Skip to content
Categories:

Is McCain going to get stuck in an ‘energy trap’?

Post date:
Author:

It didn’t generate too much attention, but last week, the “Gang of 10” — a group of five Democratic senators and five Republican senators — unveiled a compromise energy bill called the “New Energy Reform Act.” It has quite a few elements, but Nate Silver summarized the highlights:

* Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.

* Dedicates $20 billion to R&D on alternative fuels for motor vehicles.

* Extends a series of tax credits and incentives, such as for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.

* Funds the above — at total cost of about $84 billion — by closing tax loopholes for petroleum companies, in conjunction with licensing fees.

When Barack Obama expressed support for the legislation, the McCain campaign immediately branded him a “flip-flopper” for endorsing a compromise bill that includes expanded drilling.

But by any reasonable measure, the Gang of 10 has inadvertently left McCain in a very awkward position, for which there is no easy escape.

Sam Stein described the dynamic nicely yesterday, calling this an “energy trap” for McCain: “McCain is stuck in a conundrum: express support for the Gang of Ten and incur the wrath of anti-tax crusaders or continue rolling the dice against public opinion and risk being painted as a stooge of the oil lobby. His $1.3 million in oil and gas donations in June only furthers the frame.”

Quite right. McCain has said he wants lawmakers to reach some kind of bipartisan compromise, reach a consensus, and pursue a variety of energy policy options. The Gang of 10’s bill, while clearly imperfect, does just that. And yet, McCain opposes the measure, because it’s fiscally responsible and gets additional funding from Big Oil.

The more this bipartisan compromise gains attention, the worse it’s going to be for McCain.

“McCain has backed himself into a box on this,” one high-ranking Hill aide told Stein. “In the end he might have to do exactly what Obama has done: join the compromise while saying he objects sternly to the taxes. But even then he risks getting killed by his conservative base.”

Silver went so far as to call this “Obama’s checkmate,” and listed a series of benefits for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Among the many:

* Would take the drilling issue off the table. Offshore drilling polls well, favored by roughly 2:1 margins. But more than that, it gives the Republicans a rhetorically effective detour by which they can bypass most of the debate on energy policy, and much of the debate on the economy in general. The passage of a bill — particularly one that had Obama’s support — would mitigate the issue and force the Republicans to argue the economy from much weaker ground, such as the Democrat-friendly territory of social security, health care, and middle class tax cuts.

* Would make Obama look bipartisan. The Republicans supporting the bill aren’t your usual cast of Gordon Smiths and Susan Collinses. Instead, they are center-right types: Saxby Chambliss, John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, and Johnny Isakson. Obama’s claims to bipartisanship would be very credible.

* Would make McCain look obstructionist. The converse of this is also true, substantially undermining McCain’s claims to be a moderate/maverick.

* Would highlight McCain’s loyalty to Big Oil. Even worse for McCain is his reason for opposing the bill — his refusal to remove oil company tax loopholes. In this populist climate, and particularly in the wake of Exxon’s record-setting profits, that is a potentially lethal position to hold.

Keep an eye on this; it may end up mattering quite a bit.

Comments

  • Lance

    says:

    Did Lindsay tell John he was going to shaft his party’s nominee like this?

    Maybe since JSMcC*nt has been to work for months they’ve just missed the opportunity.

    And if you think JSMcC*nt is going to get caught by this, you have a greater faith in the American people then I do.

  • Michael W

    says:

    Republicans don’t even know the word “compromise” anymore. They want capitulation. Anything less is the equivalent of treason.

    Bipartisanship? Bah! Humbug! Are there no work houses? Are there no orphanages?

  • TR

    says:

    Surprised to see Graham and, to a lesser extent, Thune involved in this. They’ve been solidly in McCain’s camp and this could be a pretty big thumb in his eye.

  • Ohioan

    says:

    “Would take the drilling issue off the table”

    So imagine this: The baby-eating industry spends an unprecedented amount of money in TV ads, convincing 2 out of 3 Americans that we all have to eat babies.

    So instead of exposing the falsehoods in the PR campaign, a bunch of Mary Landrieus and Saxby Chamblisses get together and say: “Compromise! We should all eat babies, but we should also eat vegetables.”

    So McCain who supports eating babies and Obama who supports eating vegetables square off, and since Obama supports the baby/veggie compromise, we shout checkmate in glee.

    You call it taking the baby eating issue “off the table” by supporting eating babies.

    I call it a sickening subversion of our morals.

  • tiredofgreed

    says:

    As the Obama campaign continues I become more impressed with their ability to look beyond the present and have a comprehensive forward reaching plan to win this election. I think that would carry over to his administration if he wins in november.

  • baker

    says:

    “McCain has backed himself into a box on this,” one high-ranking Hill aide told Stein.

    quick! someone grab the nails.

  • Danp

    says:

    MsJoanne – yes, Graham is up for reelection this year. But it is not a serious race. His opponent has less than a thousand dollars in his coffers.

  • 3reddogs

    says:

    As a matter of fact, Lindsey Graham is running for re-election this November and, from what I can tell, his approval ratings back home are in the toilet. (Go figure … the guy replaced Strom Thurmond, for God’s sake … how could you not do better than that racist old fossil??)

  • Rick

    says:

    Yeah, what the hell is Lindsey Graham doing in there? That doesn’t make any sense. I agree, unless there’s a way to screw Obama on this Gram will be out before I type orange.

  • N.Wells

    says:

    Ohioan at #5, I disagree.

    First, we already drill offshore in many areas, so opening up additional areas is not a gigantic, all-or-nothing huge deal: it is not like losing our collective virginity or going halfway on eating babies by just eating a few of them. Whether to drill in a particular offshore tract depends on a series of risk-benefit decisions, not moral absolutes.

    Second, this is what Obama does, and it is why many of us like him – he has a record of finding broadly acceptable, pragmatic, solutions. He didn’t craft this particular compromise, but it is the sort of solution that we see in his record. Also, contentious decisions that are forced on society rather than being widely accepted tend to create problems down the line, so a solution that gets a majority of both parties on board at the onset is more likely to be durable and nonproblematic.

    Third, however, if the legislation proves problematic, a clear and powerful Democratic majority can revisit the issue after the election. It’s usually easier to incementally modify something that has been legislated than to get a perfect system designed and passed from the outset.

  • Rick Almeida

    says:

    “what the hell is Lindsey Graham doing in there”

    As someone said, Graham is both up for re-election and very unpopular here in SC. He’s generally seen by the mouth-breathers and the holy rollers as too liberal/secular.

    Sponsoring a bill that would open up Myrtle Beach to drilling should play well in western SC, since everyone who lives there is from PA, NY, and OH anyway.

  • William

    says:

    Hmmmm. Bills for political advantage only do not sound like sound policy. Although there are some good points in this mess there is also Lindsey Graham. That’s a big f-ing red flag right there. I do like the idea of closed loopholes however. Another wait and see, oh goodie….

  • zhak

    says:

    I think the way this will play out is that both McCain & Obama will be branded as politicians who, whatever they happen to be saying, accept money from big oil. Which, in fact, is the case. The difference is that McCain has gotten 1.3m to Obama’s 400k. Now, there is a big gap, yes, but $400,000 is still a lot of money, especially to people who are desperately overextended and see winter looming with no help from anywhere. I think in my part of the country — New England — this will result in eventual election fatigue & the core belief (strongly held by the rank & file in my area anyway) that all politicians are alike: money-grabbing hypocrites owned by big business.

  • Lance

    says:

    Rick Almeida said: “As someone said, Graham is both up for re-election and very unpopular here in SC. He’s generally seen by the mouth-breathers and the holy rollers as too liberal/secular.”

    Unless he’s facing opposition in a primary do the Theocratic Wingnuts and Know-Nothings actually have a choice, other than to stay home? (please, please, please, please)

  • NonyNony

    says:

    Second, this is what Obama does,

    I’m just gonna quote this little nugget for truth here. Because, really, this type of stuff is exactly what Obama has been running on from the beginning of his campaign. He’s a knee-jerk compromiser – if there’s an argument he’s the first to jump in and find a middle ground. Even if the argument is between doing something patently stupid that will do no good at all (or may actually be harmful) and doing something that’s the bare minimum of a reasonable response.

    He ran on this very platform of pre-emptive compromise. He’s not a fighter, he’s a middle-ground-finder. As far as I can tell, he never made any attempt to paint himself as anything other than that either. It was, in fact, the main reason that I found it so damn hard to work up much more than minimal excitement for his campaign in the first place, and why despite what I considered horrible foreign policy instincts on Clinton’s part, I had a tough choice when it finally came down to the wire choosing between the two of them in the primary.

    But no one should really be surprised when Obama makes stupid compromises. He told us from the very beginning that if he becomes President that that was what he was going to do.

  • Nathan

    says:

    The fact that a number of right wing republicans are supporting this just solidifies the fact that the republicans all know that off-shore drilling will provide no relief and just want to placate voters to regain power.

  • tiredofgreed

    says:

    Compromise is what makes progress possible. Look at what eight years of no compromise and not working together has gotten us.

  • Jen

    says:

    he difference is that McCain has gotten 1.3m to Obama’s 400k. Now, there is a big gap, yes, but $400,000 is still a lot of money,

    Yeah, but, these kinds of numbers are impossible to break down. Since my husband is a lawyer, should I tell him not to donate to Obama because then it’ll look like he’s beholden to the firm where he works? I can promise you that there are more Republicans there than Democrats and that his donation has nothing whatsoever to do with his work.

    It does, however, have to do with his being a lawyer and being gung-ho for someone who understands the constitution to be in there.

    The problem with numbers like that is it doesn’t show that say, the portion of that money for McCain the RNC came from ONE company with massive donations from what, nine, maybe ten people? I’d like to see a similar breakdown of the numbers — you really have to know the number of people overall and the amount and frequency of the donations to know what’s happening. 1000 oil company related employees making a $20-100 donation is certainly different to me than ten top executives donating over 250K.

    My amount donated is certainly higher than it’s ever been before. But since I keep adding on another $25 here and $50 there, it doesn’t feel the same to me (nor is it the same) as someone who is pushed to make a one-time maximum donation (whether at the $2,300 x 2 level or the high committee level).

  • OriGuy

    says:

    Given that there are no available drilling rigs, there won’t be any new drilling for years to come. This part of the bill is camouflage, to get the rest of it passed.

  • daniel

    says:

    Don’t worry about the flip-flop charge, especially on this bill. Obama can deflect the flipper meme by saying, “folks, this is called ‘compromise.’ The idea is that opposing sides negotiate a deal and not everyone gets what he wants. Did I want the offshore stuff? No. But I did want a bunch of other stuff that is indeed in the bill. So. I compromised with my fellow senators. This is how the world works (it’s how my marriage works, anyway).”

  • Kreniigh

    says:

    Can we please start acting like adults and lay off the “JSMcC*nt” name-calling stuff?

    Imagine going to look at a right-wing forum and seeing something similar, like, I dunno, “Bwana Osama-bama” or something equally childish. It would do nothing but further your opinion that everyone on that forum was a moron. Maybe they are, but I have this naive belief that sounding like an intelligent adult might maybe help convince someone who’s on the fence that your position is worthwhile.

  • olo

    says:

    Ok, so the termites dig a zillion wells & detrench 100M bbls crude/day.
    WTF are they going to do with all it?
    The last time I checked, US refineries were operating at or near capacity and have been doing so for decades.
    In addition, according to my memory (so this may be incorrect), no new refineries have been built here in decades & none are on the drawing boards.