Moreover, when Udall accuses Pearce of being for big oil and against alternative energy sources, he’s not being truthful there either. I met Steve Pearce last night at a fundraiser here in Santa Fe, and listening to him talk for longer than TV commercial sound bytes was most enlightening. The truth about Pearce and Udall and alternative energy is this: there were six votes in the House on funding development of alternative energy sources, four of them with tax increases tacked on, and two without the tax increases. Udall voted yes on the four that included tax hikes, and no on the two that did not, while Pearce voted no on the four that included tax increases and yes on the two that did not. The measures on which Pearce voted yes passed, while the four Udall supported did not. Under the circumstances, it is hardly fair to call Pearce opposed to development of alternative energy sources. Rather, he’s simply opposed to raising your taxes. Of course, all this is too complicated to explain in 30-second TV commercial sound bytes, and that’s all most voters ever hear. They hear Udall say, “Pearce voted against alternative energy,” which is technically true, but substantively untrue.

Watching Udall’s and Pearce’s TV ads, it’s hard to see any difference in the policies they appear to be supporting. The crucial difference is in the voting records that back up those ads: Pearce actually voted for the things Udall implies he did, but didn’t. Tom Udall may support drilling and nuclear now, but he didn’t when it counted, on the House floor.

How did you vote, Tom?

An AP story in the Santa Fe New Mexican the other day complained that even if Republicans got their way and new drilling began, “motorists would feel little or no relief if they did.” Gosh, really? You mean the minute the oil companies started the paperwork to put the process in motion, a gazillion gallons of gas wouldn’t suddenly appear by magic and make the price at the pump drop to $1.50? Really? Gee, mister, why is that?

We are now paying the price (almost $4.50 a gallon here in Santa Fe) for Congressional Democrats’ refusal since 1981 to allow drilling off-shore, as well as for their unwillingness to allow the extraction of the oil we know for a fact is sitting under the Alaska wildlife refuge. Do most of the people crowing about the caribou (including John McCain, who though he has gotten smart and come out for off-shore drilling, is still holding the eco-line on Alaska) have any idea how big Alaska really is? How many miles and miles upon miles and miles of pristine, virgin land is up there? Go to Google Maps and take an aerial tour of the place. A few oil wells are not going to turn this vast frozen wilderness into downtown Detroit. Honestly.

Neither are they going to make pump prices drop instantaneously. But if we’d done it years ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Nothing is going to fix the problem right now, and all the whining and demanding and raging in the world isn’t going to change that. All it does is make us sound like a bunch of bad eggs.

Bene factum, Hugh!

Here in the U.S., where people are getting rid of their SUVs because they can’t afford to fill the tank, maybe a year’s supply of gasoline would be a better incentive. Oh wait, I forgot, we Americans aren’t supposed to have babies because they’re bad for the environment. Maybe Berkeley or Santa Monica or Santa Fe will declare October 4 the Day of Non-Conception and offer hybrid electric mini-cars to women who don’t give birth next July 4.

The Santa Fe New Mexican’s June 10 editorial opens with the sarcastic observation, “Four-dollar-a-gallon gas, the latest manifestation of Republican prosperity, struck Santa Fe during the past weekend…” So this is a problem created by Republicans? Let’s see, Congressmen and Senators from which party consistently vote against drilling for the vast reserves of oil in Alaska? Against drilling for the vast reserves of oil located off shore? Against building more refineries? Against building nuclear power plants that would take some of the strain off the demand for oil and natural gas? Until Democrats in Congress start doing something other than blocking any solutions to this country’s energy crisis, I respectfully suggest that the editorial staff of the New Mexican turn their gaze a bit toward the left in looking for a scapegoat upon whom to vent their spleen.

Update: June 15, 2008 — I spoke too soon. The paper did print the letter. In the past they’ve never waited so long, but looks like they were just saving up all the ones about gas prices the front page of the Sunday Opinion section.