McCain’s Two Faces On Drilling And Gas Prices
Tweet
No actual core to the man, John McCain’s flip flopping is going from stupid to ludicrous.
27 Responses to “McCain’s Two Faces On Drilling And Gas Prices”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And your suggestion would be to sue OPEC?
And your suggestion would be to sue OPEC?
And is your suggestion endless wars and spending?
He needs to pick Romney as his running mate for the comparative steadfastness of his convictions.
I’m pretty sure christie’s (as well as McCain’s) suggestion would be “drill”. Even Oliver picked up on that one.
AAAGH! Teh Stupid! It burns!
I don’t know which is more maddening: These pandering oil whores suggesting any sort of drilling as a fix for our high gas prices, or the mouth-breathing knuckledraggers that believe them.
1) Any new drilling operation that commenced tomorrow would take 5-10 years to get to market.
2) Even then, it doesn’t “get” to market so much as it trickles to market over the course of 10 – 30 years.
3) OPEC would lower their output to keep world supply –and therefore prices– at a relative constant.
4) All the US’s proven oil reserves amounts to less than three years of total use, at our current use rate. That number is misleading though, because it gives the impression we could get it out all at once.
All this crap does is allow the oil companies to cling to their current revenue stream, and give Americans an excuse to continue their oil addiction.
Increased drilling is not a solution. It just prolongs the problem.
We’re not going to get much straight talk on energy from either of the two major party candidates. Partly it’s because no one really knows what to do about high gas prices and their impact on the economy. People are going to pay higher and higher prices at the pump for the foreseeable future because, while demand for oil is skyrocketing around the world, we’re not able to pump more out of the ground than we have in the past. In fact, sooner rather than later, we’re actually going to be pumping less. And no politician running for office wants to tell people the truth about that. We spend a lot of time talking about energy and the need to power down at blackEnergy, but we all need to focus more attention on solutions, like getting a bike and learning to grow food and replacing our light bulbs. But don’t count on McCain or anyone else running for president to lead the way or even to make sense on issues of energy.
Not invading oil-rich countries which pose very little threat would be a good start. And not just with respect to oil prices.
Sonja – The city government of the town where I live (Ashland, OR)pays people who own solar houses for the excess energy their panels feed back into the grid. Is your organization aware of any other city governments with a program like that?
Sonja, this is wishy-washy pap. Obama is very clear about his positions on energy. He has been consistent about those from the outset of the campaign. McCain has been a demagogue on this issue (as with every issue before him.) There really is no need to put these two in the same bucket.
Any new drilling operation that commenced tomorrow would take 5-10 years to get to market.
And you’ve kept up that refrain for the past 5-10 years. You think the world petrolium situation is going to get any better in the meantime?!?
Where was the GOP president and the GOP Congress on 9/12/2001 if drilling in ANWR and the OCS was so important to our security? If ever a case could have been made and if ever it could have passed, it should have been then. The fact is, this proposal, for reasons mentioned in previous comments, would amount to a drop in the ocean. The GOP isn’t interested in US security, but only making their already-obscenely-rich friends even more obscenely rich. I’ve been trickled-down upon since 1980! Where is the common sense?
Hey, here’s an idea, how about a cap-and-trade plan, but don’t make the cap mandatory!
Obama is very clear about his positions on energy. McCain has been a demagogue on this issue.
So calling for a “windfall profits tax” isn’t demagoguing the issue?!?
1) Any new drilling operation that commenced tomorrow would take 5-10 years to get to market.
In China.
Hey, here’s an idea, how about a cap-and-trade plan, but don’t make the cap mandatory!
Maybe a twist-off cap?
Where was the GOP president and the GOP Congress on 9/12/2001 if drilling in ANWR and the OCS was so important to our security?
Submitting bills to drill in ANWR only to have Democratics filibuster.
Links, Farris? Were any such bills submitted?
There sure were.
But Democrats said no oil would flow for a decade and would have little impact in oil imports or fuel prices.
True then, and still true now.
“Development (of the refuge) would irreversibly damage this natural resource,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a leader of the filibuster
Huh, would you look at that?
Why are we talking about ANWR? Increased production will not overcome rising demand. The best we can hope by increasing the production of oil is postponing the crisis for another 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. It’s not a solution, and constantly repeating it doesn’t make it one.
Republicans have blocked every other energy proposal that actually might address the problem.
Even if we had increased production, refineries would not step up their production any, so the costs would pretty much stay the same.
To tell the truth, I’m kind of surprised Bush hasn’t released the Strategic Oil Reserve yet. That would be the icing on the cake for this fuck-up administration.
“And you’ve kept up that refrain for the past 5-10 years. You think the world petrolium situation is going to get any better in the meantime?!?”
Nope. You see, the oil companies are not at peak production now, so what makes you think if they had more potential production they would be actually producing more than they are now?
It would have been better to spend that time reducing demand by enforcing higher fuel efficiency standards. At least on par with Europe. Hell, doing that right now would help a lot, and immediately.
More long term goal would be alternate fuels. Granted, I’m pissed off Al Gore didn’t do more when he was V.P. to push them through. But hopefully the next president will be more responsible.
Nope. You see, the oil companies are not at peak production now,
I tried and failed to find some substantiation in either direction for this that wasn’t tin-foil-hat biased. C.S. – If you have an online source would you mind providing a link?
It would have been better to spend that time reducing demand by enforcing higher fuel efficiency standards. At least on par with Europe. Hell, doing that right now would help a lot, and immediately.
I grow somewhat cynical about the political will to do so when I drive down I-5 and pass 40 SUVs carrying, altogether, 43 people.
Even if we had increased production, refineries would not step up their production any, so the costs would pretty much stay the same.
This may be heresay Duros, but I had thought that the bottleneck created by not enough refineries was the problem? Are we certain either way whether there’s any truth to the Republican refrain that we haven’t built a new refinery in three decades?
Correction – *’The problem’ above should read ‘part of the problem.’*
“I tried and failed to find some substantiation in either direction for this that wasn’t tin-foil-hat biased. C.S. – If you have an online source would you mind providing a link?”
Saw it watching the news. The oil companies have plenty of land leases that they are not developing now. Giving them more is hardly incentive for them to develop what they have now.
“This may be heresay Duros, but I had thought that the bottleneck created by not enough refineries was the problem?”
Nope. They are at 85% capacity, or at least that’s the last figure I read.
This is a great comment over at Sadly, No!, CS. And sounds like a (well, socialist) pretty good idea.
I had thought that the bottleneck created by not enough refineries was the [part of the] problem?”
Yes and no. As CS says, the ones we have aren’t going full tilt. Some of the ones on the Gulf Coast were fucked up by Katrina and that other one and haven’t been repaired yet, and if there have been any applications to build new ones, nobody wants to live near one (Jay? Farris? How about your backyard?).
“This is a great comment over at Sadly, No!, CS. And sounds like a (well, socialist) pretty good idea.”
I like it.
On a side note, I think this is how the government should respond to the credit crisis. Don’t bail out the banks, buy them out. If the government is going to assume the risks, they should be able to reap some of the rewards.
“No actual core to the man…” –Oliver Willis, June 17
“The way he’s been working the energy issue only makes him look like a man with no inner core.” –Gail Collins, NY Times, June 19
Coincidence? Or is Collins stealing phrases from Willis?