President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 27, 2008 06:18 PM UTC

Energy: A Democratic Achilles' Heel?

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

General George Patton once observed that in order to beat a tough opponent, you have to “hold them by the nose while kicking them in the ass.”

Keep that in mind while the Washington Post reports this morning:

Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has done something that few Republicans thought possible just a few months ago: given them hope.

United behind a renewed push for offshore oil drilling, Republican members of Congress and the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, think they have found their best political issue of the 2008 campaign.

McCain strategists and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill say the issue, which polls suggest Americans favor by healthy margins, lets Republicans demonstrate their plans to address the anger over high gas prices as well as the broader economic distress that many voters feel.

Because most Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, are opposed to increased drilling, McCain and the GOP have already begun casting their rivals as unconcerned about gas prices and unwilling to wean the country from foreign oil…

In case you haven’t noticed, it’s working. Polls here in Colorado in the last week have shown, at least tentatively, that the combination of high gas prices and GOP demands for “increased exploration” offshore and of oil shale in western Colorado have put Democrats on a most unexpected defensive. In the Colorado Senate race, Democrat Mark Udall was shown to be dead even (in one admittedly outlier poll) with GOP opponent Bob Schaffer, with respondents overwhelmingly identifying energy policy as their most important issue–displacing the Iraq war, and strong evidence that the Republican framing of the issue is now widely accepted. If these numbers hold up over the summer it could represent a major change in the electoral dynamic both here and nationally, which has previously been understood to strongly favor Democrats.

The Post continues:

Republicans have also sought to gain traction on the issue by portraying Obama and Democrats as the “do nothing” party when it comes to solving the nation’s energy needs.

Obama aides say the Democrat supports legislation that would encourage oil companies to drill in offshore areas that are already approved but not used. And aides cite his plan for a $20 billion economic stimulus package that would provide rebates that people could use to pay for gasoline as well as efforts to crack down on oil speculators who drive up prices on the world market.

“There’s a real choice in this election between John McCain’s promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis . . . and Barack Obama’s plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.

Republicans say that is not enough.

More than 100 House Republicans marched onto the Capitol steps this week to introduce the American Energy Act, which includes drilling offshore and in the oil shale of Western mountain regions but also contains increased tax benefits for businesses and families that reduce their energy consumption.

Republicans say their embrace of more domestic drilling and a dramatic increase in funding for the development of renewable fuels puts them squarely in line with voters, who polls show support both policy initiatives, especially when linked to concern about years of gas at $4 a gallon or more…

Democrats reject the idea that Republicans and McCain have made any inroads on the energy issue. Saying they feel no pressure to give in on drilling legislation, Democratic leaders said their polling data show that the public views President Bush as responsible for high gas prices and that none of their candidates for the House or Senate have suffered any political damage from the constant GOP attacks.

Democrats point out that voter support for drilling plummets when surveys note that drilling would not produce new, usable gas for years and would not immediately affect gas prices at the pump.

It’s true that new oil and gas exploration will take years to come online as marketable production, and Democrats insistently remind you that a very large percentage of existing exploration leases, both offshore and here in Colorado, are not being used by the oil companies that own them. We get this, and agree that the intense push by Republicans for huge new leases has more to do with patron oil companies trying to lock up a dominant market position for decades to come than it does any real desire to “increase domestic production.” It’s a very cynical and exploitative game the GOP is playing while ordinary consumers greatly suffer, and oil companies reap mind-boggling profits–a portion of which will help elect those selfsame Republicans this November.

But which story will the voters buy? The numbers suggest that is a question Democrats had better answer very carefully. A poll follows.

Can Republicans turn defeat into victory with $4 a gallon gasoline?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

21 thoughts on “Energy: A Democratic Achilles’ Heel?”

  1. with (Bush administration) projections indicating that the Colorado River basin could well have 20% less water at that point due to climate change, and oil shale requiring between 5-7 barrels of water for each barrel of fuel produced, water is shaping up to be a much larger issue for the west than energy.  Add on top of that the impacts to global warming emissions from an oil shale industry–several new coal-fired power plants larger than any that currently exist in Colorado and the effect at the end of the tailpipe as well, plus the 100% ground disturbance associated with oil shale extraction–under any of the technologies currently being considered–and the impacts to Colorado and most of the west are simply to great, too extreme, and too significant to overcome.  

    Republicans are flat-out lying to people.  If it wins them the election, we gt what we deserve.  More expensive oil and a badly degraded environment that will cost society far more in the mid- and long-term than any imagined savings from tapping shale.

  2.    Voters in this country may very well decide in Nov. that the promise of paying a nickel less per gallon of gasoline some time in the future is worth another 4,000 dead American kids in Iraq, and God only knows how many dead as a result of the likely McCain invasion of Iran.

      The Dems had best put together a credible energy policy and present it in a convincing manner.

    1. and getting cheaper.

      This is the one issue where GOP messaging is working.

      OQD you are dead on that D’s need to show how energy policies are linked to other issues.

      Maybe we need to explain how much oil would have to be pumped to affect the price of gas vs. how much oil we have.

      Maybe we need to visually tie the amount of water used in shale production vs. water in the west.

      Just tossing out some ideas on this, but this is a place where we really need to get cracking.

  3. And the idea that polls in Colorado showed Democrats to be on the defensive is total horse shit.

    Democrats are opposed to a fire sale on the remaining little public land that isn’t already leased.

    The whole premise of the story hinges on the Republican frame that there is no more land to drill on of we don’t open up ANWR and the rest of the OCS. That is false. 80% of the known reserves of oil in the United States are open for drilling right now if the oil companies chose to actually drill.

    As for oil shale, Republicans might as well promise a purple unicorn for ever man, woman, and child. It would be cool in theory, but there are a few technical hurdles in the way.

    1. Yes, D’s need to articulate an energy policy–but if they simply capitulate on the ‘Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less’ lie, then that’s where they lose.  They need to articulate a way forward, not a return to the failed policies of the past.  The ‘use it or lose it’ approach on existing leases is a good idea, but demonstrating some more leadership for real solutions, rather than their normal propensity to triangulate with Republicans and industry as two points of the triangle will lead to electoral failure.  

  4. People vote their pocketbook and gas costs too much, food costs too much and if they keep turning our corn into “gas” food will keep going up.

    Oil shale will be our salvation all we need is some good old American Git’er Done attitude.

    Then we have the Taxes that Democrats traditionally raise on everyone even though they “promise” not to raise taxes.

    All pocketbook items.  

    And please until unemployment goes to 9% most people are working.  So I feel sorry for the 2-3% who want to work but can’t find work but that is not enough people to make a differenct in this election.

    I hope and pray for McCain that he will win because Obama will be death to America.

    So yes… unless Dems can pull out free/low cost gas out of their butts the Republicans can and will win.

    1. Or more specifically chemistry.

      Right now Shell has leases to convert shale to oil–not viable with current technology.

      It may be viable in the future, maybe, but the water needs for oil shale extraction make it an unviable technology based on current research.

      In addition to extract the oil they need heat the ground, which demands huge amounts of energy: bad BTU in/BTU out equation.

      Oil Shale is just plain stupid–if what you want is domestic energy independance and you don’t care how dirty it is, just go Liquifaction of Coal.  Synthetic Petroleum was pioneered by the Nazi’s so it has worked in the real world and is cost effective anywhere north of about $60 a barrel.  However, It is incredibly dirty which pushes additional costs onto broader society.

      You reallly don’t know hat you are talking about when it comes to energy, but you may be right: The GOP may win by creating confusion over the costs (short and long) of our energy use.

    2. His blatant attempt to distort Obama statements on a previous thread to proclaim that Obama is siding with Muslim extremists and now attempting to portray the election of Obama as the “DEATH” of America is the kind of crap that only a paid Republican operative would spew.  Maybe he is just a vile right wing hater but either way, this is one fool that can’t engage in an honest discussion.  Progressives can spend their time better by ignoring this kind of garbage.  Let him make an intelligent post before responding.

      1. I always wanted a pony for Christmas but a purple unicorn would be swell too.

        Besides the obvious argument for better gas mileage vehicles, there also needs to be support for alternative work models like telecommuting.  How much gas could be saved if telecommuting was promoted.  I telecommute two days a week and figure I save about $60 in gas by not driving.  My job is perfectly suited to telecommuting and really the only reason I need to be in the office is for meetings.  If we reconfigure our work days so that telecommuting is routine, we can save a lot of gas.  Improving gas mileage is about more than drilling for more oil.  It includes alternative ways to save gas and that is a winning Democratic strategy.  Republicans with their hatred for the working man don’t get it but we can save gas if we trust employees to be productive away from the office.  I love telecommuting and staying off the highways.  The Internet is the perfect medium for reducing driving.

          1. The organization I work for doesn’t have an office so I work from home. I usually have to fill the gas tank every 10-14 days when I don’t have meetings; otherwise, I fill up every week. The downside is I’m sort of ALWAYS at work.

  6. Nice try.

    Sorry, after years of Republican control, tax breaks for big oil, and nothing trickling down to the consumer, someone is going to have to make a more convincing case that it’s anything other than trickle-down failing to trickle down.

  7. in this election, energy will be it.  And that heel will stretch up to mid thigh.  Despite popular support, the leadership in both the House and the Senate have moved to shut down votes on energy bills rather than have any amendments to increase energy production added on.  

    The Democratic Party has for years proudly associated itself with environmentalist causes while vilifying energy producers.  They are firmly identified in the popular consciousness as the party against producing power in any conventional manner.  No coal, no nuclear, no oil, and no hydroelectric.

    There will be people who will look at the rapid increases in their utility and food bills, and remember the vacation that was spent at home rather than visiting family or going to some vacation spot.  It’s debatable how much of an impact they will have, but the potential is there to have what was likely going to be a big year for Democrats be much, much, smaller.

    1. helping folks with their heating oil bills, reigning in speculators, requiring that companies drill the public mineral/land leases they have stockpiled before opening new areas…

      Big Oil controls (and manipulates) supplies, consumers control demand.  We can have an immediate effect and a certain effect by decreasing demand through smart solutions, efficiencies, and conservation which will have more of an impact than drilling the Arctic, OCS, or developing oil shale ever will.  

    2. identified with environmentalists who have been advocating all along for sustainable societies that are able to protect our planet from greedy corporate polluters that create Love Canals and materialistic cultures without any thought to the future.

      The problem with environmentalists is that they vote Democratic because Republicans never give them a reason to vote otherwise.  Conservatives once cared about conservation with Nixon leading the way by creating the Environmental Protection Agency.  Now days environmentalists is a dirty word to conservatives who would rather die on a parched planet than take care of the land.  What traitors to their proud past.

      1. between responsible environmentalism, and the hysterical attacks on energy production which seem to be the norm from those who call themselves environmentalists.  

        If we continue to increase the population at the rate currently seen, we will need reliable energy production to meet the inevitable increased need.  Solar and wind can augment, but cannot replace a reliable and constant energy source.  We are reaching a bottleneck in what is needed and what is produced in this country, and the Democrats seem determined to obstruct practical solutions.

        1. We cannot drill our way out of our problem.  There are not enough proven and estimated reserves left in this country – even removing all of the restrictions – to match our prior production or remove the national security risk that is our dependence on foreign oil.

          A responsible plan includes showing the consumer the true cost of oil, minus the subsidies and free services the oil companies get.  And it involves a massive investment to replace our unhealthy dependence – quickly and economically.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

60 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!