FACTCHECK.ORG

McCain's Power Outage

Contradictions and misstatements short-circuit McCain's energy policy pronouncements.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/12/2008 6:44:35 PM

    Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It's not because of Gramm's obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" who are in "a mental recession." Those remarks were so ascerbic that they may've been made just to give McCain an excuse to distance himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was Chairman of the Banking Committee. He pushed through the legislation known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm also created the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. The Gramm Act was touted as a new way to protect consumer privacy, but the real meat on the Act's bones was banking deregulation. Essentially, this Act did away with laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, four major economic institutions have failed, Wall Street is unstable, and we are in a worsening recession.

    Notably, the US investment banks that gained the most from the Enron Loophole and from the Gramm Act contributed more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign.

    Currently Gramm is Vice Chairman of UBS, the Swiss Bank that came up with the idea of "death bonds." Worse, though, UBS is involved in a scam where they sold auction rate securities to American customers. Auction rate securities are supposed to be as safe as cash, but the way UBS did it, the fees garnished by their in-house investment bankers were intentionally higher than the return on the securities, ripping off their American customers. The Massachusetts Attorney General has already filed charges against UBS, and private brokers world-wide have dropped UBS stock. UBS is forecasted to lose 82.91% of it's value in 2008. We are talking about the corporate bank where Gramm is Vice Chairman. Looking at his track record there and at the havoc he has wrought on the US economy through the Senate Banking Committee, it's clear that either Gramm is a criminal or grossly incompetent.

    Now McCain wants nothing to do with Gramm, wants us to forget Gramm has been a key player on McCain's team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISOR. Previously, McCain had said that he planned to appoint Gramm as SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

    With Gramm as McCain's leading economic advisor, now you know why economists and analysts say that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

  • Posted By: ik.nha.tun@gmail.com @ 07/06/2008 8:19:10 PM

    In my opinion, just because Bush McSame3 aka John McCain has windmills and solar panels in his commercials background, FACTCHECK.ORG has done a magnificient job of informing the public that those (windmills and solar panels are just hollywood props). McCain is more for the drilling offshore regardless of what it does to the environment, drilling in Anwar regardless of what it does to that refuge, just drilling for oil anywhere. Where is America's independence from oil if we're still drilling for oil?

    I love it...McCain did a 'MAVERICK' commercial. Supposedly breaking away from his party. He is rather the chameleon. Problem is WE'RE NOT BUYING IT. Listen, if the Republican parties loyalist constituency, 'The Religious Right' can not support him because they know he isn't REAL why should we?

    This total and just FAIRYTALE like policy he 's 'dreaming up' is just the tip of the 'MELTING ICEBERG', when it comes to his policy on Global Warming. McCain is not really concerned. Anything for political expediency. Yes, America still needs oil. How do we go about getting it? Seems to me this fake 'WHITE HAT', wearing 'TWO GUN' packing, 'COWBOY BOOT wearing, MYTHOLGICAL 'Maverick' John McCain' ideolog, is totally on-board with more of this 'ROGUE' administrations policies of Covert Operations in 'OIL RICH COUNTRIES' A sort of Occupy and Steal policy. He desires to OCCUPY oil Rich Nations and call it something like , "THE WAR ON TERROR" Been there done that, got a tee-shirt, it's a LIE.

    Senator Bush McSame is for '...100+ years in Iraq, he's stated, 'It really isn't important when the troops come home....what's more important is the casualties'. I.E. enough American and coalition force trooops (over 8000 dead), haven't lost thier lives, nor (over 2 million innocent Iraqi Mothers, Fathers, brothers and sisters, and innocent babies have died) , that's still not enough. Remember he sang his 'PSTD DRUNKEN' version of, ' BombbombbomB, BombbomB, IRAN'. McSame is nothing more than a WARMONGERING 'ROGUE politician who's desire is WAR AND MORE WAR. A War on the Oil rich so we may replenish our National treasury. He doesn't have a REAL PLAN TO FIX ENRGY AT ALL. He's totally on board with a continued Bush MISUSE of our military mights, WAR effort.

  • Posted By: wnzin @ 07/01/2008 11:27:50 PM

    The article points to an interview at grist that is actually quite informative on his view. More then this one actually.
    Myself, I do believe that opening up the off-shore areas to drilling would help shortterm though not much. More then the financial impact would be the psychological impact McCain mentions. America will feel more secure if we are less reliant upon the rest of the world for our oil, even if that is just in process for the future. America needs energy independence and part of that is oil because we cannot move entirely away from oil.
    The article gives more info on his view of subsidies. He is all for them for basic research but not for established technology it appears. He is for streamlined nuclear power licensing and an ability for investors to be confident they will get a retrun on the construction. He is for ethanol, and mentions corn and sugarcane as well as switchgrass biofuels. "There should be a broad variety of sources besides just corn."

    Global warming:
    The article refers to an ad that McCain stood up to Bush five years ago. McCain did stand up against the majority of the GOP, including Bush five years go when he worked with Lieberman on the McCain-Lieberman Global Warming Bill.
    Gas Tax:
    (Hundreds of ) economists aside, the gas tax holiday in Illinois did help according to the only scientific study done on it.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/02/2008 11:38:48 PM

      "America needs energy independence and part of that is oil because we cannot move entirely away from oil."
      - America does need energy independence, and oil does not have to be part of it. Obviously it is today, and during the conversion it would be, but there is no reason we can't use alternative fuels. We just haven't had the stimulus necessary to do it. It requires significant infrastructure updates, and that can only be coordinated by our government.

      "Global warming:
      McCain did stand up against the majority of the GOP, including Bush five years go when he worked with Lieberman on the McCain-Lieberman Global Warming Bill."

      That is true although I would disagree with McCains assessment, as mentioned in the article, on sounding the alarm. The alarm was being sounded years before. Republicans especially were denying and continue to deny that it is really a problem. They are of the opinion that man can do whatever he wants and it will not affect his environment. I would commend McCain for being one of the first of the Republicans to stand up to the rest though.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/02/2008 11:38:21 PM


      "Gas Tax:
      (Hundreds of ) economists aside, the gas tax holiday in Illinois did help according to the only scientific study done on it."

      There was no scientific study done on the gas tax holiday of Illinois that said that the Illinois study worked due to the inability to control all factors accept tax and price. There were some news reports that inaccurately concluded that, based on an economic analysis that determined there was a marginal benefit to consumers at best.
      In the report the conclusion was that based on perfect competition model a state tax moratorium would place the majority of the state tax burden on the consumer.
      However that study did not take into account a couple of issues that apply to this case:
      1) The moratorium was temporary. Temporary events tend to be absorbed by the affected entities rather than set the price lower. In this case it's a reduction in cost and would be absorbed as profit.
      2) When there are upward pressures on the price, downward pressures are slow to affect the price because they are absorbed elsewhere in the system, and it takes time for competition to filter down to consumer prices of the final product.
      3) Whether we have perfect competition is a bit of an assumption in the gas market.

      If you do count on the results of the study, as I recall 60% of the tax was assumed to be assigned to the consumer in the Illinois tax moratorium.
      The same study concluded that a federal tax moratorium would place less, (about half) of the burdon on the consumer. Thus you can expect at best 50% of the federal fuel tax to be returned to conumer. How much is that? Less than 10 cents with the remainder going to the gas companies.

      If you know of other studies I'd be interested in looking at them, but as far as I know nearly all economists agree that the Federal Gas Tax Holiday would not result in relief for consumers more than a few cents, including those who authored the above mentioned study.

      In addition you have to deal with the loss of funds to the government which in this case is road repair funds.

  • Posted By: joecommon@mailinator.com @ 07/02/2008 7:52:37 AM

    Newsweek, where is the balanced reporting? This is such a one sided article, how can you consider this journalism? Does anyone know where Barack Hussain actually stands on any of these issues? The only times he has made a straight statement to date is after the courts have made a ruling, guns OK, gays ok.

    Are we going to see who Hussain is before the election or will he keep hiding from us with his little trips here and there and never answering any questions with a straight answer - like "yes I was a muslim, but not anymore."

  • Posted By: OICUR2 @ 06/27/2008 4:10:08 AM

    Posted By: schlang @ 06/27/2008 2:41:47 AM

    "After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan".
    _________________________________________________

    And how many years of work experience does McCain have? 90...give or take?

    Well then if he's so keen, and has so much experience, then why did he not show any leadership skills and become a frontrunner and lead on the subject of fuel? And for that matter; many other topics.

    Lastly, you just read this story (hopefully) and so I ask...can you honestly say that you totally understand his views? I cannot....simply put: HE HAS SO MANY! And if you cannot see them, I'd have to place you in the category of Stevie Wonder or Helen Keller!

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/26/2008 7:53:43 PM

    Face reality folks. We as world citizens are using fossil fuel about as fast as they find it and pump it. That doesn't mean to abandon the search but I think it does mean that we must bite the bullet. We either lower our driving or we start buying smaller more fuel efficient cars or we can continue to pay through the nose for fuel. Wind towers and ethanol will never become big time players. There is technology for converting coal into a liquid fuel. Why haven't we pursued that since we have huge coal reserves? The German's were liquifying coal to fuel their panzers during WW II.

    If you can afford to fuel a Bugatti Veyron with it's 1250 hp, go break a leg. Me, I will choose a Honda next time around or a German turbo diesel and go for the mileage and lower my contribution of carbon.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/25/2008 2:02:37 AM

    BEWARE !!!!!! ALL GOP MACHINE LOBBYIST COMMING TO ROOSTS VERY SOON WITH NOW AND 5 MONTHS AHEAD TILL FALL.......AS USUAL ..WITH ALL LIES,BS,PROPA-GANDA VIDEOS,RELIGION,SEX,BIBLE,RACE,WAR,TERRORIST,FEAR,SMEAR. .....AMERCIANS ALREADY KNOWS THIS TACTICS AND ANTICS ......."NOT THIS TIME"

    GOP LOBBYIST MACHINE POSTERS SAVE YOUR ENERGY AND TIME,WE KNOW YOU'RE WASTING YOUR POWERFUL ENERGY WRITING TO THIS BLOG,IF YOU CAN HARNESS THEM WELL SAVE TO THE PEOPLE INSTEAD,IT CAN BE USE TO LIGHT UP AMERICA FOR ANOTHER 100YEARS.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/25/2008 2:01:42 AM

    U.S. Funding to Pakistan Plagued With Problems, GAO Report Says
    The Bush administration has paid Pakistan more than $2 billion without adequate proof that the Pakistani government used the funds for their intended purpose of supporting U.S. counterterrorism efforts, congressional auditors reported yesterday. Their report concluded that more than a third of U.S....
    - By Robin Wright

  • Posted By: 48coop @ 06/23/2008 4:47:51 PM

    Does anyone actually believe that allowing oil companies to drill up and down our coastlines will result in less-expensive gasoline. Give me a break!

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 5:58:27 PM

    FOLKS DON'T BE FOOLED BY PAID BLOGGERS THAT WILL BEFREIND YOU AND LEAD YOU TO VOTE FOR OBAMA CHECK HIS VOTING RECORD AND SEE FOR YOURSELF ! HERE WHERE TO GO http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1...... IT IS FOR THE 109TH CONGRESS WHICH IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 2:16:58 AM

      WillNotVote, I just love it when you set yourself up to be schooled. You give a web address for the Obama's page on the Senate.gov website. Each Senator sets up their own pages there. You have directed the reader to Obama's page where he prints, for the world to see, his voting record on every bill that comes before the Senate. Here is that address:

      http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1

      You sent the reader to this page because it shows that Obama did not vote on many of the recent bills, and you want to make it look like Obama is asleep on the job. It must be mentioned, however, that Clinton, McCain and Obama have all missed many votes during the campaign season. However, if the reader will take the trouble to page through Obama's voting record, they will see that Obama has been present for all of the important votes. Obama has been present and voted on 62 of the 154 bills before Congress in the current session beginning January 2008. Clinton has voted on 56 of these 154 bills. And McCain, who had already won the primary and didn't have to start campaigning against Obama until three weeks ago, McCain voted on only 33 of 154 bills.

      As I have exposed in one of my earlier blogs, McCain missed more than half of his votes, even before he started running for President. In the First Session of the 110th Congress (2007), McCain missed a whopping 56% of his votes. McCain doesn't want you to know this, so when you go to his Senate web page, there is no tab to click to see his voting record (http://mccain.senate.gov). An American who wants to know how McCain votes has to look it up on the Library of Congress website (not user friendly) or go to the Washington Post website:

      http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/

      While you are there, pay special attention to McCain's votes on March 13 and 14, 2008. On those days we know he was present, because he voted on 22 bills. But he refused to vote on 22 other bills. He failed to vote on bills concerning border security, alien removal and English in the workplace, even though he has set himself up as the candidate who wants immigration reform favorable to Hispanics. He also failed to vote on the bills regarding efficient energy production, even though he claims to be in favor of this. He must not be very much in favor of efficient energy and immigration reform since her refused to vote even though he was present. As for Obama and Clinton, they were both present those days, and they both voted on all 44 bills.

      McCain knows that public perception is all that matters, so he gives a news conference and says he supports certain issues, even though he refuses to vote in favor of them. He knows that most Americans never take the time to look up his voting record, and he makes sure that his Senate web page doesn't include this information.

      I find it ironic that your blogger name is "WillNotVote." Did you get that name from John McCain?

      • Posted By: J.Richter @ 06/23/2008 10:40:34 AM

        Thanks for this public service to correct an obvious attempt to distort voter opinion. Very informative and truthful. Yes, all campaigners have missed more than the usual share of votes and McCain indeed the most.

        This discussion group might be of interest:
        http://army4truth.newsvine.com/

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 6:08:09 PM

      nins is one of them !!

      • Posted By: Nins @ 06/21/2008 6:29:31 PM

        I wish I was getting paid for this, WillNotVote. But even if I was a paid blogger, that would not diminish the truth of what I am saying. It would just make it easier to justify spending time writing when I could be with my husband.

        I'm posting these blogs out of love for my country. I assume that you are doing it for the same reason. At least I hope your are.

        At times, when you post some really outrageous lies, I take you to task and prove that what you are saying has no merit. I'm sorry if this aggravates you so much that you want to discredit me.

        The blogs I post are carefully researched, well written and true. I usually give references in the blog so others can check what I say, and I always respond to other people's requests for proof or more information. I am transparent in what I do.

        I think that the readers on this blogsite are smart enough to tell the difference between the subjective hearsay that you frequently post, and the factual data that I present.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 06/21/2008 8:42:55 PM

          Nins, did you research your "flannel fashion" statements of last week also?

          • Posted By: loriw @ 06/22/2008 5:22:41 PM

            Nins...Please post a link to substantiate your position on "Flannel fashion" because I didn't see any on your original post.

            • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 7:13:16 PM

              Dear Lori, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not posted anything to do with flannel or with fashion. I think that you are trying to be snide. I'm sorry that you find me so threatening. I'm just trying to help Americans understand what is going on around them. It takes time and effort to find this out, and I freely share the fruits of my labor. I know you disagree with my choice of President. Maybe if you did some research and posted serious pro-McCain blogs, you could actually make a difference, instead of just making fun of other people. Being derogatory over nothing doesn't make your candidate look very good.

              • Posted By: loriw @ 06/22/2008 7:32:21 PM

                Sorry , my mistake on the flannel, I think that was actually glimps, alvey and pia. You read so many posts on these blogs sometimes you forget who said what. Please accept my sincere apology.

          • Posted By: tdub77 @ 06/22/2008 3:30:06 AM

            Then why are you posting the same thing on every site. Your not even telling people both sides and where you get your info. Why don't you let people make there own informed choices.

            • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 3:42:03 PM

              Yes, TDub, I am trying to disseminate this information. Don't YOU think it is important that US investment banks are driving up the price of oil? That has HUGE repercussions for our country. And you can say that you heard it here first, on this blog, when later it hits the main stream media and suddenly everyone is talking about it.

              In fact, in that blog I was not even discussing Obama or McCain, so I can't see why you would be so steamed, since I am not dissing your candidate. What I am talking about is true and no matter who our next President is, he will have to deal with this problem. And if you want to get really upset, you can go to the link and actually read Michael Masters' testimony. You will realize that these investment banks have clients, and these clients include sovereign nations, and that these foreign countries are using the investment bank loophole in the CFTC regulations to destroy the American economy, with the full collusion of the US banks, who are making a bundle on the deals.

              I would think that even a radical right winger like you would be mighty upset by this. This is your world, this is your country, a country that I know you really love. Get off you a$$ and find out what is going on around you, instead of criticizing other people's blogs.

              And I do tell people where I get my info. I always have links to reliable sources, and answer all inquiries for information. The point is that I am trying to give people data so that they CAN make their own informed choices.

              • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/22/2008 4:50:40 PM

                Here Tdubs, http://www,FOXNOISE.com/seanhannity/billorally/KarlRove/

                Wait you already get your info there, sorry, we'll try to find another source for you ;)

    • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/22/2008 4:46:04 PM

      Hey willnotVETOobama, can you provide the same link for McCain?

  • Posted By: J.Richter @ 06/23/2008 10:23:10 AM

    McCain is simply a flip-flopper and needs to be called accurately:

    * McCain used to oppose Bush???s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he supports it.

    * In 2005 he said that he opposed the tax cuts because they were ???too tilted to the wealthy.??? By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

    * McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

    * McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he???s against it.

    * McCain thought Bush???s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain was against privatizing social security. Now he is for it.

    * McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn???t.

    * McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

    * He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it ???one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.???

    * McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration???s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

    * McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

    * He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn???t.

    * McCain said before the war in Iraq, ???We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.??? Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was ???probably going to be long and hard and tough.???

    * McCain said he was the ???greatest critic??? of Rumsfeld???s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as ???a mission accomplished.??? In March 2004, he said, ???I???m confident we???re on the right course.??? In December 2005, he said, ???Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.???

    * McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

    * McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn???t be allowed.

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 9:17:26 PM

    Two years ago, after Illinois residents learned that Exelon Corporation did not disclose leaks at one of its plants, Obama introduced the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, which would require plant owners to report all leaks to state and local authorities, the article reported.
    --cnn http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/03/obama-defends-record-on-nuclear-leak-bill/
    Obama has touted the bill ??? which never passed the Senate ??? on the campaign trail, and in December he told voters in Iowa it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed," the newspaper reported.

    Although it passed the environmental committee, the bill never made to the full Senate, and the senator reintroduced it last fall, according to the report.

    The article said the Obama camp did not explain to the newspaper why Obama told Iowa voters that the bill had passed.

    The article also said Obama bowed to pressure from Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators, and rewrote the bill to "reflect changes" they wanted.

    "The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators," the story said.

    In its "fact check," the Obama campaign said the revised bill still required notification of leaks and that "the only change was that the requirements would be made through the regulatory process."

    The "fact check" also said Obama had "criticized the industry's voluntary guidelines and vowed to press ahead with the bill after those guidelines were announced."

    The "fact check" did not address Obama's remark about the bill having "passed." It also did not respond to the article's reporting that Exelon executives and employees have contributed $227,000 to Obama's campaign.

    David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, has worked as a consultant for the Illinois-based company, the newspaper reported.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 10:32:18 PM

      Nice deflection - but how do you respond to McCain using wind and solar images in his ad when he is against subsidies for them.

      Or his wonderful idea of giving American's gas tax holiday over the summer?

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 11:25:57 PM

        Trying to change the subject? Or is holding Obama accountable to his votes too much of a "distraction?"

  • Posted By: Spacer @ 06/22/2008 10:40:26 PM

    McCain doesn't understand his own energy policy. Is it now politically incorrect to point out that he is confused because you're not supposed to say that about a, um, "chronologically challenged" person?

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 9:10:18 PM

    Here's a good one for all you Anti-Nuclear Obama supporters:

    Q: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power to reduce oil dependency?

    A: I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table.
    --2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

    Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?

    A: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.
    --Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

    7/01/05: Obama voted for HR 2419, termed "The Nuclear Bill" by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172

    11/14/05: Obama voted again for "The Nuclear Bill" in Roll Call 321. This was the vote on the Conference Report on the Nuclear Bill (HR 2419). As the House had already approved the Conference Report, this was the last opportunity for anyone in Congress to say "no" to this disastrous bill which threatened California's water and food supply and provides billions of dollars for the kind of nuclear weapons activities violative of international law.

    11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270

    4/25/07: Obama voted for S 761 (inclusive of HR 2272), a bill that extensively funded nuclear programs that threaten all life on Earth. Roll Call 146

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 9:03:40 PM

    Obama contradicted himself, saying the Bush administration had done nothing serious about alternative fuels or raising fuel efficiency. Obama said, "We have not seen any serious effort on the part of this administration to spur on the use of alternative fuels, raise fuel efficiency standards on cars."

    If the 2005 energy bill signed by President Bush was indeed the "single largest investment in clean energy" ever seen, as Obama says, then it's hard to see how his administration can be faulted for lack of "any serious effort" to promote alternative fuels. Furthermore, another bill Bush signed in December sets a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020, the first major increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards in more than three decades.

    It is certainly true that more could be done, and Obama would be within his rights to say that Bush's efforts aren't serious enough to suit him. But claiming a lack of any serious effort at all is contradicted by the record and by Obama's own words.
    from factcheck

  • Posted By: arkay @ 06/20/2008 8:35:55 PM

    My oh my, let's see if I want ot start building a refinery, the only thing that is stopping me is that it takes awhile to make a profit. Why don't you check your onw fatcs and amke an application to build a refinery and let''s see how many regulatory roadblocks can be thrown up at the local, county, state and federal levels; and that's before I start in with the courts to contest every decision thta doesn't go my way.
    In fact, why don't you try to build a windfarm way off the coast of Massachusetts and see if clean energy fares better. Oh I forgot, that was tried also and the Mass liberals decided that they didn't want their view blocked.
    Get your heads out of this one way thought exercise of yours and contribute something useful to the effort..

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/20/2008 11:50:51 PM

      The reason no one builds refineries in the USA is that it is MUCH cheaper to build them in places like Indonesia that have no environmental protection laws, no workers rights, no pesky media watch dogs looking over your shoulder. In the 70s through the 90s there was a boon on building refineries on the Indonesian outer islands. Now that the radical Muslims have more power in Indonesia, this has become less appealing for US companies, but still looks quite attractive to other Asian nations.

      When they start talking about building refineries in the USA, that's when you should sh!t your pants, because that means that the big players in the oil industry consider America to be ripe for the picking -- jobless people desperate for work, eroding environmental laws, decreased civil liberties -- that is what these corporations look for in a "home."

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 12:35:51 AM

        Don't you "own" a corporation, so thats how you run your business?

        • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 2:24:56 AM

          My two corporations and my husband's LLC all employ only US citizens. We have one Asian office, and even it has an American staff. We run our businesses in ways that are profitable for us and for our employees, and we give back to the communities where we are located. We have very low attrition of employees, because we are flexible and fair in our policies, and having been working stiffs ourselves, we understand what it is like to struggle to make ends meet and the difficult balance between work and family.

          We are not in the oil refinery business. I was simply discussing what refinery companies look for in "host" countries. Which of course you ignored, since all you do is snipe at people. It must be hard to be you.

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 8:39:48 PM

            No it's real easy. Your just such a good target.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 7:07:46 PM

    Some of you who read my posts about investment banks driving up the price of oil through commodities futures trading did not believe me that this was a real issue, despite the fact that the Senate is investigating it. Well, it really is an issue and an important one, so important the the Department of Justice is going to investigate.

    Today Senator Obama announced a plan today to crack down on excessive energy speculation and fully close the loophole in the CFTC regulations that I referred to in my blog. This loophole is also called the "Enron Loophole" because it was created by McCain Campaign co-chair Phil Gramm at the behest of Enron lobbyists, and exempts most trading on energy commodities from regulation. As a result, the CFTC is unable to oversee the oil futures market or investigate cases where excessive speculation is driving up oil prices. Just last month, John Hofmesiter, President of Shell Oil Company, says that the proper, uninflated production price of a barrel of crude oil is no more than $65.

    http://www.financialpost.com/reports/oil-watch/story.html?id=532747

    Clarence Cazalot, CEO of Marathon Oil, stated in November of 2007 that "$100 oil just isn't justified by the physical demand on the market - it is speculation on the futures market that is driving this."

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/12/markets/oil_hundred/index.htm?postversion=2007111216

    Larry Chom, Chief Economist of Platt's, states in a recent Businessweek article that speculation is adding at least $50 to the price of every barrel of oil. You can read this article in the May 13, 2008 edition of Businessweek, but it is no longer available on their website unless you are a member.

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/

    To see what Senator Obama is doing to correct this serious problem and lower the price of gas and oil, go to his website:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5Rzb

    Now THAT is my kind of President! Sees the problem, and moves to fix it, while Bush and McCain are sitting on their hands.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 8:37:57 PM

      I agree that speculation has driven up the price of oil. I'm glad steps are being taken.
      Its a good thing that the Justice Dept under Bush's Administration is doing something about it....I'm sure since McCain is sooo much like Bush, that he will continue these investigations when he is president.

      I'm also glad that McCain is advocating a new Nuclear Power Renaissance. Its a clean no ghg producing energy source, a good interim from a coal and oil based energy sources of the past to more renewable energy sources of the future. That's my kind of President.

  • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/22/2008 5:24:13 PM

    "Intelliphobia" - The fear of learning FACTS about any political issue from any other source but FOX NOISE and the FOXpublicans. You can tell an "intelliphobe" by their behavior patterns: repeating lies over and over at a higher volume each time; they believe that action makes their lies true. (a technique perfected by Bush). Also refusing to use reason or logic to resond, or they will, when confronted directly, simply not respond at all.
    The "intelliphobe" is a dying bread, first showing their faces in late 01 early 02, they were strong then, by the 04 election they had falen off to about 51% of the population, they were how ever able to secure the 04 election, that alone has cost the US over 3000 more children, DEAD in Iraq, because of FEAR of Intelligence. It 06 we saw the fisrt significant CHANGE when Democrats were given a SLIM majority in Congress. (note: this is not a veto proof mahority, and prior to 06 Bush ahd NEVER used his veto pen, since over 100 times). The 51% has now died of to about 15% of Americans who suffer with this illness, and it is expected that between November 08 and Jan 09 they will be almost entirely extinct, with the exceptionof the FOX NOISE GROUP where it is believed this disease started, theirs will be a long process of "healing".
    So don't worry, use this information to help them, don't judge them, as they are a dying bread and it is their fear that makes them irrational, and say thind they know to NOT be true. Just try to help them and eventually TOGETHER we will have a great country again ;).

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 6:05:53 PM

    TYLER - The price of oil swelled to another record high Monday morning - before dropping back. It almost hit $140 a barrel - but then fell 25 cents. It appears - a recent increase in oil output from Saudi Arabia -- is not driving down crude prices. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who started a bipartisan group called "American Solutions for Winning the Future" held little back at the Texas Republican Convention. He wants to use American solutions to change to the U.S. energy policy.

    Simply put - he's fed up with Congress: "The problem is not big oil or the foreigners," said Speaker Gingrich. "The problem is not the Saudis. The problem is getting Congress to do it's job." And that job, he says, is to start using the energy we have. "Congress outlaws every conceivable energy source," said Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich is making his case for domestic drilling by launching a campaign with Actor Chuck Norris, with the slogan: "Drill here, Drill now, Pay less." The campaign is urging Congress to do something now to bring down gas prices. Speaker Gingrich also has thoughts on speculators. "It's people who are betting the U.S. is too dumb to produce (its own oil)."


    He sides with East Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert -- when it comes to speculators and drilling. "If you began selling off two million barrels a day...we can pump out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would immediately bring down the price of oil." Speaker Gingrich proposes selling off half of the reserve - now. "Do it suddenly..without telling anybody in advance and punish every speculator."The very speculators, he says, that are betting against America."

    GO TO WWW.AMERICANSOLUTIONS.COM AND SIGN THE PETITION !!!

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/21/2008 6:34:46 PM

      America should NOT sell of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That reserve is there to protect us. The stockpile of oil being held by the US investment banks is EIGHT TIMES larger than the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These investment banks are hoarding the oil on purpose to artificially inflate the price, so that they can make trillions on the commodities futures market. Worse still, Bush has allowed them to do it!

      Selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would REALLY put us at the mercy of these merciless investors. And offshore drilling would take 20 years to bear fruit.

      We need to close the loophole that has allowed institutional investors to stockpile oil, We need to force them to release their oil in a controlled manner. And we need to invest our money into clean, renewable energy sources.

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/22/2008 4:44:13 PM

        The Fact That BUSH!!! SUPPORTS!!!! DRILLING!!!! Should be enough for any rational thinking American to steer clear of it...I mean BUSH says it's good, not even McCain wants that endorcement...lol

        as much as 20yrs, that's how long to see any affect on gas prices...DON'T BE SHEEPLE!!!
        why don't you hear BUSH/MCCAIN or teh FOXpublicans calling for GREATER RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEDGE FUNDERS/SPECULATORS that could IMMEDIATELY take affect and prices SHOULD then drop, yet not a word...BEWARE of BUSHES BEARING "GIFTS".

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 06/22/2008 10:55:34 AM

    Thank you for this very informative article. McCain is giving us anything BUT straight talk. For a more intelligent discussion of the risks of nuclear power, I'd suggest "The Nuclear Option" by Judith Lewis in Mother Jones. "Safe and clean" are Obama's watch words. We do not see those watch words in any thing from McCain. I do not see solar energy and wind energy as "doing fine" either - They need a jump start, not nuclear energy.

    As a viable energy source, nuclear energy requires constant safety regulation. Yet, like a true disciple of Reagan, McCain is virulently opposed to any form of government regulation or interference. Courageous whislte blowers in regulatory agencies like the FDA have had their lives and careers ruined, and even though he touts himself as a maverick, McCain never stepped in once to help any of these courageous public officials. As a result of McCain's hands-off policies, we get tainted tomatoes, deadly FDA-approved drugs, toxic toys, and a mortgage crisis meltdown, With McCain as president, we'd not only get more of the same, but , we'll also face deadly nuclear meltdowns

    Furthermore, no one has figured out what to do with nuclear waste which will be around for thousands of years, not even those nuclear hotshots, the French, have been able to effectively solve the problem. (The European Community has seriously condemned the French nuclear industry.) The Yucca Mountain depository is not slated to open until 2017 and as a safe secure depository it's seriously flawed, yet it cost the tax payers $ 11 billlion. Who will foot the bill for the waste disposal of future nuclear plants? McCain hates taxes, yet nuclear energy will require a very high tax subsidy for thousands of years to come. We already have an enormous backlog of toxic waste dumps that need to be cleaned up. Some of these are seeping toxins into our water supply (We can survive without gasoline, we can't survive without water.) For all his so-called credentials as a straight-talking maverick, never once has Mcain said anything about this issue. Do we need the additional problem of toxic nuclear waste sites?

    In short, McCain's energy and environmental policies are dictated by the lobbyists who have given us the problem to begin with. We need a change we can believe in. If we want to save the planet, we must vote for Obama

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/22/2008 3:37:33 PM

      Than you, Mwalimu, for another great post. You always post informative stuff that everyone needs to know.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse