Just a lot of gas...
Remember a few short years ago, when gas prices hit a high of $3.50 per gallon? The public was outraged, and the outrage was fueled by the media. The press, blogosphere, and Democrats were quick to point the finger of blame at - you guessed it - President Bush. The rise in gas prices was his fault! Bush and his oil buddies wanted to get rich! scam the public! Here is just a small sampling of some of the unbiased reporting:
From Politcususa, April 26, 2008:
“This week, the price of oil and gasoline both hit new record highs – almost $120 for a barrel of oil and more than $3.50 a gallon for gas. These out-of-control prices mean that hundreds of thousands of Americans are driving to work and spending too much of their day just earning back the cost of their commute. The American people deserve to know why this happened,” Lautenberg said.
He blamed the Bush/Cheney energy policy, “When President Bush took office, gas prices were less than half of what they are today – and oil was less than one-third. Then, seven years ago, President Bush and Vice President Cheney secretly invited executives from the big oil and big energy companies to the White House to write our national energy policy. When we finally uncovered the truth, we discovered – to no surprise – that Big Oil helped write a law that guaranteed them billions and billions of dollars in tax giveaways while they set in motion disastrous economic and environmental policies that have served no one but themselves.”
And from a Gallup Poll during the Bush presidency:
The Bush administration and Congress have taken action on energy in recent years, but those steps were largely targeted toward energy usage in the future and did little to address the more immediate concern of high gas prices. Bush himself has said there is no "magic wand" he can wave to cut gas prices. Though Americans may be more aware of the complex reasons for high gas prices, they still hold their elected officials accountable. That may be why the already low approval ratings of Bush and Congress have eroded further in recent months.
From Bloomberg, May 17, 2004:
Americans are paying 30 percent more for regular gasoline than a year ago, an average of a $1.94 a gallon, and a poll by American Research Group May 3-6 showed voters becoming concerned. Oil futures have averaged $28.62 a barrel since Bush took office, 42 percent higher than the average during Clinton's two terms. Oil reached a record $41.38 a barrel on Friday.
..."``With gas prices expected to go over $2 a gallon next month, the White House needs to do more than just pay lip service to a problem that is threatening to exacerbate the weak economy,'' Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.
From NPR, April 2008:
Here's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Senator HARRY REID (Democrat, Nevada; Senate Majority Leader): Whether we want it or not, there's going to have to be a discussion as to fuel prices, what's going on. That's the number one issue facing America today. It's more important now than the housing market.
WELNA: And here's Reid's Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell.
Senator MITCH McCONNELL (Republican, Kentucky): The number one issue for Americans right now and their greatest concern is the price of gas at the pump.
WELNA: And here's President Bush at a Rose Garden news conference this morning.
President GEORGE W. BUSH: Americans are concerned about energy prices. And I can understand why.
WELNA: The solution Mr. Bush argued was to do what Congress has refused to do throughout his presidency - approve opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil drilling. Doing so, he promised, would allow the U.S. to produce another million barrels of oil a day.
Pres. BUSH: There would be about a 20 percent increase of all crude oil production of the U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices, and yet such efforts to explore ANWR have been consistently blocked.
WELNA: Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski picked up the argument in the Senate chamber.
Senator LISA MURKOWSKI (Republican, Alaska): I will be the first one to admit to you that opening ANWR tomorrow will not produce more oil tomorrow. We recognize that, but we do believe that it will dampen the price speculation that is helping to fuel higher prices.
WELNA: President Bush's other proposal to force down gas prices was to build more refineries.
Pres. BUSH: It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.
WELNA: The Senate's number two Democrat, Dick Durbin, agreed the problem is with the refineries, but not that there aren't enough of them.
Senator DICK DURBIN (Democrat, Illinois): Today, the refineries in America are operating at 85 percent capacity. Don't buy this agreement that it's about refineries. They have more capacity that they're holding back, so that they can keep their product dear and limited and short, and so that the consumers will ultimately pay more.
WELNA: Democrats are divided over waiving the federal gas tax this summer. Presidential contender Barack Obama says it won't make much difference, while Hillary Clinton - like Republican John McCain - supports the idea. One of Clinton's strongest supporters is New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
Senator CHUCK SCHUMER (Democrat, New York): We believe that there ought to be a gas tax holiday, but Big Oil ought to pay for it. Take some of the money out of the royalties, take some of the money out of the windfall profits, and reduce that gas tax. It's that simple.
WELNA: But it's not that simple for Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn.
Senator JOHN CORNYN (Republican, Texas): It may be fashionable to beat up on Big Oil and say, let's tax the oil companies because they're making too much money. But you know what, if we raise taxes on the oil companies, we all end up paying an increased price of gasoline at the pump.
WELNA: But there was almost no talk today about conservation. Here's as close as President Bush came to the subject.
Pres. BUSH: But the market is going to, you know, do as much for encouraging conservation as anything else is now. And so, I firmly believe that, you know, if there's a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course.
OH MY GOODNESS. And just HOW is the press holding Obama accountable? Or blaming The One for ANY increase of prices at the gas pump? Well, they aren't. And Barry O. isn't admitting any role in the increased gas costs, of course.
From the Washington Examiner, April 22, 2011:
In 2007, when the average national price ranged from $2.17 to $3.22, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., demanded that the Federal Trade Commission investigate Big Oil for "price manipulation." In 2008, presidential candidate Obama urged the Justice Department "to open an investigation into whether energy traders have been engaged in illegal activities that have helped drive up the price of oil and food.
Now, with President Barack Obama in charge, the price of gas is higher than ever, with no end in sight. Just what is the Commander-In-Chief doing? Is HE taking the blame? No, of course not. He is doing what he does best, pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. And the press allows him to do so.
From the Chicago Sun Times, April 21, 2011:
President Barack Obama announced Thursday that the Justice Department is assembling a team to “root out any cases of fraud or manipulation” in oil markets that might be forcing up gasoline prices in the United States.The national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.84 on Thursday, about 30 cents higher than a month ago and almost a dollar higher than a year ago. Obama, decrying such levels as yet another hardship “at a time when things were already pretty tough,” said Attorney General Eric Holder was forming the Financial Fraud Enforcement Working Group.
----------------------------------------------
Fraud or manipulation? Are you kidding me? What about the anti-oil drilling policies of the Obama Administration? Or Obama's completely idiotic energy policies?
And of course we get this little blurb, taking blame away from The One for the rising gas prices (was anything like this EVER written in regards to George W. Bush?):
"There’s not much Obama can do to affect the price of gasoline in short term, something he acknowledged in his remarks. Gas prices have risen steadily as a result of tensions in the Middle East and northern Africa and rising demand from China and other emerging economies."
------------------------------------------------
So, there isn't much a president can do to affect the price of gasoline? Did I read that correctly? Then why the huge outcry when gas prices were around $3-plus a gallon when Bush was in the White House? How soon we forget.
Unfortunately for the America people, we are saddled for another year-plus with a President who is quite content to allow gas prices to skyrocket, and a media who is just as happy to ignore any blame or question the policies of the Obama Administration that does nothing to allow our country to become less dependent upon other countries for an oil source. (Why, it's probably still Bush and Cheney's fault!) as well as the American people who love to drive cars rather than jump on the mass transit bandwagon!
Aside from a dislike of oil, oil companies, the auto industry, and saving the American taxpayer any money in the process, what IS President Obama's energy policy? Continue to let oil prices rise? Have gas reach $7 or $8 a gallon? (Obama's own Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggested months ago that higher gas prices are a good thing.) Continue to ignore the unrest in the Middle East? Hope people drive less? Let more people lose their jobs - especially those thousands upon thousand who work in the oil and auto industries that Obama and the left so despise?
Just a few years ago, the blame for rising gas costs was aimed directly at President Bush. In just a few short years, the press comes to the conclusion that "there isn't much a president can do to affect the price of gasoline."
If this is indeed true, the media owes President Bush one big apology. If this is not the case, the American people have every right to demand that President Obama do something - anything - in the best interest of the country. That would be a real "change" we can only "hope" for.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (126)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts






96 Comments
reformed trucker - Apr 22, 2011 9:42 PM
But if you're getting sick of giving up groceries to afford the gas to get to work, maybe you should stop driving that 8mpg SUV (nice numbers; he's either an idiot or a liar) and spend 40k+ on a Government Motors Volt. That's the answer.
There, now that I've fixed the economy, I'll need to raise your taxes. Because you're not paying your fair share.
Peter123 - Apr 23, 2011 2:51 AM
The Gallup poll states that although there are a lot of causes, Americans blame the President for high gas prices. They could as easily have said crime, a bad economy, or just about anything else. The buck stops there (whether he accepts it or not).
Bloomberg and NPR show Democrats criticizing the President in an election year. NPR also has response from the Republicans, showing them looking serious. President Bush said that there wasn't a magic wand, but market forces will push people to conserve fuel (in order to save money).
The note "There’s not much Obama can do to affect the price of gasoline in short term" could have run side-by-side with President Bush's "if there's a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course."
In 2007 and 2008, Senator Obama called on the Justice Department to investigate price fixing in oil. In 2011, he asked the Justice Department to form a task force to investigate price fixing. Whether there's anything to it, he's being consistent and responding.
In short, I see bias in a left-wing political website. I see attacks from Democrats on President Bush in 2004 and 2008 (and from Republicans on Democrats, saying they're standing in the way of cutting gas costs). President Obama responds how he said he would.
The one thing I don't see is bias in mainstream media
jhayett - Apr 23, 2011 6:56 AM
MSM bias is the main reason why the NY Times is flirting with bankruptcy or the Milw JS subscriptions have fallen over the years. It's why many of the FOX News shows draw more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. MSM bias is why FOX News surpassed Katie Curic and CBS for the most watched and trusted election news in Nov 2010. It's why NPR, after being caught with their bs antics, is going to lose gov funding and many listeners. Need more?
ahemmer - Apr 23, 2011 8:41 AM
Lip service? What is Barry O. doing right now?
In addition during the Bush presidency, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, accused the "two oil men" of jacking up gas prices: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-17/politics/congress.oil_1_drilling-anwr-pelosi?_s=PM:POLITICS
Pelosi Thursday blamed the "two oil men in the White House," President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Republican allies in Congress for gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon.
Here's Pelosi at her finest: ""The price of oil is... is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Peter123 - Apr 23, 2011 9:13 AM
In a post about how pervasive the bias is, certainly one could choose articles which make the point better than these. As I was trying to say before (although perhaps didn't get my point across clearly), the blog is biased and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. The others are pretty balanced... the reporting section during the Bush years never claimed he had, in his words, a "magic wand" to fix things in the short term. As there wasn't a quote at hand, the Associated Press article (printed in the Sun-Times) simply states the realities of our laws. Having seen the whole article since last posting, it directly points out that the task force seems to be a populist gimmick.
Clearly, a perceived bias is hurting many media outlets. That doesn't mean it exists in the reporting. I'm willing to be convinced that it does, but stronger evidence is needed than a few reports with Democrats saying, basically, "The Republicans aren't doing enough, so vote for us."
My views tend to skew liberal (not Democratic, liberal), and I still feel that the Republicans came off sounding more serious in that NPR report than the Democrats. How does that happen if it's supposed to be biased against the Republicans?
Peter123 - Apr 23, 2011 9:28 AM
SPalin - Apr 23, 2011 9:51 AM
"Though Americans may be more aware of the complex reasons for high gas
prices, they still hold their elected officials accountable."
Boy, those folks at Gallup sure do know how to add fuel to the fire!
jhayett, are you going to allow Tom to come out and play today? ;-)
ahemmer - Apr 23, 2011 10:52 AM
Please read the following in it's entirety:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564744/201103021834/Bush-Links-To-Oil-Rise-Ran-15-To-1-Vs-Obama.aspx
This article shows many examples of the media spin when it comes to Bush/Obama. For example:
"Some 2008 reports, including the March 6 "Early Show," exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump charging $5.19 a gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower."
and this:
"Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe."
(And many will recall the words used to describe increases in gas costs when Bush was President - like "skyrocketing.")
"In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention Obama has been NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24, when Tom Costello quoted Obama as being "optimistic."
Now get back to me on how the media isn't biased against Bush in favor of The One when it comes to blaming a prez on high gas/oil costs.
SPalin - Apr 23, 2011 11:24 AM
Stay tuned for a preview of next week's episode.
jhayett - Apr 23, 2011 11:53 AM
jhayett - Apr 23, 2011 12:05 PM
geno53151 - Apr 23, 2011 1:21 PM
Tom Bal - Apr 23, 2011 3:30 PM
Sorry Nancy I can’t play today I have been working and am not in the mood.
By the way Nancy It’s good to see I’ve made an impression on you. As a matter of fact it’s funny.
By the way Jim and Amy did either of you see Hannity last night His program was called Biased.
Extremely Interesting.
I was shocked to learn that we have 57 states in this country.
Or at least that’s what the Anointed one thought while campaigning.
Ever see that reported?
Nope we just get to hear how the word Potato is spelled.
There’s no Bias. It’s all in our heads because according to them.
Conservatives are all Stupid.
Didn’t matter that Bush when to Harvard and Yale he only went cause his family is rich..
Tom Bal - Apr 23, 2011 3:38 PM
It’s a pleasure Posting with you.
Peter123 - Apr 23, 2011 3:57 PM
There's a lot of context which, I think, is relevant here. In 2008, per the NPR story, both sides (Senators Reid and McConnell, President Bush) directly said that energy prices were the number one thing. The housing market had already collapsed... the stock market wasn't going to collapse until just before the election. I went back and browsed headlines from February 2008, and the biggest world news was Kosovo declaring its independence. We were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there weren't any major developments. The Presidential primary season had started, but that just meant that every politician wanted to talk about gas prices.
In February 2011, governments were being threatened or falling throughout the Middle East. Budget battles were starting throughout the country, focused on Madison.
The baseline for gas has been reset in this country. Leading to 2008, I would have said $1.50 was "normal" for a gallon of unleaded, with $2.50 being high. For the last few years, I would argue that $2.50 is where we start.
In short, 2008 was a slow news day and we were at levels not seen since President Carter. In 2011, other news stories may have crowded it out, the increase was less (so far), and the other news directly affects oil prices.
Peter123 - Apr 23, 2011 4:47 PM
I haven't had a chance to read Bias (it's only been 10 hours), but it's certainly going on my list.
One point I didn't get to in my response to Amy is that television news is always sensational. Whenever you watch it, you need to take a step back and ask yourself how big the story really is. Was the use of language like "sky-rocketing" irresponsible journalism? Certainly a fair point. Was it biased reporting? For me, the jury's still out. I remember comments a few years ago that prices in Europe were much higher, too.
One further note: I recognize that I'm a liberal and therefore will naturally have bias in my reading and writing in that direction. I do my best to recognize it and filter it out. I hope that you, Jim and Amy, also recognize that you have some (pro-conservative) bias. The perception that there is a media bias can lead you to see it as stronger than it is. My perception that there's not can lead me to miss it.
ahemmer - Apr 23, 2011 7:47 PM
WFB resident - Apr 23, 2011 9:46 PM
soldiers ! Please advise which news paper is not biased and is printing the number
dead on the front page in half page size since the un-accedited o took over ? Please .
jhayett - Apr 24, 2011 12:25 PM
Your comment about not seeing bias and who should be responsible is bothersome. "if the bias you're seeing is because the Democrats make overly broad, often misleading, and sometimes downright false statements which are reported in the mainstream media, the newspaper and NPR are not to blame for this. Politicians grandstand. Politicians lie. Politicians have a clear bias." No, that's not what any of this blog or my comments are about. It's not at all about who said or did something honest or dishonest. Or what political party is involved. It's the fact that nearly 90% of the MSM newspaper, NPR, and TV newscast are admitted liberal democrats. Bias MSM is not mainly about reporting only the honesty or dishonesty. It’s what they do and don’t report that is disturbing to so many Americans.
jhayett - Apr 24, 2011 12:26 PM
Examples are everywhere. TomBal brought up Obama's gaffe with the "57 states" that is almost completely ignored by the MSM. Yet the MSM destroyed Dan Quail for his misspelling of "potatoe." In the book Bias, Goldberg tells of numerous stories where Rather and Jennings were caught red handed in outright bias. Not all lies. For instance. Clinton and the dems kept telling the world that under his leadership homeless numbers dropped dramatically. However, when the president of the homeless society told Clinton and the democrats that the story was not true, all the MSM outlets ignored the truth. And shortly after, Goldberg, and a new journalist and CBS, were sent to do a story about the chain gangs (prisoners down south). Rather refused to run the two day story because the prisoners were all black and rather told Goldberg and the journalists that he will not run that story because “it’s too close to reelection and that might hurt Clinton’s chance for reelection.” The book is full of MSM bias like this one.