to report objectively, and your half doesn't trust new media to report objectively, either, so we're left having to scratch our heads and wonder.
1. Occam's Razor is not about coincidence, Bob, it's about the relative simplicity of scenarios. I don't see any of the factors we've discussed being any simpler than the others.
2. Speaking of speculation, there's an awful lot of it being done on your part regarding my reading habits and my affection for Obama. If you'd like to poke your head out of your little enclosure and ask me about them, I'd be happy to enlighten you.
@wally: why should I, when you have acquired a distressing habit of talking down to me by diminishing my name ("Bobbo") and inferring I'm a paranoid ("poke your head out of your little enclosure")?
I wasn't implying paranoia, I was implying closed-mindedness. And "talking down to" takes many forms. Accusing me of misplaced hero-worship ("golden boy"), ignorance (I rely on untrustworthy resources--although how you would know that escapes me), and deviousness ("Nice try, though.") There's three right there.
@wally: from the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representatives. A partisan hack, no doubt.
Post a Comment