>>The American President has a lot of power but it is economic folly to think he can control the price of gasoline. Especially when the world's largest oil producing region has been undergoing massive unrest. A President can't even control the American economy, much less commodity prices in a destabilized Middle East.
>>
>>I have 3 words for you: Drill, Baby, Drill. You think that might have an effect on gasolin prices?
>
>You and Sarah Palin, sisters separated at birth ;-) (Except you are a lot smarter than she is).
>
>I do think it would affect gasoline prices if we had a bigger percentage of the Middle East's oil. Here we have a diminishing supply which becomes more and more expensive to extract. There you hit a golf ball into a sand trap and oil comes gushing up. They still have us over a barrel. So to speak.

Diminishing supply?
1) The only possible way to come to that conclusion is to assume that we have even the slightest clue of how much we are actually sitting on and to know that we'd have to have 100% accurate maps of every drop of oil on the planet. In other words, we have no clue.

2) New discoveries are made by new mapping technology. New extraction techniques make previously unextractable and unprofitable fields perfectly viable. We have never in our history had so much oil at our access. To say nothing of natural gas and coal.

3) Less and less expensive you mean. As with all things technological, given time, the cost diminishes. See natural gas. The law of supply and demand always applies, IF we get the causists out of the way and pursue our energy we will be the world's supplier for centuries and an economic boom to rival the industrial revolution will occur. See N. Dakota.

>Pursuing alternative energy sources, now there's an idea. IMO we should pursue it with the urgency of the Manhattan Project. As Mike Huckabee said, then we could tell the Arabs to drink their oil.

We are. See Nat gas. See N. Dakota. For a counterpoint see solar & wind nearly everwhere they are tried.