« John McCain's "Country first" ad | Main | The myth of Bush spending growth »

July 22, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200e553b0aa718833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How not to fact-check political ads:

» McCain "Whiner" Adviser Resigns from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Former Sen. Phil Gramm stepped down as John McCain's campaign co-chair, hoping to quiet the uproar f [Read More]

Comments

The Times wrote, "Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore." Did I miss Obama's votes in favor of drilling in ANWR and for using the shale oil in Colorado? No, he voted to block the shale oil and and to block drilling in ANWR. The Times is simply spinning for Obama. Business as usual.

In fact, the Dems and Obama are preventing new drilling and oilfield development just about everywhere in the US.

Isn't McCain opposed to ANWR development as well?

When did Obama oppose shale development?

In any case offshore, ANWR or shale would each need seven to twelve years to bring production on-line, so how is there an impact on today's oil prices?

It seems a case of mis-defining the issue and then using that erroneous reasoning to mis-label your opponents' platform.

Business as usual, indeed.

Howard, I went into google and verified that Obama had voted to prevent the development of shale and ANWR. You are correct that McCain also opposes drilling in ANWR.

It makes no sense to reject something just because it has a lead time of 7 to 12 years. By that standard, we would reject all solutions to global warming. In particular, Kyoto would take many decades to be of use, according to its supporters. If we had allowed ANWR drilling when the issue was first raised, we would have ANWR oil today.

Development of enough solar, wind and water power to provide a major portion of our energy needs is in the indefinite future at best. That doesn't mean we shouldn't develop these alternative sources of energy. It means that useful steps shouldn't be rejected just because they would take a long time to come to fruition.

I don't see Obama as having voted against shale development. I do see that your approach to defending this ad is to attack the NY Times.

But yes, I agree that adding to energy sources is beneficial. Don't you think it should but one component in a larger plan ?

The point about 7 to 12 years to development is that I don't see how Obama has any responsibility for high energy prices today or how being in favor of off-shore drilling will "rescue our family budgets".

The WSJ mentioned the ads today.

Headline -

"McCain Advertisements Pin Blame for Gas Prices on Obama"

Is the WSJ "spinning for Obama" too ?

The 'lead-time' arguments are a red herring - we're not extracting oil from shale because good technology for doing so (cost-effectively) doesn't exist. We're not drilling in ANWR because other costs (mainly to the environment) are too high and the windfall (a trickle of oil that will be a blip on the demand radar) is too small. Blaming Obama for this is like blaming him for not bombing Iran - sure we could do that, but there are a dozen reasons why we wouldn't (and shouldn't) [even if there are - though I doubt it - one or two reasons for doing it].

And if you really want someone to blame for the lack of new drilling in the continental U.S., look no further than big oil. AP story this weak shows how the percentage of their budgets spent on oil discovery has been flat over the past decade, even as they've poured up to 30% of their budget into buying up their own stock and paying off dividends (driving up their stock price).

Why isn't big oil doing it? Even when gas is $4 a gallon? Because it isn't cost-effective! If it was they'd be drilling like mad on the millions of leased acres for which they already have the rights.

That Obama character. I knew it was his fault.

The comments to this entry are closed.