Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Will Oil Be A Game Changer?
Coming into this election season, the chances for Republican candidates looked only slightly better than abysmal. But then a quirky little thing happened. Gas prices rose to over $4 a gallon. It turned out that when prices eclipsed $4 a gallon the average Joe got pissed off. He saw not only the cost of filling his gas tank skyrocket, but the cost of goods he purchased every day rise.
The Democrats started by blaming "Big Oil" for the rise in prices. When that didn't work, they moved on to commodity speculators as the culprit. Now they are talking about ending our reliance on oil. All of which is a smoke screen to hide their real agenda. The Dems are beholden to environmental groups and they want even higher oil prices.
Obama admitted as much by saying that he didn't have a problem with the price of gas. He had a problem with how fast prices increased.
The public isn't buying the dance. They know that the high cost of oil is a supply problem. They also know that we are sitting on supplies that make Saudi Arabia's oil fields look puny. The polls consistently reflect the fact that a large and growing majority of people are wanting us to tap into our own resources to become energy independent.
The Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue and they know it. Heck, Nancy Pelosi is even trying to provide political cover for members of her own party this fall.
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months — even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.
“The reality is we will have a new president in three months, and what Bush and the Republicans are trying to do amounts to a land grab for the oil companies,” said one senior House Democratic aide involved with party strategy. “I don’t think we have to give in at all pre-election — we have many more options postelection.”
The reality of the matter is that the Democrats have a position that is unpopular with 70+ percent of the population. As the unresolved issue drags on, I am beginning to wonder if oil prices can be a game changer in this election. At the end of the day, people vote their pocket books and oil prices are THE pocket book issue of the election.
I believe we are already seeing signs of the beginning of a swing Republicans way. Obama's support is falling across the board. McConnell has stretched his lead to double digits. Northup is closing the gap with Yarmuth!.
With three months to go, the public's anger will only go stronger over the high prices. If the Republicans keep pounding the Democrats over it, I believe there exists a real chance of nationalizing these elections. The last time that happened was in 1994. And like 1994, the Republicans are position to ride the wave of anger into an unexpected sweeping victory.
Three months is a long time in politics, and anything can still happen. But what we do know is that for at least 5 weeks no action is going to be taken on the issue. That provides a 5 week window of opportunity to see if such a wave is truly forming.
