Via a RNC memo, the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives is successfully attracting some names to their protest:

House Republican leaders confirmed today that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) will join House Republicans' ongoing national protest over the decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to adjourn the House without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and increase American energy production. The former Speaker will join House Republicans in the Capitol on Wednesday morning to deliver a message of on behalf of the 1.4 million Americans who have signed a petition demanding that Congress increase American energy production.

Newt's always been good at this revolutionary kind of stuff, but his cachet has sagged as of late. No word from McCain yet as to whether he will show up. Minority leader John Boehner is also "live blogging" and I am glad to see that my own representative Jean Schmidt from OH-2 is there as well. I put the live blogging in quotes, because I really doubt that Mr. Boehner himself is sitting down at the keyboard scratching out a post. Plus the frequency is not all that high for a real live blog. But two hours is good and whatever staffer is assigned seems to be on top of things.

You've got to admit, the House Republicans have jumped on this issue like it's their best hope of having a decent November. Probably because it is. But yes, on the issues, it is crazy that we're paying high fuel costs yet have energy resources that we won't go after.

Today a "gang of 10" senators showed up in the news putting together a plan that puts conservation together with, yes, drilling offshore. Here's Neil Abercrombie, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii:

"If we're going to go to talk to the American worker and say we're looking out for their interests, to automatically dismiss the idea that it's possible to drill in the OCS in a way that will be environmentally safe...I think that will harm us politically," Abercrombie said in an interview.

Speaking on this proposal, Barack Obama himself appears to be at least preparing to throw his environmentalist buddies (and Al Gore) under the Jeremiah Wright bus:

"My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise," Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. "If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."

Translated: 'Hell if you're going to trap me into voting against this in an election year." Message to Reid and Pelosi: Don't let this get near a real vote, because I won't be able to help you. And helloooo new offshore drilling.

To dismayed Democrats who think that drilling won't make a difference: What did you expect. Polls are polls and they speak louder than money or grassroots activists in an election year. The politicians first responsibility is to get and stay elected. The American people overwhelmingly support new drilling as a part of an overall energy program and the Republicans have been relentless.

And it appears that the best case scenario is unfolding for the GOP. The Democratic cave in will occur, but it will occur only after it is apparent that the Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The GOP gets their preferred policy enacted, but also will be able to wring maximum political effect from it during a presidential election.

Sorry about being a sort of one trick pony with my last few posts about drilling, but it is the salient political issue of the summer and it is generating a lot of good political theater. This one is from Mitch McConnell, who ran this little maneuver yesterday:

Obviously this is political theater, Ken Salazar was certainly not going to agree on behalf of the entire Democratic party to drill at a set price. In fact his only role here is to represent his party to stop anything real from happening. But Mitch McConnell takes the opportunity to point out that the current Democratic position is that we will not touch offshore oil and oil in ANWR at any price, which is insane. And he does it in a nice quick sound-bite.

Hat tip to Redstate, who points out that the Democrats want Mitch McConnell gone.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to get to a middle path that responds to voter anger about high gas prices and does not tick off the environmental lobby.

A group of influential Senate and House Democrats has sided with environmental groups against Reid to call exploration in new areas unnecessary.

The legislation, drafted by Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), would open nearly a billion new acres off the coast of Alaska to study for drilling. It would also dramatically accelerate oil leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico.

"I am unalterably opposed to drilling," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who cited a massive oil spill that closed nearly 100 miles of the Mississippi River last week.

Translated, the middle ground here is basically non-existent. Democrats are exposed on one side to allegations that they don't care about low income drivers, for whom high food and gas prices take a much bigger budget bite, and allegations on the other side that they don't care about the environment.

Harry Reid clearly feels like he has to do something, but the path he has chosen only serves, apparently, to tick off both sides. Again, this is one of those either or situations: Drill or not. The environmental lobby should be prepared to give up a lot to preserve Democratic seats and appear concerned about the middle class. But so far, that's not happening.

John McCain should send Greenpeace a thank you card.

While Obama is fact-finding in Iraq, a congressional GOP delegation is in Alaska, highlighting the plight of the caribou pointing out that we have $1 trillion dollars worth of oil in them thar hills. From the KC Star:

"It's still a long road," said Steve Hansen, a GOP spokesman on the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep. Don Young of Alaska has long pushed for drilling. "But right now the chances for opening ANWR for drilling are better than they have been for years."

Would more drilling in Alaska, in the end, move prices at the pump? Barely, suggest experts.

Still, geologists believe much could be sucked from the new petroleum frontier. Oil worth at least $1 trillion likely sits below the refuge. It could add 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel to the daily U.S. supply, or an increase of 20 percent of domestic production. Over the estimated 30-year life of the oil field, drilling could deliver between 5 billion and 20 billion barrels of oil.

Michele Bachman from NR went along and took some pictures:

Ugh. The Grand Canyon, this is not.

But the unintentionally funniest line goes to Roger Kaye of the Fish and Wildlife service:

Roger Kaye helps manage ANWR for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is the author of Last Great Wilderness. Even if caribou numbers don't decline - they actually rose around Prudhoe Bay with the construction of the Alaska Pipeline in the 1970s - the herds might become more tame and accustomed to humans.

Wait, what? We're not drilling in Alaska and diverting $1 trillion worth of oil revenue from domestic to foreign companies so that we can prevent our caribou herds from becoming more tame!?!?

America is spending $60 bucks ++ to fill up their gas tanks (and more for heating oil) I think we can deal with tame caribou.

...vote for it. Excellent tagline.

While the rest of the blog world is trying to figure out who Nouri al-Maliki is going to vote for, let's remember that the most Americans probably don't know who Maliki is. The only thing that can be said for sure about the current Iraq kerfuffle is that it won't matter in this political cycle. Love him or hate him, Bush picked a strategy that for now, has taken Iraq off the political table. It won't be a silver bullet for McCain, and it won't be the hammer it was in 2006 for the Democrats.

All Americans know is that gas is $4 a gallon, and food and energy costs are wreaking havoc in their day to day expenses. Even the ones who aren't being hammered by having the bad luck to buy a house in 2005 with a subprime mortgage!

If I was McCain's messaging man, I would tell him to ignore the Iraq nonsense and focus on energy costs. Well, as it turns out, someone on the team has the same idea.

Great ad as far as messaging goes, but substantively dishonest, unless McCain has at some point, without me noticing, decided that it's ok to drill in the ANWR. But while Obama goes to Iraq, maybe McCain can go visit Alaska and some deep ocean oil derricks. I know which issue will get more attention from the American people right now.

Some Democrats may be just now waking up to the fact that there is huge frustration over high energy prices and they see danger in allowing too much time without addressing this issue. Specifically, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin:

"I'm open to drilling and responsible production," Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin told The Wall Street Journal, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could also support the move.

However, Durbin said his support for opening new areas to drilling was contingent on setting requirements that oil and gas companies begin production within a specified time frame on acreage they have leased from the government.

Steny Hoyer in the house is trying as well:

Following weeks of bashing by Republicans who criticize Democrats for opposing an expansion of offshore oil drilling and opening part of an Alaskan wildlife reserve to production, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer tried to put Democrats squarely on the side of more domestic oil production.

Speaking to reporters, Hoyer said, "Let's be clear: Democrats support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources."

...

Democratic leaders also hammered away at the U.S. oil industry, saying it is doing little with the leases it already holds to drill on 68 million acres in the lower 48 states. Under the Democratic bill, such lease holders would have to "use it or lose it," Hoyer said.

I don't know, the oil industry has been laughing off the use it or lose it line, saying if there was oil on those properties, they'd be drilling like there is no tomorrow. So it sounds to me as if the Steny Hoyer is all in favor of drilling where there's no oil and not drilling where the oil is. (ANWR, Oil Shale, and offshore). They may be able to hang on with rhetorical flourishes like this, but it's clear that the Republicans think they've found an issue they will ride to November on.

And as the weather gets colder and the first fillups for fuel oil tanks happen in the northern states, the GOP could well be right. The Democrats are at least now signalling that they recognize this as an issue, but they'd rather not give any ground just yet and have to choose between the environment and keeping their seats.

UPDATE

Put Jim Webb in the category of Drilling Dems.