Nancy Pelosi was on Larry King Live last night and the headlines on CNN and The Hill blare that she has reversed herself on offshore drilling — if it’s part of a larger energy package that pumps money into renewables, that is. Basically, she’s joined Barack Obama in his latest repositioning — accepting a little offshore drilling in exchange for a little T. Boone Pickens – but she doesn’t sound particularly excited about it.

How do we bring down the prices at the pump? We have said to the president, the fastest way to do this if in 10 days the price can come down if you will free our oil. Over 700 million barrels of oil the president is sitting on of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. No. 1, free our oil. No. 2, they want to drill. If they want to drill, we have 68 million acres in the Lower 48 that they can drill in that are permitted and all the rest. Three, stop the speculation. Four, renew — invest in renewable energy resources, which will bring a faster return than drilling offshore, which will take 10 years and produce 2 cents’ reduction in 10 years off the price at the pump. And then use natural gas. Natural gas is so plentiful. It’s better for the environment, and it is cheaper. So there are things that Congress can do, and we have voted on this over and over again. But the Republicans and the president have resisted. Instead, they have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas. Well, we can do that. We can have a vote on that. But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them.

In fact, the majority of Americans “have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” hence Madame Speaker’s rather grudging surrender here, amid all the false bravado. When King next asks pointedly whether Pelosi would accept a legislative compromise that includes drilling, she talks tough for a few seconds, then admits that drilling “is not excluded” before returning to her boo-Big-Oil songsheet:

King: Would you vote yes on a package that includes drilling?
Pelosi: I would not. It depends how the drilling is put forth. But I don’t — that is not excluded, let me say it that way. It depends how that is proposed, if the safeguards are there. Now, mind you, 68 million acres — 10 million more acres in Alaska where they can drill.
But if there’s — if we can get some great things, in terms of renewable energy resources: a renewable electricity standard, wind, solar, biofuels and the rest in that context, because if you make a decision only to go with the offshore drilling, you are increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and you will never free yourself of that addiction unless you invest in the renewable energy resources that are good for the environment, cheaper for the consumer and will reverse global warming.
And the consumer is our first responsibility. The American taxpayer owns this oil offshore, by the way. Let me make this one final point. This oil is owned by the American taxpayers. The oil companies drill. We give them money to drill there. But we get very little in return.
So I think as we have this debate, which is a very healthy one to have and I welcome it; we have to review and realign the relationship between our oil, Big Oil’s profits and what it means to the consumer and the taxpayer.

Pelosi goes on to claim that the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil – that “They rule.” (I’m surprised she didn’t get in a swipe at Big Pharma.) Well, let’s grant that that is true. The Dems are obedient slaves of many more masters — Hollywood, teachers unions, trial lawyers, the abortion lobby, the Green Church, etc. At least the GOP’s “rulers” actually deliver useful products that people need, in sharp contrast with the collection of incompetents, parasites, and Malthusians that determine the Democratic agenda.

Nancy Pelosi makes me cranky.