Today's NYT lead editorial is about the gaping disconnect between President Bush's stated goals on energy efficiency and his actual policies and budget allocations. This is, of course, typical - Bush's idea of leadership is to state bold and sometimes even admirable goals and then hope for the best instead of actually following through.
However, I think Bush has left an intriguing opening here, if the Democrats have the guts to take it. Very simply, all they have to do is take Bush at his conservationist word and propose a bill that would make all of Bush's stated goals an attainable reality, and be prepared to loudly and aggressively debunk whatever fake energy-conservation bill the Republicans come up with.
If they can pull that off, they put Bush in the awkward position of having to either admit his SOTU address was utter bullswitchgrass, or else force a big grin onto his face and pretend that stabbing Big Oil and Saudi Arabia in the back was his tiny heart's fondest desire. Sure, he'd take credit for it if it passed, but he's not running for re-election, and the world would be better for it, ecologically, economically, and politically.
They could always throw in some anti-manimal language to sweeten the deal...