Recent commentary from National Journal: Legal Affairs: Oops -- There's Much, Much More Gore And Reno, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (July 6, 2000) Gore's April 18 testimony illustrates how slippery and disingenuous (if not perjurious) he can be even when under oath. Media: Swing Low, Sweet Press Corps, by William Powers (July 6, 2000) Flashback candidate Ralph Nader calls Gore and Bush "the drab" and "the dreary." The depressing thing is, he's right. Social Studies: Farm Forecast -- Aid, With 32.3 Billion In Scattered Dollars, by Jonathan Rauch (June 27, 2000) In 1986, Congress paid farmers $25.8 billion, but conservative Republicans have left that record in the dust. Legal Affairs: Why We Should All Be Grateful to Janet Reno, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 27, 2000) Reno wasn't just protecting Clinton and Gore from independent counsels. She was protecting the country. Media: Too True to Mention, by William Powers (June 27, 2000) A New York Times Magazine writer abandoned political "balance" and revealed his personal beliefs. It was great. Political Pulse: OK, Al, Who Are You Today?, by William Schneider (June 27, 2000) The Gore campaign seems to be suffering from multiple personality disorder. More from National Journal. Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

Political Pulse: Drilling for Blame Many voters are suspicious about the causes of soaring gasoline prices. And with good reason by William Schneider July 6, 2000 At this point, the eventual political fallout of soaring gasoline prices is not all that clear. Not when one candidate is part of the incumbent Administration. And the other candidate used to be an oilman. Experts say there are lots of reasons for the oil shock. Reformulated gasoline requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Price gouging by oil companies that saw their profits jump 500 percent this year. And the core problem: the law of supply and demand, which neither the Democratic Administration nor the Republican Congress has figured out how to repeal. Factor in a booming economy, the summer driving season, and the recently acquired suburban taste for vehicles that look like armored personnel carriers, and you've got the formula for a demand explosion. Still, voters are suspicious -- with good reason. Why did the gas price surge happen so suddenly? And why has it been worse in one part of the country? And why, when the political pressure got turned on, did gasoline prices at some stations in Chicago drop as much as 12 cents a gallon last week? The political impact depends on whether voters blame government or business. The answer is both. In a June Gallup poll, equal numbers blamed the federal government (32 percent) and oil producers such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (32 percent), followed by the oil companies (23 percent). Very few blamed environmentalists who demand cleaner fuel (3 percent) or drivers who insist on driving gas-guzzlers (2 percent). Don't blame us, the people say. President Carter tried that in 1979, and look what happened to him. Gore is vulnerable on this issue because he's the government. No sooner did the Vice President's "Prosperity and Progress" tour get under way last month than the gas crisis hit him in the face. The crisis did not just raise doubts about the durability of the country's economic boom. It also turned out to be one of several blows to Gore, including the replacement of Gore's campaign chairman and a leaked recommendation to Attorney General Janet Reno that she appoint a special counsel to investigate the Vice President's 1996 fund-raising activities. The gas crisis is dangerous because it is hitting hardest in the industrial Midwest, the key political battleground in 2000. Why are we suffering, Illinois voters want to know. After all, the Speaker of the House is from Illinois. Hillary Clinton is from Illinois. Gore's new campaign chairman is named Daley. The gas issue also reinforces an impression created by the Los Alamos fiasco: Does this Administration know what it's doing? "There is no plan in Washington to increase the supply of crude oil or natural gas," George W. Bush has complained. "There is no national energy plan." Bush insists it's a problem of supply and demand. His answer? Increase the oil supply. Domestically, he wants to increase funding for research and exploration, including in protected wilderness areas in Alaska. Bush thought he hit pay dirt last week when he brandished a copy of Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, and noted that on page 173, the future Vice President depicted "higher taxes on fossil fuels" as "one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment." "This is a man who advocated raising gasoline taxes!" Bush charged. "Now that the price of gas is high under their watch in this current Administration, he seems to be running from his position." The Gore gang maintains that the author was not recommending higher taxes at the pump, but rather, special taxes on energy companies to fund an environmental trust fund. Payroll tax cuts would discourage the companies from passing the cost on to consumers. Sure enough, polling shows that Bush voters tend to blame the government, whereas Gore voters tend to blame oil producers. Gore and President Clinton have called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possible price collusion by the oil companies. Bush also endorsed a probe, even though the Texas governor has lots of supporters in the oil industry. "Oil is my business," Bush said when he ran, unsuccessfully, for Congress in 1978. Just look at campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry: $1.5 million to Bush and less than $100,000 to Gore, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics through April 30. At least 25 of Bush's top fund-raisers, the "Pioneers," are connected to the oil industry. That gives Gore a convenient target. "I think that all of this adds up to a need for an investigation of collusion, anti-trust violations and price gouging," Gore said last week. Do you believe gas price hikes are a conspiracy by big business to gouge consumers? Then you're likely to vote for Gore, who wants government to go after the oil industry. Think gas price hikes are a sign of government incompetence? Then you're likely to vote for Bush, who touts his knowledge of the energy industry. But the polls show that people blame business and government equally. So who gets hurt? Think of it this way: If people get mad at business, all they can do is complain. If they get mad at government, they can vote. That's something for Al Gore to think about. What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.