Well, the key is to frame it not just as what experts say, but as "good old fashioned common sense."  Taking care of your tires while maintaining your car seems like old fashioined Yankee values over Dukakis-like technocratism.  

His response was much more direct and spade-a-spade than anything dukakis produced.

As crock notes, it's old-fashioned practicality, albeit midwestern practicality.

Ach Gott - you nervous nellies are getting on my nerves.  What is he supposed to say when a man asks him. "What can I do to help the environment?" - Any answer he gives is going to sound "wonky", and anything he says is going to be mocked by the know-it-alls in the Republican Party.

Fact is, the Republican have become the very epitome of the boorish bully beer-drinking asshole in bars all over the country, a stock-character in sitcoms on all channels.  They are not the majority.  They are not loveable.  They persuade no one and they have no friends, other than themselves.  And the more Obama manages to persuade younger people, women, educated men, etc. that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush-bully boorism, the more he has a chance of winning, and winning big.

Crock is right: Obama gave a common sense answer, and the Republicans decided to attack a sensible advice.  Let them.  I suspect the act will get tiresome quickly.

Believe you me, I drove from southern Mexico to Pa. last Dec. and didn't inflate my tires before I left, I probably threw away $50 or so.

Anyway, what does McCain know about this stuff, for the past 20 years he just took Cindy's corporate jet everywhere. Tires? Hell, they are for whiners.

To be honest, I would like to get one of the Obama tire gauges. In fact, Obama should produce his own and give them out. People use them more than McCain seems to be aware of.

Here here, when delivered properly (as in the Gas Tax ads) the Common Sense High Road will ALWAYS win in American Politics... provided there is in fact a common sense high road.  In this case there certainly is and Obama will win this one hands down.

And seat belts are for wimps. Tune ups? Hell, just be like John and have your wife buy you a new Mercedes every year. And child safety seats, hell, it is fun to watch the little effers bounce off the windows everytime you touch the breaks.

And from now on I will just throw my garbage out of my car window. Common sense, personal responsibility, those are for Democrat losers.

Doing anything besides consume is evil.

The tire guage is one more proof that Obama doesn't understand the values of ordinary Americans.  When God created the world, he created tire pressure too.  It's a simple as that.  Liberals and their Hollywood hangers-on want you to believe that we live in some kind of . . . of relativistical world where tire pressures go up and down, or some such nonsense, but they don't understand where people are coming from.  I believe in my tire pressures, and so does everyone I know.

If Obama wants people to start usin' those tire gauges, he should go to Europe or one of those places.

*OFF TOPIC* - those car magnets we were talking about a few days ago are now for sale on Obama's website. $5 i believe was the price.

*ON TOPIC* - my take on the gas-tax-holiday gimmick was that most people (90%) had already decided who they liked more, and simply accepted their favorite candidate's position on the issue, and Obama cleaned up on the remaining 10% by being able to argue his case, which brought him to within a hair's breadth in IN and helped him run up the numbers in NC.

I also think his ability to make his case to Joe and Jane Sixpack is why he was able to cut Hillary's initial 20+ point leads in PA and OH in half, and basically just maintain the electoral vote lead he built up when Hillary wasn't looking.

Agree with Gspinks. There's no question that, in the long run, the gas tax issue is a winner. But the press backlash against Hillary was so vicious (in the short term) that it cost her Indiana and halted her glorious Presidential campaign.

"Obama is taking the wonky high road "

I'm wondering why being a supporter of Obama make you, Michael Crowley so stupid.

Obama is not taking the wonky high road.

Obama is  taking as low  road as  possible.

online.wsj.com/.../SB121780636275808495.html

f Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.

Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?

Obama proposed  tapping emergency oil reserve. How much low you can go?

where is outrage among liberal economists and pundits?

The math in that linked Time article is terrible.  It assumes that no or few tires are properly inflated right now, and that all of our oil use comes from driving

I come down somewhere between Mike and Jason on Obama's response to McCain's tire-gauge assault

simon greenwood  said

"The math in that linked Time article is terrible. "

It doesn't matter . For foolish Obama supporters like Michael Crowley, Obama nonsense  sounds "wonky".

Simon: it seems to me that the approach is more important than the math.  The story is about one guy who says what can *I*, or we as individuals, do to reduce oil dependance.  Well, Obama could give the really wonky answer - take public transport, change lifestyle, drive less, go to hybrids, bicycle to work - or the Republican answer, "just invade another oil producing country", "drill in Grandma's backyard for oil".  But he gave a perfectly common sensical, every day advice that does not cost the driver a cent.  This was not even 'tune up more often"; just pump air properly and you will save four bucks on a hundred dollars.  And that adds up, if all of us pay attention.  

This is a small step, but the important point is that it addresses the demand side; and it goes to the root of a lot of problems in the West: that we have a lot of unnecessary waste around us, and that through individual action we can, in fact, make a dent, however small, in the problem.

Does it make any difference that what this supposedly wonk-ish gentleman actually said was absolute crapola?  

Remember, he didn't say that it would be helpful if we kept our tires properly inflated.  He said that we could save enough gas from proper tire inflation, as we could get from offshore drilling. (Here's the video of his statement: www.youtube.com/watch )

Now, that's pretty stupid, and it's also revelatory of a kind of smug intellectual laziness.  I mean, less than a minute of thought - which Obama declined to engage in - would have prevented Obama from making that statement (and yet large portions of the MSM, including sundry TRN writers, still worship the guy.)

So why exactly shouldn't Obama be mocked about it?

"Simon: it seems to me that the approach is more important than the math. "

Obama in nutshell.

He's keeping alive an issue that he and the party mishandled and that will crush him with suburban voters. Not terribly smart.

GSpinks: Thanks. I just ordered my magnet.

"Doing anything besides consume is evil."

blackton, you just created the perfect six-word biography of the modern Republican party.  Congratulations.  

This whole Greek tragedy about the offshore drilling is nonsense anyhow, for the following reasons:

1.  It will take time for any price to be effected by drilling new fields, maybe years in some cases.

2.  The oil companies own a lot of territory that they are not drilling in right now, when they could.

3.  There is no reason to believe that the small amout of oil (relatively speaking) that the U.S. could produce will have a major effect on world oil prices, which are what determine prices at the pump here.  It's a market, not a government scheme.

4.  The problem is not extra sources of oil, the problem is a coherent energy strategy.

5.  Technology improves, but 30 miles to the gallon is what good cars delivered forty years ago, and it's unchanged today -- the question as to why there has been so little innovation suggests the answer that neither the auto nor the oil companies really want efficiency.

6.  Obama was making the general point that Republicans are so obsessed with drilling that they seem to ignore common sense, e.g. a more robust conservation and savings attitude will in fact have a real effect in the aggregate.

I am uttterly stunned to discover that Michael Crowley thinks a Democratic candidate's action will redound to the benefit of the Republicans,

Why I love The New Republic...even the "counter-intuitive" is utterly predictable.

"6.  Obama was making the general point "

Therefore Obama  can use the Obama math, math you must believe in.

No, he should be shot down if the facts are wrong (as McCain should be when he talks nonsense).  But a general point is a general point -- you could prove Obama wrong on the figures but he still remains the guy who is by far the most on-target on the basic issue.

SimonGreenwood said:

"The math in that linked Time article is terrible.  It assumes that no or few tires are properly inflated right now, and that all of our oil use comes from driving."

So let's take a careful look at it. The Time article said, "the Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030." That amounts to 1% of our present consumption rate, which means any solution that saves more than 1% of our present consumption would in fact save more oil than we would get from expanded drilling. But more about this number later.

The savings from proper tire inflation (3%) and proper maintenance (4%) add up to 7%, but that is only 7% of gasoline consumption, and only if everyone's tires are underinflated and maintenance lax.

According to the Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov/.../quickoil.html), 70% of US oil consumption is for transportation. I'm not sure what fraction goes for private cars, but it would be a large fraction of that 70%. Let's use 50% of US consumption, but if anyone has a better number, post a correction, because that is a guess. Saving 7% on 50% of our usage means saving 3.5% of our total consumption. So if even 1/3 of the cars had poorly inflated tires, or inadequate maintenance, then a 1% overall savings is about right. So I would say that saving 1% is an OK figure, and maybe up to 3% although I doubt the higher number.

Now back to the 1% figure from offshore drilling. The EIA reported that by 2030, our production would be 7% higher if the ban was lifted (presumably compared to if the ban was NOT lifted). According to the EIA again our present total domestic production is 5 million barrels a day. 7% of that is 350,000 barrels per day, about double what the Time story claimed. But our domestic production is declining, so I don't really know whether that is supposed to be 7% of our current production, or 7% of a smaller number (our projected 2030 production).

Another problem is that we are comparing a figure for 2030 (increased production) with a figure from today (present consumption). Will there be more cars on the road in 2030 compared to today? Your guess is as good as mine, but my guess is that we are going to see our car-miles driven flatline because of high oil prices (because I think we are at or near peak world oil production, so our consumption has to level off, controlled by price). But if you assume that I am wrong about that, and that oil consumption from driving will increase over the next 20 years at the same rate it has over the last 20, then it is plausible that the savings from tire inflation alone will match the increase in oil production from repealing the offshore ban.

So my take on this is that expanded offshore drilling (if we reverse the ban) would net us additional oil in the range of 1-2% of our present consumption. Inflating our tires properly and keeping up maintenance would net 1%, and maybe a bit more. My take is that the numbers are comparable, but I would like to see more solid estimates of all these numbers. They sure are hard to find in newspaper stories.

I did find a blog claiming Obama was "99% wrong", but you only get that figure if you are dishonest. The post I found on this at www.bizzyblog.com contained some obvious distortions.

Tep, what issue would that be?  You do know, don't know, that NASCAR promotes proper inflation of tires for fuel economy?  Exactly how has Obama mishandled this?

Let me add one more thing. I was restricting my post above to a strict comparison of what Obama said. It is absolutely clear that efficiency measures in general can save more oil than expanded offshore drilling can provide. Try a Google Search on "hypermiling", for example. Likewise, a substantial savings in energy use n most homes can be achieved with little or no loss of comfort and quality of life. We just don't do those things out of laziness, except when a price shock hits us.

Conservation has one other enormous plus relative to increased offshore drilling: the cost savings can start right now, and drive down the price of gas right now. Not years from now. So why are the Republicans pushing one of the SLOWEST means of reducing the price as the MAIN STRATEGY for reducing the price.

icarusr, nice tie-in to NASCAR, Obama could even remind beer-and-racing voters that NASCAR promotes this the idea too.

And what motor-head wants be to called ignorant about what makes a car run better.  I mean, isn't Obama siding with motor-geeks against rich, motor-ignorant Republicans, who wouldn't know the difference between a blow-job and proper inflation?

"Conservation has one other enormous plus relative to increased offshore drilling: the cost savings can start right now, and drive down the price of gas right now. Not years from now. So why are the Republicans pushing one of the SLOWEST means of reducing the price as the MAIN STRATEGY for reducing the price."

What problem do you have with more drilling in US?

If you don't want drilling in US, why don't we stop importing more oil so other countries would not have to drill for Americans?

Yes, conservation and good diet is a very good idea.

So why Republicans want to allow private companies to drill in US and create more drugs instead of telling American people to conserve and eat less?

This is the day that using a tire gauge will cause the oceans of oil to rise.

jacobt1:

"Obama proposed  tapping emergency oil reserve. How much low you can go?"

Nice ypu pointed it out. But do you really think the Obama fanatics will really like that? ANYTHING  Obama does or says is always good. That's how the minds of fanatics, TNR talkbackers included, work.

"What problem do you have with more drilling in US?"

Jacob, I was going to answer your question, but I think you've summarized The Big Lie quite succinctly so I will address that larger issue.

Here are some facts about the moratorium, www.mms.gov/.../moratoria.htm and this guy does a pretty good job of exposing The Big Lie for what it is (a little partisan, but his facts appear to be accurate and his citations are good) www.bloomberg.com/.../news

1. The moratorium applies to new leases, but not drilling on existing leases except in limited instances

2. There are a lot of leases not currently being drilled, which could be drilled

3. The House Republicans just voted unanimously AGAINST mandated drilling on existing leases (HR1350).

What I have against "drilling" is that McCain's schtick is all rhetoric and no substance; McCain and the Republitards demand that we allow for new leases to companies who haven't bothered to produce a single barrel of oil on millions of acres of existing leases that have billions of barrels to offer; McCain and the Republitards wallow in their ignorance while trying to play Americans for idiots.

Jeff Frey: awesome numbers, thanks for the breakdown!

Don't forget to brush after meals. And floss.  

Keep your teeth clean,

Barack Earl Carter

This is an insult to the American people they may not be a stupid as republicans hope they are. They believe in things like facts and expert opinion that is imo why the gas tax idea didnt sell in North Carolina and even Indiana during the Primary. When you quote expert opinion to them THEY LISTEN.

Now  McCain has to backtrack.

After average poor and mediocre leadership maybe they might be ready for someone who is intelligent and doesnt insult their intelligence and who has class.

Carol

GSpinks said

"McCain and the Republitards demand that we allow for new leases to companies who haven't bothered to produce a single barrel of oil on millions of acres of existing leases that have billions of barrels to offer;"

So, what's the problem with new leases ?

Carol,

"After average poor and mediocre leadership maybe they might be ready for someone who is intelligent and doesnt insult their intelligence and who has class."

Just a month ago, Obama was saying that there was no need to tap the reserve and that such a move should be saved for a "genuine emergency." Oil was more than $140 a barrel then. It's less than $120 a barrel now.

Why Obama doesn't insult  your intelligence?

sleepyval - "ANYTHING  Obama does or says is always good."  Getting tired of the facts getting in the way of your position I see.  This is about like screaming Hitler.

jacobt1 - the reason giving the oil companies more offshore areas to drill in is lousy is that they already have plenty of areas to drill in.  Ask them why they aren't drilling there now.  The don't need any more land because all they will do with it is sit on it and complain about how they don't have any place to drill.

anonevent,

I see, the reason for denying new lease is preventing companies from complaining.

What's the problem with "sitting on it"? Are you afraid that they would sit on it or drill on it?

Carol,  Does  anonevent insult  your intelligence?

Tep: "Barack Earl Carter"?  With cheap stunts like these, please expect "childish insults" in return.

Yours, Ick

jacob, can you tell me where the refining will be done for all of this oil the oil companies have no desire to drill for.

What is the problem with sitting on it? How dumb can you be? Give it to them if they have mandatory drilling, otherwise they will not drill on it to control supply.

Can you tell me one other industry where the producers are expected to increase supply in order to drive down prices and profits? OPEC sets the prices, the oil companies are happy with this arrangement, they won't undercut OPEC and lose out on their profits.

And by the way, it costs about $75.00 a barrel to extract from these deep wells, the Saudis produce oil for a couple of dollars a barrel.

"What problem do you have with more drilling in US?"

Well, many people here are probably too young to remember the oil spills and fouled beaches that triggered the moratorium in the first place. I do not have a problem with more offshore drilling given proper environmental safeguards (which should be easier for the industry to handle given other improvements since the 60s and 70s). If I was in charge of things, I would gladly compromise on elimination of this ban as part of a comprehensive energy program as long as it emphasized efficiency and alternative energy.

What I don't like (can't stand) are the dishonest clams made by too many drilling proponents. For example, we hear over and over again that opening ANWR will only disturb 2000 acres. Except that's 2000 acres total paved area, spread over a much larger space -- the much larger space is the area that will be disturbed. 'm willing to open 2000 acres in ANWR for production, as long as the area is rectangular. Pick your 2000 acre rectangle, guys!

Likewise, while eliminating the offshore drilling ban, which by the way only restricts drilling for about 20% of our total offshore oil, is far from the worst thing in the world, doing so to lower gas prices is a dishonest dodge, and I hate to see that kind of politics rewarded. But if repealing the offshore drilling bad is the ONLY thing you are pushing as far as energy goes, it is truly a bankrupt policy and deserves harsh criticism.

What's the problem with "sitting on it"? Are you afraid that they would sit on it or drill on it?

They are already sitting on plenty of oil and gas. Some of it they truly can't produce profitably at past oil prices. Some of it they could produce, but they make a higher return on investment by drilling somewhere else. For example, there will soon be a lease sale for the rights to drill in the Chukchi Sea, off northwest Alaska (like much of Alaska, NOT restricted by Congress). The USGS estimated that at $50 dollars a barrel, zero barrels of oil were economically recoverable. But at $100 dollars a barrel, a few billion barrels are recoverable. At $250 a barrel, even more.

If the oil companies think that $100 a barrel is the new price floor, then you will see plenty of new production come on line. But not so much that the price would be driven down! The oil companies' goal now has to be to increase production at about the rate that demand goes up, so that they can keep the prices high, thus maximizing their profits. I do not understand how anyone would think that the oil companies would act to drive down prices if only the government got out of their way.

icarus - will you bundle for me? Only those (funny-looking) dead presidents >$1k please. Paypal's cool too.  

JEFF FREY said,

"Likewise, while eliminating the offshore drilling ban, which by the way only restricts drilling for about 20% of our total offshore oil, is far from the worst thing in the world, doing so to lower gas prices is a dishonest dodge, and I hate to see that kind of politics rewarded"

However,  tapping emergency oil reserve is a very bad, doing so to lower gas prices is a dishonest dodge, and I hate to see that kind of politics rewarded. Do you?

awww, jacob, your pouting again, aren't you?

You know, its ok to come out and actually say that you're a capitalist who thinks it is a good idea to allow private companies to monopolize America's natural resources.

Of course, we'll think less of you; but at least you'll have the dignity of been adult enough to have spoken the truth about what you believe.

I am not a fan of tapping the Strategic Oil Reserve. Doing do would increase supply (of crude at least), and probably would drive prices down a bit, but not enough to make it worth violating the principle of keeping it fro true emergencies.

It is another example of pandering to voters, and I don't like that Obama did it. All I can say is, he is not making it the centerpiece of his strategy, and not claiming that McCain is responsible for high gas prices because he doesn't support tapping the reserve. So I don't like it, but he's still not as bad as the other guy.

"So I don't like it, but he's still not as bad as the other guy."

Sure, my guy is not as bad as the other guy.

GSpinks said,

"You know, its ok to come out and actually say that you're a capitalist who thinks it is a good idea to allow private companies to monopolize America's natural resources."

Yes,  I'm a capitalist who thinks it is a good idea to allow private companies

to use America's natural resources.

Teppie: "icarus - will you bundle for me?" Is this really the best you can do?  Oh, sorry, after Barack Earl Carter, what a silly question to ask ...

Yeah, you're right, I'm a fundraiser for Obama.  You found me out.  And I have ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and work on Wall Street and am probably responsible for the latest crash there, as well as the '87 correction and the Great Depression.  On the whole, I'm delighted not ony that you have tore up my mask, but that you are doing such a SPLENDID JOB of painting Obama as a hypocrite that my real, true love, as a Wall Street hack, is going to get elected.  Between you and the likes of you and Hillary Supporters, McCain should be able to come in, end all talk of Health Care (halleluja); dismantle Social Security (good riddance); bomb Iran and open a third front, meaning more war bonds and more spending for the military industrial complext; fuck up Iraq (if he can find it on a map); alienate more allies (the two - Malta and San Marino - that are left); give Afghanistan back to the Taliban; appoint two more Scalia wannabes and end abortion rights in his first term in office ... yeah, man, you're doing a splendid job advancing the cause of Wall Street capitalist hacks like myself.  Thanks!

Jeff, I agree that Obama tapping the reserve is just stupid pandering, but his energy plan is vastly better than McCain's, whose whole plan is predicated on a lie "oil companies want to flood the market, drive down prices, and lessen their profits, trust me."

"Yes,  I'm a capitalist who thinks it is a good idea to allow private companies to use America's natural resources."

The Republitards just voted down a bill that allowed for new leasing but mandated that companies leasing oil rights from the government have to "use" their existing leases before they can be granted additional leases. There is no "use" involved here; it is obviously all about ownership.

Given that there is no apparent drive to do anything other than allow oil companies to own all federal oil rights, the correct term is "monopolize". "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. " - "monopoly." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 06 Aug. 2008. <Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/.../monopoly>.

Your failure to acknowledge this simple fact is telling...

well said, blackton.

ick - cringe. Touche, you got me on that last one. Nu, pogodi!

GSpinks  

Your failure to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion   is telling...

Tep

I note your earlier observation to the effect that: "He's keeping alive an issue that he and the party mishandled and that will crush him with suburban voters. Not terribly smart."

McCain just conceded that Obama was right, and had to backtrack on his attacks against Obama on this issue, something to the effect that, "when I was making a mocking ignorant comment the way Shrub has run his entire administration, I really meant to say the exact opposite, but I'm an old cynical pol who will do and say anything to get elected".

Obama's comment?  

"It will be interesting to watch this debate between John McCain and John McCain."

You see, there's no contest here, McCain's wrinkles notwithstanding.

I think too many people were in short pants (or even diapers) in the 1970s, or else they would realize the gimmick of the tire gauge is a blast back to Carter's Crisis of Confidence speech.  The oil crisis left us with long gas lines and record inflation, and Carter's solution was to suggest we light a fire, drive 55 (Sammy Hagar had an interesting response to that), and to keep our engines tuned and tires inflated.  He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House and a wood burning fireplace, but the solution to that oil crisis was the completion of the Alaskan pipeline and more drilling in places like Venezuela and Mexico.  McCain is saying we can't take a risk with Obama because he's like Carter.  Obviously the message was too subtle.

Yeah, must've been like the "too-subtle" message about Obama, airhead celebrities, and hot white girls.  Here's a suggestion:  maybe McCain, if he has an actual idea about energy strategy short of pretending that the goal of the oil companies is to reduce their profits, should just come out and tell us what it is.

"Your failure to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion   is telling..."

Your pouty retorts say it all.

ahh, yes: inflating tires, tuning engines, driving 55 mph

All of them gimmicks which were proved long ago to not affect fuel efficiency of a vehicle to a measurable quantity.

Unlike that economy saving gas tax holiday which will save Americans unlimited amounts of money! It'll be just like old times, cruisin' across the country in our Hummers and Vipers with nary a care in the world...

anonevent said:

"sleepyval - "ANYTHING  Obama does or says is always good."  Getting tired of the facts getting in the way of your position I see.  This is about like screaming Hitler."

What facts do you refer to, anonevent? Perhaps that Obama has a shitty energy proposition that could be taken from the Republican program? Eh, you couldn't be bothered to quote any facts. But somehow you brought Hitler in. Congratulations! That's a classical tactics when you have zero factual arguments. Try again.

tep, don't say Barack earl Carter. The real and legal name of His Excellency is better: Barack Hussein Obama.

"short of pretending that the goal of the oil companies is to reduce their profits,"

short of pretending that the goal of any company is to reduce their profits,

Why don't we confiscate all private companies. Let's people manage all private companies for benefit of all people.

Jacobt1 - "Sure, my guy is not as bad as the other guy.". Maybe we agree on this point, if not on the guy. Or are you suggesting that you agree 100% with everything McCain says?

Blackton - agreed with you on Obama's energy policy vs. McCain's. Nevertheless, I hope Obama drops that one element after getting elected.

Jeff,

You are missing the point.

Obama's record of achievements in any job that he held is very mediocre.

The only reason to support him is because he is a different type of politician.

As turned out he is a garden variety panderer.

"The real and legal name of His Excellency is better: Barack Hussein Obama."

Ah, the joy!  I see sleepy "I learned my politics from Nikolai" avl has finally crawled out of his bigotted pen.

Jacob: it's so fucking effective when, instead of writing your own stuff, you take what others write and change one or two words.  I mean, man - this is the height of rational thought, discourse, debate.  Next up from Jacob's immense wardrobe of crushing debating points: "Duck season""Wabbit season""Duck season""Wabbit season" ...

Any way, evidently you are either too stupid or too disingenuous to have got the point, but everyone here agrees that private companies want to increase their profits.  That is their mandate from the shareholders.  Which is why - drumrolls, please, so Jacob get's the point - it is pointless to expect oil companies to drill more so as to reduce oil prices, because reducing oil prices would reduce their profits and they have no incentive to do so.  This is the essence of what is wrong with McCain's energy policy.

Unless, of course, you propose that the Federal Government should REQUIRE oil companies to drill and should FORCE oil companies to see more oil than they really want to.  Ask sleepy how well that worked in Romania.  

God, playing softball with my best-friend's four-year-old daugher was more challenging that responding to Jacob.

icarusr,

I am too stupid.

Obama  doesn't  want to give more leases to oil companies because they would not drill.

Obama really wants more drilling but he doesn't trust oil companies to drill.

So, why instead Democrats don't give leases to internet companies?

"So, why instead Democrats don't give leases to internet companies?"

"I am too stupid."

Can't argue with that.

Four-year-olds often have curious and fluid minds, and they pick up new things fast.  Unlike jacob.

"Perhaps that Obama has a shitty energy proposition that could be taken from the Republican program?"

Ah yes, the vaunted "All-Of-The-Above" program, whereby the beneficent, magnanimous and sagacous John McCain has now proposed to implement everybody's ideas because that was his plan from the beginning. The greatest aspect of this program is John McCain does not need to wrestle with those pesky details and nuances because he agrees that good ideas are good ideas, and he wants to implement the good ideas because he has a comprehensive plan to address america's energy concerns by implementing good ideas. And McCain is obviously smarter than Obama because Obama spent all his time on specific and detailed plans that actually come from McCain's "All-of-the-above" policy whereby McCain has already thought all those details through and he knows his policy will work because its full of good ideas and Obama can't come up with an original idea so he is trying to steal McCain's ideas and pass them off as his own but we can see right through Obama's policy wonkery in that he is just a pretender who wishes he had thought of all of the good ideas which McCain has summarized in his "All-of-the-Above" policy.

*bamb! by done ith thtuk ib ma theek*

"Four-year-olds often have curious and fluid minds, and they pick up new things fast."

It took me long but finally I understood:

Obama  doesn't  want to give more leases to oil companies because they would not drill.

Obama really wants more drilling but he doesn't trust oil companies to drill.

Thank you for patience.

Jacob: here's something you can understand.

1.

See Oil Company.

See Oil Company make money.

See Oil Company make money because of high oil prices.

See Oil Company make money because of high oil prices caused by limited supply and high demand.

2.

See George W. Bush run.

See George W. Bush run to Saudi Arabia.

See George W. Bush run to Saudi Arabia and asking for an increase in oil supply.

See George W. Bush run to Saudi Arabia and asking for an increase in oil supply and being told to fuck off, because the Saudis refused to increase supply and lower prices.

3.

See Oil Company sit.

See Oil Company sit on existing leased land.

See Oil Company sit on existing leased land and refuse to drill.

See Oil Company sit on existing leased land and refuse to drill, increase supply and lower prices.

4.

See George W. Bush admit.

See George W. admit that the United States is addicted to oil.

See George W. admit that the United States is addicted to oil, but propose inefficient and stupid programmes to reduce oil dependance.

5.

See Barack Obama.

See Barack Obama make a distinction.

See Barack Obama make a distinction between supply side and demand side, and between short term and long term policies, and between collective and individual action.

See Barack Obama propose comprehensive policy.

6.

See McCain talk.

See McCain talk and mock.

See McCain talk and mock and retract.

See McCain talk and mock and retract and whine, "I want me one of the Barack policies."

It too complicated for me.

This is what I understand

Obama  doesn't  want to give more leases to oil companies because they would not drill.

Obama really wants more drilling but he doesn't trust oil companies to drill.

But I still don't understand, if oil companies don't want to drill, why not give leases other companies or not-profits like Sierra club ?

I'm glad to see you are starting to understand, Jacob! *happy dance*

"if oil companies don't want to drill, why not give leases other companies or not-profits like Sierra club?"

I don't think the actual discourse on this issue has progressed to the point where we can be sure about the candidates' answers to this question; if it has then I am not aware of those answers. But I think it is a valid question, and I agree completely with the thought that we should be giving leases to anyone* who wants to drill. (*within reason)

This is one of the reasons why I keep bringing up bill HR1350...the bill allowed for new leases, but only for new lease holders or existing lease holders who can demonstrate good-faith/actual efforts to drill on *all* of their existing leases. I am not sure why, but this this bill was voted down in the House overwhelmingly by Republicans, with 1 handful of "no votes". The Democrats voted for this bill overwhelmingly, with 1 handful of "Nay" votes and 1 handful of "no votes". (handful = some significant single-digit number).

"See Barack Obama propose comprehensive policy."

Sounds like Barack is starting to agree with McCain's "All-Of-The-Above" strategy!

*thit! thuk again*