Right about now, John McCain is wrapping up a discussion on energy and economic policy in Springfield, Missouri, in which the Republican presidential hopeful pushed for expanding oil drilling.
In his opening remarks, McCain, predictably, went after Barack Obama, saying, “Instead of new energy production, he wants new energy taxes. And he’s against any tax relief to give folks a break at the pump. I’ve noticed a pattern here. When the speechmaking is over and you stop to figure out what all the rhetoric really amounts to, the answer is usually some new tax.” McCain then accused Obama of having voted for a “tax break for the oil companies.”
The irony is rich. According to the plan presented by his campaign, McCain, if elected, would protect Bush’s tax breaks for Big Oil, and deliver $3.8 billion to the five largest oil companies.
For that matter, McCain made it sound as if Obama is proposing a new tax (or an increase in existing taxes) to respond to oil prices, which suggests McCain is off in his own imaginary world again, where facts have no meaning and he can ramble on about whatever ridiculous idea happens to pop into his head. Poor guy clearly isn’t having a good year, but it’s sad to see someone fall apart like this.
Obama responded to the policy debate today with a very different perspective, noting that we could get additional oil from coastal drilling, but it “would take years to develop, [and] you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.” Obama rejected the notion that drilling is the solution, adding, “We are going to have to go to alternative energy… [W]e also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later.”
Wait, did I say that was Barack Obama? Actually, it was John McCain, just three weeks ago, before he decided he needed to drop his old talking points to pick up those written for the White House by energy lobbyists.
Sam Stein explores the speech with which McCain reversed course on energy policy.
It is hardly a secret that when it comes to offshore drilling, Sen. John McCain was against the idea before he was for it. On Monday, the Arizona Republican told a crowd in Texas that he was abandoning his long-time support for a federal moratorium on drilling along the nation’s coastlines in favor of allowing states to decide for themselves.
But how recent a convert is McCain to this position?
In late May, during a campaign town hall, McCain was asked about the prospect of coastal drilling. His answer then was far more nebulous and skeptical of the idea compared to his recent, full-throated endorsement.
On a campaign stop in Greensdale, Wisconsin, the Senator suggested that turning to the nation’s coast for energy needs would be something of a waste in time and effort and do little to resolve America’s broader energy needs.
“[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels,” McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. “We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later.”
Those remarks differ widely from the sentiment offered by the Senator yesterday, in which he presented coastal drilling as a move that would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.”
He emphasized drilling to help us in the “short term” again this afternoon. He either doesn’t realize new coastal drilling (or “exploitation,” as McCain inexplicably puts it) wouldn’t bring added oil to pumps until 2017, or he does realize it and he’s just playing voters for fools.
In other words, once again, we’re left wondering if John McCain is hopelessly confused or shamelessly dishonest. Regrettably, it has to be one or the other.