I’ve seen a lot of Democratic campaign operatives and even economic analysts talk themselves out of the idea that elevated gas prices represent a constraint on both the economy and the expected performance of the President in his re-election campaign. But new polling numbers make it tougher to spin this away. Despite trends that the public doesn’t outwardly blame the President for rising gas prices, looking at numbers that intersect with that, such as the President’s handling of the economy or his performance against his Republican challengers, it’s clear that gas prices are starting to matter:
Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high [...]
The negative movement has also stalled what had been a gradual increase since the fall in the president’s overall approval rating. In the new poll, 46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.
These groups are also the ones whose shifting support has re-shuffled prospective general-election matchups. Among registered voters, Obama is now on par with Romney (47 percent for the president, 49 percent for Romney) and Santorum (49 to 46 percent). Previously, Obama held significant advantages over both.
Definitely a bad poll for Obama. And I never understood why everyone tried to laugh off $4 a gallon gas in key areas of the country ($4.30 where I sit) as no big deal. It’s not like wages have increased to any significant degree to deal with those fuel costs. I agree that it’s irrational to look to a President to set the price of gas, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t correspond with a general malaise about the economy, even when the job market is picking up.
As for how the President can deal with the issue, his options are limited but not completely illusory. He can authorize the CFTC to crack down on over-speculation, which can be a problem even if correct about future oil costs given geopolitical realities. And the President has tried to slow down the other major risk to the price of oil, a regional war between Iran and Israel. He can tamp down the rhetoric stateside and stop the glorifying profiles about the Defense Secretary making plans for attack as well. Each piece of overheated rhetoric on Iran raises that price at the pump another notch. Channeling the energies toward diplomacy and opening up sites to inspection has benefits well beyond oil prices, but a residual benefit there.
It should be added that gas prices habitually go down after the summer, and this trend may improve the President’s chances right at election time.





39 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Repeat but STILL the solution:
Have written on this exact scenario before. Truth is that a large proportion of current price per barrell of oil is due TOTALLY to speculation. That is because there is no other side to this trade.Easy solution? The PRES needs to tap in to the SOS-strategic oil supply (currently rounding out at over 737 MILLION barrells)and say enough is enough. He could release up to 7 million barrels per week (10% of US weekly consumption in gasoline) which would throw the demand situation into a tizzy. Truth is that once the Wall Street thieves (I mean speculators) realized that there was now another side to the trade and that the gig was up-they would head to the exits in mass like lemmings over a cliff. Therein lies a solution to our current energy problems. As the price of gas craters instead of letting per gallon drop to $3 or $2.50 or even $2 Obama would be smart to add a 50 cent or $1 tax to the, ahem.. “windfall profits” with 100% earmarked to alternative energy. Maybe, even go so far as totally subsidize the electric car industry. Put some of those GM plants back to work building more and more Volts or what ever. You see we go thru 70 million barrels a week with 42 gallons per barrel or in reality 2,940,000,000 gallons a week. A $1 tax on that amount would generate $2.940 billion PER WEEK that could almost write off the entire cost of a new electric vehicle. What if electric cars currently costing somewhere in vicinity of 25-30k suddenly cost (with subsidy) $5000.00. Katy bar the door they would fly out of the showrooms. Even nicer as more and more people drove electric gas demand would go down futher and further until we had ZERO dependence on foreign oil. Even better the GOV could hold price at $3 or so per gallon with remaining amount going as tax which would mean the amount flowing into the subsidy would increase greatly within a years time. Viola, we have another home grown American industry, gas prices are stable at $3 per gallon, we have zero dependence on foreign oil and sadly lol the poor oil execs lose their bonus’s. This could happen and revolutionize American energy dependence in less than 2 years. JUST DO IT!!
Noted Economist Chuck Norris Explains Obama’s ‘Schemes’ To Double Gas Prices
One other point to be made here is that is the SPR (strategic petroleum reserve) was tapped and sold at market the gov would have a huge financial windfall that could be directed at jobs programs–specificially roads, bridges etc. (ie plains trains and automobiles). 7 million barrels per week release would net— 7 million times 42 gallons per barrel times say $3 a gallon or roughly 882 MILLION per week. Lets say he releases 7 million per week for say 34 weeks (taking us to election day–surprise!)that would put an extra almost 30 BILLION into coffers which would be a nice infrastructure amount that would be paid for which is, of course, what the Repugs would demand!!! Probably could add 2 million summer construction jobs with that kind of cheese…PLUS rebuild a ton of crumbling infrastucture. Maybe its time for a bold move or two from our man who currently only represents Wall Street.
After 40 years of on and off oil crises, are the American people ready for a comprehensive energy policy that addresses the certainty of declining oil produced in a growing world?
Hell, no.
Tell us lies, tell us sweet little lies.
This is the “free” market. I thought Republicans loved that!
Obama polling less than 50% is always because of some reason other than the base – the left – just being over him.
OK – it is just gas – the price of gas. All those new jobs numbers couldn’t offset the price of gas – right.
And “the left have no place to go” – as Ralm/Obama said “F___ Them”
It is interesting how a narrative is settled om by all. Meanwhile on 3/12, as Romney makes a mistake a day and looks like a rich fool who does not give a damn about the rest of us, Romney leads Obama.
“Perception is reality.”
The biggest problem for Obama that I see is the perception that he isn’t doing anything about this.
That’s a PR problem NOT a problem about what he’s doing.
That’s just racism. Nothing to do with gas prices.
Ahem. I think Chuck Norris’s beard is the noted economist.
The biggest problem for Obama that I see is the perception that he isn’t doing anything about this.
That’s a PR problem NOT a problem about what he’s doing.
Or it could be that the perception is correct. It’s not he’s been releasing from the SPR as oil prices have increased. Whining about the Republican candidates has been his only oil price action, which means PR has been his only strategy. Oh and let’s not forget Obama’s Iran “I don’t bluff” war talk.
I would say you have quite a game and a lot of good ideas too. I especially like the “windfall tax” and using monies to develop alternative energies.
Wish someone would listen to ideas like yours.
Good ideas . . . but as to the ‘demand tizzy’: if the Prez released 7 million barrels per week from our strategic oil supply, couldn’t the market manipulators (specifically OPEC) merely turn off the tap (to the tune of 7 million barrels per week), nullifying any supply/demand argument. It is my understanding that the demand-side (in the U.S.) is at a decade low.
And it’s not just gas, Dave. I bought a loaf of Arnold’s wheat bread in Lowe’s market here in Myrtle Beach, and it was pushing $5…$4.87 with tax, to be exact.
But I admit, the gas price is the bell-weather. Which is why, if we/Israel “do” Iran, Obama will have to release lots and lots of oil from the strategic oii reserves, to have any chance for a second term.
Otch; good post. I think the demand side IS low, which kind of kicks the “marketplace” bullshit right in the nads.
The big boys can make the price anything they want, within limits, and attacking Iran might be outside that limit.
Whatever we do for ourselves, the ripple effect on the rest of the world will, I feel, be uncontrollable.
“Romney leads Obama”
Good point, Papau. And he’s hanging with him while he still has to schmooze with the knuckle draggers to keep from losing everything. Once he’s got it, he’ll start to move left, and he’ll start to pick up Indpendent support, and every one of them that he picks up will be a political dagger for Obama. He might not win a single one of the swing states that he carried in 2008, and without them, he’s finished.
Gas was a buck a gallon for more than 20 years, until 2000, when oil futures speculation was deregulated. $2-$3-$4 gas is a phenomenon only seen since the dawn of the era of Gramm deregulation. Seems fairly (completely) obvious what has to be done to bring oil prices back down. Eliminate the ability of WS psychopaths to bet on Oil futures on HUGE MARGIN. That’s what deregulation ushered in.
Excuse me, Jim, you are speaking both truth and reason.
Those “things” are no longer in “fashion”.
What do you want to do? Do you wish to destroy “incentive”, “innovation”, and “improvement”?
That will rattle, not merely the obscenely wealthy, but the political class, which includes the media, as well … even if both classes are, rather often, these days, one and the same.
;~DW
Sure, its all about speculation. It has nothing to do with increased consumption in China, India & the Mid-East while global oil production has been flat since 2005.
Because dealing with the real problem is much too difficult.
I suggest that you spend some time at the oil drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com
There are some folks (many petroleum engineers) that hang out at that site and they understand the problems. Bottom line, the SPR release would drop prices only a few pennies a gallon. Oil prices are not set by the U.S. anymore, and U.S. demand is not THE driving force. It is complicated, but that is the bottom line.
That is only a part of it. De-regulation just happened to coincide with a drop in production due to the large oil fields beginning to be depleted. Again, it is complicated, but oil is a finite resource. Once it is pumped from the ground it is gone forever, and the easily tapped resources have been discovered and are being used up. Combine that with high demand from the emerging economies and we are in the proverbial hard place.
Obama has GOT to look more engaged in matters that effect the 99%. He hasn’t and doesn’t. THAT may cost him the election.
The oildrum site is superb, been checking it for years now and providing the link sometimes.
Let’s not forget that the banks make windfall billions when pump prices rise, taking 2-3 points off the top from the pump merchant at every POS credit/debit card sale. Later, the consumer won’t be able to pay off the card, like happened in 2008.
As a result of the democratization of the automobile and the creation of a car-dependent mode of life, Americans have the same dependence on gasoline to maintain their customary lifestyle as the French dependence on bread before the Revolution. Both prices were highly politicized and objects of demagoguery.
Americans have the additional problem of living on a huge tract of land where the interior is sparsely populated. Long distances between towns with small populations is not conducive to installation of a viable, self-sustaining public transit system. When you have to drive 20 miles each way for groceries or to see the doctor you feel every bump in price at the pump, not only in your own fuel costs but the price of food is driven higher for the same reason. Moreso than the cities, rural areas are devastated by high fuel prices.
“”"Good ideas . . . but as to the ‘demand tizzy’: if the Prez released 7 million barrels per week from our strategic oil supply, couldn’t the market manipulators (specifically OPEC) merely turn off the tap (to the tune of 7 million barrels per week), nullifying any supply/demand argument. It is my understanding that the demand-side (in the U.S.) is at a decade low”"”
With 727 Million barrells in the SPR Obama could fully cover 100% of US oil needs for 11 weeks before it would run out. But OPEC would cry uncle way before that. Truthfully 10% of weekly demand being released would crush the speculators in 3 weeks or less. But, I would recomend he says he will release as much as nescessary each week to lower oil price to what ever needed to then add that 50 cent to $1 tax and STILL have prices at $3 or less with advantage of BILLIONS now going to US taxpayer instead of oil company exe. Also when it comes to drilling on US owned land we should get OUT of lease program and into a US GOV owned oil group where all profits go back to the taxpayer (or more rightly to alternative energy sources)
At 7 million barrels per week reeased OBAMA culd literally keep that going for 2 FULL years before we would tap out BUT that would put 91 BILLION into the treasury–nothing to sneeze at….
Agree JIM along with SPR release there should be new margin mandates of 100 % in commodities deemed of strategic importance (ie food and oil). In other words 100% of that commodity needs to be cash on barrell head so to speak with one other little nuance that would solve alot of issues—to be in those stategic commodities you MUST take delivery. Then the commodities futures would get back to what they were orignally intended–as a hedge to farmers and trucking companies and airlines etc to control their costs.
“”"Sure, its all about speculation. It has nothing to do with increased consumption in China, India & the Mid-East while global oil production has been flat since 2005.
Because dealing with the real problem is much too difficult”"”
Long term you are correct but short term you are totally wrong. That is why use of SPR and restrictions on commodity trading could actually cause a huge drop in oil price which could then be taxed back (still keeping gas price at $3 of less) with the additional tax money NOT going to oil company profits but instead jump starting the electric car industry which of course causes less consumption which keeps oil price low which allows even better subsidy and before you now it you have that alternative energy industry in full bloom. What if you had an electric car whose price is currently $30,000 suddenly only costing $5000? 80% of all driving done in the US is done for a total of 40 miles or less with 20 miles of a persons home. You could add 5 million electric cars per year with such a subsidy and jump start an industry plus provide 100′s of thousands of rust belt jobs. Japan did it for Toyota, why not here??
One last point to make:
Fracking is ONLY economically feasible if price per barrell is $75 or more. Price of $74.50 or so sounds good to me lol……
The U.S. may need to release the SPR this summer. Iran exports 2.5 million barrels daily, and with the sanctions taking full effect this summer the loss of that much oil will probably hammer the market. The Saudis said they would make up the difference, but according to knowledgeable people on theoildrum, their fields cannot pump that much. Bottom line, again, is that the SPR isn’t going to lower oil prices when this comes to a head, it will be used to prevent their skyrocketing, and that is why it is risky to release too early in an effort to drive down prices now. If a shooting war results (and Israel looks to be focusing that way), and the Strait of Hormuz is closed for any length of time, the SPR isn’t going to stop the worldwide panic. The fear is, I think, that it won’t do much to mitigate it, either.
Electric cars are still cars. 2 tons of metal on 4 balloon tires is not susainable transport. And US stocks are fine right now. There isn’t room in commercial storage to take a large amount of additional oil.
WTI is already $15 – $18 below the world price. It doesn’t make much sense to go crazy trying to widen it another couple bucks.
We need to go more to rail, general efficiency, & less sprawl. Oil is not going to get cheap again, other than for brief periods of global economic collapse.
If President Obama wants to put a stop to this, he is going to have to do it himself. I agree with GOTNOGAME that the President needs to act, but I have to disagree with the method. The very problem with excessive speculation in the commodities markets is that prices no longer reflect the balance between production and consumption of commodities, they only reflect the supply and demand of the futures contracts. Increasing the supply by selling from the SPR would have a minimal effect and it would be short lived.
The speculation must be stopped and the president is the ultimate head of the CFTC and has the power to enforce the DODD-FRANK provisions concerning excessive speculation that was enacted by congress in 2010. As I posted before he should act by executive authority and issue an executive order to this effect.
Its all at RBOBGAMBIT.ORG
The President is no stranger to executive orders, he has used them many times, the real question is: Does he have the political will to take on the wall street establishment?.
Totally disagree with you Downpuppy as you seem to be saying just sit back and take it while I am saying acting now with revenue going to alternative future is the way. Yes I agree that rail is a better way (went to bus. school to get degree in transportation with plan of being a trackmaster so know a bit about it) but other than unit trains rail will not solve issue for decades to come. We need an intermediate step and that step is electric vehicle. It will be a slow wean off the freedom of cars to public transportation. But typical family has 2 cars now with one usually only used for commute-normally of 25 miles per day or less-exactly a niche that electric fills RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
We could be 100% energy independent within 3 years if we moved and moved now toward this plus it solve both infrastructure problems and the jobs problems. Yes long term the price of oil is $13 per gallon or higher (when you add in security costs) but short term it can and should be manipulated for the greater good which is NOT oil company execs bonus’s….
Realreform-love the rbogambit site and have quoted it to many and in fact joined my name to your petition a month or so ago but do disagree with your comment that release would have minimal effect. True result of release would show to speculators that there is now another side to the trade instead of ONLY the long side. They would fall all over themselves to get out and it would only take “the threat of additional” releases to keep some compliance. Yes eliminate the ability to margin any “essential” commodity and force people involved to “take” delivery and lots of problems solved but why not use both clubs and then use the “windfall” profits to a greater good (ie subsidy of alternative energy-ie electric car) that would have multiplier effect of reducing demand for oil even more…..
100% foreign oil independence in 3 years or less with minimal effort…
By the way, over road trucker moved to natural gas would help also even if TBOONE Pickens is a dick.
Electric right this minute?
Ninety miles an hour down a deadend street.
A comprehensive policy built on conservation, redevelopment & alternative energy is not my notion of nothing. I just don’t think clapping will really bring Tinkerbell back to life.
Sorry but I really must disagree here GOTNOGAME
from Bloomberg:
here is the link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/bakken-shale-oil-turns-oasis-into-target-as-fracking-costs-slide-real-m-a.html
•Paul Krugman, The New York Times — Here Comes the Sun:
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to ‘internalize’ those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.
Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that ‘there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.’
So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government ‘pick winners,’ yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
By: ThingsComeUndone Wednesday November 30, 2011 2:58 pm
Tweet
Wind? 4 to 9 cents per kWh. Coal electricity somewhere between 17 cents and 35 cents per kWh. Below $90 a barrel of oil non OPEC oil is to expensive to drill and make a profit from. Fracking for Natural Gas at the best case scenario only provides a profit of $7.61 profit a year on every $100 you invest.
Calculations on fracking profit math provided at end of the article along with links and facts for the other numbers I cite.
Now then if the market were rational why are they not investing in wind power? Germany is now planning to use wind power to get Hydrogen from water and add that Hydrogen to its existing natural gas pipelines at a 15% mix rate.
If that tech proves itself we could reasonably expect natural gas prices to drop 15% that would of course make fracking for natural gas less profitable. Ussing Hydrogen for fuel cells to store wind power would also solve the problem of wind power not being constant. Given wind’s real cost to provide power electric cars would make more sense assuming we used wind o provide the electricity.
Tell me how will America compete and make cheaper products if our energy costs to make products and our cost to transport those products are dependent on Tar Sands oil and Natural Gas Fracking as Germany, China, Denmark etc al turn to cheaper wind power?
If you take the full health costs and environmental costs of various energy sources into account, wind comes out looking even better. A recent study out of Harvard found that if one adds in the hidden costs of coal then its actual price in the U.S. is more like 9-27 cents higher per kilowatt hour. The authors write:
Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public.
This makes the true, “all-in” cost of coal electricity somewhere between 17 cents and 35 cents per kWh. You pay 8 cents or so per kWh on your electricity bill and then quite a bit more than that in healthcare costs, health insurance premiums, and with your tax dollars. Wind? It’s sticking to its original 4 to 9 cents per kWh.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/01/cost-of-wind-power-kicks-coals-butt-better-than-natural-gas-could-power-your-ev-for-0-70gallon/
1) Below $90 a barrel, non-OPEC oil would stay in the ground because it could not be produced economically–despite the fact that global subsidies for oil companies are over half a trillion dollars (2).
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108077530448434441501/posts/DFbsaMN8PXb#108077530448434441501/posts/DFbsaMN8PXb
The data suggest that if the wells’ production continues to decline in the current manner, many will become financially unviable within 10 to 15 years.
A review of more than 9,000 wells, using data from 2003 to 2009, shows that — based on widely used industry assumptions about the market price of gas and the cost of drilling and operating a well — less than 10 percent of the wells had recouped their estimated costs by the time they were seven years old.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
My bold so well life is 10 to 15 years after that it costs more money to pump up gas than you can sell the gas for. Next less than 10% of the wells had recouped the cost of drilling the wells in 7 years.
Lets assume your well is part of the lucky less than 90% and is paid off in 7 years if you invest $100 in a well and its paid off in 7 years $100/7 = 14.28 and keeps pumping gas for 10 years you get $42.85 profit in ten years. take the $42.85 profit you made in ten years divide by 10 ( for the ten years ) and you have an investment that pays 4.28% a year.
If you are real lucky your well is paid for in 7 years a less than 10% chance of that happening and your well keeps pumping gas for 15 years the math is like this $ 14.28 profit for every $100 a year past the 7 year payback period times the 8 remaining years of a max 15 year natural gas lifespan.
$14.28* 8=$ 114.24 return in 15 years divide $114.24 by 15 and you get $7.61 profit a year on every $100 you invest assuming no lawsuits from fracking effect your profits.
E.On said it was spending more than five million Euros ($6.8 million) to devIn Herten, Germany, the company Hydrogenics plans to use power from a wind plant to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen that will be stored and later used in fuel cells to provide power. E.On also intends to use wind to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, but then the hydrogen “will be fed into the Ontras gas pipeline system and be used like normal natural gas,elop the pilot plant in Falkenhagen, in northeast Germany. The company said using power from renewable energy sources, the plant will produce about 360 cubic-meters of hydrogen per hour beginning in 2013 through electrolysis.
“At present,” the company said, “up to 5 percent hydrogen can be added to the natural gas grid without any problems, and in the medium term experts expect up to 15 percent
One-third to half of the world’s petroleum reserves may rest in the form of oil sands.[33] ExxonMobil’s leases in the Kearl oil sands, located in Alberta, Canada, have proven reserves of 1,137 million barrels,[34] and represents a significant portion of the company’s total oil reserves[35], but will, with the development of better extraction and refining technology, double or triple into reserves of two to four billion barrels.[36] The leases are part of a joint venture with Imperial Oil Limited. Imperial holds 71% of the interest and ExxonMobil Canad Properties holds the other 29%. Notably, ExxonMobil Corporation holds a 70% interest in Imperial Oil and 100 percent of ExxonMobil Properties. In addition to a strong position in the Kearl oil sands, the majority ownership enables Exxon to leverage the fact that Imperial has 140 years worth of proven oil and natural gas preserves without additional drilling.[37]
However, oil from sand deposits is very thick, and must be highly processed before it can flow and be distributed for use. These nonconventional reserves cost, on average, $35/barrel to pump and convert into synthetic fuel, as compared to $3 a barrel in Saudi Arabia and release three times as much CO2 as during conventional production.[38][39] That means that the implementation of a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme would make oil sands production even more expensive. More troubling for the company, the cost of new production can exceed $75 a barrel, as production in easy to reach places has already been set up. At the same time, ExxonMobil has taken a long-term perspective on its CapEx. It expects oil prices to be higher in 2012, by which time production from its expanded program will begin. [36]
Thanks for the support, GOTNOGAME I do really appreciate it.
A year ago I would have been right there with you on this one but I came to realize that its not about production and consumption any more. Its about maintaining sufficient open interest on the long side of the trade and keeping a tight grip on the market while effecting the Goldman Roll. Its all about the supply and demand for futures contracts and not about the supply or demand for the physical commodity-oil.
I agree that selling from the SPR would reduce the price of oil and would dampen speculation for a time but it really wont bring the price down substantially. The release from the SPR last summer of 30 mbbl
dropped the price only for a few months and the price was higher at the 1st of November than it was when the President announced the release in the end of June.
The real thing I have against a sale from the SPR is that it would just provide political cover to the administration when they know that the effect is transitory and they also know that the problem is with continuing to allow speculation in the commodities markets. This speculation extends to all commodities, not just oil. A sale from the SPR would probably drive the money from the oil market to the rest of the commodity complex if nothing is done to stop the speculation. More political kabuki.
While I find myself in agreement on other points you have made in this post and others, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.