Note these are in addition to comments mentioned by others hear.
1) Bush has steadfastly refused to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
See this Op-Ed in the NYTimes by Nicholas Kristof (registration required):
<
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/opinion/27kristof.htm... >
One example is Mr. Bush's determination since 9/11 to add to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though this pushes up gasoline prices. Mr. Bush's approach is foolish economically, and it is crazy politically. Yet his grim willingness to raise gas prices during his re-election campaign underscores a solidity of character and convictions.
2) His Energy policy - he fails to embrace Hybrid Technology despite the widespread demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. Instead he embraced Hydrogen technology that is 20 years away. Had Bush embraced this then companies like Toyota and Honda and the American companies may have accelerated their Hybrid production lines in anticipation of the demand for these vehicles and incentives from the government. Now the demand is high for these cars because gas prices are high and there are not enough to go around and they are prohibitively expensive for some people who can buy an economy car for cheaper. See also this article in the NYTimes:
<
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/automobiles/27HAKI.ht... >
3) He wants high gas prices. This is my own theory. The amount of recoverable oil in the Arctic Wildlife refuge is based on among other things the price of oil per barrel. The 6 month supply that is quoted by many environmentalists is based on an estimated price of $24 a barrel. In other words at that price there is an estimate of the amount of "economically recoverable oil" that is equal to what the US uses in 6 months. However, at 55 dollars a barrel the amount of economically recoverable oil goes up (I don't have the figures but it may as much as triple). In addition the economic advantage of recovering oil in other places (like in shale in our National Wildernesses, off the coasts, or in wells in Texas that were tapped out) makes these areas more attractive for development as well.
This would in effect create a boom for the oil industry. Additionally it allows the president to use the price of oil and gas and it's cost to Americans as a wedge to weaken peoples support for not drilling in these areas.
If Bush gets elected again and the Senate is close to a 50/50 split I'd expect to see this be a big driving issue in the next year from the administration. Cheney already talks about ANWR in his stump speeches and how Kerry and Edwards prevented us from getting that oil.