Our initial shock of gas prices has passed. Those of us without money to throw around have begun changing our behavior to cope. Some of us are driving less; others are eating less to save up for a tank. Beyond shocked, we’re hurt. If we’re spending less on other stuff, and all indications say we are, then other industries are feeling it, too. So what is the next stage of gas grief? Election-year exploitation of the issue.

I found the following lead in a CNN article from March of 2000: “Gas prices have surged in the past 12 months, experiencing their biggest dollar increase in the past 30 years, according to a survey conducted for AAA. Self-serve regular, unleaded gasoline averaged $1.54 a gallon nationwide, according to AAA’s March Fuel Gauge Report released Tuesday.”

Here’s what I remember about 2000 and gas prices. Bill Clinton is president and Al Gore is running against George W. Bush. Gore had previously proposed in his book “Earth in the Balance” that one of the best ways to reduce the burning of fossil fuels was to increase the price of gas, like with a big tax. However, this was an election year.

As the election neared, as with 2008’s race, we were all whining about gas prices. In fact, just like today, polls began showing fuel prices moving up the list of issues voters cared most about. So, the environmentalist who had as recently as February of the same year criticized the idea, suddenly realized releasing oil from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve might be a good idea as a way of lowering oil prices. Clinton, in order to help Gore, I mean the American people, complied.

It’s not a new game, and both parties play it. This year, it appears the heat is on the Republicans to do the best exploiting as their party is clearly on the ropes at the national level. In this spirit, several Hoosier Republican congressional contenders visited the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the stated intention of seeing if drilling there would help prices.

I have to wonder how long they stayed and what equipment they’re taking. Last I heard, the oil companies were only asking to expand exploration in these areas. I think that means they don’t really know how much is oil is there, exactly where it is or its quality. I have a sneaking suspicion the Republican candidates’ fact-finding trip will more resemble a presentation by the oil companies than any hard work looking for oil.

Without any facts directly related to the amount of oil that could be gained by more drilling, one fact makes anything Republicans have to say on the matter suspect. The Republicans have received the overwhelming lion’s share of campaign donations from oil companies. I’m not saying they’re bought and paid for, I’m just saying.

Other facts make it sound shadier. The government’s own Energy Information Administration has found increased drilling in ANWR will only increase oil supply by about 4 percent, and that will not be until 2025. The effect on prices will be too small to notice, partially because of how oil is priced.

Have you ever went to the pump and found an option of U.S.-produced gas that was cheaper? Me either. Regardless of where oil is produced, it is sold in accordance with the world-market price. The increased demand for oil isn’t really coming from us so much as China and India. Producing a little more here will not increase supply to an extent it will overtake the increase in demand.

The oil companies are not merely asking they be allowed to use their land as they see fit, but asking we let them use public land we hold, currently in trust for wild animals. We should think about whether granting permission for increased use is really the best way to go. No real effect on prices, no good effect on polar bears.

The Republican push to expand off-shore drilling is also dubious. The oil companies already have access to millions of acres more than they are currently bothering to drill. We have also been told base supply isn’t so much the problem with prices, but the lack of refining capacity. There are few plans for increasing refining capability, and no new refineries have been built for a long time. What good is more gas if it is unusable?

The refinery issue puts some of that blame back on the political left as environmental groups have stymied or stalled many of the few efforts of refinery expansion. Polls suggest we actually blame the president more than anyone.

Most recently, Indiana’s presidential primary suggested this silly pandering may not work on Hoosiers, and may even backfire. Hoosiers didn’t seem to buy Hillary Clinton’s support of a gas-tax suspension that sounded good, but would’ve had little real effect. Analyses have suggested her support of John McCain’s proposal made the race between her and Barack Obama closer here than it had been anticipated.

Of course, if our Hoosier common sense and respect for straight shooting hold up through November how will we elect anyone? Oh, and where has it been during past Novembers?

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran notices that pandering politicians regularly create plenty of gas. The hard part is harnessing it for a productive purpose. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com.