FACTCHECK.ORG

Straining a Point

An Obama ad says he'll "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. Actually, his plan is a 10-year proposal with no guarantees.

By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org

Jul 16, 2008 | Updated: 5:43 p.m. ET Jul 16, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 07/30/2008 5:48:39 PM

Comment: You want to talk about misleading people about his positions and credentials? Obama's "present" votes in Illinois haven't raised much of a stir, but what about his failure to attend VA committee meetings in the senate? Obama has skipped 19 of 37 VA committee meetings in the 109th congress. Obama???s attendance record was the second worst of all Democrats on the committee. He attended just 18 of the committee???s 37 meetings in Washington D.C.," SusanUnPC reported December 20, 2007, at No Quarter Blog.

And then there are these examples:

Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed. "I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."

On March 19, 1997, Obama announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said.

On March 20, 1997, Obama voted "present" on a key telecommunications vote.
HEY CWA members, WAKE UP and smell the TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

He was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. He wasn't exactly up front with his constituency, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,0,4956975,full.story?coll=la-home-center
Posted By: demed @ 07/24/2008 11:11:14 AM

Comment: In ten years we can turn over the auto fleet using technology already in wide use (hybrid) and other technology nearing the assembly line (plug-in, hydrogen) and cut gasoline use by 2/3. No microscopes are necessary. I personally doubled my mileage by switching from an Escape to a Hybrid-Escape and haven't decided whether to buy a Prius now for our 2nd car or to wait for the 2010 plug-ins.
Posted By: gcparee @ 07/23/2008 11:37:51 AM

Comment: Obama cant tell the truth it seem to far above his head .Many of his stolen ideas are changed just enough that it cant be used. For him to think Colin powel would be his running mate is funny.
Posted By: emmarcee @ 07/18/2008 10:27:37 AM

Comment: The fact or myth that we always understood was that North America has huge supplies of natural gas and oil. (The partisan politics is killing us - so the media is against anything the president offers. instead they look into the mouth of Gore - the guy who must stop eating to save the world). The Perisan Gulf oil was cheap oil, because the workers were cheap to get (from the neighbouring countries). Yes the Cheap Oil has ended. Now Americans should find the courage to get our own oil (O yes no body here wants to work for low wages!! even school drop outs) May be you guys should get some Mexicans to do the job so you can keep driving the SUVs. Stop whining and get on the job like the great country this used to be. Work on your dream of the next "fuel", but try to live for today.
Posted By: emmarcee @ 07/18/2008 10:18:30 AM

Comment: How about tiny nuclear fission machines? I am getting so excited about Obama's dream. May be they can take me to grave in one of those solar cars.
- Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/18/2008 11:16:50 AM
  
  Comment: Don't say that, you know the environmentalist/Greenpeace Mantra....Nuclear is the Devil....
Posted By: pezled @ 07/18/2008 7:44:14 AM

Comment: Almost all cars already on the road today can be inexpensively outfitted to run on compressed natural gas. Natural gas is the most clean burning fuel currently available. Now a HUGE gas field has been proven in the southern US. Right now, today, we could be burning natural gas from our own country in cars. This new natural gas formation is like 100 times bigger than any other gas formation yet discovered. The scramble is on to get it out of the ground as we speak. This is at the least a mitigating solution both to the energy crush and to cleaner atmostphere. Many city buses already run on CNG (compressed natural gas). What's the hold up for cars? Why is no one talking about this???
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/18/2008 7:26:45 AM

Comment: with obama we will be stuck paying 10.00 a gallon for gas !!
- Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/18/2008 11:14:45 AM
  
  Comment: Forever with no relief, He is playing up to the Greenpeace crowd....can't wait to see them flip out when Obama starts calling for more Nuclear Reactors.....you know Excleon is a huge money bundler for him.....money bundler just being the "new" OC (Obama Correct term) for lobbyists.
Posted By: Lawrence Hill @ 07/18/2008 6:29:17 AM

Comment: All the words in in the world wont ease the cost of fuel unless their is some kind of action taken to change the way we travel. Just look at henry ford he took us from horse and buggy to what we call the automobile. Now we have to find a fuel that can be despenced much the same way that gas is. theirs no quick fix to this problem . Now is the time we all should be putting our heads togather to find an answer.
Posted By: Michael Sheridan - Sacramento @ 07/17/2008 6:02:21 PM

Comment: Mean estimates from the Minerals Management Service indicate that the total recoverable resources currently off-limits in the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) total about 18 billion barrels of crude oil. At America's current rate of consumption (20.8 million barrels of oil per day), the oil that would flow from lifting the offshore drilling ban would last the US less than 2.5 years, even if we somehow got to keep it all for ourselves, which of course we couldn't. Once we allow drilling, it's NOT "our" oil anymore--it's the oil of whatever multinational pumps it out of the ground. The amount drilled yearly would not be enough to cushion us from rate hikes and would not lead us to any sort of energy independence, even in the short term, much less the medium or long term.

Almost any alternative (except ethanol) is better than trying to drill our way out of this mess. However, there's no doubt that we're in for a bumpy ride.
Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/17/2008 4:06:48 PM

Comment: While very loosely agree with the author's comments about the term "fast track", one point bears making regards to that.

We have been on a track of just drilling for more oil since the 1970's when it became widely known that this was a problem. By my math, that's 30 years, and in that time the strategy has resulted in... well... more expensive gas.

Now an alternative may be to drill for more oil, but at the end of that time, say 20 years, we'll have... well... more expensive gas than we have today with nothing to show for it.

Compared to that alternative, $150 billion in research on alternatives is a fast track; even if it took the full ten years.

Point number 2, then, is just because you have a 10 years of research does not mean you don't see benefits before the 10 years are up. It just means you make a 10 year commitment.

With all of the above in mind, maybe he should have just said "faster track". Then we wouldn't have to quibble about those extra 2 missing letters,
Posted By: lolliedotcom @ 07/17/2008 1:18:06 PM

Comment: I love factchecker.org, wish it was tv news as it would be the only tv news I'd watch....
Posted By: RO in Reno @ 07/17/2008 11:28:41 AM

Comment: Actually a 10 year plan may very well be "fast Track" the discussion to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil has been a raging debate for the lst 40 years.
As it is turning out it is the higher prices that now have pushed the use of public transportaion, a reduction in driving and a renewed push for higher milage auto's.
The hard cold fact is oil is a depletable resource, and current estimates we have the reserves for about another 70 years, as this resorce becomes scarcer the price will only climb the day that people look back and remember when oil was only $140 per barrel is not all that far in the future.

If the existance of civillization is dependant on oil then the end of civilization is in the forseeable future.
It's not of course but the very fundamental chages that must occur should be pursued now.

Well ok so we have to wait another 6 months until we get rid of the oil people who currently occupy the white house.
Posted By: cowen123456 @ 07/17/2008 10:02:12 AM

Comment: see...this is why people are screaming media bias....I actually saw this in one of his media conference. He started out criticizing mccain's energy plan for not netting any results for another 7-10 years and literally 5 minutes later talked about his plan and mentioned that it will take at least 10 years to net results. Yes, none of the reporter pointed out the contradiction and hyprocrisy in the speech.........I was sitting in my living room and picked it up immediately. If you do not point out the contradiction of a candidate's proposal then how will you ever get to the truth of the thinking? Most of the media is indeed playing press secretaries for Obama.....poor Mccain..he's really got a uphill battle in this election. Rest assure though senator Mccain....the voters can tell facts from fictions even if the media refused to acknowledge it.
Posted By: expatincebu @ 07/16/2008 8:05:07 PM

Comment: Well there simply is no other alternative to imported oil. The drill now crowd doesn't seem to realize that any remaining oil fields in the US are extremely difficult and expensive to tap and all put together will not satisfy more than a small fraction of US daily demand. What drill now means is more money for big oil and no money for clean renewable alternatives.

What Oboma will not say, no guts to, is that the days of cheap energy, and the suburban, consumer, car culture it created are over and will not return. Americans must change. Personally I think most Americans are to fat stupid and lazy to do what it takes, so the country will continue its slide into oblivion.
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/16/2008 6:07:57 PM

Comment: Hmm 10 years....Isn't one of the Democratic talking points, that McCain's Drill Now measure won't produce results for 5-10 years?....
I know I kept asking Nins this question, she kept evading...at least factcheck answered it for me...Obama's plan isn't better than McCain's. Obama's plan won't help the American people....drilling inconjunction with Wind, Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear is the best solution right now....yes the dividends won't be felt for a few years but why procrastinate for another 10 years....
- Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/17/2008 4:20:21 PM
  
  Comment: Wrong! The talking points are McCains drill for more oil is exactly the same strategy that we've been following for 30 years. It will take 10 years for the oil you are drilling for to finally show up on the market as gas. In that 10 years, gas will have gone up in price. At the end of those 10 years, the only thing different from today, is more expensive gas, and potentially a few more environmental disasters, and a future of more expensive gas and oil.
  
  At the end of 10 years of intensive investment in research and infrastructure in alternatives, what you have is the first few steps toward changing the economy toward cleaner renewable energy. There is nothing to say that we don't see benefits before 10 years with significant investments of resources. The only thing that takes 10 years, is a reevaluation of the program.
  - Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/18/2008 11:11:42 AM
    
    Comment: Oh of course you'd have to disagree, had to go to mybarack to get your talking points?
    
    Just last week Nins kept posting in her typical jihad style, 5-10 years before the gas hits the market...oh so now that Obama's plan won't do crap...we have to assume 10 years now....ok lets run with that.
    
    I know you won't or can't for some reason look at McCain Lexington Project, his energy plan. McCain is talking about investing in alternative energy too....all the Obama;s people focus on drilling is just a distraction, because you don't want to admit that McCain's plan is very similar to Obama it's a broader strategy. In that 10 years, where people will be working, NEW JOBS, in the oil industry, McCain will be providing investment incentives to Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, and *GASP* Nuclear Power. Before you start trying to assail anything Nuclear, go look back at Obama's Las Vegas debate....he wants Nuclear too....just doesn't want the Greenpeacers to know it yet....