More straight talk from John McCain:
NARRATOR: Gas prices. $4, $5, no end in sight. Because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? (chant) Obama, Obama. One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.
MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
Attributing rising gas prices to Barack Obama is absurd, which is why the flaccid New York Times fact-check is so frustrating. The main claim of McCain's ad is that Obama is somehow responsible for the increase in prices at the pump. But Larry Rother's "accuracy" section spends over one hundred words on various details, asides, and non-sequiturs before finally getting around to mentioning that there's no plausible way to blame Obama for the increase in global demand for oil:
ACCURACY Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore, a crucial word in the debate on energy policy but one never mentioned here. Increasing domestic oil production is also by no means the only or even main road to long-term energy independence, as both candidates have emphasized on the campaign trail by endorsing alternatives like solar and wind power and corn-based ethanol (in Mr. Obama’s case) and nuclear energy (Mr. McCain). Mr. Obama, who has proposed a $150 billion decade-long government-backed effort to help develop clean-energy sources, does oppose the temporary gasoline tax rebate that Mr. McCain favors, calling it an election-year gimmick that does not bring meaningful relief to ordinary Americans. But that is a position many economists and energy experts share. Finally, even before the recent spike, oil prices had been rising for a decade, the result of a variety of political and economic factors in places as far afield as China, India, Venezuela and Nigeria. So it is difficult to understand how Mr. Obama, a first-term senator, can be held responsible for that phenomenon.
The conclusion to the fact-check then briefly describes the ad as "misleading on nearly every substantive point" before moving on to ad hoc analysis of its effectiveness and speculation about its impact -- two tics of "objective" coverage of political ads:
SCORECARD Aside from correctly stating current gasoline prices, “Pump” is misleading on nearly every substantive point. But it is shrewdly conceived and may prove to be effective with undecided voters upset about having to pay as much as $100 to fill their gas tanks, yet uncertain as to the causes of the squeeze on their budgets.
With fact-checking like this, political candidates who run misleading ads have nothing to fear. (And most newspapers don't even run fact-checks!)
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.
Posted by: David | July 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Howard | July 22, 2008 at 02:29 PM
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.
Posted by: David | July 22, 2008 at 07:48 PM
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".
Posted by: Howard | July 22, 2008 at 08:58 PM
The WSJ mentioned the ads today.
Headline -
"McCain Advertisements Pin Blame for Gas Prices on Obama"
Is the WSJ "spinning for Obama" too ?
Posted by: Howard | July 22, 2008 at 10:53 PM
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.
Posted by: David M. | July 23, 2008 at 08:46 AM
That Obama character. I knew it was his fault.
Posted by: Seth | July 27, 2008 at 11:30 PM