According to the polls – as reported by our friend Progressive Conservative – John McCain is making headway by all of a sudden backing offshore drilling, and blaming Barack Obama directly for rising oil prices.
McCain’s latest talking point packs on layer after layer of dishonesty, deception, and fraud. First, and most importantly, blaming a global energy crisis on one man is the very definition of scapegoating & misdirection. Second, McCain is building false hope: any real scientist (don’t take my word for it) will tell you that drilling in ANWAR, or off the coast, is a money-losing proposition that won’t show any results – not even bad ones – for at least another decade. And third, McCain’s sudden support for offshore drilling, and the elevation of the issue to his campaign’s sole winning PR point, are stunning reversals, considering that McCain has opposed offshore drilling as being motivated by “special interests” since 2000. To reverse course on a belief he’s held for eight years, just when the going gets tough, suggests insincerity and a lack of convictions at best, and a willingness to sell out to the same “special interests” at worst. In short, it’s the very opposite of straight talk. It’s curved every which way.
While we’re used to political trickery like points one and three (slanderous spin and cunning reverals) from most politicians, it’s a bit surprising from McCain, and suggests that perhaps he and Mitt Romney were made for each other. This is the same McCain who stood in Detroit in the winter and told autoworkers that there were no easy answers. For McCain to now give America empty promises of easy answers on a difficult issue is a disappointing reversal, to say the least.
More disappointing still, though, is McCain’s reliance on false hope and selective science to make his point. While “drill more” is an easy answer to the oil problem, and likely to convince those that don’t know any better, more drilling is just a feel-good answer with no substance. While drilling in our own country may send the right message to foreign countries – i.e., “we don’t need your terror-financed oil” – it’s empty symbolism and empty “hope,” the very things for which McCain and Republicans deride Obama.
The utilization of false hope, bad science, special interest group’s money, and baseless accusations to score political points are Rove-era tactics, and woefully out-of-step with the straight-talking maverick McCain that the media and the American people have come to love. Alas for the McCain of 2000; you were too good for the Republican party.
I absolutely agree that Mr. McCain is being underhanded in blaming Mr. Obama’s stance on drilling for rising energy prices. One could just as easily argue (as Ames so adeptly has done) that Mr. McCain’s emphasis on off shore drilling would do nothing to alleviate prices in the short term.
However, I worry about blaming him for “selling out” to oil interests or even worse, flip flopping. Surely one should be allowed to alter one’s view in light of new evidence. Oil prices were not as high when he first made his comments back in 2000, and back then the risk to the environment may not have warranted drilling. That same calculus now could easily yield a different result. When we don’t allow our politicians to alter their views from years past, how can we ever expect our government to change in step with our culture, economy or security situation? If I were required by my friends and colleagues to never flip flop, I’d still be vigorously arguing in favor of the existence of Santa Claus, when recent evidence suggests that…never mind.
Posted by Trey Howard | July 30, 2008, 12:03 pmThat’s true – that’s why I think the whole “flip flopping” accusation is a little hollow. John Kerry, for example, should’ve been “allowed” to change his mind on the war.
But, McCain’s opposition to offshore drilling, even if it is of ancient provenance, persisted and was asserted as late as June, until he changed his mind in mid-June. That smacks to me of expedience rather than thought.
Posted by Ames | July 30, 2008, 12:18 pmSorry for the unconventional reply here, but it was link-heavy and long.
Comment
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 30, 2008, 12:38 pmI’ll have to reply to your post at greater length – busy now – but the main objection I have is that, sure, his energy policy may be more complete and sensical, but that’s not the way he’s selling it to the American public: he’s selling it as “this will fix everything now, and but for Barack Obama, there wouldn’t be a gas crisis,” which is extremely dishonest, and masks the true money and time that would have to be sunk into offshore drilling to make it even remotely profitable.
And that’s what I meant by “time & money” – you don’t even see the oil giants going in for offshore drilling, because it’s a $150m arrangement to drill a hole in the first place, with little guarantee of enduring profit, especially offshore. Oil companies – as the guy on NPR said – don’t produce OIL, they produce PROFIT. They only produce oil IF they can produce profit. At the point where oil companies – T. Boone Pickens, e.g. – are turning away from offshore drilling, it’s disingenuous to suggest that allowing drilling will change much, and disingenuous in the extreme to suggest, as McCain is, that if he signs the bill tomorrow, somehow magically, the gas prices will drop back to $2/gallon.
More later…
Posted by Ames | July 30, 2008, 2:47 pmOil companies are begging to have access to unproven reserves on public land and in the Artic. I don’t think they mind a heavy investment in start-up costs.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 30, 2008, 2:51 pmT.Boone at least does. To clarify, I’m not really that mad about people debating whether or not drilling in ANWAR/offshore is a good idea, and as Trey said, I’m not mad if McCain changes his position upon reflection on the evidence. However, the issue’s presentation to the American people is disingenuous, and his sudden change of course (oppose–>support) in a couple of weeks, coupled with receipt of oil money, are suspicious.
The merits of McCain’s actual energy plan are another matter. I think you’re right that Obama under-emphasizes wind & solar, and I think they’re both insane if they don’t invest heavily in nuclear. Why don’t we do that here??
Posted by Ames | July 30, 2008, 4:34 pmSenator Dick Durbin made a very concise, very illuminating speech on the Senate floor last week.
http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=301143
Here is an interesting excerpt that speaks to PC’s assertion that oil companies are “begging for access” to land:
the Federal Government, which controls a lot of land within the United States and off our shores, continually offers to the oil and gas companies the opportunity to lease that land and explore it for gas and oil. If you listen to the other side, you would think we are squandering–holding back all of these oil and gas assets from oil and gas companies and daring and defying them to go forward with exploration and production. That is not the case.
President Bush and the Republicans and the oil companies want to greatly expand the available areas for drilling. But is it responsible? The Federal Government already offers tracts of land in offshore regions for oil and natural gas development. In fact, nearly 94 million acres of U.S. territory–that is a larger landmass than the size of the State of Utah–is currently under lease to the oil and gas companies who believe there is oil and gas to be found. That is twice the size of the State of Pennsylvania currently under lease.
It is not as if access has been restricted. The Government leases millions of new acres every year. An additional 4.6 million acres of Federal land was leased in 2007. The Bureau of Land Management has held 21 onshore lease sales already this year. Last week a sale was held for nearly 63,000 acres. BLM has 18 more lease sales scheduled through this year. Offshore lease sales have proceeded at an even faster pace.
Since the beginning of 2007, the Minerals Management Service has held six lease sales for open areas off the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.
How much offshore oil land has been offered? It is 115 million acres that has been offered to the oil and gas companies for a lease on which to drill.
….
The oil companies, that said they do not have enough land to look at for future oil and gas, have responded by saying they would like to have 12 million acres, that is the amount of seabed the oil companies put bids on, barely 10 percent of what we offered them.
Posted by didionsdaddy | July 30, 2008, 10:58 pmJust because companies own a certain amount of land does not mean there is oil there. It is a speculative process and companies have to purchase much more than they need to protect possible discovieries from the ‘drink your milkshake’ scenario.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 30, 2008, 11:39 pmYeah but . . . . if you follow federal oil leases both on shore and offshore, you see first that, based on what evidence is available without drilling, the government leases lots of uplands and submerged bottom that has a high probability of oil. MMS isn’t in the business of leasing everything – they lease ocean floor that is likely to have oil in it. Oil companies also have a pretty good idea in the oceans of where the oil is likely to be – they spend LOTS of money doing seismic exploration of the bottom, often long before an area gets put under a lease for production. So when you see them clamoring for a particular section of land, or a particular section of ocean, they are doing so because everything they can find out about that place tells them there is oil there, and they want to lease it so they can control access, and have it in their pockets for later.
Posted by Philip H. | July 31, 2008, 7:20 amSo I’m still not following the logic of some who say that the oil companies should be happy with what they have. They are in it for the money. If they could be pumping billions in oil out of already-leased land, wouldn’t it make sense that they would already be doing so?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 31, 2008, 8:12 amhttp://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html
Posted by Ames | July 31, 2008, 2:42 pmGood source Ames! I liked this part:
“If it can be done in an environmentally friendly fashion — and with oil companies themselves footing the bill — opening up some new territory to drilling might be worth it. The reality is that our economy will run on petroleum for the foreseeable future, and that while investing in alternatives is the only way to secure truly low-cost energy over the long term, we’ll still need oil for decades more. ”
There is no silver bullet for this problem. A diversified solution is the best approach, but right both conservatives and liberals are being stupid and dragging their feet.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 1, 2008, 9:31 amThat last bit was mine…d’oh!
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 1, 2008, 9:31 am(re: second comment, I know :-) )
And yes, PC, I think most people, Republican and Democrat, can agree on the quoted text. I did read the article before citing it :-).
But, the key word is “might.” When we evaluate the science of drilling objectively, it starts to look like it’s much, much less than a cure-all – waiting 10 years to get 3-4 cents off a gallon of gas is pretty crappy – and, when the modest promise of off-shore/ANWR drilling is stacked against the environmental cost, I dare say the moral calculus starts to look like a wash, rather than the moral imperative that McCain presents. My problem with this has always been in McCain’s dishonest presentation of the issue, not with the potential promise of safely & cleanly drilling… if that can be done. But telling the American people that “President” McCain would drill on day one of his term, and gas prices would shoot back down to $2/gallon the next day, is dishonest.
Posted by Ames | August 1, 2008, 9:40 amSo can we get a big crow-eating post about President Obama’s flip flop on this issue?
Posted by Collin | August 4, 2008, 11:06 amI don’t think reasonable compromise is that bad of a flip.
Posted by Ames | August 4, 2008, 11:28 amI didn’t think a “laughable stopgap” was something you could reasonably compromise about. I have much to learn from The Obama.
Posted by Collin | August 4, 2008, 11:30 amHonestly people like PC convinced me: if it cam be done with minimal impact and without being promised as a panacea, let’s do it… Carefully.
Posted by Ames | August 4, 2008, 12:46 pmAnyone who has listened carefully (or otherwise) to Obama in the past year knows that his primary goal is to create consensus and compromise in a political system that has seen neither under Mr. Bush. Certainly the only way to do that is to sacrifice some of his ideal policies for those where everyone has a stake in winning.
In this case, Obama’s energy policy will likely focus on tougher fuel standards, more efficient uses of energy, wind energy, etc. However, he realizes that to create the broad consensus we need to move forward, he must allow off shore drilling and nuclear energy (both of which can be done safely).
I find it amazing that critics of Obama attack his leadership/experience, but when he actually shows that leadership, they call him a flip-flopper. See my post above on the issue of flip flopping.
Posted by Trey Howard | August 4, 2008, 1:38 pmWhen you have no record to speak of, your stance on issues is all people have to go on as they judge what kind of President you’ll be. Obama’s positions on a number of issues, now, have become unstable. And the fact that his supporters largely don’t care raises legitimate questions about whence their support derives.
Conservatives are giving it to McCain on a number of issues where they disagree with him. They may ultimately vote for him, but they’re going to make their voices heard and their dissent known. That such dialogue on the issues might cost McCain the election raises legitimate concerns about whether the system encourages “blind,” “sheep-like,” or “unthinking” acceptance of candidates.
Posted by Collin | August 4, 2008, 3:22 pmI don’t think there’s too much to back that up Collin.
The Obama social network’s largest group was the group protesting his FISA decision with 14,500 members.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html
I agree that there are evangelical groups, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians that show hesitance and criticism of McCain. But I also think that’s just the fractured nature of the Republican Party, and as far as I know the criticism of Barack went beyond ideological party divisions.
But to be fair, as you said, most people will forgive the person in their party more easily than the person outside, because the issues dealing with the elections are bigger than single issues.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 4, 2008, 4:34 pmThe only energy or oil monopoly in this country is a governmental institutionalized monopoly on our country energy market. The legislative branch has been engaging in anti-competitive energy practices from drilling to building new refineries and much more. They are in clear violation of the
“Sherman Antitrust Act
This Act expresses our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers.” http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file
Clearly the governmental restraint are in violation of a free market economy and is criminal negligence on the part of the liberal politicians who are the real cartel that profit in taxes more then 3 to 1 to the oil companies that actually work for their money and then have to pay taxes on top of that. So when Oil profits go up the tax revenue increase is 3 times that of the oil companies. So who do you think is the real cartel???
This criminal incompetence of the democrats and legislative politicians anti free market energy economy in allowing American companies to meet American Oil needs is in need of change and with bush opening up offshore drilling it is time that we conservatives take a page from the left wing play book and for us to us the judicial system in upholding our laws and open up drilling.
Why dose the Senate call for investigations on big oil? Because they are trying to transfer the blame off of them by placing the blame on someone else. By placing the blame on the oil companies and keep people from seeing that government is the true problem they are able to offer false hope in an effort to gain more power and money from taxes while eliminating a free market economy in our country and forcing us to send our money to unfriendly Middle Eastern countries.
Why should we drill?
1) Create more high paying jobs for Americans
2) Become energy independent and stop sending $700 billion to middle eastern countries that support terrorism
3) Invest the $700 billion in America
4) $700 billion is 6% of the yearly US economy, and investing this in America would do what to our economy? Lower inflation and strengthen the US dollar?
5) Instantly drop the price of oil because oil Speculators like me would invest in commodity producers that provide the product like Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, because this is the smart investment. When Oil Speculators transfer investments the Oil price falls on the stock market.
Posted by Jeff Roensch | August 5, 2008, 7:42 pmYou realize that drilling in ANWR/offshore will be far less than $700bn and doesn’t occur by fiat, right? You don’t just say “drill” and it happens – the drilling permit simply allows companies to invest – at the tune of more than $150m/rig – in the offshore drilling BUSINESS, with the mere hope of eventually generating 2m barrels of oil/yr inside a decade. The only sensible argument in there is the “investment–> price drop,” which is also contingent on oil companies making the initial investment, and a million other intervening causes.
And, you don’t really think that Democrats pocket the taxes they vote for, do you?
Posted by Ames | August 5, 2008, 10:27 pm