Losing On Drilling

So we're going to lose on this drilling thing. Well, maybe. Despite the fact that additional drilling as a means to lower gas prices makes no logical sense, the problem is that the moratorium on offshore areas needs to be reaffirmed annually by Congress. It usually gets rolled over in a continuing resolution to keep the government working. But the Republicans have signaled their intention to block any effort to reinstitute the ban, and it's likely they have the votes, at least in the Senate, to do that. Plus, Speaker Pelosi is already announcing that there will be a bill with drilling. There is, however, a catch.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Saturday when the U.S. Congress returns next month from its summer recess, Democrats will offer legislation that could give oil companies drilling access to more offshore areas.

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Pelosi of California said expanding drilling areas would be part of a broader bill which addresses other energy issues [...]

Pelosi said the legislation would require oil companies to pay billions of dollars in drilling royalties, which would be invested in clean energy resources.

Democrats also want to release supplies from the U.S. emergency oil stockpile to help lower gasoline prices, increase drilling in an Alaskan oil reserve that is already open to exploration and require utilities to generate a portion of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind energy.

In addition, Pelosi said, the legislation would seek to rein in excessive energy market speculation that many U.S. lawmakers blame for running up crude oil and gasoline prices.

"This comprehensive Democratic approach will ensure energy independence which is essential to our national security, will create millions of good paying jobs here at home in a new green economy, and will take major steps forward in addressing the global climate crisis," Pelosi said.

The gambit here is that Republicans will never back removing subsidies for oil companies, being then seen as frauds, but I don't even see that in this iteration of the bill. Of course, the bipartisan "Gang of 10" bill does include that aspect.

Even then, I don't see how Republicans suffer any more than normal from being in bed with Big Oil. They've won the opening round of the debate, and Democrats are negotiating with themselves. Meteor Blades explains the reality here:

There is a widespread – though far from universal view – that accepting the Gang's approach is the politically astute, expedient and smart thing to do. Undercut the GOP advantage on the drilling issue by yielding to the inevitable, as some have put it, and thereby inoculate Democrats on Election Day. A cheap bargain, the argumnet goes, because companies will never drill anyway or the new President can reverse the deal come January.

Thus, on the cusp of a new administration, after 27 years of lousy energy policies that have brought us to our current situation, there is a scurry to pass a cobbled-together energy policy – still not completely written – with just a couple of weeks of discussion. One final victory for a lame-duck administration run by oil men and their pals whose secret energy meetings on government time we are still not privy to. Odds are there will not be a reversal of this policy once passed.

Just one of the areas that deserves far more debate is, surprise, oil and gas leasing. When leases on private land pay royalties of 12% to 25%, why should taxpayers only receive 12% to 16%? What about decades of royalty underpayments on taxpayer-owned land and Indian tribal land and allotments? What about the 68 million acres already being leased but not being drilled? Why grant more oil-shale leases when the five current demonstration leases are years from producing commercially viable oil from a source whose promise of bonanza has failed three times in the past 120 years, bankrupting dozens of companies and soaking up hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies? [...]

As unlikely as is finding 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House to renew the ban, it's nothing compared with getting the 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes required to override a Bush veto. And if the ban is attached to a continuing resolution, then the question arises: Who wins the battle over drilling vs. everything else the government does?

No Social Security checks go out, Veterans' Administration hospitals start turning people away, and, of course, gas prices remain near $4. With three weeks to sort it all out, right in the middle of a watershed election campaign, who would really "pay a terrible price in November"?

The smart money says we're headed for another lame energy policy, not a far-sighted, planet-friendly, grandchildren-friendly, well-integrated, comprehensive package of proposals but a mish-mash of contradictory elements that nudges us into a different lane of the disastrous road we've been hurtling down since we took our first sip of Saudi crude six decades ago.

I think that's the most likely scenario. And it's not like you're going to get an honest rendering of this debate from a media, when their convention coverage is owned by Exxon Mobil, for example.

I think at this point I prefer the "praise the Lord" approach to the problem over anything Congress does. After all, prices have gone down 35 cents in the past month - prayer works!

(That's the other thing, nobody seems to be focusing on the fact that prices are way down, and it's because demand is down, no thanks to the politicians. If policies were put in place to encourage lower demand - investments in transit, telecommuting, flex hours, smarter urban planning - prices would go down vastly more than the "drill and hope" scenario. Why has not one Democrat made that argument in public?)

Drill Now! Lose Your Job!

Turns out that there's a flip side to spending weeks upon weeks demanding more largesse for the oil companies - your opponents can use the issue to tie you to Big Oil and beat you:

While you were watching that Jew-baiting House candidate go down in flames, another potentially far more significant contest played out last night: A GOP primary challenger ousted GOPer David Davis from his seat in Tennessee's first district, prevailing by less than 500 votes.

Davis' loss was a big deal, for two reasons: First, he's the first incumbent knocked off in this state since 1956. More important, he went down largely because his foe, in an unusual move for a fellow Republican, aggressively yoked him to "Big Oil."

This could have broader national significance, because it shows that championing offshore drilling, as Davis did with extreme enthusiasm, can't always be counted on as the sure winner the GOP thinks it is -- after all, he lost on the issue even among GOP primary voters.

It turns out that Davis was ON THE HOUSE FLOOR just yesterday pushing this "drill now" nonsense before losing his own primary. Hopefully he won't tell his colleagues about the double-edged sword. Down With Tyranny has more.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman looks at GOP know-nothing-ism.

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.

Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Including "yoking yourself to Big Oil might have negative political consequences."

Paris Hilton Drinks McCain's Milkshake

I think Chris Bowers is absolutely right - Paris Hilton's response to John McCain's celebrity ad has turned the tide of this race to a certain extent. Actually it occurred at a confluence of events: Obama calling McCain and his minions "proud to be ignorant" about car maintenance and fuel efficiency; Obama running a response ad to McCain's O.M. Origina Maverick (ya hear?) ad:



And then Paris pops up with a piece of video offering an objectively more substantive energy plan than McCain ever has. As Bowers says:

Hilton's response is now the top story on Google News, and apparently the McCain campaign is receiving so many media requests about it, that they had to post a from response on their website. They have gotten into a spat with Paris Hilton, which there is basically no way to win. Hilton has nothing to lose, and the back and forth just highlights the frivolic idiocy of McCain's recent attacks.

She's also squeezed him to an extent. Hilton basically endorsed a compromise proposal (I can't believe I wrote that sentence) of limited drilling as a bridge to a green energy future. That's not true; the meager take from coastal drilling is not nearly enough to build that bridge. But in the political context, both candidates are actually agreeing with this, as it's laid out in the bipartisan "Gang of Ten" plan on energy in the Senate. It's a true compromise, and it includes eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and funneling that money into alternative energy research. That central plank of the Democratic Party agenda (it was part of 6 for '06) polls extremely well, in the 70% range. But McCain has already gone on the record against the Gang of 10 compromise:

A spokesman for Sen. McCain said that while he "applauds the bipartisan effort," he wouldn't support the proposal because "he cannot and will not support legislation that raises taxes."

Which opens up a huge gap for Obama to exploit, when everybody figures out that making oil companies rich(er) is McCain's only objective.

What's more, Obama's mockery on the tire gauge nonsense has forced McCain up against a wall on that score:

Predictably, Obama hit back calling McCain’s mockery “ignorant,” arguing his plans were being misrepresented and saying that experts backed his call over tire pressure. Equally predictably, McCain’s camp hit back.

The surprise came during a telephone town hall meeting McCain held on Tuesday with voters in Pennsylvania.

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

The dispute now rests on a lie that the tire pressure tip is Obama's entire energy plan, which has been dismissed as foolishness in just the right way ("it's like these guys are proud to be ignorant.")

Finally, there's an extremely damaging A1 story in the Washington Post this morning that is the result of Obama's recent ads mentioning the $2 million McCain has collected from the oil companies since his change of heart on drilling. There's a throughline between the focus on lobbyists and oil companies and bundlers and donations and this story:

The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton.

But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain -- he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.

Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit -- who now serves as a consultant to his company -- Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election [...]

Earlier this week, McCain drew questions about more than $60,000 in donations that were made this year to the Republican National Committee and his campaign by an office manager with the Hess oil company and her husband, an Amtrak track foreman. In that case, the couple said they used their own money.

Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant's network live in modest homes in Southern California's Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March.

Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.

There's at the very least the impression of straw donations here, an appearance of impropriety. I know that McCain is not in control of his own campaign, but surely all the connections to Big Oil and shady lobbyists and curious donations ought to take its toll (though I think the media will be consumed with Paris today).

The tenor of this race, aided by events, has changed. McCain is on the defensive.

"it's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

You go, Barack.

The other day after laying out my energy plan for the next 10 yrs I was asked by a voter if there was anything I can suggest for individuals to do to help improve the energy situation. So I suggested that each person can inflate their tires to the recommended levels among other things. Now the republicans are going around telling people this was the central part of my energy policy, handing out little tire gauges etc. Now two things I'll like to say about that:

They know it is NOT the central part of my energy policy. They know they are lying.

They are making fun of an idea that a lot of experts have also recommended and suggested it could reduce our energy consumption by about 3%, which is more that John McCain's idea of drilling [he then pointed to his toes mocking McCain talking about drilling for oil "right here and now"] can ever provide.

He further said, so I don't know how they could be making fun of something that experts agree is a good idea. I mean it's like these guys take pride in ignorance! It's like they like being ignorant.

That's the kind of game he has to bring every day on the stump.

Speaking of ignorant, the GOP thinks their little cookout on the House floor is actually lowering gas prices. Except for the fact that gas has lowered 23 cents in month, they're... OK, they're still not even right. The answer is market forces - but I wouldn't expect these Big Government conservatives who want the feds to solve all our problems to understand. Krugman had the best rejoinder:

In other news, Republicans credited their speeches for the fact that the sun rose today.

UPDATE: Video. If only his ads contained the mockery of his public statements.

Media Plays Referee! Exclusive!

TIME Magazine actually goes ahead and tells the inconvenient truth.

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

It's a little stunning to see that in print. Calling out Republicans on their cheap and willfully stupid ploy? However did this happen?

Now, the second half of this is recognizing that this actually speaks to the inadequacy of drilling as much as the importance of proper car maintenance. Nancy Pelosi is actually doing something kind of smart - taking all the heat for blocking a vote on drilling while telling members of her party in tough elections to run against her. She knows that she'll be able to get a better deal in the next Congress if the Democrats can manage to win more seats. I'm not averse to this strategy. But it's really only a hop and a skip from a message that conservation works (which is the focus of the well-written TIME article) and a message that drilling for more meager supplies doesn't. As Al Gore has said, it's like a junkie looking for one last fix.

I think progressive environmental groups are right to call out Sen. Obama for backtracking on drilling. They're living up to their half of the Overton Window. I hope they also recognize the laudatory elements of the plan, including a focus on conservation, and these other innovative ideas:

In this energy plan, Obama recognizes that 837,000 troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As President, Barack Obama will ensure that more of our veterans can enter the new energy economy. He will create a new “Green Vet Initiative” that will have two missions: first it will offer counseling and job placement to help veterans gain the skills to enter this rapidly growing field; second, it will work with industry partners to create career pathways and educational programs.

Sent to fight a war on terror, many vets now know -- or will have to admit it soon enough -- that they ended up fighting an oil war instead; and there's a great danger lurking -- that they will feel used and sidelined after having served the nation at the risk of their lives. Embracing this fighting force and turning them toward the battle for a new global energy economy is simultaneously uplifting, pragmatic and healing.

Similarly, Obama recognizes the debt the nation owes to its auto industry, which for a century provided the backbone of American prosperity. It could not have been an accident that he chose to deliver his energy plan in Michigan, where he offered a vision of a bold future, way beyond what any US auto company CEO has ever dared to imagine: an industry revitalized by the manufacture of plug-in hybrid cars that get 150 mpg.

Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas. This measure will strengthen the U.S. manufacturing sector and help ensure that American workers will build the high‐demand cars of the future.

At the heart of the plan is a target to put 1 million of these vehicles on the road by 2015, with the federal government a primary guaranteed customer. Nobody until now has floated a plan for the rescue of Detroit that makes so much sense, aligning the business success of the industry with both domestic job creation and national energy security.

I feel like I understand the "re-tooling" element of the auto industry rescue a lot better. Bailing them out is one thing - offering them free money to build plug-in hybrids is quite another.

I do wish he'd call out drilling as a gimmick - but the full-court press from the right has made that very difficult, because nobody got in front of this thing beforehand. Pelosi is being sharp by holding off the hordes until the next Congress, and Obama's plan does at least have a lot of commendable facets. The question is whether this new consensus on energy will be destroyed by the chip-chip-chip away of "Drill Now" Republicans who actually have a foothold due to the depressing cave from the Presidential nominee.

Tire Pressure - Snicker, Snicker

Well, this is pretty common. A Democratic Presidential candidate makes a comment and the right intentionally distorts it to make the candidate look foolish. Then they use their supplicants in the media to pile on the mockery.

In this case, the issue is tire pressure. A lot of time this stuff comes from surrogates, but here it's coming right from the campaign itself.

Meanwhile, the McCain team uses Obama’s comments as a fundraising tool.

E-mail from topper Davis to supporters: “I’m asking for your help in putting Senator Obama’s ‘tire gauge’ energy policy to the test. With an immediate donation of $25 or more, we will send you an ‘Obama Energy Plan’ tire pressure gauge.”

Earlier: The RNC says it will deliver gauges reading “Obama’s energy plan” to Washington newsrooms.

Steve Benen has a good roundup of the very coordinated silliness.

There's a sleight-of-hand going on here. Nobody can deny that proper car care is useful to improving efficiency. It's just the facts. Bush's Department of Energy promotes it, NASCAR promotes it as both an efficiency and a safety issue, and Republican governors promote it. It's an incontrovertible fact.

In fact, to make Obama's point, proper tire pressure actually would do more to lower individual gas prices than offshore drilling. This of course says more about drilling, and its worthlessness as a policy, than tire pressure.

Obama was observing that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing "simple things" such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Where did he get that crazy idea? From George Bush's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. (hat tip: Get Energy Smart! Now!)

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that's being generous, because Bush's Energy Department says we can't expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

In their knee-jerk mockery, conservatives are flying closer to the truth then they intend to.

Obama never said that tire maintenance was his entire energy policy - this is the intentional distortion fueling the catty mockery here. In fact, what he was saying, which could be made very catty, is that offshore drilling is such a loser that even filling your tires properly has a better chance of saving people money.

It's amazing what you can get away with when you decide to be willfully dishonest - and when you have a media which has no problem backing you up on it. Benen makes a solid point.

Consider a counter-example. McCain was talking about skin cancer the other day.

McCain emphasized that skin cancer is preventable, and implored Americans to wear sunscreen, especially over the summer. What’s wrong with this advice? Not a thing. It’s a smart, sensible thing to say.

But imagine if Obama and his surrogates said the entirety of McCain’s healthcare policy is sunscreen application. McCain doesn’t really care about cancer, they could argue, he just wants everyone to run out at get some SPF 30. Those vying to be Obama’s running mate started holding up bottles of Coppertone during their speeches, saying things like, “We want you to wear sunscreen, you know, it will very mildly improve your chances of not getting sick. But wearing sunscreen is not a healthcare policy for the United States of America.”

This, of course, would be insane. And yet, that’s pretty much what’s become of Republican campaign rhetoric of late.

The thing is, for the currently uninsured, sunscreen IS McCain's entire health care policy.

Some are speculating that Obama is offering a dogwhistle to working class NASCAR fans who tinker with their cars. And that may be. But clearly, the right is trying to bully Obama and the Democrats by just dishonestly suggesting that their entire energy policy rests on a tire gauge. But of course, the entire Republican energy policy rests on an offshore oil rig which will take a minimum of 10 years to bear fruit.

Why do Republicans want to impose government solutions instead of valuing personal responsibility for car care? Why do they hate individual initiative so much? Why do they want Big Government and Big Oil (in their case, the same thing) to take care of all their problems?

You Want Tough?

A lot of liberals are worried that Barack Obama is acting like a wimp, not defending himself in the face of these attacks, not fighting back. Well, this is a pretty hard-hitting ad, tying McCain to Bush on gas prices and noting the $2 million in contributions from Big Oil he's received.



There's a problem here, of course. He hedged on offshore drilling on Friday, endorsing the bipartisan process toward a comprehensive solution. Though offshore drilling isn't mentioned in this ad, it takes the wind out of it.

The other problem is that we have a press corps which is determined to pay attention to the most trivial things imaginable. Ads which have Britney and Paris in them - worth amplifying. An ad from a Democrat - we'll pass and just joke about how stupid it is to keep your car running properly.

So let's see if this gets any actual media play. Regardless, it'll run on the air. And because he shows an actual concern for people, perhaps Obama will continue to run well with downscale voters - who would-a thunk it?

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

The problem, as it notes later in the article, is that most low-wage workers don't see any hope for government to help them. That's been the linchpin of the conservative project over the past 30 years. Hopelessness is their currency. Maybe Obama can break this cycle.

UPDATE: Hey look, Mitt Romney's lying about John McCain's record! This is a shock. The point he's making is that McCain isn't asking for any special tax breaks for Big Oil. That's true, he's just lowering their tax burden as part of an overall corporate tax cut.



That's not exactly helpful.

The 24-Year Object Lesson That Should End The "Drill Now" Debate

I understand that Barack Obama is defending his move on offshore drilling as simply a practical effort to reach consensus and get things done.

"If we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to," the Illinois Democrat said.

This is exactly what he's promised in his campaign, and must be his understanding of how to "change politics." What I think is it's a fool's errand that involves giving up on any core beliefs in return for pretty much nothing and certainly no political advantage. Conservatives will still beat you up like a piñata, to set you up for the next compromise where you must give up even more. It doesn't work.

And in this case, you're allowing some undefined amount of offshore drilling, which is nothing but a gimmick. When it does nothing to lower gas prices, Obama will be told that it's because he only allowed some drilling, at which point he'll be told to release the rest of the OCS and ANWR because that's where the real oil is. It's the very fact that it is a gimmick which will have us return to this issue over and over.

Anyone who thinks that oil companies will immediately set to drilling and providing that oil into your gas tank needs to read this LA Times story about Hermosa Beach's efforts to raise needed funds by offering leases on municipal property. This was the result of a ballot measure in 1984. 24 years later, no oil has been produced, and none ever will.

The deal seemed straightforward enough. Hermosa Beach voters had overturned a 52-year-old ban on oil drilling, and a small Santa Monica company had signed the lease for the job, one that was supposed to earn the small city as much as $2 million a year.

But after more than a decade in court, not a drop of oil has been pumped from the ground. Instead, the deal that was supposed to solve the city's financial problems and help fund schools threatens to send it into bankruptcy.

The state Supreme Court last month refused to review a lower court ruling that Hermosa Beach had breached its contract with Macpherson Oil Co. and ruled that a trial must be held to decide how much the city owes.

Macpherson's lawsuit asks for damages of more than $100 million. The city's latest settlement offer: $4.5 million.

"They never put a shovel in the ground," Mayor J.R. Reviczky said. "For doing nothing, other than pursuing approvals, that's pretty generous."

The reason that Macpherson is suing is because the voters in Hermosa overturned the measure through ballot initiative in 1995, reinstating the ban. That was 11 years after the initial lifting, and in that time, nothing was drilled. It took two years to find a company willing to do the work. Then there were environmental impact studies and capital that needed to be raised and lawsuits from citizen's groups, etc., etc. This would be the case in any municipality in America within range of an offshore site. 11 years later, America wouldn't have one more drop of domestic oil, major oil companies would sell stock at a premium off the reserves but never set up a rig, and Republicans would blame this on the compromise deal, without question. If you invite weakness, you perpetuate it. And you make your arguments look insipid.



That's embarrassing, on an issue where Kerry is totally in the right.

This issue is a sham, and Hermosa Beach is a perfect example. There's room for compromise when the issues are actually genuine, but this is like compromising by agreeing to fund half of the nation's unicorn population.

Unintentional Truth Of The Day

Rep. Steve Pearce (Crazed - NM) is about to lose a US Senate race to Tom Udall by 25 points. Today he shows why by confirming everyone's assumptions about Republicans and Big Oil:

"At a time when we're facing $4 gasoline, I think that you need people who've been in the energy industry to tell us what to do," said Steve Pearce, a House member from New Mexico who is running for the Senate.

After all, when have they ever steered us wrong?

Big Oil has invested about $600,000 into Steve Pearce over his career, and his statements reveal him to be a kept man. But in fact, this is true of the entire Republican Party in Washington. As this chart shows, the GOP leadership has consistently voted against every single effort that may actually lower gas prices instead of filling the pockets of the oil companies.

It's rare to see the truth made so explicit.

Republicans Vote Against Lowering Gas Prices

Even though I don't think it's the entire story, there's certainly SOME speculation in the oil futures market that is driving up the price. Ian Welsh has a pretty good explanation of this. And so to see the Senate block consideration on a bill that would rein in speculation in the market, a few days after voting 94-0 to move it forward, is just embarrassing, and really shows where the loyalties of the Republicans lie - with the speculators and with the oil companies that benefit from the speculation.

The DSCC puts it all together in a press release:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators – institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil – now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

And the only action the Republicans want to take to relieve the burden of high gas prices is more drilling and spilling, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so, that the wildlife "wouldn't care" about giant oil rigs going up in their backyard (in that case, let's put one behind John Boehner's house). Of course, that drilling and spilling will only advantage- you guessed it, giant oil companies.

It's all so transparent...

Now THERE'S A Slip

He lets you know who the bosses are.

My friends, we have to drill off shore. We have to do it. It's out there and we can do it. And we can do that. The oil executives say within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?

See, the oil executives say that we'll see results from drilling, and there's literally no more trustworthy a group than them. So why not give them what they want?

It's actually quite telling. Just like the energy task force in 2001 hiding away in Fourthbranch Cheney's office, McCain appeals to oil executives to set his energy policy. We know how that movie played out, right?

Gas prices in July 2000: $1.47/gal.
Gas prices today: $4.055/gal.

DWT has more. So does T.Boone Pickens, who is self-interested but also right:

I’m not a big believer. I think you’re going to get a rude awakening as to the value of the East and West coasts when it’s opened up and when it’s put up for sale. When it’s put up for sale, I think you’ll be surprised at the price you get for the tracts.

Sunny Days For The Economy

While Bush and the Republican Party talk up how technically not horrible the economy is, Ben Bernanke spoke just like a whiner on Capitol Hill yesterday.

Warning of the risks of a further slowdown and higher inflation, Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, offered a gloomy assessment of the economy on Tuesday as President Bush, speaking a few blocks away, urged Americans to have faith in the country’s financial foundation.

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Bernanke avoided the word “recession” in characterizing the current economy, noting instead that consumer spending and exports were keeping growth “at a sluggish pace” while the housing sector “continues to weaken.”

He added that spending for personal goods had “advanced at a modest pace so far this year, generally holding up somewhat better than might have been expected given the array of forces weighing on household finances and attitudes.”

While the risks to the overall economy were still “skewed to the downside,” he said, inflation “seems likely to move temporarily higher in the near term.”

As if on cue, the consumer price index jumped up yesterday at the fastest rate in 17 years, mainly due to rising energy prices. And Bernanke didn't see any hope on that horizon, either:

In his testimony, he was especially pessimistic about any easing of energy prices, dismissing suggestions that they were being driven by speculation in futures markets. Instead, he said high energy costs reflected the markets’ recognition that demand was outstripping supplies.

“Over the past several years, the world economy has expanded at its fastest pace in decades, leading to substantial increases in the demand for oil,” Mr. Bernanke said. “On the supply side, despite sharp increases in prices, the production of oil has risen only slightly in the past few years.”

I think there's a slight amount of speculation in the markets, but we're reaching a fundamental truth about oil, that production either is peaking or has peaked, and that we need an actual plan for getting off the carbon economy instead of cries of "Drill More!" for a product whose supply is diminishing.

The economy is basically everyone's #1 or #2 issue headed into the election. This NPR/Kaiser Foundation poll looking at economic issues in Ohio and Florida shows that 89% of residents in those two states think that the economy is "not so good" or "poor." Can 89% of the people be wrong? Sure, if they're all a bunch of whiners like Phil Gramm keeps saying. Of course, well over 89% of the country didn't buy the porn films he helped produce, so maybe he's just bitter.

The big picture is that the failed conservative policies of socializing risk and privatizing profit has caught up with them. They failed to react to bubbles in the housing market and practically forgot about regulation, and homeowners were screwed. They let insurance companies discriminate against their customers and saw 47 million Americans join the ranks of the uninsured. They sought bailouts for financial institutions who made bad decisions but not the homeowners who bore the greatest impact from them. They didn't respond to rising energy demand and sought only to raise profits for their oil company pals. They ran up huge deficits, borrowed for the future from China, and stratified inequality so much that it looks like a new Gilded Age. And now, they want to elect a man as President who will gladly carry out the same policies and further privatize the economy and tear at the social safety net.

(I'm glad that the DNC is taking on McCain on Social Security, by the way. Here's the video:)



It's time for a change.

McCain's Policies Being Brought Out Of The Shadows

John McCain was perfectly content for this election to be about Sen. Obama's readiness and to remain invisible as the alternative in the corner. Unfortunately for him, it's not shaping out that way.

He was hammered by a veteran yesterday, forced to explain his rejection of the new GI Bill and his continued opposition to improving veteran's health care.



McCain tried to backpedal and obfuscate and claim that he has "received the highest award from literally every veterans organization in America". The problem is that's not true.

The recognition McCain has received from veterans groups is not "high awards" but failing grades:

• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (By contrast, Obama got a B+.)

• Disabled Veterans of America noted McCain’s dismal 20 percent voting record on veterans’ issues. (Obama had an 80 percent.)

• In a list of "Key Votes," Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) notes McCain "Voted Against Us" 15 times and "Voted For Us" only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)

Today, McCain showed up at a meeting of the League of United Latin American Citizens, got a polite response, and then watched as Barack Obama lit into him for failing immigrants with his duplicitous votes:

Now, I know Senator McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. Well, for eight long years, we've had a President who made all kinds of promises to Latinos on the campaign trail, but failed to live up to them in the White House, and we can't afford that anymore. We need a President who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.

He also made a detailed economic argument that struck at the heart of the matter - that McCain is offering the same failed policies that have brought us to the brink of recession and created massive income inequality, and that we need a leader who will remember the common man and give them a fair chance to realize their goals. And the crowd loved him for it.

Obama also put together an ad fighting back on McCain and the RNC's dishonest claims about energy policy.

"McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years," the announcer says. "McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time."

McCain is whining today about this being a "negative ad" because anything that actually addresses his record ought to be out of bounds.

(It's a small point, but I wish the ad said "reduce the drip of OIL" and not foreign oil. Drilling it ourselves won't solve the problem, as he says in the ad.)

This is not the calculating Obama we have seen in recent weeks, but a strong one working to draw major contrast and shine the spotlight on the terrible record of failed conservatism being put forth by this year's standard bearer.

Get Off My Lawn! Watch

More than the fact that John McCain might not know the price of gas, it's the disdain with which he answers the question, as if the young whippersnapper asking it isn't fit to shine his shoes, that is the most unattractive:

When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?

Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

Go away, kid, ya bodda me!

A little more of this and the nutcase fundies who plan to Write In Bush (no crap, that's REAL) are going to start outpolling St. Maverick.

McCain vs. Obama on Energy and Transportation

The Jeddah conference began and ended with nary a word of hope for anyone suffering through high gas prices, and it's clear that they will continue in the near term. In the medium term, the Republican robots calling for more domestic drilling are trying to play the country for suckers. Everyone knows (and I'm including the Republican Speaker of the Florida House on this list) that snapping your fingers and yelling "Drill!" won't immediately alter the price of oil. Moreover, Big Oil already has millions of acres of leased fields that they refuse to bring online, and industry analysts have finally figured out this shell game. Plus, talk of "environmentally safe" drilling is disingenuous, especially considering that the Interior Department - George Bush's Interior Department - is right now suing a company for damaging the environment on a field in Wyoming.

Now, John McCain did something right today. He advocated for an X-Prize type of solution: $300 million dollars for any company that can build a superior car battery. In general I think these are well-spent endeavors; the company that receives the prize can plow that money into assembly and distribution, and they have an incentive to deliver the goods quickly. He also called for bigger fines on any carmaker who violates current fuel efficiency laws, and a large tax credits for purchasers of zero-emission vehicles.

Of course, this is completely askew with his call for more offshore drilling, and maybe that's because he's taken more money from Big Oil than any other Presidential candidate. But it's also because McCain has become the Sybil of this Presidential election, with a sop to moderates one day and the hard right the next. Of course, on the important issues, he's going to stay with the Bush-Cheney agenda.

But what I really notice about McCain's proposals, even the decent ones, is that they exist on a narrow field where the car-based economy remains prominent. All of his ideas have to do with making cars more efficient, stretching the gallon of gas out of existing structures of transportation using technological advancement and market forces. That's maybe a part of the solution, but if we're going to reduce the cost of transportation and mitigate global warming, we have to find different ways to commute. And those solutions are readily available; in fact, people are already taking advantage of them:

Record prices for gasoline and jet fuel should be good news for Amtrak, as travelers look for alternatives to cut the cost of driving and flying.

And they are good news, up to a point.

Amtrak set records in May, both for the number of passengers it carried and for ticket revenues — all the more remarkable because May is not usually a strong travel month.

But the railroad, and its suppliers, have shrunk so much, largely because of financial constraints, that they would have difficulty growing quickly to meet the demand.

Many of the long-distance trains are already sold out for some days this summer. Want to take Amtrak’s daily Crescent train from New York to New Orleans? It is sold out on July 5, 6, 7 and 8. Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 5? The train is sold out, but Amtrak will sell you a bus ticket.

“We’re starting to bump up against our own capacity constraints,” said R. Clifford Black, a spokesman for Amtrak.

I rode the bus to work twice last week. There's a public meeting about light rail coming into my town this week. People are ready for mass transit solutions that improve stress, quality of life, their personal budgets and environmental damage. The problem is the investment in rail and bus and subway lines is just not there. It won't surprise you to know that John McCain is a longtime opponent of Amtrak.

Barack Obama, however, has lived in a city, has served constituents who mostly commute by train and bus, and understands the external benefits to mass transit. His speech at the US Conference of Mayors stressed all kinds of innovative transit solutions.

Let’s invest that money in a world-class transit system. Let’s re-commit federal dollars to strengthen mass transit and reform our tax code to give folks a reason to take the bus instead of driving to work – because investing in mass transit helps make metro areas more livable and can help our regional economies grow. And while we’re at it, we’ll partner with our mayors to invest in green energy technology and ensure that your buses and buildings are energy efficient. And we’ll also invest in our ports, roads, and high-speed rails – because I don’t want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai, I want to see it built right here in the United States of America.

The entire heading of the speech was a "Metropolitan Strategy" for America. I don't think there's been one before, and it's important that the connections between cities and their outlying metropolitan areas are made. By allowing those who live outside the city center a transportation option outside their cars, we can reduce oil dependence, clean the air and water, mitigate global warming and most importantly improve people's outlook.

Now, Obama isn't perfect on this front. As Ezra Klein noted he mentioned filling the Federal Highway Fund before investing in intercity rail, and his position on ethanol is dispiriting, although inevitable given that winning Iowa was the difference between his winning or losing the nomination. But clearly, the fact that he's at least THINKING about high-speed rail and metro development and mass transit puts him light years ahead of McCain. Then there's the answer to this question.

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

McCain is a caricature about anything outside of his military comfort zone. Obama understands how energy issues threaten our long-term survival, and is going to be aggressive in coming up with alternatives.

LA Transit Ridership At An All-Time High

People have a funny way of adapting. They know that the oil companies are as far from committed to lowering gas prices as possible, so they'll look to lower the cost of commuting rather than search for useless answers to drop gas prices like offshore drilling, which would do absolutely nothing. The Metrolink rail system in LA isn't perfect and doesn't work for everyone, but people are making it work more than ever before.

Commuter rail ridership broke an all-time record this week, and Caltrans reported a dip in freeway traffic as commuters across California struggled with record gas prices.

Metrolink recorded its highest number of riders in a single day ever Tuesday - 50,232 - a 15.6% increase over the same amount of business last year on June 17. Metro Rail ridership last month shot up 6 percent over May 2007, said Dave Sotero, a Metro spokesman.

Meanwhile, Caltrans officials said today that traffic on California freeways dropped 1.5% compared with last year - or the equivalent of a billion fewer miles traveled, said spokesman Derrick Alatorre.

Just that miniscule drop is the difference between gridlock and a relatively smooth ride. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas are being saved. Between all that and not having to be constantly confronted by idiots driving while holding their cell phones, the LA commuting story is a little less bleak.

This is all happening under a BROKEN transit system. Imagine what could happen with a little investment.

Schwarzenegger Says "No Thanks" To Offshore Drilling

Republicans in disarray.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

He called California's coastline "an international treasure" that must be protected by a federal oil-drilling moratorium that has been in place for 27 years.

"We're serious about that, and we're not going to change that," he told reporters and business executives at BIO International, an annual biotechnology industry conference in San Diego.

Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain's presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. In a statement issued earlier in the day, the governor said technological innovations and expanded fuel choices for consumers ultimately will lead the way to reduced fuel costs.

"We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil," Schwarzenegger said in the statement, which referred only to Bush's call for lifting the ban and did not mention McCain.

He missed mass transit and smarter, more dense development, but in the main Arnold is right. Sen. Feinstein and Speaker Bass are quoted in the article as well dismissing the notion of offshore development as a stunt. GOP wingnut-in-charge Dave Cogdill, on the other hand, has a catch phrase:

"Personally, yes, I believe we need to be drilling in our own reserves," Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, said today during a news conference related to the state budget. "We need to use the resources available to us in this country."

He said it would reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and would help drive down the cost of gasoline.

"So I am a very strong supporter, as I think most of my caucus is, in the catch phase 'Drill here, drill now, pay less,'" Cogdill said. "It's certainly a better energy policy relating to the needs of the citizens of the United States."

Except there's little to drill, the oil companies don't want to do any drilling but want the reserves to line their pockets, and the structural problem with a carbon-based economy lingers.

So the real slogan is, "Drill here. Drill now. Run out sooner. Get no benefits for 10 years."

How L.A. Metro Wasted An Hour Of My Life

I'm heartened by the fact that there's a sharp and pronounced move toward mass transit nationwide (the ridership levels are the highest since 1957) in the wake of $4 gasoline. So heartened, in fact, that I wanted to join the movement. My current commute to work is a straight line, rare in Los Angeles, where I could conceivably take Santa Monica Boulevard all the way from my house to the office. I calculated the options for bus service, and figured I could save $2 a day and a gallon of gas worth of carbon emissions (L.A. buses are, for the most part, clean-air vehicles) without an appreciable increase in my commute time. I went on the Metro website and located the proper bus route, and made out this morning to catch my ride.

It never showed up. The bus route initially offered on the site was inaccurate, and a separate bus didn't pick up at the stop offered. There was no corroborating information at the bus stop, and after about a half-hour I just walked home and got in the car.

I believe I've remedied the situation and now see a way clear to using the proper transit system. But the arduousness of the task is the real point. At a time when gridlock is literally making Angelenos insane, and the reduction of just a tiny percentage of cars on the road would alleviate it, at a time when gas is so expensive that violence is breaking out as gas pumps and fuel thieves are resorting to siphoning gas out of engines, the structure of mass transit in the nation's second-largest city is a total embarrassment. I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford the high cost of gasoline and don't need to use public transit; furthermore, I am able to stagger my schedule and the commute is not even that taxing. But I want to ride clean, out of a sense of social responsibility and simple peace of mind. Somehow the entire Northeast corridor can be lined with all sorts of rail systems and we can't get a bus to stop every few blocks on a major artery serving multiple communities (Santa Monica, West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Los Feliz). The city of Los Angeles actually has more density per mile than Portland, Oregon, which has an excellent public transit system. There's no ingenuity put into transit, or resources for that matter, and the overlapping jurisdictions of public officials just dissolve any policy prescription into a squabble among supervisors and city councilmen and the like. They don't even bother to update the signs; guess it's too costly.

On the other hand, there's a freeway in Marina del Rey that's 2 miles long. It's probably the most unused freeway in America. But it had a federal stamp of approval and was an accomplishment local pols could point to, so up it goes.

What character remains in L.A. is being crushed by endless parades of cars and the honking of horns. The society has become hyper-local out of necessity (and actually the best transit systems, like the Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica, serve a small, local area). But that could all change so easily, with a little personal responsibility and a bus that runs on time.

The Green Cultural Movement

I went to the Dwell on Design show over the weekend, a look at home furnishings from the architecture and design magazine. And what amazed me was how foregrounded the green credentials of all the products were. Even in front of the design qualities. From VOC-free paint to tabletops that don't emit radon gas to solar panels to tankless water heaters and on and on, there was practically nothing at this design show that was purely aesthetic.

The green movement is cultural. It's not using the usual measures of politics to gain power, but creating a lifestyle that incorporates eco-friendly elements into it. It's starting in building and re-design, and because of the price of gas is moving quickly into transportation. Both Nissan and Saturn are putting a significant investment into electric cars, and as most Americans expect gas prices to remain high it's very likely they'll buy them and find alternative means of travel.

Of course, this cultural movement is going to leave some people behind. Green technologies are expensive now, and out of reach to many. That's what I thought when I read this article about how rural Americans are suffering the most from higher gas prices. Electric cars aren't coming to the heartland anytime soon. How do we deal with this?

Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.

Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes.

People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.

The disparity between rural America and the rest of the country is a matter of simple home economics. Nationwide, Americans are now spending about 4 percent of their take-home income on gasoline. By contrast, in some counties in the Mississippi Delta, that figure has surpassed 13 percent.

As a result, gasoline expenses are rivaling what families spend on food and housing.

“This crisis really impacts those who are at the economic margins of society, mostly in the rural areas and particularly parts of the Southeast,” said Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at the Oil Price Information Service, a fuel analysis firm. “These are people who have to decide between food and transportation.”

Outside of rebates, I don't know how you deal with that. Building an entirely new energy infrastructure, new bus routes and mass transit, in areas that have none, is prohibitively expensive. A windfall profits tax won't impact these people, at least not to the extent that they can fit transportation cleanly into their budget.

Something to think about.

Traffic As A Quality-of-Life Issue

Barack Obama has been increasingly discussing transit issues in his speeches, name-checking particular mass transit solutions depending on what city he's in. Bill Richardson was actually the best candidate on this during the primaries, and his endorsement has maybe been a catalyst here. But I hope it's more like what Ezra Klein says, that Obama may be divining voter concerns.

How long till traffic becomes a voting issue? Americans spend more time in it every year. They get heart attacks from it. And now, with gas prices well above $100 -- and racing skyward still -- how long till road rage, till driving, till a life spent in the car and a paycheck spent at the pump, become voting issues? Arguably, gas prices are already there. But no politicians has figured out how to do anything with that save promise lower gas prices. But we're not going to lower gas prices. And discontent will only become more intense. Someday, some politician is going to figure out what to do with that, and my hunch in the word "transit" will be a big part of it.

I think Obama has the potential to be that candidate, mainly because he has served inner-city constituents in the Illinois State Senate, who use mass transit often out of financial necessity. It's just easier to recognize the potential of mass transit if your personal environment has it on display.

Living in California, I know well that traffic is a unifying issue. It's the easiest way to break the ice in a conversation with strangers. And Ezra's right, politicians haven't done much to ease concerns about it. Out here it's been all about adding infrastructure to roads, with carpool lanes and additional freeways. From an environmental and just a practical perspective this is the wrong way to go about it. Eisenhower understood the value of transportation issues when he embarked upon the interstate highway system. We need a 21st-century packet of transit options, including light rail, high-speed rail, subways, and express bus services. The rising gas prices just increase pressure on politicians to get something done.

Obama is at least showing an attentiveness to this issue, and that's a big step.