The guy should have run for President of the PTA first.

A big part of the problem is the second sentence is of the form "If A, B, C." Somewhere, there needs to be a "then D". On the other hand, I suppose it's a wonderful thing to be able to propose policy changes without ever promising any particular resulting outcome.

Maybe that's what his campaign buzzwords really mean: change stuff, and hope something good happens.

Considering the gibberish that would leave Bush's orifice and the lost vacant babble that McCain expounds - I think Obama makes a lot of sense.

So let me enlighten you:
The pace at which gas prices are rising is having a detrimental affect on the American consumer, but in the long run fuel prices where bound to go up with the increased pressure from China and India so it would have been nice to have an easier transition. Hopefully through policy changes we can mitigate some of this fiscal pain and at the same time encourage the auto makers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, and look towards alternative technologies - and tell the oil producers to shove it.

I didn't see any posts when W pooh poohed the notion of a $4 gallon a couple of months ago...

Toowoozy, What steps can we take "right now" to make gas prices cheaper? That's lalaland. The only "steps" we can take is reduce the tax on gas. And we only know Obama is not proposing that.

Bryan, it may have been wrong but at least his comment had a point.

If congress would at least COMMIT to exploring new energy, it would reduce a lot of pressure from speculators in the market.

Expensive fuel prices impact the poor more than anyone else. One might think democrats would understand that and, uh, do something about it.

Telling oil producers to "shove it" might feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Yes, they're all evil because (unlike the rest of us) they like money, but the ONLY answer to high prices (as always) is more supply.

Sounds like he needs a new writer for his teleprompter.

I think the concept is that a gradual price increase would give a greater chance for substitutes and in this case more fuel efficient or alternative vehicles in the supply chain.

Unfortunately if one studies Economics there isn't much the Gov't can do to effect prices in the long run. Only an increase in supply or a reduction in demand based on price.

Solving the problem by giving people more money = higher prices.

Jimmy C part II giddyup...

The only thing we could do to decrease prices right now is increase supply or reduce demand. IF his comments were pointed at the reduction in demand due to cheaper/ more available fuel efficient cars I guess it is partially valid yet veiled point at best.

Toowoozy: I don't see how you compare Bush's inability to speak to Obama's inability to think on his feet (which result in half-thoughts like Karol posted about). You also shouldn't listen only to the MSM's presentations of Bush's speeches. The first time I heard him give impromptu remarks was in 2003, carried on Bloomberg TV. It was remarkable to hear him speak with clarity, wit. And a friend of mine, a real Bush-hater, saw a tape of him in a debate for the Texas governor's office. Bush was forceful, powerful, able to give statistics off the top of his head. Definitely NOT the Bush we're used to. I don't say this as a Bush fan, but the guy's smarter than you think, and Dems have proven it by losing to him twice when they should have had it in the bag. "Misunderestimate" him at your own peril.

bryan: even financial market experts have been surprised at oil and gasoline prices. Nobody thought it would last above $70, because that would make Albertan tar sands profitable. Above $100, Rocky Mountain U.S. shale oil. Etc. What we should have expected (and still continue to expect) is the federal government's and environmentalist lobby's stranglehold on our supplies.

I'm guessing Obama meant to say "We can take some steps" instead of "But if we..." Then it makes grammatical sense, but not economic sense. It wouldn't make sense even to those (myself not included) who deliberately want high gas prices so that we "overindulgent" Americans will consume less. For example, Greg Mankiw favors Pigouvian taxes to control people's behavior, according to what is considered "better" or "the common good."

Obama wants a gradual adjustment. But that gives people more time to get used to higher and higher prices, like building a tolerance to arsenic. So he doesn't want it, not as a product of logical thinking, to control consumption. What does he want it for, then? The "market"? That's a myth when it comes to energy. There's all this demand, and a government-controlled supply (restrictions on fossil fuels, subsidies for "alternatives"). That's no market. It's to the point where we're like Oliver, begging for a little more, when we ought to be able to drill in our own goddamn back yard.

Perry and Karol: fair enough, it was a surprise, but W's reply was "What a ridiculous notion, you're a fool to suggest it", when a better response would have been "I haven't heard this estimate, we're working hard to stop that from happening" (and even if no hard work was being done, it still plays better).
By replying in this way, and then being wrong, W is in danger of repeating his dad's folly (read my lips).
Shorter reply; never say never.

W doesn't have to worry about making his father's mistake: the former isn't up for re-election.

I don't fault Bush for making an incorrect statement, or having any self-satisfaction about it, but I'll fault anyone who thinks something must be true, or have a greater probability it's true, just because Bush said it. Being president does not endow you with great prognosticative powers.

Perry, nobody faults Bush (partiucularly himself); hasn't that been the problem all through his tenure?

Uh, "nobody faults Bush"? What planet do you live on?

I've criticized Bush plenty, in public and private, but I'm not going to waste my time saying, "Oooh, he made a bad prediction on oil prices!"

Perry, with respect, you aren't the calibre of critic I am talking about.

With whatever respect you want to hear, you can bugger off if you miss my point. My own criticism is merely an example.

Like I said, what planet do you live on? Do you honestly think there's no criticism of Bush here, by regular citizens, by op-ed columns, by journalists masquerading their op-eds as "news"? Listen to our "right-wing" talk radio, and you'll hear plenty of criticism by his own party members.

There hasn't been this blatant hatred by the mainstream U.S. media, including spinning every story possible to be anti-Bush, in decades. It's worse than it was with his father in 1992.

Perry (I hadn't noticed this post in the archives). Karmas a bitch, ain't it? Bush drubbed McCain's rep in 2000, then he presided over divisive and partisan tom-foolery. Remember when he said that if the dems win the terrorists win? Is it then surprising that the man who, in effect, calls his own people traitors and unamerican for not voting for him has garnered some criticism?
That said, I am sick of seeing W being rude to a journalist asking a reasonable question. IU am sick of softball interviews with Fox and other networks. That's what I mean by getting a pass. Clinton got a blow job and was threatened with impeachment; W has done far dodgier things and this idea has never been floated.

What Bush actually said in 2006 was that if the Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, then the terrorists will win. It's undeniably true, you know: Democrats would have us pull out of Iraq, which would allow terrorists to seize control of the country and turn it into New Iran. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not with the initial invasion. We broke it, we bought it, and it's now the United States' responsibility to make Iraq safe.

Practically speaking, any sitting U.S. president doesn't often give interviews, because he's too busy. Also, why should he waste his time with a partisan operative masquerading as an interviewer? A president will want to appear in the best light. That's politics. What the mainstream media does, however, is seize on every little bit he says. Even when Bush is proposing big government, it's not good enough, because he isn't proposing big enough government. "Bush Plan Doesn't Help All" is one example of a headline I saved.

If you think the idea of impeachment hasn't even been suggested, then you're not familiar with our politics here. Kucinich is constantly trying to bring it to the floor, where it's usually tabled -- and remember that the Democrats are in control, meaning most of them want impeachment proceedings quashed too. It only makes them look foolish, and besides, they may bitch about partisan issues, but Democrats will admit silently that he's been their best friend on spending. He'll pass just about anything they throw at him. He's expanded the federal budget by the biggest percentage since LBJ. Speaking of which, where were impeachment proceedings when LBJ escalated Vietnam to enrich himself and his friends, who'd invested heavily in military contractors?

I'm not arguing that Bush hasn't done impeachable offenses, but the fact remains that there hasn't been this kind of blind hatred in years. Clinton was impeached not over fellatio, but over lying about it under oath. Remember that Clinton committed perjury, and it was bad enough that his license to practice law before the Supreme Court was revoked for several years (big deal in his practice, but such actions are rarely done, and never before to a former president). Yet the mainstream media here was nonetheless sympathetic about it, and all too eager to drop coverage once Clinton ordered a bombing as a distraction. "It was just sex."

Unbelievable. You repeat the idea that the terrorists win in dems are voted in. Do you not see how this arrogance is losing votes. I've never met a US citizen who has ever talen kindly to being called a traitor to the USA (directly or indirectly).
Bush uses rudeness to sidestep answering questions and by doing so lets down his country.

sorry, that's 'taken'

You repeat the idea that the terrorists win in dems are voted in.

Let's see: Jimmy Carter failed to stand up to Iran, who took that as a sign of weakness and thus became the world's premiere state sponsor of terrorism.

Bill Clinton wanted to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter, which only emboldened terrorists like in 1979. So after the first WTC bombing, we had attacks on our embassies and on the U.S. Cole, culminating in 9/11. The second attack on the WTC occurred a scant 8 months after Clinton left office. The wheels were already in motion, just like the U.S. economy was already starting to tank before GWB was even elected.

B. Hussein Obama wants to disarm the world of nuclear weapons, starting with the U.S. stockpile, and enter into non-pre-conditional dialogue with Iran and Syria.

Now, which party do you think they belong to?

Do you not see how this arrogance is losing votes.

Define what you mean by this. Do you mean in the 2008 campaign? It won't necessarily be true, if enough people realize that Joe Lieberman is about the only Democrat who understands all the ragheads out there who want to destroy America.

Or do you mean support around the world? We really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We're going to fight for our best interest above everyone else's.

I've never met a US citizen who has ever talen kindly to being called a traitor to the USA (directly or indirectly).
Bush uses rudeness to sidestep answering questions and by doing so lets down his country.

The first is a statement of the obvious. The second is presenting a fraction as a whole. Like I said above, politicians (of both sides) aren't going to want to waste time arguing with partisan reporters. That said, I've never heard Bush "sidestep" a "reasonable" question, and "reasonable" to your ears is probably myopic criticism anyhow. But it's everywhere else in the media that lambastes him, sometimes fairly, sometimes absurdly. Press conferences are a tiny fraction of what goes on, bub.

What really has let down the U.S. is that Bush hasn't done a single real thing to keep the federal government from growing.