True North

Anytime a pundit with a reputation as good as Fred Barnes agrees with you, it's a good thing. That's how my morning started today. Imagine my delight when I saw Fred's latest article was titled Fuelish Democrats and it talked about high gas prices. Here's the opening to Fred's column:

Republicans finally have a winning argument on a big issue, and they'd better make the most of it. It starts with high gasoline prices--the single most infuriating issue to voters these days--but doesn't end there.

Democrats are not being blamed for causing the price of gasoline to reach $4 a gallon, at least by the public and at least for now. Where Democrats have stumbled embarrassingly is in their campaign to persuade the public that the American oil industry is the chief culprit. A Gallup national poll in May found only 20 percent blame the oil companies for gouging, down from 34 percent a year ago.

Where Republicans have succeeded is in selling their solution to soaring gas prices: drilling for oil offshore and on federal lands, areas now off limits. In the Gallup survey, support for drilling in precisely these areas jumped from 41 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in May.

So Republicans have an issue to exploit. And it's one on which Democrats are especially vulnerable because they promised in the 2006 campaign to offer a "common sense" plan to curb gas prices. They have yet to produce one, and the price per gallon of gas has risen by more than $1.60 since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.

Democrats have also insisted, unwisely, it turns out, on pushing to enact a global warming bill that would further boost the price of gas and rake in trillions of dollars in new revenue. This might have made sense a few years ago, but not in the days of public anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.

Amen, Brother Barnes.

I've consistently said that Democrats were putting a knife to their own throat by (a) pushing the the Cap and Trade legislation, (b) insisting on not increasing oil production and (c) pushing an unbalanced plan that overemphasizes conservation and alternative energies but does nothing about increasing oil exploration.

I've also consistently said that we can't solve this crisis--yes, the high gas prices constitute a crisis--without undoing the damage done by Bill Clinton's legacy-building in his second term. When Clinton put huge blocks of federal land off-limits, he set in motion this problem. At the time, environmental groups praised him while sober analysts predicted a looming problem.

Let's be blunt about this: Bill Clinton cared more about the adulation and his legacy than he cared about doing the right thing. Think of energy as a huge pipeline. When Clinton put federal lands off-limits, he put a virtual bottleneck in the pipeline. Today's environmentalists will argue that (a) it'll take years before drilling could impact prices, (b) conservation is the equivalent of putting major oil field online and (c) there's only a few drops of oil down there. Let's critique those arguments.

They're right about it taking time to get the new oil flowing. To that I say this: Since it'll take time, then it's time to get started ASAP. The American consumer can't afford additional delays.

I also agree that conservation is the equivalent of putting an oil field online. I'd argue, though, that conservation alone can't fill all our needs. I'd even argue that increasing conservation and increasing production of alternative fuel sources isn't enough to eliminate this crisis. I'd argue that increasing conservation and production of alternative fuel vehicles and increasing oil production is the only way to provide the shot in the arm that we need.

Let's look at what Gallup's polling is saying. It's important to note that Democrats are on the wrong side of opening up federal land. If Democrats want to stick with their keeping federal lands off limits, they'll get hammered this November. This isn't a winning issue as it currently sits. What's worse is that it becomes a bigger trouble spot for Democrats each week.

There's another important aspect to this, namely, that the NRCC is aggressively pushing this issue in its fundraising and it's weekly e-letters. I believe that the NRCC developed a spine on this when John Hofmeister testified to Congress. Patrick Leahy intended to preach to the evil leaders of big oil. What happened instead was that they lectured him. Here's how Mr. Hofmeister challenged Congress:

"If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by 2 (million) to 3 million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny," Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister told a Senate panel today.

That was only one of the shotgun blasts he let fly with. Here's another:

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

For years, Democrats have put a huge stranglehold on increasing oil exploration, ignoring the most basic principles of supply and demand. They've stuck their heads into the sand as demand increased exponentially and supply was being choked off. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that that's a recipe for disaster.

Guess what? That disaster is staring at us right now. It's time we took action to solve this crisis. If we don't, the US economy will be in a deep recession for a very long time.

Forgive me if I don't see the value of that, especially when it isn't necessary.

It's apparent that the NRCC spotted blood in the water the minute Maxine Waters let fly with her socialize comments.

It's time that consumers of all political persuasions told Washington Democrats that we demand the opening of our nation's oil spigots. It's time we told them that to not increase oil exploration and production demonstrates an absence of leadership. It tells everyone that Democrats won't do the right thing because it'll cost them campaign contributions from their envirowhacko allies.

They're entitled to that position but it's a political disaster waiting to happen. I said here that this issue is the path back to a GOP majority. I'm more confident of that now than when I initially said it. Here's Fred's explanation on why this issue is toxic to Democrats:

Both House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid have cast global warming as the greatest threat facing America today. In fact, Pelosi was so concerned about this grave threat that, shortly after taking charge of the House, she vowed to bring a global warming bill to the floor by July 4, 2007. Now, though a bill is ready, she's unlikely to schedule it for debate and a vote in 2008.

I criticized Democrats when they started down this path. They deserve greater criticism now, which is what John Boehner is doing on a consistent basis:

Spotting an opening, House Republican leader John Boehner has made Pelosi his chief target on gas prices. He needles her relentlessly. Week after week since last winter, he's dwelled on what he calls the "Pelosi premium." This is the portion of the price increase which he attributes to her inaction.

Last week, he asked her to bring the global warming bill up for full House consideration, knowing full well Pelosi has no intention of doing so. He wants the measure to get "the time and attention it deserves during these truly unprecedented times for families and small businesses," Boehner said sarcastically.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to stick with this position, which she's pretty much forced to do, then she'll 'reap the rewards' for that consistency.

There is a downside to Republicans talking about this. Fred lays it out here:

It's sensible for House Republicans to continue holding press conferences at gas stations. But, John McCain is a problem. He opposes drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), though he has come around on increased domestic production in other areas (except off the coast of Florida). Flipping on ANWR may be too much for McCain, though doing so would be consistent with his national security argument against spending billions for Middle East oil.

Here in Minnesota, Norm Coleman opposes drilling in ANWR. The upside for Sen. Coleman is that he's a proponent of drilling everywhere else and he's for increasing refining capacity. While that isn't a totally popular position, it's a defensible position. I suspect that most voters will give Sen. Coleman and Sen. McCain a partial pass on ANWR just as long as they don't go further green.

The environmental lobby pushed this legislation hard. Now it's wounded because of the debate. I expect Democrats in swing districts will do everything they can to avoid getting tied to the environmental agenda. Embracing their agenda in those districts is the equivalent of embracing retirement.

This issue isn't just any issue. This has the potential of putting voters into the GOP column while increasing GOP turnout. That's why this is the perfect anti-liberal storm.

That isn't the position Reid, Pelosi, et al, expected to be in right now.

Comments welcome at LFR.