McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense

factcheck.org

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ottoebert @ 07/22/2008 7:40:17 PM

    Do you really think our Govt will stand up to big oil? Right after the Govt straightens out the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I will be holding my breath.

  • Posted By: Fritz7 @ 07/22/2008 7:34:57 PM

    Interesting article. Seems as though Senator McSurge, I mean McCain, is getting into the swift boat mode of campaign ads. Essentially, McCain is a war monger with no new ideas. On energy, he's become simply a drill proponent, apparently to appease all the right wingers who still have doubts.

    Slowly, but surely, he's selling out to the right wing. In the end he will be another failed presidential candidate...shilling for ED drugs.

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 7:37:16 PM

      are those troops he's bringing home actually coming home or going to afghanistan?

  • Posted By: CactusRuss @ 07/22/2008 7:30:10 PM

    So what is your solution, do nothing? Check your facts we can improve our domestice supply in 5 years and show Mid East countries we mean business. So you like Obama good for you. I don't want my taxes hiked past my groin.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 07/22/2008 7:16:32 PM

    Hmmm, isn't the key phrase "no end in sight..."???

    And doesn't the "some" who are blocking the voteon lifting the ban include Obama?

  • Posted By: ottoebert @ 07/22/2008 6:42:23 PM

    The CEO of Chevron says drilling will not do ANYTHING now or in the future. Because they will export 75% of the domestic oil and the 25% they will sell us at "world prices" whether it comes from Mexico, the middle east, or anywhere else, it will be sold at over $4.00 a gallon.

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:14:54 PM

    Adam & Evil has hit the nail on the head. We don't have the refining capacity built up either. This all costs a FORTUNE and the infrastructure is not in place. The oil we do produce would be sold on the world market, not funnelled to the US citizens... consumption is way too high here to begin to supply 100% and wean us off imports - just ain't gonna happen, not unless we REDUCE CONSUMPTION over time dramatically.

    In steps Obama with a better plan for diversification, R&D, etc. McSame and Bush will do nothing but make prices higher.

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:17:31 PM

      lets see..we buy oil on the world market and if our oil goes to the world market and increases supply, prices will go up? Obviously you didnt major in economics.

      • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:19:12 PM

        No, I majored in liberal arts; I work in the oil business.

        Offshore drilling won't make a tinker's damn worth of difference to US consumers until we reduce our consumption. No way can anything we produce in the US begin to satisfy our domestic demand. Not even if we find a huge new discovery. Oil will be much higher -priced by the time that comes online in 10 years or so, assuming we discover anything worthwhile... In 10 years, the price of oil will be so high we will be using alternative options for transport, etc. There just won't be enough supply in 10 years to justify using it at the rate we use it today.

        • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:25:01 PM

          So you're one of those money grubbing Big Oil guys that only cares about profits and bringing the consumer to its knees? So hypothetically speaking, if we were to increase oil supply it wouldnt be better for prices than if we did nothing?

          • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:29:11 PM

            you obviously know nothing about economics and the laws of supply and demand...more supply will have a more positive impact on prices than less supply..whether that's $95 versus $105 or $145 v $155 per barrel.

            • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:30:24 PM

              If prices dip, it will be only temporarily. Laws of supply and demand. Period.

              • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:38:27 PM

                exactly, and more supply is better than no new supply.

                • Posted By: Aengil @ 07/22/2008 5:55:30 PM

                  Not necessarily. You're over-simplifying.

                  It depends how much it costs to get that increase in supply. The underlying trend here is a steady increase in demand globally driven by the increasing industrialization of developing countries. Spending a fortune for a marginal increase which will provide only a short interrupt to the rising prices driven by that demand may simply not be worth it. It depends how much of a saving for how long that extra supply buys you. The resources may be better invested elsewhere.

                  • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 6:21:10 PM

                    The cost of getting the oil has nothing to do with the fact that increasing supply is better than not increasing it. Increasing it at a loss is still increasing it.

          • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:29:15 PM

            Drop in the bucket; it's a dmand-side problem. Global demand is growing much faster than global production and will do for the foreseeable future.

            I'm voting for Obama because McCain is too dumb, and Bush did nothing for our energy policies other than bring us into a war that increased prices dramatically. His is a failed presidency because he couldn't even manage to secure the oil fields in Iraq and had no exit strategy until Al-Maliki and Obama decided on one.

            The GOP is outdated, stale and intellectually obtuse these days. Perhaps they need some fresh new thinking.

            • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:36:59 PM

              isnt a drop in the bucket better than no drops in the bucket? oh i forgot, you'd rather have higher prices.

      • Posted By: castle @ 07/22/2008 4:22:09 PM

        It's a demand side problem.

      • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:21:16 PM

        You obviously have no clue about the oil business.

  • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 6:03:32 PM

    Stop being fools. It's no coincidence that we are facing high oil prices at a time when two oil men have led the country for 8 years. Now you are swallowing solutions that are designed to enhance oil company stocks and profits.

    Here are numbers and links to government sources:

    The estimate for how much oil there is in offshore reserves less than 4% over 8 years (--Federal offshore proven reserves: 4483 million barrels total, US current consumption 20,687,000 barrels/day).
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/ch3.pdf#page=2
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

    They oil companies have approved offshore drilling areas they havent even gotten to yet!. They will not get to any new leases for more than 4 years. If they get to it, they cant get oil in less than 7 years! By that time, if we are still primarily on oil, we are toast anyway.

    There are some real research numbers here and more REAL analysis and solutions if you are interested in TRUTHs (from government sources)
    http://kenny.netvios.com/Proposal_Towards_US_Energy_Independence.htm (look in the references)

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 6:18:22 PM

      J. Richter...you keep mentioing the prices of oil stocks...exxon mobil is flat over the last year yet oil prices have skyrocketed. Where's the correlation? We live in a capitalistic society where profits are GOOD. Individuals and pension funds ovwn millions and millions of shares of these oil companies so why would more profits be bad? And because they are addicted to profits (as they should be) dont you think they'd want to sell more at these prices? So why arent they drilling on all these supposed leases they have? Do some research on that.

  • Posted By: unclepat @ 07/22/2008 5:17:21 PM

    Unspecified "key states" huh? Like maybe the same states with the type of demographics that won for Hillary hmmmm?. You know the ones I'm talking about,the states with the high trailer park errr...rural and poor and uneducated populations.

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 5:22:55 PM

      yup, you got it...all those poor folks that cling to guns and religions.

      • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 5:50:46 PM

        You are so smart. I'm sure you've done better in the past 8 years than the average government-distrusting, voting-on-trusted-issues such as guns and religion (the original comment that was twisted) folk. I'm also sure you were one of those who thought electing the current two oil men to manage our country was a great idea (what better way to bring oil under control than put two oil entrepreneurs in charge, eh).

        I'm sure you are doing well in an economy in which the overall country is so devalued that Europe and China are now buying us up (see the low value Budweiser posed to the Belgian company based on the dollar). Who though our dollar would be less than the Canadian 8 years ago? I'm sure you are one of those who think throwing more money at the rich in form of tax breaks with the assumption that they create job and it will trickle down is smart policy (this simply increases their disposable income and they spend it on luxuries or overseas - the rich has no country!). In spite, of this I believe that genuinely you think you know what's best for our country and are not letting your personal emotions dictate who's best to trust in this issue. Sometime we fall on idealogical sides based on our own insecurities inspite of evidence to the failings of those choices.

        • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 6:06:39 PM

          You are right J. Richter! Congratulations for that! I have done well over the last 8 years (did fairly well the 8 before that too) but I dont think you really want to vilify success, do you? Is it bad to be successful in America these days? And if you havent done better over the last 8 years, dont blame me or George Bush. Blame yourself. If you have done better, good for you and well done! My success had nothing to do with the government helping me (i did not get a rebate but I guess I help fund it, yet I'm still getting abused for some reason) and my taxes as a % of my income is higher thanks to George Bush. I do believe that I know whats best for our country, as do you obviously. I believe we need lower taxes not higher and less regulation not more. We need as much free trade as we can get. We need freedom from government not more government. There's nothing emotional about it.

  • Posted By: Brougarman @ 07/22/2008 4:21:39 PM

    Obama did not cause high gas prices. But he still supports an outdated policy that has contributed significantly to high prices. Whether the effects of that policy can be reversed in three or twenty years is irrelevant. It shouldn't surprise anyone however, that a politician is not interested in taking a position that would only help the situation once he's long-gone. Maybe if he would support offshore drilling, it might provide some relief for the younger generation who is going to get stuck with the bill for his abominable universal health care plan.

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:26:38 PM

      The GOP has turned this into an "offshore drilling" issue - which is just what the oil companies would like - and they've managed to shift the blame from them - for Bush not doing anything sooner to help increase US production - to Obama. It's stupid, because it will backfire on them. They had 8 years to do something about offshore drilling and DID NOTHING until it became a political issue during an election.

      I didn't see one Republican clamoring for more US production - not until the oil companies decided they might rather back McCain because he might cost them less than Obama.

      • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:33:15 PM

        you actually think they could have done something about offshore drilling? Did they have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during the Bush years? And if it really dows take years and years to get the oil out of the ground like you oil guys say, isnt it really bill clinton's fault for not doing something about it?

        • Posted By: udiveny @ 07/22/2008 5:47:30 PM

          Yap,... you got it !!!!!,... The veto of Bill Clinton from 1995 actually put to the rest all hope of increasing the oil production in USA... Only ones,.. (in 1995) congress passed the legislation to allowing domestic oil production, which has been vetoed by Clinton???

        • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:36:20 PM

          It is really a non-issue; there is not enough supply in the US, either offshore or on, at this time to meet the world (and our own domestic) demand. Whether or not we drill offshore has no immediate bearing on prices today at the pump, except maybe psychologically and temporarily.

          We need to reduce consumption (reduce DEMAND) and explore for as much oil as possible until we exhaust all supplies in the world. Simultaneously, we need to hurry up and figure out altneratives for fuel, for tranportation, for plastic goods, lubricants, etc. that petroleum currently provides (or helps provide).

          • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:41:09 PM

            so you say it's psychological? is that what mccain has been vilified for saying? oh thats right he's dumb and you're not because you know. And you are for exploring and drilling for more oil but you are against drilling offshore? Now I see why you are voting for obama.

            • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:42:30 PM

              you were for drilling before your were against it...the john kerry of the oil business!!

  • Posted By: unclepat @ 07/22/2008 5:24:16 PM

    Unspecified "key states" huh? Those would'nt be the same states where Hillary won would it.The ones where the people have no education(not too smart),not as affluent(poor),live in the mountains(rural areas),and probably aren't really people with much of a tan.(Caucasian)

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 5:38:44 PM

      yup, you got it (you elitist)...all those poor folks that cling to guns and religion (good Americans but obviously inferior to you)

  • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 5:19:20 PM

    What's the problem with giving more land to oil comanies for drilling in the hope that it will reduce the price we'll pay for gas in 12 years at best?

    Globally, oil is set to end between 2039 and 2045. If we havent worked for and found alternatives by 2030 (by which time drilling and defacing our coast was a quest for the unnecessary), we'd be toast, anyway. We keep forgetting the earth is only 7,918 miles or 12,742 km in diameter and petroleum in crude oil or any form represents an infinitesimal, slowly ending resource whose production has peaked.

    There are current leased offshore lands yet undrilled. Giving more lands to oil companies will only raise their stock (as all other policies by this oil men administration of Bush Cheney Halliburton and now McCain). THINK mattgilman. Its a coincidence that oil went over $4 under an admin run by oil men for 8 year?

    For true details and science: look here:
    http://kenny.netvios.com/Proposal_Towards_US_Energy_Independence.htm

  • Posted By: NoWay-NoHow @ 07/22/2008 4:38:02 PM

    You are right, it is not Obama's fault. The fault lies with the environmentalists and the Democratic party. They are the ones that do not want energy independence. They want us to wait for renewable energies. So after 30 years of waiting, it still does not work in an efficient manner. When do they expect renewable energy to be the wave of the future. Maybe 10, 20 or 30 more years, meanwhile, the democrats want to support the terrorist by ensuring that we cannot driil for our own energy needs.

  • Posted By: NoWay-NoHow @ 07/22/2008 4:37:31 PM

    You are right, it is not Obama's fault. The fault lies with the environmentalists and the Democratic party. They are the ones that do not want energy independence. They want us to wait for renewable energies. So after 30 years of waiting, it still does not work in an efficient manner. When do they expect renewable energy to be the wave of the future. Maybe 10, 20 or 30 more years, meanwhile, the democrats want to support the terrorist by ensuring that we cannot drill for our own needs.

  • Posted By: Brougarman @ 07/22/2008 4:14:12 PM

    To blame Obama's support for his policy on offshore drilling for current prices is obviously silly. It's equally silly to argue that offshore drilling shouldn't be done because it would only help in the long term.

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:17:30 PM

      It's plain silly to believe in a false premise. Offshore drilling won't make a tinker's damn worth of difference to US consumers until we reduce our consumption. No way can anything we produce in the US begin to satisfy our domestic demand. Not even if we find a huge new discovery. Oil will be much higher -priced by the time that comes online in 10 years or so, assuming we discover anything worthwhile... In 10 years, the price of oil will be so high we will be using alternative options for transport, etc. There just won't be enough supply in 10 years to justify using it at the rate we use it today.

  • Posted By: Adam and Evil @ 07/22/2008 4:09:07 PM

    Hey Jeeper,
    Three to five years.
    Not even close. That oil is off the continental shelf in very rough ocean and still twenty thousand feet below the floor. Keep in mind this is crude and we have no refineries. You have to ship it to another county to be refined. Chances are it would be sold to China and never make it back to the U.S. Lastly the amount of oil there is nothing in the scope of consumption and would have ZERO effect on prices in the U.S.

    • Posted By: mcleodmn @ 07/22/2008 4:16:52 PM

      Love your screen name...

  • Posted By: castle @ 07/22/2008 4:05:16 PM

    Nationalize American oil before drilling more in the US.

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:08:35 PM

      Tell THAT to the Republicans. They might have a heart attack.

      We don't have enough oil in our borders to sustain our enormous domestic consumption. But it's still an interesting idea. The biggest companies overseas are the National Oil Companies - PDVSA, PetroBras, etc. They collectively (all NOCs) control 80-90% of the world's oil production, compared to the International Oil Companies (ExxonMobil, Conoco, BP, Chevron and Shell) who only have access/control about 10% of global production (or maybe less)...

      • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:14:18 PM

        heck, nationalize all american business! thats the democrats real intent anyway.

  • Posted By: chicago6 @ 07/22/2008 4:00:32 PM

    What a surprise. Liberal left wing Newsweek takes Obama's side.

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:05:37 PM

      No surprise that morons are supporting McSame.

      • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:12:27 PM

        Nice ad hominem...where'd you learn that Nancy Peolsi, your fearless leader? Funny how she points out Bush's low approval and her institution's approval is in the teens. Can we all agree that Nancy Peolsi is the worst speaker of the house ever?

  • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 3:56:44 PM

    Is Newsweek on the Obama payroll? What a bad magazine

    • Posted By: ozarkajuice @ 07/22/2008 4:00:07 PM

      Yah your right, its bad when magazine companies actually put up facts , instead of lies that this mccain ad has done.

      • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 4:08:59 PM

        Seriosuly, though, have you ever seen one poosiive comment from them on mccain or one article short of glowing on obama? it's disgusting. let us drill and stop saying "no" what si obama's plan for getting oil prices down? alternatives? so he's going to snap his fingers and we'll have electric cars, solar, hydro and wind that make economic sense? Dont you think venture capitalists have been trying this for years? If they could make it work it would have been done. I'm all for conservation but why not drill more? Why just turn your backs on the main source of energy in this country? Why does Al Gore spend so much money for electricity on his house when he's imploring everyone else to begin riding horses again. You're all hypocrites.

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 07/22/2008 4:08:26 PM

    I give up Newsweek. You simply cannot bring yourself to say anything about McCain. Can you say something nice about his wife? Here is a suggestion: Mrs. McCain gently attempted to soothe her husband who after missing a dose of Haldol was again sundowning and experiencing vivid visual hallucinations of Michelle Obama carrying a machete and yelling: "whitey Mau Mau whitey Mau Mau"

  • Posted By: castle @ 07/22/2008 4:04:06 PM

    We need to nationalize oil in the US to have any chance of stabilizing oil prices. Multinaltional oil companies sell on a world wide market for top dollar.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse