John McCain may be the underdog in the presidential race but you wouldn’t know it from his campaign’s bold stance on energy policy.

Last week, McCain pledged to end the 1982 moratorium on offshore gas and oil drilling in the continental United States. This week, he proposed offering $300 million to any automaker or individual that can develop a better car battery, as well as $5,000 in tax credits to consumers who buy zero-emission vehicles. Speaking directly to Americans’ concerns about an energy crisis, McCain's two-pronged offensive also has put Democrats on the defensive.

Despite their advantage in the polls, Democrats are especially vulnerable on energy issues. In 2006, they promised a "common sense" solution to oil prices. All they have done, however, is blame oil companies and threaten new taxes.  

Trapped by his party's refusal to consider all the options for energy independence is none other than Barack Obama. Since May 2006, the presumptive Democratic nominee has been in lockstep with Democrats, echoing their calls for the country to cut its oil consumption – the Left’s standard refrain. In the short term, however, this is no solution: Americans cut their oil consumption this month with little relief at the pump.  

McCain may seem an unlikely candidate to challenge left-liberal orthodoxy on energy. After all, he already has a reputation as being liberal on energy. His position on global warming sometimes has been out of step with conservatives’. But his deviations from the major parties have allowed McCain convincingly to style himself as an independent. Now, he can use that to his advantage by proposing common-sense initiatives for drilling – in a larger, environmentally conscious context – that Americans can rally behind. 

His $300 million challenge, however, is not just good policy; it is also good politics.

First, it is a resonant message of hope and belief in American ingenuity and ability to solve the energy crisis. By supporting more drilling, moreover, McCain can energize his still-skeptical conservative base. Newt Gingrich's movement to "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" garnered close to a million signatures and is a big reason for increased enthusiasm among deflated Republicans. With his pro-drilling position, McCain has demonstrated that he is willing to listen to conservatives on this vital issue. 

Still, there is room for improvement. Just ask President Bush who, while seconding McCain’s oil-drilling proposal last week, also called for oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and for the development of the oil shale reserves in the Green River basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as part of his four-point program to increase domestic production. McCain is against exploration in both oil-rich areas, which probably prompted Bush to speak out.

The president makes a strong case. The United States has the largest oil shale deposits in the world in the Green River basin, from which it is (conservatively) estimated that 800 billion barrels of oil can be recovered. Meanwhile, according to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR probably could produce another 10 billion barrels. With resources like these, America would no longer need oil from adversarial oil-rich nations. And this is just scratching the surface. Technologies that convert coal into synthetic fuel are already economical and feasible, and America has 25 percent of all the coal reserves in the world. No wonder many conservatives want these regions included in future exploration.

And not just conservatives. As quoted in news reports, even some Democratic insiders and strategists "admit privately" that that "they are impressed with the new Republican campaign” because "gives the GOP an opportunity to talk about taking action on a matter of huge importance to the voters.”

In this light, Congressional Democrats’ strident opposition to McCain’s drilling proposals makes the party look out of touch. Democrats argue that discoveries made in offshore oil drilling would have no impact in reducing the price of gas. It would take ten years to see any results, they say, and oil companies already have sufficient land under lease from the federal government, which they should explore before being allowed to drill for oil offshore. But when Americans are paying ever-more at the pump, a politics of obstruction won't please public opinion. In fact, a majority of Americans now favor oil-drilling in off-limit areas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently captured her party’s deafness to national concerns on energy. “We cannot drill our way out of this,” she insisted. Instead, the California Democrat fell back on conspiracy theory, blaming the president and vice-president for high gas prices. "A barrel of oil now costs four times more than it did when President Bush took office," she argued. "Two oil men in the White House, cost of oil four times higher. Price at the pump: $4 a gallon."

The claim will not withstand scrutiny. Experts have argued for some time now that the growing economies of China and India and their demand for oil are the main reason for higher energy prices worldwide.

But it's hard for liberals to abandon their old, anti-capitalist orthodoxies. Listen to Maurice Hinchey, a left wing New York Democrat, who contends that oil companies are not drilling on the lands they already lease because they are waiting for the price of oil to go up to "$200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits." Acting on that assumption, Democratic congressmen are introducing legislation that will force oil companies to explore the properties they already lease or pay fees (an indirect tax) that will increase over time. This idea is almost as bad as Hinchey's proposal last week (from which he later retreated) that the federal government should own oil refineries to gain some control of the supply.

Lost on these politicians is that any new fees oil companies pay will be passed on to consumers at the pump. Barack Obama's plan for a tax on oil profits would have exactly this effect. Drivers would simply pay more. But the Democratic presidential candidate reasons that the consumer would be able to afford the higher cost of gasoline with the middle class tax break he intends to introduce. In other words, Obama intends to give with one hand what the other has just taken away.