(05-13-2011 12:36 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 08:50 PM)pobearman Wrote:  I did not see any facts, perhaps you ought to look at the real facts, exploiting the oil sands in the Green River area in Wy would over time totally replace our purchases of foreign oil, the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Canada is the largest oil find in the US since the North Slope. We have no idea how much oil is in ANWR and we should develop it. Offshore oil drilling is largely prohibited and your man Obama has seriously restricted exploration. By the way do you think the oil companies would not drill if they thought there were significant quantities of oil on their leased lands, the reason they do not drill is that it is not economic to drill. I wish you would do research rather than just regurgitate democratic talking points. DO RESEARCH AND GIVE ME FACTS NOT BS FROM THE DNC. I do happen to read the paper and hear all of the talking points. Obama has restricted development of large parts of the Green River for bogus environmental reasons. AZ how much are you willing to pay for gas to worship at your god, OBAMA>

DNC talking points? That's rich pooh bear. That research I cited in the other thread (which you apparently neglected to read) comes from the organization tasked with estimating increase in domestic supply from allowing more exploration and drilling.

Glad to hear you read the paper tho and DNC talking points (?). I stopped reading the former back in 1997 and don't think I've ever seen a piece from the DNC.

If you are bored, here is an example of what I read... (note pdf)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/new...172011.pdf

It's exciting stuff. But if you read it (likely more interesting than DNC talking points), you will see that domestic production will in no way ever replace foreign oil or have more than a negligible impact on oil prices (e.g., opening up ANWR is expected to drop the worldwide price of oil by 1% - and that's assuming OPEC doesn't change their output to counter this). Unless of course, we drastically reduce our domestic consumption (by about 2/3rds). And no, oil shale reserves in Wyoming - although substantial - will never replace our foreign consumption - it is not reasonable to expect to get more than a million or two barrels per day out of the ground anytime sooner than the next 15-20 years (still barely touching the worldwide price of oil).

The point remains, oil is priced based on the worldwide market. Even if we found some way to find enough oil to supply our domestic needs, the price would continue to rise due to people in the two most populous countries in the world all now wanting a car. If you would like to avoid paying so much to drive your car in the future, the only sure fire way to do this is to figure out how to use less of the black gold on a daily basis.

Sorry if the facts are on my side. It's a burden we in the fact-based community bear.

Many of your points on oil are well made. And I have started to come around to the unfortunate notion that while we can definitely increase our domestic output very significantly, we aren't likely to be able to raise output in proportion to the demand increase that is inevitable in the giant emerging economies (china, india etc).

I believe greater production will still have the positive effect of shielding us somewhat from being completely at the mercy of the major foreign oil producers (in the event of major political world instability). We will still have to buy a big % of foreign oil to meet demand. There is no way even greatly increased output will meet domestic consumption at current rates. Not happening.

What, if anything, should be done by our government given this situation is the question. My answer would be nothing. The rising price of oil will be the catalyst for change. We should get rid of all alternative fuel subsidies and let the market innovate and consumers dictate what new technologies bring us to lower consumption.

It won't be pretty, but I think we have seen plenty of historical evidence of what happens when (admittedly well intended) government programs push change rather than letting change evolving naturally through the competitive proving grounds of the free market.

(05-13-2011 12:41 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 09:35 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(05-11-2011 07:12 AM)beck Wrote:  Trickle down economics. Hey Mr. Nixon, hey Mr. Heath, won't you pull your pants up boys we're standing underneath.
Yes , we know, the teabagggers do nothing but good and the liberals do nothing but bad. It is the same thread every dayeverydayeveryday.....

Please explain to me how the poor create jobs?

I hear more crickets....

They buy things. Econ 101 converrl.

Oh and I propose a new rule on here. In order to say you hear crickets, you have to wait at least a few minutes to let someone respond. Doesn't make sense when you ask the question in the same post.

I don't know about 101 - that is the relatively "new" Econ.

Jean Baptiste Say actually proved that point wrong well before Keynes came around and had to use an interpretation of "Say's Law" that you might call overly simplistic (some might say a purposeful misrepresentation) in order to prove his own theories.

Consumers are a necessary part of but not the source of economic growth producers/suppliers are.

To me this is the break point in economic views from Adam Smith, Say, Friedman etc and the Keynes crowd (which is the "new" econ 101). It is also why I think Keynes is basically just fancy mercantilism.

Examples:

When a profitable business moves into an area - it creates jobs. A worker/consumer can't do that.

Supply of X creates demand for X not the other way around. Consider 1980's Russia that had a raft of consumers with literally nothing to buy. The Russian economy grew by increasing the production of "things" (food, oil, caviar etc), the workers basically hung out and waited.

Consumption is obviously important, but production is the cause of consumption.

(05-13-2011 09:42 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  

(05-13-2011 12:36 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 08:50 PM)pobearman Wrote:  I did not see any facts, perhaps you ought to look at the real facts, exploiting the oil sands in the Green River area in Wy would over time totally replace our purchases of foreign oil, the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Canada is the largest oil find in the US since the North Slope. We have no idea how much oil is in ANWR and we should develop it. Offshore oil drilling is largely prohibited and your man Obama has seriously restricted exploration. By the way do you think the oil companies would not drill if they thought there were significant quantities of oil on their leased lands, the reason they do not drill is that it is not economic to drill. I wish you would do research rather than just regurgitate democratic talking points. DO RESEARCH AND GIVE ME FACTS NOT BS FROM THE DNC. I do happen to read the paper and hear all of the talking points. Obama has restricted development of large parts of the Green River for bogus environmental reasons. AZ how much are you willing to pay for gas to worship at your god, OBAMA>

DNC talking points? That's rich pooh bear. That research I cited in the other thread (which you apparently neglected to read) comes from the organization tasked with estimating increase in domestic supply from allowing more exploration and drilling.

Glad to hear you read the paper tho and DNC talking points (?). I stopped reading the former back in 1997 and don't think I've ever seen a piece from the DNC.

If you are bored, here is an example of what I read... (note pdf)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/new...172011.pdf

It's exciting stuff. But if you read it (likely more interesting than DNC talking points), you will see that domestic production will in no way ever replace foreign oil or have more than a negligible impact on oil prices (e.g., opening up ANWR is expected to drop the worldwide price of oil by 1% - and that's assuming OPEC doesn't change their output to counter this). Unless of course, we drastically reduce our domestic consumption (by about 2/3rds). And no, oil shale reserves in Wyoming - although substantial - will never replace our foreign consumption - it is not reasonable to expect to get more than a million or two barrels per day out of the ground anytime sooner than the next 15-20 years (still barely touching the worldwide price of oil).

The point remains, oil is priced based on the worldwide market. Even if we found some way to find enough oil to supply our domestic needs, the price would continue to rise due to people in the two most populous countries in the world all now wanting a car. If you would like to avoid paying so much to drive your car in the future, the only sure fire way to do this is to figure out how to use less of the black gold on a daily basis.

Sorry if the facts are on my side. It's a burden we in the fact-based community bear.

Many of your points on oil are well made. And I have started to come around to the unfortunate notion that while we can definitely increase our domestic output very significantly, we aren't likely to be able to raise output in proportion to the demand increase that is inevitable in the giant emerging economies (china, india etc).

I believe greater production will still have the positive effect of shielding us somewhat from being completely at the mercy of the major foreign oil producers (in the event of major political world instability). We will still have to buy a big % of foreign oil to meet demand. There is no way even greatly increased output will meet domestic consumption at current rates. Not happening.

What, if anything, should be done by our government given this situation is the question. My answer would be nothing. The rising price of oil will be the catalyst for change. We should get rid of all alternative fuel subsidies and let the market innovate and consumers dictate what new technologies bring us to lower consumption.

It won't be pretty, but I think we have seen plenty of historical evidence of what happens when (admittedly well intended) government programs push change rather than letting change evolving naturally through the competitive proving grounds of the free market.

While I agree with most of your post, I think alternative fuel subsidies are necessary as a catalyst to change - particularly because the oil industry is so entrenched (in our political system and in our energy infrastructure). Once various forms of alternative energies reach a critical mass and are economically viable on their own (as compared to oil/coal/etc.), subsidies can be scaled back or removed. We are already seeing the cost of solar dropping steadily. There are also great leaps in battery technology - which is critical for the future. Like it or not, government subsidies are responsible for many of the technological leaps our country has taken (think the Internet, drugs from NIH, all the tech from our military, the new Intel 3d chip, etc.).

And frankly, with higher prices of oil, we will move toward this and other energy sources more rapidly. Which is why I agree with Krauthammer (the one thing we agree on), that higher price of gas will be painful, but ultimately a good thing for us (he advocates a gas tax to maintain a minimum price of gas). Being a lefty, I'd like to make sure the higher prices are mitigated someway for lower income folks and various businesses who rely heavily on fuel through tax credits or something. Either way, eventually we are going to have to face the reality that we don't control the prices of oil and the rest of the world is industrializing too fast for supply to keep up with worldwide demand. It is really a result of our own economic policies - as our outsourcing has created rapidly growing middle classes in China, Indian and other emerging markets - all who demand cars.

My hope is that ultimately - hopefully in the next 20 years - we have a major energy breakthrough that allows us to completely wean ourselves off oil and other dirty fuels once and for all (an invention on the level of nuclear), so our grandkids won't ever have to know the intimate details of the Afghani terrain and the difference between Shia and Sunni. But in the meantime, we need to move our demand away from a fuel sources which we rely heavily on the Middle East for. Drill, baby, drill ain't gonna cut it unfortunately.

I agree about alternatives. All for them.

No idea why that precludes private exploration and development of domestic oil. Its not an either/or proposition. Never has been. But this administration continues to detrimentally position it as such. Energy policy should be full speed ahead on both fronts.

(05-13-2011 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I agree about alternatives. All for them.

No idea why that precludes private exploration and development of domestic oil. Its not an either/or proposition. Never has been. But this administration continues to detrimentally position it as such. Energy policy should be full speed ahead on both fronts.

I think it is probably for the same reason Japan is rethinking their strong commitment to nuclear and is in the process of shutting some plants and temporarily closing many others. We just had a major environmental disaster in the Gulf if you don't remember. For many of us, its gives us pause when something like that happens.

I'm all for expanded oil exploration and drilling if it is well regulated (a dicey proposition) and while I understand strong regulations raise the price of exploration and drilling, the oil companies can afford to pay this price when the oil prices are so high.

Environmental destruction in the name of making sure we can keep driving our luxury SUV's for a fraction of the cost the rest of the world pays is short sighted in my mind.

(05-13-2011 12:41 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  They buy things. Econ 101 converrl.

Hmmm...

Seems your math is off here...

Don't the poor have less money than the rich?
Therefore, don't the rich buy more than the poor?
Therefore, don't the rich create more jobs, not simply through consumption, but also through investment?

Crickets are chirpin' again...

Answer me this--

How many poor people employ someone by creating a business vs. their rich counterparts?

Ouch!

(05-13-2011 04:55 PM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-13-2011 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I agree about alternatives. All for them.

No idea why that precludes private exploration and development of domestic oil. Its not an either/or proposition. Never has been. But this administration continues to detrimentally position it as such. Energy policy should be full speed ahead on both fronts.

I think it is probably for the same reason Japan is rethinking their strong commitment to nuclear and is in the process of shutting some plants and temporarily closing many others. We just had a major environmental disaster in the Gulf if you don't remember. For many of us, its gives us pause when something like that happens.

I'm all for expanded oil exploration and drilling if it is well regulated (a dicey proposition) and while I understand strong regulations raise the price of exploration and drilling, the oil companies can afford to pay this price when the oil prices are so high.

Environmental destruction in the name of making sure we can keep driving our luxury SUV's for a fraction of the cost the rest of the world pays is short sighted in my mind.

You do realize that in terms of passenger miles per gallon, most SUV's are more efficient than most compact cars, don't you?

The gas price double standard has little to do with hypocrisy and much to do with conspiracy theory.

If I told you George W was a muslim from Africa, would ya believe me?

If I told you Obama was trying to make a few billion in his last few months in office, when there was no chance for re-election, would you consider that as truth?

Some stories just tell themselves.

2.5 years too slow, but I'll take the reasonable step in the right direction...even if it is just a step forward to where he began when he took office.

Quote:Obama Shifts to Speed Oil and Gas Drilling in U.S.

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Obama, facing voter anger over high gasoline prices and complaints from Republicans and business leaders that his policies are restricting the development of domestic energy resources, announced Saturday that he was taking several steps to speed oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters.

It was at least a partial concession to his critics at a time when consumers are paying near-record prices at the gas pump. The Republican-led House passed three bills in the last 10 days that would significantly expand and accelerate oil development in the United States, saying the administration was driving up gas prices and preventing job creation with antidrilling policies.

Administration officials said the president’s announcement, which included plans for expanded drilling in Alaska and the prospect of new exploration off the Atlantic coast, was intended in part to answer those arguments, signal flexibility and demonstrate his commitment to reducing oil imports by increasing domestic production.

But in fact the policies announced Saturday would not have an immediate effect on supply or prices, nor would they quickly open any new areas to drilling.

“These spikes in gas prices are often temporary,” Mr. Obama said, “and while there are no quick fixes to the problem, there are a few steps we should take that make good sense.”

The president’s turn to a domestic pocketbook issue comes after two weeks of intense focus on the killing of Osama bin Laden, terrorism more broadly and the multiple crises in the Middle East.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Mr. Obama said the administration would begin to hold annual auctions for oil and gas leases in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, a 23-million-acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska. The move comes after years of demands for the auctions by industry executives and Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat.

The administration will also accelerate a review of the potential environmental impact of drilling off the southern and central Atlantic coast and will consider making some areas available for exploration. The move is a change from current policy, which puts the entire Atlantic Seaboard off limits to drilling until at least 2018.

The president also said he would extend leases already granted for drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that had been frozen after the BP spill last year. The extension will allow companies time to meet new safety and environmental standards without having to worry about their leases expiring.

And the government will provide incentives for oil companies to more quickly exploit leases they already hold. Tens of millions of acres onshore and offshore are under lease but have not been developed.

The actions signal a return to a more industry-friendly approach to offshore operations that Mr. Obama had adopted early in his presidency, though they do not reverse some of the steps the administration made to slow drilling after the gulf disaster.

Hastening the review of drilling permits in Alaska and the possibility of offering parts of the Atlantic Coast for lease in the next few years, in particular, represent a significant change from the administration’s attitude toward drilling after the spill.

The moves come after the House passed a series of bills that would force the administration to move much further and faster to open public lands and waters to oil and gas development. The administration formally opposed the bills as written, but officials said Friday that the White House might accept some provisions in the bills, like extending the frozen leases in the gulf and in Alaska.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/pol...ml?_r=2&hp

(05-14-2011 07:31 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  2.5 years too slow, but I'll take the reasonable step in the right direction...even if it is just a step forward to where he began when he took office.

Quote:Obama Shifts to Speed Oil and Gas Drilling in U.S.

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Obama, facing voter anger over high gasoline prices and complaints from Republicans and business leaders that his policies are restricting the development of domestic energy resources, announced Saturday that he was taking several steps to speed oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters.

It was at least a partial concession to his critics at a time when consumers are paying near-record prices at the gas pump. The Republican-led House passed three bills in the last 10 days that would significantly expand and accelerate oil development in the United States, saying the administration was driving up gas prices and preventing job creation with antidrilling policies.

Administration officials said the president’s announcement, which included plans for expanded drilling in Alaska and the prospect of new exploration off the Atlantic coast, was intended in part to answer those arguments, signal flexibility and demonstrate his commitment to reducing oil imports by increasing domestic production.

But in fact the policies announced Saturday would not have an immediate effect on supply or prices, nor would they quickly open any new areas to drilling.

“These spikes in gas prices are often temporary,” Mr. Obama said, “and while there are no quick fixes to the problem, there are a few steps we should take that make good sense.”

The president’s turn to a domestic pocketbook issue comes after two weeks of intense focus on the killing of Osama bin Laden, terrorism more broadly and the multiple crises in the Middle East.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Mr. Obama said the administration would begin to hold annual auctions for oil and gas leases in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, a 23-million-acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska. The move comes after years of demands for the auctions by industry executives and Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat.

The administration will also accelerate a review of the potential environmental impact of drilling off the southern and central Atlantic coast and will consider making some areas available for exploration. The move is a change from current policy, which puts the entire Atlantic Seaboard off limits to drilling until at least 2018.

The president also said he would extend leases already granted for drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that had been frozen after the BP spill last year. The extension will allow companies time to meet new safety and environmental standards without having to worry about their leases expiring.

And the government will provide incentives for oil companies to more quickly exploit leases they already hold. Tens of millions of acres onshore and offshore are under lease but have not been developed.

The actions signal a return to a more industry-friendly approach to offshore operations that Mr. Obama had adopted early in his presidency, though they do not reverse some of the steps the administration made to slow drilling after the gulf disaster.

Hastening the review of drilling permits in Alaska and the possibility of offering parts of the Atlantic Coast for lease in the next few years, in particular, represent a significant change from the administration’s attitude toward drilling after the spill.

The moves come after the House passed a series of bills that would force the administration to move much further and faster to open public lands and waters to oil and gas development. The administration formally opposed the bills as written, but officials said Friday that the White House might accept some provisions in the bills, like extending the frozen leases in the gulf and in Alaska.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/pol...ml?_r=2&hp

I applaud.

I really do.

how about that? Bobo just joined the short-sighted Drill Baby Drill gang.

Puts a funny spin on this thread.

(05-13-2011 04:55 PM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-13-2011 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I agree about alternatives. All for them.

No idea why that precludes private exploration and development of domestic oil. Its not an either/or proposition. Never has been. But this administration continues to detrimentally position it as such. Energy policy should be full speed ahead on both fronts.

I think it is probably for the same reason Japan is rethinking their strong commitment to nuclear and is in the process of shutting some plants and temporarily closing many others. We just had a major environmental disaster in the Gulf if you don't remember. For many of us, its gives us pause when something like that happens.

I'm all for expanded oil exploration and drilling if it is well regulated (a dicey proposition) and while I understand strong regulations raise the price of exploration and drilling, the oil companies can afford to pay this price when the oil prices are so high.

Environmental destruction in the name of making sure we can keep driving our luxury SUV's for a fraction of the cost the rest of the world pays is short sighted in my mind.

Interested in your take on Obama's new drill baby drill initiative.

(05-16-2011 04:03 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(05-13-2011 04:55 PM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(05-13-2011 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I agree about alternatives. All for them.

No idea why that precludes private exploration and development of domestic oil. Its not an either/or proposition. Never has been. But this administration continues to detrimentally position it as such. Energy policy should be full speed ahead on both fronts.

I think it is probably for the same reason Japan is rethinking their strong commitment to nuclear and is in the process of shutting some plants and temporarily closing many others. We just had a major environmental disaster in the Gulf if you don't remember. For many of us, its gives us pause when something like that happens.

I'm all for expanded oil exploration and drilling if it is well regulated (a dicey proposition) and while I understand strong regulations raise the price of exploration and drilling, the oil companies can afford to pay this price when the oil prices are so high.

Environmental destruction in the name of making sure we can keep driving our luxury SUV's for a fraction of the cost the rest of the world pays is short sighted in my mind.

Interested in your take on Obama's new drill baby drill initiative.

Politics. Obama has an election coming up - and if the public thinks drilling is going to solve the problem (even if they are incorrect), he will give them what they want. I think what he said on Saturday generally squares with what I have been saying - increased drilling, if responsibly done (well regulated, while not totally destroying the environment), should be undertaken. But this won't have a significant impact on oil prices.

Republicans have been beating this drum for awhile, and Clinton showed triangulation works with independent voters. Whenever he is called on this by a Republican during the election, he can now point to this speech instead of having to launch into a wonky explanation about U.S. oil supply, fungible worldwide oil, emerging market demand, etc (a surefire loser with voters who mostly hate details).

More interesting to me is what the Exxon CEO said in testimony late last week - essentially, he thinks futures speculators have driven oil prices $30-$40/bbl above where they should be based on worldwide supply and demand. This give us a little insight into what their internal economists may be thinking regarding prices. Of course, being the cynic I am, he might have just been saying this to try to persuade Congress to not cut off all the tax breaks - since the (very, very) good times for oil companies won't last forever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110512/bs_n...peculation

And to QSECOR re: passenger mpg: likely true if you always drive with the maximum number of passengers in your SUV (which no one does). May I suggest you rock the Swagger Wagon instead if family circumstances dictate...

http://youtu.be/ql-N3F1FhW4

Or ditch the SUV for a 15 passenger van or take the bus or ride a bike for truly efficient passenger mpg.

(05-12-2011 08:14 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  I found the Pelosi video on other thread. It really isnt that hypocritical if you break it down. This is a classic case of editing. Ive watched the full interview. It aired July 18, 2008 on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer asked Pelosi why now that the Democrats had won the house that the price of oil had not fallen despite Democratic initiatives passed that "cracked down on price gouging, ending taxpayer subsidies, and creating funding for renewable energy sources." Pelosi responded that bills passed the House but were blocked by Republicans in the the Senate and received a veto threat from the White House. VP Cheney also noted he was against bill. At end of the interview Pelosi said “The price of oil is at the doorstep … is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.” The video clip conveniently left out "their protectors in the United States" to make it seem like a sole attack on the White House blaming them completely for oil prices as if fact that they were oilmen caused high price of oil. Instead of what it really was: attacking the Senate and White House for not passing a Democratic House bill that Pelosi claimed would ease oil prices. Pelosi has long maintained that the one of the primary causes of oil prices is market speculation.

Bumping in case Hawkeye didnt see this post Re: Pelosi video.

(05-16-2011 05:44 PM)AZBCAT Wrote:  And to QSECOR re: passenger mpg: likely true if you always drive with the maximum number of passengers in your SUV (which no one does). May I suggest you rock the Swagger Wagon instead if family circumstances dictate...

http://youtu.be/ql-N3F1FhW4

Or ditch the SUV for a 15 passenger van or take the bus or ride a bike for truly efficient passenger mpg.

I have never owned an SUV. I did own something somewhat similar -- a mini van. It had a 3.4L V6 that got worse gas mileage than my current ride -- a 312 HP Pony Car.

It was the only "car" that I owned at the time. I drove it to and from work on a daily basis. 95% of the time, I was the only one in this vehicle that was capable of hauling 7 passengers plus gear.

I also used the car on the weekends to drive my son and his buddies to their baseball games. I used it to drive my daughter and her friends to Winter Guard competitions. We also used it to take family vacations.

In order to use less fuel, my only option would have been to own and drive two vehicles. At that time, it was out of the question financially. But, even if I had been "wealthy", it would not be a good solution for the environment. The fuel savings over a 5 year period would have been less than the energy used to mine the iron ore, the energy used to machine all of the parts, the energy used to assemble the car, the energy used to deliver the car, etc.

You confuse what is "right" for you and your family circumstances with that which is "right" for others.

The greeny argument that "SUV's suck!" shows both a lack of maturity and fundamental understanding of reality.

(05-18-2011 04:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 08:14 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  I found the Pelosi video on other thread. It really isnt that hypocritical if you break it down. This is a classic case of editing. Ive watched the full interview. It aired July 18, 2008 on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer asked Pelosi why now that the Democrats had won the house that the price of oil had not fallen despite Democratic initiatives passed that "cracked down on price gouging, ending taxpayer subsidies, and creating funding for renewable energy sources." Pelosi responded that bills passed the House but were blocked by Republicans in the the Senate and received a veto threat from the White House. VP Cheney also noted he was against bill. At end of the interview Pelosi said “The price of oil is at the doorstep … is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.” The video clip conveniently left out "their protectors in the United States" to make it seem like a sole attack on the White House blaming them completely for oil prices as if fact that they were oilmen caused high price of oil. Instead of what it really was: attacking the Senate and White House for not passing a Democratic House bill that Pelosi claimed would ease oil prices. Pelosi has long maintained that the one of the primary causes of oil prices is market speculation.

Bumping in case Hawkeye didnt see this post Re: Pelosi video.

Didn't see it until you mentioned this in another thread. Blaming "2 oilmen and their protectors" isn't exactly citing two distinct factors. It's even less distinctive than blaming "the X administration" which is done all the time. Pelosi is blaming the "two oil men and their protectors". The two oil men are gone and oil prices remain high. Whoever these phantom protectors are, they evidently don't need the 2 oilmen. So Pelosi is clearly hypocritical and/or wrong at a minimum.