Wednesday, June 18, 2008
A political Hail Mary in June
Now
this is interesting. President Bush, Sen. John McCain, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist have all reversed their positions on offshore drilling, and now support it. They think that high gas prices and the potential for lucrative oil royalties will persuade Floridians (and others) to come around on the issue, as well.
This coordinated political maneuver is extremely risky for McCain. Last week, I quoted from a
fallacious WSJ editorial that portrayed drilling in hurricane zones as nearly risk free. The WSJ opinion page urged McCain to change his stance, to which I responded:
This is comically stupid. If McCain supports drilling, he'll lose Florida, and he can't win the election without winning Florida.
I still believe this is an incredibly risky maneuver for McCain, because it jeopardizes Florida in the general election (where
a recent poll already put Obama ahead). Approving drilling off of Florida's coasts will not improve gas prices in the short term, but
it will mobilize environmentalists and many coastal residents who fear their tourist-filled beaches might be affected. Plus, there's the whole "flip flop" meta-issue for McCain and veep wannabe Crist, not to mention that this coordinated play aligns them more closely to President Bush. This is the political equivalent of a Hail Mary for the McCain campaign, and they are throwing it
in June. Are Floridian voters who are angered by high gas prices going to channel their anger towards environmentalists, or to the flip-flopping triumvirate of Bush/McCain/Crist? That's the question. Then what if gas prices drop significantly in the fall? Or what if Bush gets frisky and bombs
Iran and prices go through the roof, and everyone is reminded of the geopolitical turmoil in the Mideast that Bush's Iraq war has exacerbated? What if, heaven forfend, there's an oil spill? And why is ANWR-- a remote, oil rich portion of Alaska-- sacrosanct to McCain, but not Florida's "Emerald Coast" (or its "Fun Coast", or its "Space Coast", or whatever the hell the tourism bureau is calling their coasts nowadays)? And even if we add more supply, how will we refine it if
"we" don't build some more refineries? (For the record, I'm not reflexively opposed to offshore drilling, but I am opposed to drilling advocates who portray drilling as risk-free.)
So, today, after an apparent "victory", the
Wall Street Journal celebrates McCain's reversal with... you'll never believe it...
"crypto-ageist code" language!!
Behold, a miracle... In a speech in Houston yesterday, [Senator McCain] finally came out in favor of increasing domestic energy supplies.
This is progress, even if it did come dressed in some of Mr. McCain's familiar policy confusions.
...
The candidate now says we must drill for more domestic oil "as a matter of fairness to the American people." He did not back off from his sentimentality about ANWR -- leaving off-limits nearly half of the proven reserves of the entire U.S. at 10.4 billion barrels. But he did propose to open most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to development, so long as the nearby states were in favor.
...
We hear -- and hope -- that as early as this week President Bush may lift a 1990 executive order that prohibits offshore drilling.... Since [high gas] prices are hurting the GOP politically almost as much as they're hurting consumers economically, Mr. McCain's drilling reversal sets him up for a useful debate with Barack Obama.
Bring the debate on, I say! But then, another miracle happens, and, unwittingly, the WSJ perfectly outlines an excellent line of attack for
Obama to use against McCain's new position:
Mr. McCain would have an easier time making a contrast with Mr. Obama if he didn't also support a softer version of cap and trade himself, on top of all his other green genuflections. He also needs to get his bearings on the reason oil prices are high. It's not merely rising demand from China and India, and it certainly isn't because "some people on Wall Street" are speculating in the futures market, as Mr. McCain claimed yesterday.
Mr. McCain seems to lack a basic understanding of how markets work and so is often swayed by such populist nostrums. He would have been better off mentioning the Federal Reserve and Bush Administration's weak dollar policy, which has sent all commodity prices soaring across the board since last August. By rightly blaming inflation, he would also have put himself on the side of the middle class the way Ronald Reagan did...
Obama can easily say: "McCain is confused. We can't drill our way out of this problem, and he doesn't seem to understand that Bush's weak dollar policies are the primary cause of increasing gas prices. McCain is telling tall tales if he thinks drilling off Florida's coast will lower prices in the short term. But here's what we can do to bring quick relief to hardworking Americans: we can elect a President who has a
credible Treasury Secretary and a credible "stronger dollar" policy, so that we can stop the inflation of our gas, our food, and other commodities. After all, wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said that inflation was the
"cruelest tax"? And didn't Reagan curtail inflation with the help of a strong Federal Reserve Chairman named Paul Volcker, who has endorsed my campaign? If you think Bush and McCain have the answers to your problems, you know who to vote for. But if you're not better off now than you were eight years ago, I have one final question to ask you: isn't it time for a change?"
---
Update: In the comments,
Imajayhawk provides a link to
this blog, which quotes
McCain saying:Tomorrow I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration... I think that this and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.
Then we are led to this
EIA study which says:
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.
Why is McCain so confused on energy?
And
Jeffrey has more, with charts!
===
Labels: Bush, Cons, Elections and Campaigns, McCain, Obama, oil
14 Comments:
Landrieu backs Bush drilling plan
First off, I really wish that more talking heads would discuss the logistics of bringing newly drilled oil to market. Oyster has correctly discussed this issue in the post. By the time the legislation would pass both chambers, get signed by the pres, construction of platforms, yadda yadda, yadda, it would upwards of at least a year before that oil sees the pump at your local gas station. It's certainly not a quick fix but, obviously, highlights an effort of energy independence from the Middle East. As long as a serious and significant effort is made to develop alternative energy sources, I'm OK with some drilling. Our oil (And really ALL oil)is a finite resource.
As far as I've understood, the amount of oil located in ANWR is highly debatable with vastly different estimates, depending on the source of the study. Many oil execs concede that they're not as concerned about drilling in ANWR as the fight for it's access is largely symbolic. The real prize is the offshore beds that are estimated to contain at least 10X more oil than ANWR. Thus, if ANWR is ever opened, the offshore drilling will likely follow. And that's what they're really after.
To follow up my point and add a little more, if this is the sole focus of McCain's energy policy, we're in big trouble. There has to be some compromise between oil execs and environmentalists. A drilling-only or alternative fuel only policy will probably hurt us even more in the long run.
A drilling-only or alternative fuel only policy will probably hurt us even more in the long run
Why not just combine the worst of both worlds?
I'm speechless Jeffrey. That's the craziest thing I've seen in a while.
Great comment, jayhawk, but I think this estimate is still wildly optimistic:
"upwards of at least a year before that oil sees the pump"
Very true Oyster. Perhaps I should have emphasized the "at least" part. Just hedging my bets in the event of a modern day miracle.
My best guess would be a minimum 3 year wait if the bill were submitted today.
If one good thing has come out of this crisis, we can now have an open and frank discussion of our national energy policies. The first energy policy meeting in the WH after W/Cheney took over included 0 alternative fuel representatives. In light today's situation, that's unlikely to ever happen again, even with a Texas oil man in the WH. US-held oil reserves are no match for the vast deposits remaining in the Middle East and we must develop our alternatives quickly. And the sooner we accept that realization, as a nation, the better off we'll be.
I almost wish we would drill in ANWR if only to demonstrate how it would make absolutely no damn difference. Of course a few years down the line, as gas hits $8 a gallon they'll be out selling the next great miracle cure.
Amazingly, Jeffrey, I just this afternoon was reading an article in the April (Yeah, I'm a little behind...) Popular Science about exactly the same topic. Only the guys interviewed seemed to have a much more realistic take on exactly what it was they were trying to do. They kept stressing that what they were working on shouldn't be looked at as the answer to our energy problems--just as a possible PART of whatever answers we can come up with. The modified E. coli bacteria they use consume sugars from sugarcane and excrete a hydrocarbon that is very much like gasoline. As they point out, ethanol has the nasty problems of being really expensive in terms of how much feedstock is needed to produce it, and of being really corrosive to the pipeline infrastructure we have in place already for gasoline. This gasoline-like hydrocarbon essentially acts like gasoline, and the carbon footprint it's use leaves behind is only slightly more than the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by the sugarcane grown to produce it.
Even my three year amendment is way too low. Oops. Try 10+. I'm done predicting.
One interesting component of all of this is that much of the offshore drilling sites are already leased to oil/gas companies. And much of these areas have released drilling permits yet only 17% of these areas are in production. As a result, some in the thread below are suggesting an oil company land grab rather than serious interest in drilling for more oil.
Just something to discuss.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906
More support for the June political Hail-Mary. From Climate Progress:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/
Oops.
There is a more than reasonable chance that John McCain will not be the Republican nominee coming out of the Republican convention in September. The tone of the WSJ editorial is typical of the right wing's hatred of McCain. Add to that these disappointing poll numbers, and this before we have $5 gallon gas.
Look for a late-summer "health scare" to be used as a basis for the wingnuts to force McCain off the ticket. McCain is in a no-win position, as indicated in the WSJ editorial. Take moderate positions, and the base goes crazy. Move to the right, and still get criticized. I love it.
I love the creative conspiratorial angle of your comment, bigshot, but there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen.
One, what if it doesn't work? They fatally wound their candidate going into the election.
Two, who would they substitute at the last minute? It's not like there's a perfect conservative waiting in the wings. Your original GOP prediction (Romney) would seem to be the only choice in such a situation because he could self-finance, but then Huckabee would raise an "unholy" fuss.
Three, whoever did substitute for McCain would be thrown into a political maelstrom, and would only have a few weeks to re-campaign throughout the country, and without a decent nationwide organization. While it would be a huge unexpected opportunity, they'd be at an equally huge disadvantage.
Four, it's not the GOP style to throw a convention into utter chaos like that. Every now and then they nominate an old war horse who has "earned" the right to campaign for Prezident, and they usually lose, and they rationalize that it's only a short term strategic loss and then the real reactionaries spend four years spinning demon tales about the Democratic president, and purifying "the conservative movement", and all that other happy horseshit, while planning for the next election.
Five, and most tellingly, there's no subterranean signals of such a thing occurring (despite the intentional(?) WSJ digs. McCain has dutifully moved towards the Bush crowd, and is picking up money from Texas oil men, and seems willing to change positions to (more-or-less) suit the party elders. I don't see the powers-that-be throwing him under the bus in such an inhospitable election climate. Most of them realize they're going to take their lumps this time around, and will have to find a way to beat Obama next time around.
Again, I love the creative thinking behind this comment. It's a very interesting scenario to contemplate, but I don't see it happening. Maximum credit to you, of course, if I'm wrong.
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
nike air
puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
