It’s been 10 days since Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut off the lights in the House chamber and the power to the microphones without allowing a vote on any pro-drilling amendments. While it’s true that most Americans aren’t partisan, it’s equally true that they know when someone’s acting like a tyrant. In this case, the tyrant’s name is Nancy Pelosi.

Before we villify her as the sole culprit, let’s set the record straight. Ms. Pelosi is the ‘Culprit-in-Chief’ but she’s had lots of help in obstructing legislation that would lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

First, it’s important to understand that every Democrat that voted to shut down for their August recess was a Pelosi enabler. Several Democrats joined every Republican in voting against adjournment. The motion to adjourn passed by a single vote. Had more of the so-called pro-drilling Democrats walked the walk, Speaker Pelosi wouldn’t have been able to adjourn.

Let’s not gloss over this point because it’s a huge point. If the so-called pro-drilling Democrats stood up to her, it would’ve put alot of pressure on Speaker Pelosi. It likely would’ve forced her to grant an up-or-down vote on Republicans’ American Energy Act.

The entire point of calling the August recess was to avoid dealing with that legislation. Speaker Pelosi wants to avoid that legislation like a vampire wants to avoid making contact with wooden stakes.

I suspect that the Democrats will be forced to cave on this issue because facts are undercutting their arguments. A perfect example is the Democrats’ oft-repeated argument that “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.” Every Democrat that’s argued that point has pointed to the EIA’s report. That will hurt their credibility because an Institute for Energy Research report discredits the EIA’s report:

Recently, for example, some have pointed an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that estimated the amount of oil we could produce on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) if the drilling ban were lifted. EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day.

To think that we’d only get 200,000 barrels of oil from the OCS is absurd. The only way Democrats could make that argument was because it was ‘verified’ by an official government report. Unfortunately for them, the IER has more accurate information:

The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day. The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day.

IER makes another important point in their study:

“The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service’s Report to Congress (February 2006). But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics.”

What thoughtful person thinks it’s wise to base an opinion or a policy on current technology? While that makes for an acceptable starting point, it isn’t wise to think of that as a hard and fast rule that will never be broken. It isn’t a stretch to think that new technologies would be developed with the first 12-18 months that would increase the amount of recoverable oil.

Another argument that Pelosi’s Democrats have dismissed is harvesting shale oil in the Green River Formation in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Many question whether it’s possible to havest it. This recent AP article should put that speculation to rest forever:

“Negotiations with Shell to sign a deal to process oil shale in Jordan are nearing an end,” said Maher Hjazin, head of the state-run Natural Resources Authority.

“If our plans succeed, it would be one of the country’s largest projects to help the Jordan become energy self-sufficient, with a possibility to export oil in the future.”

At minimum, this information puts presure on Speaker Pelosi to lift the moratoria on shale oil exploration. Once that happens, it’s Katie bar the door time because there’s, at minimum, 800 billion barrels of shale oil in that formation alone. Considering the fact that we used approximately 19.6 million barrels per day last month, the Green River Formation would supply all of the United States needs for the next century and beyond based on current usage patterns.

Speaking of which, that’s a risky proposition since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates a 40 percent improvement in CAFE standards by 2020.

As is frequently the case, science and facts are eliminating political arguments.

Still, it’s important to consider another political factor. Politico.com undercut Nancy Pelosi’s strategy by revealing this strategy:

“California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet, but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle. But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.”

To his credit, John Boehner pounced on this the instant he got word of it. He issued a statement calling the Democrats’ bluff, saying that Democrats could prove their sincerity about drilling by signing the discharge petition that would force an immediate up-or-down vote in the House on the American Energy Act. That’s precisely what Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority leadership were trying to avoid at all costs.

The reason they tried avoiding it was because they’ve characterized Republican bills as only being about drilling. Here are a few of the bill’s provisions:

To improve energy conservation and efficiency, the legislation will:

• Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
• Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
• Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).

The Democrats are put in an untenable position the minute these provisions are made public. That’s why Speaker Pelosi doesn’t want the bill debated. She’d rather demagogue the issue, casting Republicans as slaves to ‘Big Oil’.

Unless my political instincts are totally off, I’d bet the proverbial house that the NRCC will run advertisements featuring this information in every swing district across America. I’m betting that I’m right because John Yarmnuth, who defeated Anne Northup in Kentucky in 2006, is already spinning the issue, saying “I understand why the Republicans think they have that issue, but the vast majority of the American people blame George Bush and the oil companies for high gas prices,” Yarmuth told PolitickerKY.com on Wednesday. “So, I think that is an issue that ultimately will not help them.”

I’m betting that Rep. Yarmuth is wrong. I’m betting that he’s scared to death of the issue. I’m betting that he’s trying to convince as many people as possible that it isn’t a big deal.

That won’t work because voters are reminded that it’s a big deal each time they pull into a gas station.

While I can’t predict how much impact this issue will have without seeing the polling in various swing districts, I know that it’s changing the shape of one race here in Minnesota. Dr. Brian Davis has tied himself to this issue in his attempt to unseat Democrat Rep. Tim Walz. Here’s what you need to know about that race:

A significant portion of that district are farmers who will be picking crops a week or two before the election. If gas prices are still high, that spells trouble for Rep. Walz. It’s trouble because it’s a safe bet that Brian Davis will wear out the airwaves with commercials talking about how Rep. Walz would rather side with K Street environmental lobbyists than with Main Street citizens.

I’d bet that they’ll run the same type of ads against Nancy Boyda in Kansas. I’d bet that that’s just the tip of the iceberg, too.

The thing with icebergs is that you can’t judge how much damage they’re going to do because so much of their mass is hidden from the naked eye.

Personally, I’d hate to be in the Democrats’ position. Thanks to their obedience to Speaker Pelosi, they’re on the wrong side of the most important issue of the election. Worse yet, they’re on the 30 percent side of a 70 percent- 30 percent issue.

Personally, I’d rather taunt a cobra than be in the Democrats’ position. At least with the cobra, death is swift and relatively painless.

Technorati Tags: Gas Crisis, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Walz, John Yarmuth, Nancy Boyda, K Street, Shale Oil, Shell Oil, Brian Davis, Anne Northup, John Boehner, American Energy Act, Drilling, Green River Formation, OCS, CAFE Standards, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog