NumenLumen wrote:
" Drilling is a mid-to-long term solution in terms of price."

I don't think this is clear. Prices are not set just by the momentary balance of supply and demand at the time of a transaction, but also by expectations about the future conditions of these. The U.S. showing positive initiative to bring more oil production to the market (i.e. future supply) may cause prices to go down due to the expectation of increased oil supply in future.

That said, even if the time frame is 5-10 years, you have to start some time. The supply of oil from these places would be flowing now had we acted 5-10 years ago. We are clearly not going to not have some reliance on oil, despite Al Gore's dreams, 5-10 years from now.

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to new drilling per se, I'm just opposed to the thinking that new drilling solves anything. It does nothing to lessen our dependence on oil, and does very little to lower prices. If such an initiative is not accompanied by a wide ranging and comprehensive policy to develop other sources of energy and simultaneously lower our demand for energy, it will get us nothing.

In a way, we're fortunate to have those restrictions. They've saved that oil in the piggy bank. I'm not opposed to saving some more of it, either.

"Going after 'speculators' isn't much of a solution at all, really - nor is going after oil executives. "

Right about this. Part of the reason for speculation is that money goes where money is made. Equity, debt, and real estate markets all pretty much suck right now, so cash is flowing into commodities that wouldn't normally be there. Are we to tell people that they can't invest in something where they perceive a profit to be made (even if it has an element of the Onion article in it)?
Also, speculation is how we set the price. It may have a larger impact now, but that's because the market is so tight. It always cracks me up to see many free-market types throw hissy fits when something they want isn't as cheap as they expect.

You had me on the gas tax holiday comment, which I think is a terrible idea except for my reflexive dislike of any taxes anywhere, (BTW, McCain was not the only proponent of this) until you said this: "If the long term goal involves higher gas prices".

Whose long term "goal" involves higher gas prices? An acknowlegement that higher gas prices may be an ongoing reality is one thing, but a goal?

I say it's a goal with this realization: If the goal is to reduce dependence on oil, then we need to increase the price of oil (either through the market, or as Europe, Japan, and other long time oil importers did years ago, through taxes) The end result is that in order to use less, the price must be high. Efficiency alone is not enough - for example, there's plenty of evidence that people drive a lot more in high mileage cars than they do in low mileage ones because of the efficiency increase - and it leads to a net increase in consumption.

It factors into the 'goal' of a policy because it's contradictory to say we're going to lower prices now and increase them later. High prices are certainly a reality we have to deal with, but they are also our best ally in dealing with the problem. We need to curb consumption, thus the prices have to remain high - our polices should focus on the reasons for that consumption, and accomplishing those tasks more efficiently.

Either way, the end result is that prices have to be (and will be) high for anything to change.

I also agree that the quickest short term solution is to reduce demand- but the market is already making that happen in many quarters.
The market is indeed reacting, and it should be helped along by some good policies. For example, non-auto transportation is woefully underfunded. We can beef that up both in the short term and in the medium-long term, providing people with oil-free options for transportation, making each spike in the price of oil less crippling to a family budget.