Idiocy Watch: McCain blames Obama for high gas prices in new ad
Several recent polls show Americans believe Barack Obama is better prepared to deal with energy prices than John McCain, and given the importance of the issue on the minds of voters, the McCain campaign has decided to rely on a tried-and-true method of campaigning: lie like a rug.
Here’s McCain’s latest television ad:
For those who can’t watch clips online, the ad starts with an announcer explaining, “Gas prices — $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?”
At that point, you hear a crowd chanting, “Obama, Obama, Obama.”
The announcer comes back to conclude, “One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.”
I occasionally think about something Time’s Joe Klein wrote in April about McCain’s style. Klein predicted that McCain would avoid a cheap and pathetic style of campaigning, because he knows better. McCain, Klein said, “sees the tawdry ceremonies of politics — the spin and hucksterism — as unworthy.” If he doesn’t, “McCain will have to live with the knowledge that in the most important business of his life, he chose expediency over honor.”
For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers.
To anyone who cares about reality, the ad doesn’t make a lick of sense. McCain has to hope, desperately, that we’re all idiots.
For example, the ad says gas prices are high “because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” How’s that, exactly? No one is saying no to “drilling in America.” There’s all kinds of drilling in America. There’s drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don’t know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants “drilling in America” to stop.
Worse, the ad wants Americans to believe that prices would be lower if there was more “drilling in America.” McCain knows that’s not true, but hopes to fool just enough people, playing them for suckers. It’s shameful.
In fact, I know John McCain’s pitch a transparent scam, in large part because John McCain told me so.
For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign continues to talk to voters like grown-ups: “John McCain said recently that ‘our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington.’ As someone who’s been in Washington for 26 years, Senator McCain is one of those politicians, and he’s consistently opposed investments in renewable energy that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Now he’s proposing nearly $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies and Washington gimmicks that he admits will only provide ‘psychological relief’ to consumers. Barack Obama has fought for energy independence in the Senate and has a plan to invest $150 billion in renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and provide struggling families with an immediate energy rebate and a $1,000 middle-class tax cut.”
My hunch is, there’s going to come a point in the not-too-distant future when John McCain looks back at this period of his campaign and asks himself, “I wonder what would have happened if I tried to run as an honest, honorable candidate.” I guess he (and we) will never know.
Steve, you underline end tag is missing.
I honestly must say that I’m appalled by this move by McCain. His campaign was starting to get me to follow the “Obama is full of empty rhetoric” line, but to blatantly lie and deceive about opening more areas for drilling having an impact on short term gas prices is ridiculous.
Do I think that opening more areas for development will have a long term positive impact on gasoline price stability? Yes. US production is more stable than foreign production, and more production available will have a incremental positive impact, even if it is small.
Will it help our economy? Yes, it will create jobs and investment, as long as it is done in an environmentally sustainable way.
But to try and deceive people into believing that Obama is depriving them of money in the wallet right now at this moment is plain ludicrous.
“For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers.”
I believe that JSMcC*nt does not believe that Obama is worthy to be President, because Obama once stiffed JSMcC*nt on an ethics bill. JSMcC*nt might have been willing to play nice with his drinking buddy Hillary Clinton (because she can drink him under the table) but not with Obama.
So JSMcC*nt has allowed himself to be convinced that:
1) Obama is dangerously liberal (clearly not so from a liberal bloggers prespective),
2) Obama is dangerously naive (amusing, now that BGII and JSMcC*nt has adopted both his Afghanistan and Iraq policies),
3) Obama is a secret Muslim,
3-a) Well even if he is not, lots of Americans (read, BGII’s base) think he is,
3-b) And even if they are wrong, it will be bad for America to have so many Americans not trusting their President (noticeably, fewer Americans distrust Obama then distrust Boy George II),
4) And even if you could get those untrusting Americans to accept that Obama is really, actually, a real Christian (unlike, say Mitt Romney), then
5) Those same Americans will never trust even a moderate Black Man to be President,
And because JSMcCUNT doesn’t want those Americans to mistrust the President (remember seeing bumper stickers saying “My President is Charleston Heston?) in a time of war, he’ll do anything, no matter how wrong or criminal (Diebold, we are watching you) to win this election.
Lying is hardly the worse he’ll do.
I think if you lie enough and increase the disinformation to huge uncontrolled levels, the sure weight of the lies will create so much confusion that the “low information voters” will all get pee rings and blame it on bin Laden. Fear will be strength and new underpants will be handed out at voting booths all across all of the American places where such stupid people dwell and unfortunately, vote.
Then, when McAce is elected in an election decided by 16 uncontested votes in Pennsylvania, a new set of underpants will be given to all of the clear thinkers who shat theirs upon hearing these results…
Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that it makes more sense to drill for oil when it is $130 a barrel than when it was $20 a barrel?
Aw….you miss the point Neil.
We can put an Oil Well in every backyard, wildlife refuge and national park in America, and we wouldn’t be able to solve the energy crisis.
This is not rocket science.
It’s not even science …
Do I think that opening more areas for development will have a long term positive impact on gasoline price stability? Yes. US production is more stable than foreign production, and more production available will have a incremental positive impact, even if it is small.
The problem Panthael is that there is nothing legislative stopping U.S. oil production from growing right now. While there might be some dispute over the actual number, noone disputes that there are plenty of available leases for U.S. companies to drill more oil domestically right now and noone is telling companies not to drill on them. The reason that they are not has to do with a number of complex business decisions that are completely unrelated to what our government has to say about it. This whole bit about Democrats somehow preventing otherwise eager companies from drilling a way to a solution is just an out and out lie and a pretty bad one if you know anything about the oil industry in this coutnry. Don’t fall for it. American oil has made a business decision regarding domestic oil production. Everything else s just smoke.
Why is it so hard for neil to understand that it makes more sense to drill for oil when it is $200 a barrel than when it is $130 a barrel?
By neil’s logic we should wait til oil is at its maximum price, no word on how we’ll know what that is.
BTW, neil, there’s no rigs available. But that’s probably Obama’s fault too.
of course it makes more sense to drill when oil is $130 than when it is $20, neil (although ideally you worry about supply and demand long before oil is $130/bbl. . . )
the pure shameless dishonesty you seem willing to ignore in the ad, however, is that it plays games with time horizons, stirring up voters’ emotions about the price of gas right now and conflating that with resistance to current drilling proposals. . . which would have an impact in, oh, 8-12 years. Unless of course you an adherent to the Bush/McCain/Gramm “psychology of drilling” theory.
neil wilson said: “Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that it makes more sense to drill for oil when it is $130 a barrel than when it was $20 a barrel?”
The Oil Companies aren’t offering to drill for MORE oil. They are just trying to get Oil Drilling Rights on the cheep because America is freaking at the price of gasoline. They’ve got 68 Million Acres of drilling rights now. If it’s been too expensive to exploit before, is it too expensive to exploit while oil is $130 a barrel?
But no, they don’t want to drill more (and reduce the price), they just want to muddy the waters and talking about more drilling leases confuses people into thinking that giving the Oil companies rights to the Outer Continental Shelf is just the distraction they need.
So Neil, you are right that more drilling becomes economically viable at $130 a barrel, but you are wrong that it will do anything to help US.
And I thought you’d know that.
Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that it makes more sense to drill for oil when it is $130 a barrel than when it was $20 a barrel?
There is nothing difficult to understand about that at all. The other thing that is easy to understand, if one knows anything about the oil industry in this country, is that what you are saying is irrelevant. If oil companies want to drill more in this country, nothing is stopping them from doing so other than their own profit/loss analysis.
The question that begs to be asked is “If we need to drill in America so bad why is it that the oil companies who hold the leases on 90 million acres here in America are only drilling on less than a third of said acres. Leaving 68 million acres idle with no ongoing exploration.” And yet they want more most notibly they want ANWAR. They care nothing about looking for alternative energy or cutting our dependence on foreign oil they want to rape and pilliage the wilderness and drill in our off shore waters. McCain and his media stooges need to start listening to the American people and stop playing footsie with the oil lobby.
The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers.
Sadly, there is much electoral history in my lifetime to support his conclusion.
While I am hopeful this year changes all of that, it ain’t over yet.
Beyond the outright lies, McCain and Bu$h have even said that opening the ANWAR and offshore drilling would have more psycholigical impact than anything else.
Jeez, who’s running McCain’s campaign? Outright lies don’t surprise me a bit from conservative republicans, but do they honestly think we’ll forget that not one week ago, they admitted the psychological impact point?
For those of you who support McCain, he just called you people stupid fucking morons.
CB:
“For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign continues to talk to voters like grown-ups.”
To continue what seems to be my ‘insufferable’ theme of the day, why can’t we start doing the same thing here. (I DO understand the ‘venting among friends’ argument, but even ‘venting’ can be done without pre-pubescent name-calling — and presumably we hope, ideally, that TCR is read by a lot of voters, not just ‘the family’ that we are — even me, the ‘preachy old grump of an uncle.’)
There is no way to drill ourselves out of the energy crisis. I heard a long lecture by Richard Heinberg on the subject the other day. Drilling can only help at the margins.
“For those of you who support McCain, he just called you people stupid fucking morons.” — citizen pain
Conservatives have been doing that for decades. In return, people vote for repubs and against their own interests because, well. they are stupid fucking morons. Kind of a chicken and egg thing.
I almost wish McCain would go back to just being a moron…
Why is it so hard for conservatives to understand that it makes more sense to look for alternative sources of energy when oil is $130 than when it’s $20?
It’s not that liberals are opposed to oil exploration. We’re just opposed to completely ignoring any other option when the problems of oil are so explicitly and clearly demonstrated. Look for more oil, if you can manage to do it in a safe manner. However, the oil spills in the gulf as a result of Katrina suggest that this is difficult, and the eagerness of McCain to lie about this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Also, don’t completely ignore the fact that petrochemical energy is a technology that is as old as civilization and that perhaps we’ve learned enough to look for some improved alternative.
My favorite ridiculous McCain energy claim is the jobs created by adding nuclear power plants.
He wants to add 45 nuclear plants. He says 45 plants will add 700,000 new jobs.
That’s ~15,000 new jobs per power plant. Hmmm…. I don’t think so.
There are a lot of reasons for the US to build nukes, job creation is not one of them.
That’s ~15,000 new jobs per power plant. Hmmm…. I don’t think so.
No, really – it’s true. 14,000 of them are lobbyists.
Why is it so hard for Neil to understand that there are a lot of reasons for “liberals” to be wary of hurriedly opening up a lot more land (and sea) to drilling?
Some people don’t like the ecological risk. They regard the closed areas as priceless, whether oil is at 120 dollars or 1200 dollars a barrel. They see no proof that drilling is without risk.
Some people think that it’s insane to try to find and burn every gram of fossil fuel when there’s every indication that we’re already irrevocably harming the environment with the available quantities.
Some people think that learning to conserve, under the crash course being offered by the current price, will make more difference than a 2 percent increase in the supply of oil 10 years from now.
Some people think it wouldn’t make a difference anyway, given that the resources aren’t available and the time required to make the oil available is so far into the future. Better to spend some time coming up with an energy policy that will take us more in a direction we want to go.
Supply and demand don’t add up to $5 a gallon prices. The market is being manipulated in an Enron manner.
I’d rather have “empty rhetoric” than rhetoric full of lies.
What point did I miss?
I didn’t say that we should or that we shouldn’t drill for more oil.
I didn’t say we should or we shouldn’t invest in alternative energy.
I didn’t say we should or shouldn’t conserve.
I just said it makes more sense to drill for oil today than it did when oil was $20 a barrel.
Lots of interesting points here. Neil, of course, could just as easily have said that it makes more sense to invest in expanded solar power when oil is $130 a barrel as opposed to $20 a barrel.
There may be good reasons why the currently leased lands are not being drilled, but I haven’t heard any. At $130 a barrel, even existing wells with harder to get reserves become economical to start pumping again. I have seen no estimate of how much domestic “hard to get at $20/bbl, but worthwhile at $130/bbl” oil there is. Such oil, of course, could get into the pipeline much more quickly than oil from new drillings.
All of that aside, the oil in the North Slope was under seige when oil was $20/bbl, so it was economical at that price. It would be economical at far less than $130/bbl. Why don’t the oil companies invest some money in finding more environmentally friendly drilling methods?
There seems to be two camps against drilling: environmentalists and folks appalled at the lying about the immediate economic impact (these are not mutually exclusive groups). For long term access to eco-sensitive oil fields, the oil companies need to address environmental issues (if possible) and they need to demonstrate some solid societal economic benefit, not just oil company profit benefits. They need to have all special tax breaks for drilling eliminated so that a true cost/benefit argument can be made.
They want ANWR because the oil in Alaska is drying up and they need to keep Alaska in the “R” column. Drilling in ANWR means more jobs, tax incentives, and royalities for Alaskan citizens (I think they each get $1,500 of oil money per year now). Think of it as an “earmark” for the party loyalists!
Re #25
No Neil, you said you couldn’t understand why Liberals don’t know it makes more eonomical sense to drill for ‘difficult’ oil at $130.
But we understand it perfectly. We just know that the excuse is a crock of s**t. So we don’t take the time to fit the point into our arguments.
Re #27.
Alaskan oil is also sold abroad. We consume all our continental drilled oil at home. If we didn’t ship some oil overseas who knows what would happen. OPEC might decide to stop pricing oil in dollars and then our currency would crash…
… just like it deserves to.
There is no such thing as “environmentally sustainable” oil drilling. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
It’s a myth created by oil company PR departments who don’t really care about the environment, but are confident that so few people know what happens at an oil field that they can lie about “environmentally responsible/sustainable” drilling.
How do I know?
I’ve been to an oil field — a modern one that was allegedly going to be one of the most environmentally safe ones ever.
It’s not. Never was, isn’t now, and never will be. Why?
Because it can’t be done. It’s a messy, messy process that is impossible to do without spilling thousands of gallons of raw crude. Ask anyone whose worked on or close to a rig or pump and they’ll tell you the same thing — oil seeps through cracks in pipes, leeches out of tanks, and accidents happen more than anyone will admit.
Basically, arguing for “environmentally sustainable drilling” is like arguing for “virgin-sustaining sex” — it sounds like a great idea, but doesn’t match all that well with the reality of the process.
Nice ad, I just want to know why higher gas prices are Barack Obama’s fault exactly. I can’t wait until there isn’t any more oil. And wow, the McSame campaign is really poorly pulling the wool with this one. I wonder how many fools will hop on the BS Express with this little “zinger”. Let me guess, it’s airing in the states that Clinton won toward the end of the primary. “Go Kentucky!” Good old republican BS! Another four years of clueless clowns posing as authoritative experts is not what this country needs. I mean Jesus-fucking-Christ, Phil Graham and Carly Fiorina?? Might as well bring back Brownie, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez too! John McCain = Peter Principle redux (aka another George W. Bush term).
Oh yeah, Gas Tax Holiday!
What point did I miss?
Perhaps a few. But the point you still seem to be missing is that your original statement was, at best, a non sequitur. The pervasiveness of drilling in this country is effected by many factors. The market price of oil is certainly one of those factors but in the context of this debate, getting to cheaper energy costs, it is entirely irrelevant. Insofar as you suggested that it was relevant and the apparent lack of comprehension by liberals (of what you think you understand about oil) was somehow germane, you missed the entire point completely.
McCain had better hope that the Dobson endorsement pays off, because (based on my family) his current campaigning is losing the old guard, lifelong Republicans who would have happily believed that he would be the Republican they thought (twice!) that GWB was.
E.g., my 70+ stepdad has no doubt always voted Republican for president (probably voted for both Nixon and GWB twice). But he’s awfully fed up. He couldn’t care less about the fake social issues the wingers love. And on Father’s Day he spontaneously brought up how stupid the push for more domestic oil drilling is.
My aunt’s 90+ boyfriend has been a more rabid and annoying Bush cheerleader (and, before that, Clinton hater) at family gatherings. Over the past year he’s tentatively conceded that Bush maybe has made some bad decisions. His line on Iraq is that our mistake was not getting out when we could. If McCain’s position is to insist that we stay when there’s a chance to go out with the Iraqis’ blessings, he’s not going to impress at least one WWII vet who really “knows how to win wars.”
It looks like McCain’ new house will be built near the Iraq-Pakistan border in his personal Never-never-Land… What is McCain babbling about now? The obscene price of gasoline has more than doubled recently and that is directly due to the deregulation actions of Phil Gramm, McCain and Bush.
We’re being ENRONed again: this time by oil futures contracts speculators who are unnecessarily and very profitably driving up the price of crude oil and hence retail gasoline prices. Curious as to why you are suddenly paying over four dollars a gallon for gasoline? No, it’s not due to “supply-and-demand,” no, it’s not due to “OPEC,” nor is it due to “peak oil.” It’s due to totally unregulated electronic oil futures trading in world markets. Check out the very lucid article that explains the unseen financial machinations in oil futures markets written by F. W. Engdahl on May 2, 2008, entitled, “Perhaps 60% of Today’s Oil Price is Pure Speculation.” It may be viewed at .
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html
In a nutshell, he suggests that the Bush Administration dropped the ball in January 2006, when they allowed totally unregulated electronic trading of oil futures contracts in New York. Previously these electronic trades had been made at the London Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Futures Market. With that decision by the Bush Administration, all of the world’s oil prices were then opened to upward pressure from speculative futures contracts. In essence, oil futures contracts made by speculators, banks, hedge funds and pension funds all competed with real demand on the spot markets and had the effect of driving up both wholesale oil prices and retail gasoline prices. Speculators have made billions of dollars on their trading of oil futures contracts. All of their profits come right out of our pockets.
Even with a stable oil supply, there is a slow worldwide increase in demand for oil, which creates a long-term upward pressure on oil prices. However, with the relentless saber-rattling and war-mongering by Bush and Cheney in the last several years, and the more recent war talks by McCain and the Israelis, the oil futures markets are rife with speculation and paranoia. This war talk keeps ratcheting up the prices on the oil futures contracts and hence the wholesale spot market prices. It is an endless spiral of greed and paranoia.
As long as there is no tough and effective oversight of the electronic oil futures markets by the Bush Administration, the oil prices will climb endlessly. These oil prices will be quickly followed by hikes in the retail gasoline prices at the pump. The 60% speculation share of the $4.25/gallon gasoline price, is about $2.55/gallon, which is what we consumers are paying to these oil speculators as a “service fee.” Not a bad “fee,” since the speculators produce no usable goods or services…Just a few large greedy oil futures traders helping themselves to your gas money.
Without this added-on oil futures “service fee,” you would be paying about $1.75/gallon for gasoline. Write, call or smoke-signal your Representatives and Senators today and suggest that they read the June 2006 report by The U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations entitled, “The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices.” Then demand that they investigate and then force the Bush Administration to firmly regulate the computerized oil futures contracts trading in New York, London and Dubai.
This electronic oil price futures scandal is costing US drivers about $969,000,000.00 per day! That number is based on 60% speculation fee of a gasoline price of $4.25/gallon and on US 2004 consumption of 380,000,000 gallons/day. Tell you Senators and Congresspersons to simply shut down this unregulated electronic oil futures contract trading market. Then the price of gasoline will slowly drop to about $1.75/gallon…The only way that oil price futures contracts make money is if the price of oil goes up in the future, say, 30, 60 or 90 days later. This futures market serves no social need. It is just for corporate greed. The corporate speculators are probably also gaming/ENRONing the wheat and corn futures markets the same way.
The important thing to remember here is that none of this talk from McCain really has a goddamn thing to do with bringing down the price of gas. Gas prices are a very popular concern right now [ if McCain could take credit for directing the new Batman movie, he would] so the Republican candidate dutifully blames it on the Democratic candidate in an effort to try and win back the conservatives that are leaning Obama [and there are some]. Meanwhile, the dutiful Republican also talks up a policy that has no benefits for the rest of us, but sounds like it does. Think “Death Tax”.
There is only one reason Bush and McCain want to drill in more places. It will make more money for the oil people. And convincing mouth-breathers that it’ll bring down the price of gas [so they can afford to go see Batman “The Dark Knight”] is the same 100 percent pure conservative bullshit they always use. And that unfortunately always works.
So, never mind whether drilling or not drilling makes sense or no sense. It’s ultimately about rich people wanting more money and finding a groovy way to make it sound like bold and beneficial public policy.
McCain’s ad declaring that Obama is personally responsible for the skyrocketing cost of fuel during the Bush administration is beyond unbelievable. Anyone who falls for THAT garbage should have their voting rights revoked. It is ridiculously unintelligent and obviously aimed at the those who will believe anything as long as it parallels their own political prejudice.
McCain has stooped lower than I would ever would have expected from a man of his caliber. He has become just another disgraceful candidate running on deceit wrapped in a political banner.
What a shame.
Another huge factor in the high price of oil (that no one much talks about) is the decimation of the value of the dollar.
If the dollar suddenly gained back the 40% of its value that it’s lost since the Iraq war began the price of oil would drop accordingly.
OK
Many of you complained when I said that liberals should understand that it makes more sense to drill when the price of oil is $130 than when it is $20.
If you don’t think drilling in ANWR is a good idea with oil at $130 then do you think it would be a good idea if oil were at $300? How about $600? Is there any price where you think it would be a good idea???
Neil,
It strikes me that, if you were really honest in your desire to find out what price each of us puts on ANWR, there are better ways to get an answer than posting a comment here.
Obama said he is fine with gas prices going up.
Obama said this in an interview with CNBC. John Harwood did the interview.
Here is Obama saying he is fine with higher gas prices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B701G553A68 – 60k
from March 30 2004 http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/thenote/thenote_mar3004.html
ABC News’ Dan Harris reports that “The Kerry people smell blood here, knowing that sitting presidents often get blamed for high gas costs. “
Basically, arguing for “environmentally sustainable drilling” is like arguing for “virgin-sustaining sex” — it sounds like a great idea, but doesn’t match all that well with the reality of the process. — Mark D, @30
Get thee out of the missionary position mindset and you may find that impossible is possible. As regards virginity, at any rate; I will not argue with you about the “environmentally sustainable drilling”
Next week: Barack Obama kicked Mrs. O’Leary’s cow and started the Great Chicago Fire. McCain kicked Mrs.O’Leary and claimed success.
I totally agree with Erik in Maine, oil is priced in dollars, our dollar is trading at less than half what it was before Bush, therefore we have to pay twice as many dollars.Many oil producing countries have threatened to even stop dealing in dollars.. As for drilling, does anyone know why the oil companies do not drill on the thousands of acres they have drilling rights on? Or why they will not give up these rights.
neil wilson said: “If you don’t think drilling in ANWR is a good idea with oil at $130 then do you think it would be a good idea if oil were at $300? How about $600? Is there any price where you think it would be a good idea???”
Because I think we need to end our Oil/Carbon energy economy as it means permanent dependence on oil from countries we will NEVER like, I’d just as soon leave the oil in the ground. In case the point has missed you, God created a process to put that oil underground and we managed to evolve in a world with a lot less carbon dioxide in the air, creating civilization along the way. Digging up all the coal and oil of the world (certainly at the pace we are currently going) is going to get us back to a world climate that existed around the time of the dinosaurs. (snark) I’m sure that the Aztec, Mayan and Inca civilizations were just wonderful (/snark) but I’d really not want to live on the top of mountains surrounded by jungles or living at a few oasis surrounded by deserts. If for no other reason than the fact that a world like that could probably not support 6 to 7 billion human beings.
If we move to a hydrogen/battery fuel and wind/tide/hydro energy economy we can leave a lot of carbon-based fuel right where it is, sequestered underground rather than poluting the surface of the earth and our oceans and fresh water. And investing in the infrastructure here would be a boost to our economy like the Marshal plan was to Europe after the war.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if oil is $1,000,000 a barrel — drilling in ANWR is clinically fucking retarded for a few reasons:
1. There’s not all that much oil there.
2. Oil companies have the rights to drill on some 68 million acres already that they haven’t touched. A majority of which is much, much easier to access and drill upon than ANWR.
3. More drilling won’t see results for ten years, so it’ll nothing to solve the current problem.
4. More drilling won’t solve our energy problems now, or even in the future — all it’s doing is postponing the inevitable: A move away from oil.
5. It makes much, much, much more sense to spend those billions on alternative research and brining those technologies to market, thus eliminating the need for more drilling.
It’s simple, really — why in the holy fucking hell should we destroy one of the last pristine places on earth for six months of gasoline and so you can feel better about taking the long way home?
But please, keep thinking we’d all be better if we just delayed the disaster and destroyed every last shred of habitat on Earth. After all, you won’t be around to deal with the aftermath, so why should you care?
In the mean time, those of us grown ups with a conscience will argue for dumping the century-old, ricockulously filthy oil industry and start setting up a cleaner, better, and more secure future for our children.
If you don’t think drilling in ANWR is a good idea with oil at $130 then do you think it would be a good idea if oil were at $300? How about $600? Is there any price where you think it would be a good idea???
Good idea for who? For what purpose? To what end? Tell me what goal you are trying to advance by drilling the oil and I will answer whether it is a good idea. But try and keep your eyes on the ball here. We’re talking about controlling the price of gas and more generally the cost of energy. I am not sure why you are pretending to be so obtuse but the point has been made several times now that in that price notwithstanding more domestic drilling does not really do much to address that problem. Pretending that it does is either stupid or dishonest. Take your choice.
Why the discussion about only pone persons inaccuracy.
Is Omaba wrong statement too numerous to state????