McCain Shows Leadership on Energy; Obama says Hope for Change
Jun 25th, 2008 by DavidAnderson
Here is a great quote from Dick Morris:
Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.
McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.
The man has a way with words. The polls are starting to back him up. Rasmussen polls show McCain’s lead jumps to 11 points in FL if people are informed that he favors off shore drilling. 62% of people favor the proposal nationwide in another poll. The Democrats may find this to be the week that sowed the seeds of their defeat. There answer is to the energy problem is buy a bike and hope for new technology that is currently not viable or developed. As they say in the bitter parts of the country, that dog don’t hunt.
Even more astounding is this fact that the Democrats including Joe Biden, are blocking getting oil from wells which already exist. This party has lost its mind. Senator John McCain has finally awaken and has refined his position to show the clear difference which has always existed. Senator McCain has always favored allowing off shore drilling if the states agreed, but now he wants to offer incentives by sharing the royalties. That will get the job done while keeping the people in the loop. 3 cheers for John McCain.
Oil is above $130 a barrel, but those stingy Democrats in Congress who won’t give oil drillers more incentives. If the oil reseves in question aren’t profitable now, how much of the taxpayer’s money are expected to shovel to oil companies to get them to pump the stuff?
Where were John McCain and Joe Biden when we became aware decades ago that we had an energy crisis looming?
Now John McCain is panicking, and Joe Biden is silent.
Tommywonk makes a great point. Moreover, a summer moratorium is a political gimmick that will have negligent impact on fuel prices, because the oil and gas merchants will fill in the temporary tax gap temporarily, in my view.
Obama has it right. Instead of short term fixes and unlikely help from off-shore drilling and ANWR drilling at least 5-10 years away, we need to focus on conservation and investment in non-fossil fuel approaches. We also need to work with our oil suppliers to help us through this period.
And by the way, please don’t forget about fossil fuel driven global warming. The coincidence of oil price problems and oil induced global warming is most difficult for us to manage.
What a pickle we have allowed ourselves to be in. Now we will suffer from our neglect. Let us spread the suffering and minimize it with good policy, and let us now have the vision to invest in alternatives for our longer term future. We owe at least that to our fellow citizens and our grandchildren!
What do the polls show when people are informed that no independent economist backs offshore drilling as a solution to high oil prices? Oh, what, they forgot to push-poll that question. What a shock.
McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators.
Bull.
McCain Defends ‘Enron Loophole’
…[McCain’s] chief economic adviser Phil Gramm also wants to stop its proposed regulation of energy futures trading, a market that was famously abused when Enron Corp. manipulated California’s electricity prices in 2001.
Clearing the way for that California price gouging, Gramm, as a powerful Texas senator in 2000, slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms.
Then, over the next year, Enron – with Gramm’s wife Wendy serving on its board of directors – worked to create false electricity shortages in California, bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion. baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml
What are you talking about Al? More supply affects prices, the economists who know the industry agree, and everyone I can find not paid by the environmental lobby agrees. Just look at the financial papers. We have high prices because there is no wiggle room to account for supply disruptions. Demand has increased, but supply hasn’t. Not one economist in her right mind would say what you did. I have read some who say that if we increase supply that demand will continue to increase and the cost savings would be negligible, but the alternative is that if we don’t the price will continue to rise. If we continue on the path we are, oil will be $200 a barrel. If we start bringing on these resources, oil will fall a few dollars a barrel. That is a swing of $70 a barrel. Others believe that
Look if the disruption of 100,000 barrels raises the price of oil $5-7, by what logic would you conclude that a long term addition of a couple million barrels a day have no effect? That is so monstrous in its fallacy, it doesn’t even bare arguing.
BTW Rasmussen is one of the most respected independent polling organizations in the world.
Noman, look at McCain’s proposals not Gramm’s past legislation. You may have missed the memo, but Phil is not running. You can’t say because someone associated with you had a certain position 8 years ago that you can’t hold a different position today. That is laughable. McCain has a record. We don’t need to divine it.
If we play that game then Senator Obama’s position on the no vote union bill is supported by the Communist Party and so is his call for national health care. Does that mean that the Senator is a communist? Let me answer, No. My point is that you can make these tangential cases, but they are meaningless. Address the candidate,.
David, you’re not looking very hard. No economist not in the employ of the oil industry says it will do anything in the short term. The Bush administration’s own energy department says it won’t have any appreciable effect before 2030. McCain himself says its effects will be psychological. I think you have a serious reading problem.
You are just wrong on that. I don’t even read economists employed by the oil industry. The Bush energy department did not say what you are claiming either, it was refering to one particular proposal for accessing the oil reserves. If we kept the ban through 2012 as the Democrats want, it would be 2017 with the current system until we would start seeing benefits and could be depending upon how easy we find it, up to 2030 before we have full benefit. eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html It is like those who say ANWR would be 10 years away when 7 years of that would be paperwork–the paperwork could be cut by the wave of the hand. Given current regulations, that may be true so we need to reform the regulations and get started. If we adopted the McCain/GOP proposal, we could start benefiting by 2013 and have full benefit in the 20’s. If we adopt the Democratic position, we will be screwed. Easy choice.
1/4 of the price of oil is psychologicial. 1/4 is the poor dollar.
We have linked to some of these reports. I could post some, but what’s the point. You wouldn’t believe them anyway.
You know what I think should be done for the short term. If you have forgotten go to older posts or look under my name or the energy catagory. The long term problem is a supply one. You can’t have an energy policy without addressing supply. Nuclear, wind, fossil fuel, and new alternatives. Obviously, conservation helps as well.
look at McCain’s proposals not Gramm’s past legislation.
McCain’s support of the Enron loophole is demonstrated by his recent vote. The closing of the loophole was embedded in a large farm bill, which McCain voted against.
Think about that for a minute: John McCain, Presidential candidate, voted against a farm bill in an election year. How remarkable is that?
Not only that, the farm bill passed with veto-proof majorities. So McCain had to choose whether to cast his meaningless vote for farmers, or for the oil companies.
He chose the oil companies.
You have to be kidding. McCain voted against the Farm bill because it was filled with wasteful spending and harmful to the American consumer who doesn’t need food prices stuck in high gear.
You have a serious problem.