"Neither. Let the markets decide the price of energy and leave the politicians to focus on more important issues such as health care, education and entitlements."
-- Greg M., Canada
"Neither. The elected are more concerned with themselves first, their party second, and a list of other things before being concerned about the people of America."
-- Lee D., Louisiana
"Republicans, see how much corn ethanol has helped. No wait, the Democrats -- maybe what we need are windfall profit taxes levied on the oil companies so they can pass it on to consumers. The point is, short of starting another war somewhere, U.S. political parties have little effect on high energy prices."
-- Mitch H., Texas
"I trust the Republican’s more."
-- David C., Texas
"Both parties would love to "deal with" higher prices and increase their political power by appearing to "do something", whether it actually helps or not. However, government involvement (by either party) is likely only to distort market forces and either prolong the situation or make matters worse."
-- Mark V., New Jersey
"In regards of which party to trust more to deal with high energy prices, neither. If any party is serious about global warming and/or saving energy, keep the prices high to "force" people out of gas guzzling SUV's to put them in hybrids and mass transportation."
-- Don S., Arizona
"The Democrats. The Bush administration is a do nothing political party that supports high prices for energy. Alternative energy is needed but is just a smoke screen to deflect criticism from the Democrats and the public at large."
-- Frank, New York
"Neither party wants to take on the oil companies. So nothing will happen any time soon. What is truly amazing is that no one has come out with an alternative."