Being a long time Democrat, I still feel that allusions to Camelot and the first family, do great injustice to the Bushes. Crawford is the modern Camelot, although no one gives them credit, and certainly Bush is as reviled as Kennedy was in his first term. Will the younger Bushes enter politics, at least as successfully as the younger Kennedys?

Most of us miss just how socially based most of the Bush policies are; immigration, larger government, bigger deficits. To say that George Bush is simply pro-business is to miss the point, all of Wall Street, and the stock market represents the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

Are we wrong to try and keep that number going higher? Well core conservatives might say yes.

The real issue then is not, wil Democrats unite, but will Republicans unite? Ergo is Obama sufficently tough on the core conservative issues to be elected?

Now who is the real conservative?

The drop in miles driven may be attributed to factors other than the high cost of gasoline. For several years car makers have pushed leasing options, which includes mileage limits. (My cousin had to rent a car to visit me, because his lease car had too many miles already). Give the automakers credit, you now need two cars to do what only used to take one.

While the line between corporate and government policy becomes blurred, we may want to ask, would 0% APR, the business tool which gave rise to the non-ownership society, the car driving public, would not have been possible without the Federal Reserve. 0% APR allowed GM to virtually lockout cash customers from the discount window, and rent you a car you could not drive.

What did the big three get in return for taking greater control of your driving freedoms? The automakers got a free ride in China, WTO, and all the wonderful policies that put poison products on American shelves, and American workers in the unemployment line. Now we can add one more thing, fewer miles driven, but don't blame gasoline, the limits on America's driving habits was already well under way when the price of fuel shot higher.

Don't let this business about free trade distract you from the ugly truth, Ecuador is threatened and intimidated by its Communist neighbor, Hugo Chavez. Perhaps Bush Sr. can lead an (secret) envoy down there to start a guerilla group that would attack across the border, and set up the above mentioned Pre-emptive war.

The Republican angst over leftists in Mexico and S.A. is palpable, most Democrats don't understand. This has nothing to do with trade, and everything to do with American hegemony in the region. Did I mention all that oil?

McCain might not get an E-ticket ride in the Middle East, like Bush managed, but he is allowed at least one minor war to prove his leadership. I say he spends his political capital in South America, since we are all vacationing closer to home this year, even prospective POTUS wannabees like McCain who doesn't know a Shiite from a Sunni, the leftist rebels down south are a lot easier to villianize .

"It also plays to the advantage of local refineries by limiting their competition -- a Government Accountability Office study asserted that California gas prices were 7 cents higher than the national average for this very reason. "

At $4 a gallon seven cents is nothing compared to the environmental benefits.

Tonight an CBS news report suggests that the profit margin on SUV's is about ten times what it is on small cars. (You do the math). The big three would rather sell us SUV's and then take away our driving privileges. You paid $40k for something you cannot drive? It looks so good sitting there in your driveway! And when your home is foreclosed you can live inside, try doing that in vintage VW beetle?

No its not the world we live in, in the world THEY live in, should gasoline be sold at free market prices to the highest bidder? Would they rather sell more, or make it up on less volume, when there is a finite supply available?

Sometime we must consider the converse of the supply/demand equation, which goes something like this, if you are an OPEC oil supplier your reasoning might be, gee I am selling less oil, I better charge more money to make up the difference. (Okay people are using less gasoline why isn't the price going down, professor?)

Scarcity arises from a lack of demand.

And what you get for seven cents may be priceless, including clean air.

http://www.sirchartsalot.com/article.php?id=87

According to Gary Dorsch the governments of China and India are supporting high oil prices through price controls. To accomplish this they are using FX reserves, which means we are subsidizing high oil prices through a weak dollar.

His suggestion is that the Fed raise interest rates, and put the brakes on speculation.

Good question might be, then what? Speculators might have driven up the spot price, but it is oil producing countries which benefit. What if they don't like the deal? (as we complain about the threat of Sovereign Wealth Funds, our Central Bankers are trying to figure out a way to screw the commodity producing third world countries out of a fair price for their products) Of course if we told China and India that our Walmart stores are full, and we don't want anymore, it would accomplish the same thing. But then raising interest rates would accomplish the same thing, by driving the economy into a recession.

Since the lower to middle class don't really do anything for the rich any more, (they dont' make their cars, or any of their durable goods, they bus the tables, and put a mint on the pillow...) higher prices, and class warfare seems like the solution.

but as Dorsch points out, this is an election year.