Skip to footer

High gas prices: what presidential candidates say they'll do about it

Gasoline prices have soared into the forefront of election-year politics recently, with Republicans blaming the Obama administration for not having a policy fix.

President Obama isn't taking the criticism lying down. But he faces the tough reality of history: The incumbent party in the White House typically loses an election that follows a gas-price jump. Notably, the issue may have been important to Jimmy Carter's 1976 win and his 1980 loss.

Here's what the president and his rivals are saying on the campaign trail lately, after gas prices jumped 30 cents per gallon (to a US average of $3.73) during February:

1. President Obama

Jason Reed/Reuters
President Obama addresses a news conference in the White House Briefing Room March 6 in Washington.

  • By Mark Trumbull Staff writer

Playing defense, Obama has a threefold message: The price spike isn't his fault, he has a good energy policy, and Republican proposals are incomplete.

"There is no silver bullet. There never has been," he said recently. "It's the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices."

The White House is reminding voters that oil prices, the main driver of gasoline prices, are set in a global marketplace. And lately, the risk of confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has pushed prices up.

Obama says that, while Republicans have a one-note emphasis on drilling for fossil fuels at home, he is pursuing an "all of the above" energy policy. He says more domestic oil is being produced now than at any time in the past eight years. (For the record, an oil industry group says the rise in production stems from pre-Obama policies.) Obama's policies seek to nurture alternative fuels for the long run and set standards for new cars to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.