As you read blogs and stories about the energy policy fight going on in Congress, all of you certainly have your own beliefs about what the "right" answers are in this battle.  But if you could cut a deal on this, what would get enough votes to become law?

It is an interesting questions, especially as we get rumblings from Senate Republicans that they may be looking to float a plan that basically takes much of what Democrats want to do, and just adds it to GOP plans for expanded oil and gas exploration at home.

One idea being floated is to simply leave the area in Alaska known as ANWR out of any energy plan that the GOP offers in the Senate, simply because the votes aren't there to approve it.

And Republicans know that if ANWR is in the mix, then Democrats can use it as a convenient cover to oppose any GOP energy bill.

Now before those of you who are pro-drilling begin foaming at the mouth against the GOP leadership, the idea of leaving out ANWR may be one of the first nods to reality in this energy debate that we have seen in the Congress this year.

Whether that is right or wrong in your mind, that isn't the issue.  The issue is what can be approved in the House and Senate, or what can you offer up that will make voters see a major difference between the parties.

For now, there is no hint of any such planning by Democratic leaders, who have again made clear in recent days that they want no part of any expanded offshore drilling bill and no part of opening any acreage in ANWR for drilling.

But again, I will say that if you throw ANWR out of the equation, maybe you can start having a realistic political discussion on what should be in a comprehensive energy measure in Congress.

For example, if the GOP gives up this year on ANWR, what might you get the Democrats throw out?

Well, there aren't enough votes in the Congress right now to send extra taxes on Big Oil favored by many Democrats to the White House.  Even if there were enough for a majority, that type of bill would certainly draw a veto.  

No ANWR and no oil taxes.  If that actually could happen, all of a sudden you could be on the verge of realizing a real election year deal on energy.

You could have an energy package that focused on new efforts on renewable fuels like wind, solar and hydro, which is what Democrats want to emphasize, while Republicans would get new areas open to offshore drilling and then you can toss in some work on oil shale out West.

It almost sounds like the basics of a political deal in the making.

But don't get me wrong. 

I don't think somehow lots of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress are going to suddenly abandon their political stances and cut a deal on energy in this Presidential election year.

It is hard to imagine hardened Republicans embracing some of the liberal clap-trap on conservation from environmental groups, just like it's hard to imagine some Democrats voting to open offshore areas to the money-grubbing Big Oil companies.

But they could change their minds.

If they really wanted to.

Republicans could give up on ANWR.

If they really wanted to.

Democrats could vote for offshore drilling.

If they really wanted to.

Both parties could cut a deal on energy.

If....

Now you try to come up with an energy deal.  Pick a few cards from the Democratic side and pick a few from the GOP.  Remember, the Democrats have more votes right now.

What would you do?

If you really wanted to?