Mr. Bush accused Democrats of blocking plans that would have expanded domestic energy supplies, and thus held down prices at the pump.

"I believe that they're letting the American people down, is what I believe," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden.

The President specifically called on Congress to open the area in Alaska known as ANWR to new oil and gas exploration. That is something Democrats have stridently opposed and is pretty much a non-starter for them politically.

"What does the President do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY.) "ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in 10 years."

Democrats derided Mr. Bush's call for increased domestic energy production as "mind boggling" and "irrelevant," ratcheting up their own rhetoric to take on the White House.

As someone who has watched the Congress for well over 20 years now, the Finger Of Blame can certainly be pointed at both parties on the energy issue.

The idea of compromise just doesn't wash with either side on energy, because of the deeply held beliefs on what the "right" answer is to America's energy problems.

Back during the Clinton Administration, the GOP controlled Congress actually approved a bill that included plans to open up ANWR to drilling, but that was vetoed.

I'm not sure there are enough votes to approve it in the Senate today, but it wouldn't matter, because it would be sunk by a certain Democratic filibuster.

Meanwhile, Republicans do their best to ridicule plans from Democrats on energy, which often feature anti-Big Oil measures.

Basically, the GOP plans center around increased domestic production, some conservation measures, efforts to reduce overall oil and gas consumption and more in the way of alternative fuels.

Democrats meanwhile want major advances in energy efficiency and conservation, a price gouging bill that would target major oil companies, a crackdown on speculation in the oil markets, rolling back tax credits for Big Oil with that extra money going to fund alternative fuels programs.

While both parties talk about a temporary rollback in gas taxes, Democrats want Big Oil to replace the lost gas tax revenue - in other words, shift the bill to them.

There isn't much middle ground politically in any of the above plans.

A quick look back in my story file shows how little the debate has changed.

Twelve years ago, the GOP advanced plans to temporarily set aside a 4.3 cent/gallon gas tax approved by Democrats a year earlier. One of my stories from May of 1996 said:

"Democrats meanwhile called the plan a political gimmick...claiming it would help oil companies more than the consumer...next stop is the Senate, where politics could cloud its future."

Eight years ago, Congress was battling over gas prices that had hit an average of $1.66/gallon. I wrote the following in a story:

"The problem is Congress is badly split - on everything from a temporary roll back of gas taxes, to efforts intended to spur more domestic oil exploration. That deadlock may only get worse ahead of the November elections."

Four years ago, prices were averaging over $1.80 a gallon, I wrote about the gas price debate,

"With gas prices still rising, the blame game is fast and furious over a stalled out Energy bill...lawmakers have been at odds over energy policy for several years and this election year is no different."

Boil it all down and neither side really wants to give in. Republicans say Democrats are a bunch of tree huggers who want to rely too much on solar, wind, alternative fuels and especially conservation to solve US energy needs.

Democrats say the GOP is in the hip pocket of Big Oil and would try to drill an oil well in every national park if they had the chance, all the while ignoring energy efficiency and conservation measures.

So, is there common ground on energy policy this year? You would think that with prices nearing $4 a gallon for gasoline, that maybe there would be.

But the political signs don't indicate that in the Congress.