NationStates Jolt Archive

From: http://************/peahx

Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.

Where do I start?

WHO is the party that screams bloody murder when we want to...

..tap our own oil and gas reserves off shore and in ANWAR?
..expand our refinery capacity?
..take advantage of nuclear power technologies?
..give lip service to "green" power such as wind, then yelp about the birdies getting killed in the turbines?

Or just piss and moan about "unsightly" off shore wind turbines and oil rigs (I'm looking at YOU Sen. (hic) Kennedy and the Hollywood libs)?

Or could it be that the Dems are still just little ankle biting yapping dogs whose '06 campaign theme will be "George Bush is a Big Poopy Head" in lieu of having real ideas?

But don't question their patriotism...no no no

Where do I start?

At the very beginning? LOL

WHO is the party that screams bloody murder when we want to...

..tap our own oil and gas reserves off shore and in ANWAR?

Democrats start to scream.

..expand our refinery capacity?

Democrats start to scream.

..take advantage of nuclear power technologies?

Democrats start to scream.

..give lip service to "green" power such as wind, then yelp about the birdies getting killed in the turbines?

Democrats start to scream.

Or just piss and moan about "unsightly" off shore wind turbines and oil rigs (I'm looking at YOU Sen. (hic) Kennedy and the Hollywood libs)?

Democrats piss and moan.

Or could it be that the Dems are still just little ankle biting yapping dogs whose '06 campaign theme will be "George Bush is a Big Poopy Head" in lieu of having real ideas?

Yep.

But don't question their patriotism...no no no

LOL. I never question their patriotism. Just question where their brains are at just like I question where some republican brains are at.

I didn't realise that Howard Dean was the whole Democrat Party... that's an awful lot of screaming.

Or could it be that the Dems are still just little ankle biting yapping dogs whose '06 campaign theme will be "George Bush is a Big Poopy Head" in lieu of having real ideas?

The funny thing is that they're probably going to win too. Your two-party system never fails to amuse.

/me high fives Kryozerkia

I didn't realise that Howard Dean was the whole Democrat Party... that's an awful lot of screaming.

http://www.onlinerock.com/fans/refused/dean.jpg

Wait wait, a bunch of politicians using something for political leverage?!


INCONCEIVABLE!

Bush and the republicans milked 9/11 for four years in the most tasteless way possible, up to and including Cheney's admonishment that voting for democrats would mean the terrorists would attack us. Did the same logic work for the 2000 election? I mean did they attack us because we voted Republican?

The single biggest thing we could have done to avoid all of this, including the coming worldwide energy crunch, was to start preparing for this thirty years ago when we had the time. The single most symbolic gesture our government ever made in regards to the idea of conserving energy for a sustainable future was when Ronald Reagan moved into the white house and made a ceremony out of removing the solar panels. He actually turned it into an press event as a statement about conserving.

http://www.onlinerock.com/fans/refused/dean.jpg
.................................................................

http://www.onlinerock.com/fans/refused/dean.jpg

He's right up there with Jello Biafra and Henry Rollins.

*headbangs*

From: http://************/peahx

Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.

Where do I start?

WHO is the party that screams bloody murder when we want to...

..tap our own oil and gas reserves off shore and in ANWAR?
..expand our refinery capacity?
..take advantage of nuclear power technologies?
..give lip service to "green" power such as wind, then yelp about the birdies getting killed in the turbines?

Or just piss and moan about "unsightly" off shore wind turbines and oil rigs (I'm looking at YOU Sen. (hic) Kennedy and the Hollywood libs)?

Or could it be that the Dems are still just little ankle biting yapping dogs whose '06 campaign theme will be "George Bush is a Big Poopy Head" in lieu of having real ideas?

But don't question their patriotism...no no no


That's probably because we desperately need a coherent energy policy, but thus far the likes of Dick "Personal Virtue" Cheney and other Republicans beholden to oil companies have refused to allow it. Instead, our alternative is drilling in ANWR, a non-solution that even by optimistic assessments will supply our nation's energy need for only about six months--after the ten years it requires to build the infrastructure to extract it.

Simply put, if Democrats are pitching a fit, it is only because our (and by our, I mean the Reagan administration's) solution to the energy crisis in the 70's was to drill in more places around the globe, rather than deal with the crucial issue of relying on a finite resource most commonly found in places that increasingly hate us for our continued attempts to screw with their politics to keep our supply lines open. Instead of actually developing alternative energy sources (and don't give me that crap about Dems complaining about birds--please tell me one time when Congress seriously considered shifting our energy production from coal and oil-fired power plants to wind, only to have the meddling Birdwatcher's Club and PETA destroy our beautiful plans. . .go ahead, I'm waiting), our solution was to instead simply break OPEC's monopoly power. That was short-sighted then, and it's contributing to most of our foreign-policy problems now: Iran would never be able to afford a nuke program if oil wasn't at $73 a barrel, and our strategic interest in Iraq would have been greatly reduced. If you have a problem with Dems making an election issue out of the matter, then you only have your own past policies to blame for it.

http://www.onlinerock.com/fans/refused/dean.jpg

The truth is out. Howard Dean is really the front man for Howie and the Libruls, a hardcore band from Vermont.

whereas the republicans LOVE the price of gas and wouldnt THINK of complaining about it?

too bad our president isnt close with the house of saud so he could get them to increase oil production like every other freaking president has done.

why are gas prices out of control? because our president started a useless war in iraq and has plans to nuke iran. no reason for the democrats to exploit THAT! we should all be happy about it!

That's probably because we desperately need a coherent energy policy, but thus far the likes of Dick "Personal Virtue" Cheney and other Republicans beholden to oil companies have refused to allow it. Instead, our alternative is drilling in ANWR, a non-solution that even by optimistic assessments will supply our nation's energy need for only about six months--after the ten years it requires to build the infrastructure to extract it.

Simply put, if Democrats are pitching a fit, it is only because our (and by our, I mean the Reagan administration's) solution to the energy crisis in the 70's was to drill in more places around the globe, rather than deal with the crucial issue of relying on a finite resource most commonly found in places that increasingly hate us for our continued attempts to screw with their politics to keep our supply lines open. Instead of actually developing alternative energy sources (and don't give me that crap about Dems complaining about birds--please tell me one time when Congress seriously considered shifting our energy production from coal and oil-fired power plants to wind, only to have the meddling Birdwatcher's Club and PETA destroy our beautiful plans. . .go ahead, I'm waiting), our solution was to instead simply break OPEC's monopoly power. That was short-sighted then, and it's contributing to most of our foreign-policy problems now: Iran would never be able to afford a nuke program if oil wasn't at $73 a barrel, and our strategic interest in Iraq would have been greatly reduced. If you have a problem with Dems making an election issue out of the matter, then you only have your own past policies to blame for it.
Just a note...

Oil companies have been bashing car manufacturers for years because of the gas guzzlers they were making. You can go back to Exxon Mobile's 1994 energy report to find that oil companies knew this day was coming, but no one listened. Oil companies know how they make their money and have no interest in seeing all get burned up in 40 years. If you had left it to the dude who just got the $400,000,000.00 retirement check we'd have all been driving Toyotas 20 years ago.

That's probably because we desperately need a coherent energy policy... Iran would never be able to afford a nuke program if oil wasn't at $73 a barrel, and our strategic interest in Iraq would have been greatly reduced. If you have a problem with Dems making an election issue out of the matter, then you only have your own past policies to blame for it.

That's a damn good point, and I'm saying that as someone who supports the Bush Administration.

While I like Bush, voted for him twice, and generally approve of the job he's doing, this issue is where he's realy letting me down. It's no secret that he's chummy with oil companies. Anyone who says otherwise is putting on blinders. Now, for a while I thought that if anything, that would increase the likelihood that we would open up new places to drill for oil in Alaska, thus taking away at least some of our dependance on imported oil. This hasn't happened. The reason? As long as demand is high, the prices will be high. Opening up new wells will increase supply and thus lower demand and prices. They're not going after the remaining Alaskan oil until they have to, by which time the US will probably have a world monopoly on oil, since the middle eastern oil fields aren't going to last a whole lot longer. By that point we're gonna see price hikes worldwide like you can't even imagine.

I would have expected SOMETHING to have been done by now. We've had this oil price hike every year now since 9/11, and people talk but not much gets done. I think the oil companies are testing to see how far they can push this.

Keep in mind, folks... since every single industry in the USA, worldwide, in fact, used petroleum products in some phase or phases of operations, the gas proce hike is going to result in higher prices for EVERYTHING. Watch the inflation ticker, boys and girls, and don't bother asking for a raise at work despite the fact that your cost of living is going to effectively go up as the value of the dollar is reduced by inflation.

As for me any my fiancee', we've already agreed that our next car is going to be a hybrid.

whereas the republicans LOVE the price of gas and wouldnt THINK of complaining about it?

too bad our president isnt close with the house of saud so he could get them to increase oil production like every other freaking president has done.

why are gas prices out of control? because our president started a useless war in iraq and has plans to nuke iran. no reason for the democrats to exploit THAT! we should all be happy about it!
He did try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more. They can't.

Just a note...

Oil companies have been bashing car manufacturers for years because of the gas guzzlers they were making. You can go back to Exxon Mobile's 1994 energy report to find that oil companies knew this day was coming, but no one listened. Oil companies know how they make their money and have no interest in seeing all get burned up in 40 years. If you had left it to the dude who just got the $400,000,000.00 retirement check we'd have all been driving Toyotas 20 years ago.

True, but to some extent it misses my point. My point wasn't that we should have conserved long ago. . . that was what our increased fuel economy laws did. My point was that we should have dealt more fundamentally with the issue. If we had seriously considered weaning ourselves off oil-fired power plants, we might have had by the late 80's the kind of solar technology we have now to replace it. If we had seriously considered finding alternatives to gas-powered cars, we might have had far more efficient hydrogen fuel cells by now. But we didn't; we focused only on finding new places to supply our existing infrastructure rather than seriously working to replace that infrastructure. A large part of the reason we've retained that infrastructure is because of the oil companies, and now we're paying for it. Had we listened to Exxon-Mobil in 1994, we might have kicked the problem down the road another 20 years, but we would eventually be in the same boat we're in now. I'm saying that we should never have kicked the problem down the road and dealt with it instead.

The truth is out. Howard Dean is really the front man for Howie and the Libruls, a hardcore band from Vermont.

who fucking rock, even if their politics are reformist shit.
way better than the watered-down arena rock/adult contemporary stylings of 'gore country'

http://www.algore-08.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/normal_chi02.jpg

Wow I am really shocked. The demos "exploit" high gas prices wowwwwwwww

And what were the republicans doing about gay marriage?

True, but to some extent it misses my point. My point wasn't that we should have conserved long ago. . . that was what our increased fuel economy laws did. My point was that we should have dealt more fundamentally with the issue. If we had seriously considered weaning ourselves off oil-fired power plants, we might have had by the late 80's the kind of solar technology we have now to replace it. If we had seriously considered finding alternatives to gas-powered cars, we might have had far more efficient hydrogen fuel cells by now. But we didn't; we focused only on finding new places to supply our existing infrastructure rather than seriously working to replace that infrastructure. A large part of the reason we've retained that infrastructure is because of the oil companies, and now we're paying for it. Had we listened to Exxon-Mobil in 1994, we might have kicked the problem down the road another 20 years, but we would eventually be in the same boat we're in now. I'm saying that we should never have kicked the problem down the road and dealt with it instead.
The answer is now and always has been conservation, not exetic technologies that use more fossil fuel energy than they replace, like hydrogen. The answer is not just smaller cars, it's trains. It's not solar power, it's efficient light bulbs and turning them off when you're done using them. Don't look for a quick fix tech solution. What we need is a complete overhaul in how we view energy use. We tend to think we have a constitutional right to live in a world where we do not have to think about energy. The problem is that Earth never read the constitution. I'm not a big fan of the oil companies, I just don't blame them. I think the editor in the bay next to where I'm sitting now is far more respnsible for our predicament than any oil exec ever was. He seems to think he needs an Army vehicle to drive himself and his briefcase from Valencia to Hollywood everyday to work. that's about a 90 mile round trip and his H2 gets about 8 miles to the gallon.

Even if Democrats are looking to exploit anger over high gas prices, that's certainly no worse (and I would argue much more defensible) than the exploitation of fear the Republicans have been using at every opportunity over the last five years. For all the talk from Republicans that the Democrats have no ideas, the only campaign argument from Republicans since 2001 has been "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, gay marriage, 9/11." Anyone want to try to claim that Democrats playing to poor people's concerns about gas prices is somehow worse than that shit?

Even if Democrats are looking to exploit anger over high gas prices, that's certainly no worse (and I would argue much more defensible) than the exploitation of fear the Republicans have been using at every opportunity over the last five years. For all the talk from Republicans that the Democrats have no ideas, the only campaign argument from Republicans since 2001 has been "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, gay marriage, 9/11." Anyone want to try to claim that Democrats playing to poor people's concerns about gas prices is somehow worse than that shit?


Look, dude, all you really had to do was quote my deanXcore picture.

At the very beginning? LOL

Democrats start to scream.


Awww Corne's getting pissed that the demos are starting to play Repub games.

As for me any my fiancee', we've already agreed that our next car is going to be a hybrid.

Ditto for us!

I am also starting to study up on solar. Might not solve problems but it might reduce the PGE bills......

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil futures climbed to a high of $75 per barrel Friday for the first time ever for a front-month contract on concerns about tensions surrounding Iran's nuclear activities, violence in Nigeria, and tight U.S. supplies of unleaded gasoline. June crude was last up $1.26, or 1.7%, at $74.95 per barrel. "We often see this sort of short covering in a record-setting bull market ahead of a weekend, since nobody is sure where we may be Monday," said trader Kevin Kerr, who is also editor of MarketWatch's Global Resources Trader

Look, dude, all you really had to do was quote my deanXcore picture.
But this one is so much better.
http://www.photogslounge.net/graphics4/dean_kitten.jpg

He did try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more. They can't.
oh yeah i believe that. the saudis are just flat out eh?

Awww Corne's getting pissed that the demos are starting to play Repub games.

I'm mad? :confused:

oh yeah i believe that. the saudis are just flat out eh?
They're not out, but they're damn near capacity, and they have been for a while now.

oh yeah i believe that. the saudis are just flat out eh?
You can't just pump oil at any arbitrary rate. You can only get it out of the ground as fast as the pressure will allow. If you over pressurize your fields you will damage the source rock and hurt ultimate recovery. Oil is not like a big bucket where you can just decide to get it all out. Saudi Arabia, nd the world for that matter, is right now producing oil as fast as they can. Saudi does actually say they have an additional 1.7 million barrels/day of spare capacity, but it's all heavy sour crude and there's very little refinery capacity for the lower grade crudes and none in the US.

Get used to it. We're about to enter decline when the world will start producing less and less oil. That's when things are going to get fun.

Wow. I have two comments:

1) How about that liberal media bias?
2) Those Democrats! First they willfully ignore terrorism as an issue of the other party, then they exploit 9/11 to gut civil liberties. Wow. No. Wait... Dubya is a Democrat, right?

And what were the republicans doing about gay marriage?

Protecting it! If gays started getting married, they might start divorcing at "Red State" rates :eek: .

$3 a gallon? which is what- £1.50GBP? We in merry old england pay over £4 a gallon already, which works out at about $6 or $7.

So you Yankie doodles should count yourselves lucky.

Face it, pressuring the oil companies to build more refineries and increase production will not lower prices except in the short term and just keeps us ensla ved to the whims of corrupt dictators, corporations and terrorist regimes. Asking the oil companies to increase capacity is like supplicating to them, and I hardly think Americans should be willing to bow down to the capricious whims of the Saudis, Exxon, or Iran for cheap gas.

The Democrats should craft a strict, comprehensive energy plan and promote it as a fourfold benefit: to farmers and rural areas, a benefit to consumers and industry, a benefit to the environment and a benefit to national security. If they do that, I'd say they could pick up more than a few seats in November and I'd be more than happy with a Democratic majority in Congress.

IIRC, Barack Obama is doing something to that effect right now. We've made a lot of progress in alternative energy and fuels in the past few years and it's accelerating rapidly, but we need a firm legislative push to provide it with a political voice in Washington and to get it to as many of the consumers as we can.

According to CNN the republicans in congress have an approval rating well below 40%. Now they have some time to turn things around, which they will eventually try to do. The way I think they will go about doing that is by going against the president more, just like they did with his social security plan. The oil reserve in alaska will only last the U.S. a year. Not to mention it will kill numerous animals. Did anyone ask the people who LIVE in alaska whether or not they wanted drilling in their state. If the republicans really wanted to drill in alaska they could pass it, they control the congress and the senate. The fact is they are not going to pass it right before the election. Just like they did not go with the port deal right before the election. The reason the republicans are so scared about congress is if the democrats get the congress they are going to start the investigations and most likely give a time table for pulling out of the war. It is going to be bad for bush if they get it. Dean's job as being the DNC is to piss people off just the RNC's job is to piss people off. That is realy all that they do. Keep in mind control over houses always swings back and forth.

Politicians "exploiting" a political issue - how reprehensible. Next time, we should just get a chorus of agreement with the status quo, to prevent such mischevious "exploitation."

If they do that, I'd say they could pick up more than a few seats in November and I'd be more than happy with a Democratic majority in Congress.

The fact that we have a "left-wing" party that you would be happy with in the majority is a sad reflection on the state of our political situation. :)

That said, I agree with everything else you wrote in your post, for once.

From: http://************/peahx

Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.

Where do I start?

WHO is the party that screams bloody murder when we want to...

..tap our own oil and gas reserves off shore and in ANWAR?
..expand our refinery capacity?
..take advantage of nuclear power technologies?
..give lip service to "green" power such as wind, then yelp about the birdies getting killed in the turbines?

Or just piss and moan about "unsightly" off shore wind turbines and oil rigs (I'm looking at YOU Sen. (hic) Kennedy and the Hollywood libs)?

Or could it be that the Dems are still just little ankle biting yapping dogs whose '06 campaign theme will be "George Bush is a Big Poopy Head" in lieu of having real ideas?

But don't question their patriotism...no no no


We need to cut down on consumption anyways and utilize it properly, the democrats have to win because those conservative tycoons are idiots.

Face it, pressuring the oil companies to build more refineries and increase production will not lower prices except in the short term and just keeps us ensla ved to the whims of corrupt dictators, corporations and terrorist regimes. Asking the oil companies to increase capacity is like supplicating to them, and I hardly think Americans should be willing to bow down to the capricious whims of the Saudis, Exxon, or Iran for cheap gas.

The Democrats should craft a strict, comprehensive energy plan and promote it as a fourfold benefit: to farmers and rural areas, a benefit to consumers and industry, a benefit to the environment and a benefit to national security. If they do that, I'd say they could pick up more than a few seats in November and I'd be more than happy with a Democratic majority in Congress.

IIRC, Barack Obama is doing something to that effect right now. We've made a lot of progress in alternative energy and fuels in the past few years and it's accelerating rapidly, but we need a firm legislative push to provide it with a political voice in Washington and to get it to as many of the consumers as we can.

I have no problem with the Democrats making the oil problems a campaign issue... but I want to see SOLUTIONS from the Democrats and legitimate policy options, rather than the criticisms of Bush that we've seen for, what, two full years now?

I have no problem with the Democrats making the oil problems a campaign issue... but I want to see SOLUTIONS from the Democrats and legitimate policy options, rather than the criticisms of Bush that we've seen for, what, two full years now?

That's exactly what I mean; instead of simply saying there's a problem they should advance a comprehensive solution to solve it. I think they're starting to do that and it will help them in November.

They definitely need to stay away from urging Bush to tap the SPR to lower gas prices...that's a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not a cheap gas reserve. It makes the politician advocating it look irresponsible and foolish on energy policy.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Nobody wants a bunch of laberals in congress and have an all homo marrying tree huging peaceful laberal congress. If laberals get the congress then the president cant work. And the president is a very hard worker, he even works on vacation. The president has already said that he doesnt want a bunch of laberals in congress, so thats what we need to do is get rid of all the laberals.

Maybe we should protect the endangered oil companies?

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Nobody wants a bunch of laberals in congress and have an all homo marrying tree huging peaceful laberal congress. If laberals get the congress then the president cant work. And the president is a very hard worker, he even works on vacation. The president has already said that he doesnt want a bunch of laberals in congress, so thats what we need to do is get rid of all the laberals.Do you have this on a macro or something, so you can just automatically paste it into a thread every so often?

That's exactly what I mean; instead of simply saying there's a problem they should advance a comprehensive solution to solve it. I think they're starting to do that and it will help them in November.

They definitely need to stay away from urging Bush to tap the SPR to lower gas prices...that's a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not a cheap gas reserve. It makes the politician advocating it look irresponsible and foolish on energy policy.
That's true. And until they do come up with a solution we'll punish them by elected the stupidest, most incompetent people to ever run the country. That'll teach 'em. :)

I have no problem with the Democrats making the oil problems a campaign issue... but I want to see SOLUTIONS from the Democrats and legitimate policy options, rather than the criticisms of Bush that we've seen for, what, two full years now?

Meh.

It's part of the game. The repubs did that to Clinton.

Before they can offer some solutions they have to have control. The repubs will fight anything that might lesson the profits of the oil industry.

Meh.

It's part of the game. The repubs did that to Clinton.

Before they can offer some solutions they have to have control. The repubs will fight anything that might lesson the profits of the oil industry.

That's backwards. Why should we give control to someone who doesn't have a clue? Maybe the Dems can't implement any plans until they're in control, but if they don't even HAVE any plans, what good are they?

Before they can offer some solutions they have to have control. The repubs will fight anything that might lesson the profits of the oil industry.

Not all of them; the Democrats can count on the Midwestern politicians breaking ranks because farmers support ethanol/biodiesel and farmers will vote for the politicians who support those industries.

In the Midwest, farmers are a lot more influential than the oil industry (which in a lot of ways is a good thing). I hope this blazing alternative energy growth starts to break the influence of the oil industry over the Republican party once and for all.

That's backwards. Why should we give control to someone who doesn't have a clue? Maybe the Dems can't implement any plans until they're in control, but if they don't even HAVE any plans, what good are they?

Don't have the answer for that.

However, I really don't expect any solutions over oil from a party laced with oil and energy producers.

Not all of them; the Democrats can count on the Midwestern politicians breaking ranks because farmers support ethanol/biodiesel and farmers will vote for the politicians who support those industries.

In the Midwest, farmers are a lot more influential than the oil industry (which in a lot of ways is a good thing). I hope this blazing alternative energy growth starts to break the influence of the oil industry over the Republican party once and for all.

That's good to hear. I actually saw an ad for ethanol on tv the other day so maybe things might happen? Time will tell as it will not happen with this administration.

That's good to hear. I actually saw an ad for ethanol on tv the other day so maybe things might happen? Time will tell as it will not happen with this administration.

Hopefully; ethanol and biodiesel are growing by leaps and bounds (a new plant every 10 days) and alternative energy is doubling itself every two years. That growth might accelerate even further in the new future. This is the start of a new era in energy rather than a short term boom, and it's only going to get bigger as oil prices climb.

California and New Jersey are already making huge pushes for alternative energy and biofuels. They've got 20% alternative energy laws on the books right now and new ones for biofuels are in the works.

All Bush has to do is do nothing and the industry will boom. If we're lucky he might actually do some things beneficial to the industry; I think the odds are 100% against him doing anything negative to it right now.

When in every election a party runs an oil man for either Pres. or VP or both, I would say they are in a position to get branded.

I would'nt trust the democrats to run the US

After all, they failed the relatively easy task of unseating the most unpopular president in US history in 2004... what makes you think they can run the country better?


What the US needs is something to distract Bush for the next 2 years.......

Monica. where are you when your country needs you?

Spare me. Despite their chaos and failures the Democrats are the only party in America with a clue as to how to run the country. I wouldn't trust republicans to run a popsicle stand.