dmcowen674
No Lifer
If it's truly a "global commodity" there shouldn't be a difference.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
New McCain Ad Blames Obama For High Gas Prices.
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If it's truly a "global commodity" there shouldn't be a difference.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Why do people seem to want this to be an either/or fight? Why can't it be both/all?
jonks
Lifer
http://www.factcheck.org/elect..._tank_of_nonsense.html
A Full Tank of Nonsense
July 22, 2008
McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.
Summary
McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it ? he has said repeatedly that our current problems were "30 years in the making."
The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices.
For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."
Analysis
Sen. John McCain, who's expected to receive the Republican presidential nomination in September, goes after Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic counterpart, with a new ad that focuses on the cost of gas. According to McCain's campaign, the spot will air on national cable channels and in unspecified "key states."
Lousy Linkage
McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Pump"
Announcer: 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?
Chant: Obama, Obama
Announcer: 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.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The ad opens with a shot of an old-fashioned gas pump standing on a shimmering, moving, body of ? water? desert sand? petroleum? It's hard to tell. The female narrator says: "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."
"Some" are indeed opposed to lifting the moratorium on new drilling in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and they include Obama.
What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble.
As for saying "no to independence from foreign oil," we suppose someone, somewhere, might be saying that ? quietly, to themselves, in a small, soundproof room ? but no major-party presidential candidate that we're aware of is doing so.
Thank-You Note, Returned to Sender
The most glaring bit of calumny in the ad occurs when the narrator asks, "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" At that point the volume goes up on the soundtrack's background noise, and we realize it's a crowd of voices chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" just as the Illinois Democrat's image appears on-screen.
The notion that Obama is singlehandedly, or to any significant degree, or more than most other senators, to blame for the high cost of gas is absurd in too many ways to count here. Okay, we'll give you a couple: Obama has been in the Senate only since 2005. McCain himself said earlier this month that the problem has been decades in the making.
McCain, July 7: Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.
In fact, he has been saying this repeatedly. McCain has been in Congress for a quarter of a century, a span that nearly corresponds with the one he mentioned in his speech. Does that mean McCain might fit the profile of someone to thank for high gas prices more easily than Obama? One could note, for example, that McCain has voted against increases in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards on two occasions, in 2003 and 2005, even though he teamed with Democratic Sen. John Kerry back in 2002 on a bill to raise the standards to 36 mpg by 2015. McCain's Web site proposes enforcing existing CAFE standards, not tightening them, as Obama would do.
But no one person can be pinned with the credit or the blame for something as vague as "rising prices at the pump." OPEC policy, the weather, wars in oil-producing countries, refinery capacity, consumer demand, environmental concerns, the value of the dollar and a host of other considerations factor into the cost of a fill-up. In fact, McCain may be paying Obama an inadvertent compliment by alleging he has such influence in this area.
Both candidates have energy proposals to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Obama's was first, and its centerpiece is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan focusing on clean coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power, and other measures.
McCain's, which is called the Lexington Project, includes building 45 new nuclear power plants; offering a $300 million prize for major advancement of low-cost, plug-in hybrid or electric car technology; and "encouraging the market" in wind, hydro and solar power. Both he and Obama would cut use of fossil fuels to combat climate change.
Lousy Linkage Redux
The ad comes full circle as the narrator tells us, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets." Let us reiterate our earlier point that opening up the OCS for drilling now wouldn't have much impact on supply or prices until 2030, according to the government. So forget about rescuing "our family budgets." In 22 years, it'll be other families' budgets ? maybe our children's ? that will be at issue.
McCain even acknowledged as much in late June when, after saying that drilling would have a positive effect on prices in the short term, he backtracked and said he believed it would have a beneficial "psychological impact."
That seems to have slipped his mind.
? by Viveca Novak
Sources
"Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf." Energy Information Administration Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"New Energy for America." Barack Obama's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"Remarks by John McCain On His Jobs For America Economic Plan." 7 July 2008. John McCain's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"The Lexington Project: Breaking Our Independence on Foreign Oil." John McCain's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008
A Full Tank of Nonsense
July 22, 2008
McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.
Summary
McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it ? he has said repeatedly that our current problems were "30 years in the making."
The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices.
For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."
Analysis
Sen. John McCain, who's expected to receive the Republican presidential nomination in September, goes after Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic counterpart, with a new ad that focuses on the cost of gas. According to McCain's campaign, the spot will air on national cable channels and in unspecified "key states."
Lousy Linkage
McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Pump"
Announcer: 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?
Chant: Obama, Obama
Announcer: 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.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The ad opens with a shot of an old-fashioned gas pump standing on a shimmering, moving, body of ? water? desert sand? petroleum? It's hard to tell. The female narrator says: "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."
"Some" are indeed opposed to lifting the moratorium on new drilling in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and they include Obama.
What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble.
As for saying "no to independence from foreign oil," we suppose someone, somewhere, might be saying that ? quietly, to themselves, in a small, soundproof room ? but no major-party presidential candidate that we're aware of is doing so.
Thank-You Note, Returned to Sender
The most glaring bit of calumny in the ad occurs when the narrator asks, "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" At that point the volume goes up on the soundtrack's background noise, and we realize it's a crowd of voices chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" just as the Illinois Democrat's image appears on-screen.
The notion that Obama is singlehandedly, or to any significant degree, or more than most other senators, to blame for the high cost of gas is absurd in too many ways to count here. Okay, we'll give you a couple: Obama has been in the Senate only since 2005. McCain himself said earlier this month that the problem has been decades in the making.
McCain, July 7: Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.
In fact, he has been saying this repeatedly. McCain has been in Congress for a quarter of a century, a span that nearly corresponds with the one he mentioned in his speech. Does that mean McCain might fit the profile of someone to thank for high gas prices more easily than Obama? One could note, for example, that McCain has voted against increases in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards on two occasions, in 2003 and 2005, even though he teamed with Democratic Sen. John Kerry back in 2002 on a bill to raise the standards to 36 mpg by 2015. McCain's Web site proposes enforcing existing CAFE standards, not tightening them, as Obama would do.
But no one person can be pinned with the credit or the blame for something as vague as "rising prices at the pump." OPEC policy, the weather, wars in oil-producing countries, refinery capacity, consumer demand, environmental concerns, the value of the dollar and a host of other considerations factor into the cost of a fill-up. In fact, McCain may be paying Obama an inadvertent compliment by alleging he has such influence in this area.
Both candidates have energy proposals to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Obama's was first, and its centerpiece is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan focusing on clean coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power, and other measures.
McCain's, which is called the Lexington Project, includes building 45 new nuclear power plants; offering a $300 million prize for major advancement of low-cost, plug-in hybrid or electric car technology; and "encouraging the market" in wind, hydro and solar power. Both he and Obama would cut use of fossil fuels to combat climate change.
Lousy Linkage Redux
The ad comes full circle as the narrator tells us, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets." Let us reiterate our earlier point that opening up the OCS for drilling now wouldn't have much impact on supply or prices until 2030, according to the government. So forget about rescuing "our family budgets." In 22 years, it'll be other families' budgets ? maybe our children's ? that will be at issue.
McCain even acknowledged as much in late June when, after saying that drilling would have a positive effect on prices in the short term, he backtracked and said he believed it would have a beneficial "psychological impact."
That seems to have slipped his mind.
? by Viveca Novak
Sources
"Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf." Energy Information Administration Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"New Energy for America." Barack Obama's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"Remarks by John McCain On His Jobs For America Economic Plan." 7 July 2008. John McCain's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008.
"The Lexington Project: Breaking Our Independence on Foreign Oil." John McCain's Web site, accessed 22 July 2008
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
Senate has been debating S. 3268 today. Seems to be a lot of bipartisan support for increasing regulation of oil futures trading, but Republicans are criticizing the Democrats for not working on a comprehensive energy policy (including development of domestic oil production, nuclear, etc.). I don't know if they're trying to hold up the bill to prevent it from passing before the August recess, or maybe they're hoping to slip in a clause allowing offshore drilling.
Watching politics is kind of interesting. Also drives me crazy, it's amazing these guys get anything done at all. 😛
Watching politics is kind of interesting. Also drives me crazy, it's amazing these guys get anything done at all. 😛
I've got one answer. Ask someone in the oil biz. I design electronics. 🙂
If you're talking about conservation and new domestic drilling, conservation is definitely possible and has been delayed too long, but, as I and others have already posted, The idea that drilling offshore and in ANWR will produce usable fuel at the pump or do anything else to lower gas prices in the immediate future has already been discredited by every expert in the field.
If you don't think that's the case, you can always search for links to show us. 🙂
why should the immediate future argument cause congress to forbid states for deciding for themselves?
even if we don't get a single drop of oil until long after we're all flying around in solar powered flying pods, why shouldn't coastal states get to decide for themselves, even if the oil that is someday pumped up just gets used for making plastics?
Fern
Elite Member
^ Exactly.
And no, contrary to what one may read here all experts do not agree that drilling will do squat.
Also, those who constantly speak of "10 years" etc before the oil will be available must do some very very selective reading. Those who are actually in the oil producing business laugh at this; they claim we could see oil from some sites in 3 years.
What alt energy?
Windmills or solar?
Those are for electrical power and won't do crap at this time to replace oil we use for TRANSPORTATION. Get back to me when the vehicle battery is ready and the necessary infrastructue is developed.
Or his he talking about corn/ethanol?
Sweet Jeebus, let's burn more food for fuel. Food prices are rising fast enough; enough people are already rioting and starving around the world :evil:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Uh, I never stated any of these things could affect the "immediate future". My point is that why can't we have drilling, something done about "speculation"(if there really is a problem), Conservation, "alternate", "renewable", etc, etc...
We can't ignore the medium and long term just to because YOU don't think it'll work short term.
True. Then, the question becomes a matter of prioritizing finite financial and infrastructure resources to optimize both short and long term results. If the long term goal is to move to renewable energy sources, we have to start planning, now, to coordinate all the demands and means across a wide spectrum of transportation, manufacturing, communications and more.
It won't be easy, but it will take a lot more intelligence than has been applied, so far, including a good whack up the side of the head of those moneyed interests who have been fighting milage standards and pimping counterproductive products like gas guzzling SUV's and another good smackdown to those who deny the problems exist.
It's not like no one has been sounding the alarm about it for decades. :roll:
And getting back to the topic, if the best McCain has to offer is the content of his ad, the old boy is a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. 😛
More fodder for the discussion -- The oil industry already holds leases on 68 million acres on which they are not drilling. Last month, Congress voted on The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, summarized on Nancy Pelosi's page.
Unfortunately, almost all the Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against the bill. :thumbsdown:
One can reasonably assume the oil guys wouldn't have taken leases on land where there was no potential of finding oil, and they wouldn't have to go through the whole bidding and leasing process before they could start drilling.
The question is, why do they need consider grabbing more land when they haven't touched any of the 68 million unexplored acres they already have? :roll:
Unfortunately, almost all the Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against the bill. :thumbsdown:
One can reasonably assume the oil guys wouldn't have taken leases on land where there was no potential of finding oil, and they wouldn't have to go through the whole bidding and leasing process before they could start drilling.
The question is, why do they need consider grabbing more land when they haven't touched any of the 68 million unexplored acres they already have? :roll:
If oil is so important to the nation and we need to find alternatives the obvious thing to do is to have the Army Core of Engineers drill for oil. They can sell it at 150 dollars a barrel and use that to pay for solar. It's America's oil so the profits should go to benefiting the people. My guess would be that since we don't see exactly this proposal in Washington DC, something else say like greed and profit for a few who lobby is behind this do more drilling' thing.
where do the finite resources come in?
if, let's say, VA leases a plot of land 50 miles off their coasts to an oil company, how's that going to prevent or negatively impact money that's paying for the R&D guys elsewhere to research energy alternatives? it's not like funding is going to dry up -- if someone invents a technology that replaces oil as the backbone of our economy, they'll end up as the richest people in the world.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
