McCain calls to lift U.S. oil drilling ban

WASHINGTON â?? John McCain called Monday for lifting a federal moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and gas â?? a politically sensitive issue in such key states as Florida.
States should decide for themselves whether to permit drilling, McCain said, but they should be given the option to combat what he called an "energy crisis" that saw gas prices reach an average of $4.08 a gallon on Monday.

McCain's plan represents a shift for the presumptive Republican nominee, who supported the offshore drilling ban during his 2000 presidential campaign. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the Arizona senator, said McCain understands that voters want action to meet new problems.

McCain previewed a speech he'll give Tuesday in Houston. He told reporters at a campaign office outside of Washington that he continues to oppose drilling in some areas, including the Alaskan wilderness. "But I certainly think that there are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation," he added.

The senator has also endorsed efforts by congressional Republicans to expand oil and gas drilling in the face of rapidly rising fuel prices. Florida's Republican and Democratic lawmakers â?? led by Gov. Charlie Crist, a prominent McCain supporter â?? have pushed back on those efforts.

Democrat Barack Obama's campaign and environmental groups said McCain's proposal threatens U.S. coastlines and doeslittle to reduce American dependence on foreign oil. Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said McCain's hope to "simply drill our way out of our energy crisis" mimics the approach of the Bush administration.

Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director with the League of Conservation Voters, said McCain should stress alternative fuel sources. "We need to be focused more on increased energy efficiency and on renewable energy sources like wind and solar power."

McCain does supportdevelopment of alternative energy sources, which he'll outline in depth Tuesday and in upcoming energy speeches. "I'll be talking about our dependency on foreign oil, how we can reduce and eventually eliminate it," he said.

Congress imposed a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas drilling in 1981.
McCain calls to lift U.S. oil drilling ban - USATODAY.com

Even though Hurricane Katrina came through the Gulf Coast, not one of the hundreds of oil rigs leaked, despite significant damage to their structures. That means we have the technology to drill safely in the gulf, and we should.
Too dependent on foreign oil? Simple solution: Drill 'er up

The Interior Department estimates that the Outer Continental Shelf has more than 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available for extraction. At current levels of consumption, that would satisfy the nation's oil needs for about 16 years and its natural gas needs for about 25 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/wa...n/09drill.html

And yet we have Canada, China, and India going after the same oil reserves thanks to Cuba. What would happen to oil speculation if the U.S. openly committed itself to drill in these areas not to mention others in the U.S.? Obama-Gore may have visions of a world of "green" but fact is that our truckers, industry, middle and lower class need help NOW! When gas hits $5.00 during the fall election this WILL be a key issue.

Have a good one!:s4:

I doubt McCain had even the remotest prayer of winning California, but with this he can kiss it goodbye for sure. Probably lose Florida too --- that one might hurt.

Florida is paying over $4.00/gal. and California is paying over $4.50/gal. I think in general people are ready to see some beautiful oil rigs driving their price of gas down.

I'll agree with ya anyways on California due to other reasons but as to Florida....Obama will be fighting an uphill battle. Seems that the senior citizen group isn't so much in love with his style of "change".

Hey, we at least agreed on 50% of the issue...that has to be a new record for us...LOL!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Smart move by McCain. It's absolutely necessary in order to lower oil futures.

^ Exactly.

I say drill, drill god damn you!

I keep hearing bitching from people, "But, but it won't even affect us for a few years!"

Well wtf do people think? If it's bad now it could get a lot worse. Drill for the future.

The California coast is well protected by state laws, so if this ban were lifted, it would not change a thing here. What other states have oil offshore that are affected by the current ban? The gulf states? I thought they already had all kinds of offshore drilling, don't they? What does the current ban cover? Anyone know?

In June 1990, President George H. W. Bush responded to concerns about preserving the ocean and coastal environment with a directive ordering the Department of Interior not to conduct leasing or preleasing activity in places other than the Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and limited parts of Alaska offshore until 2000. The moratorium affected virtually all of the coasts of the North Atlantic, California, Washington, Oregon, New England, Mid-Atlantic and the Northern Aleutian Basin. It also included the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Southwest Florida, an area extending 700 miles from Baldwin County, Alabama, southward to the Florida Keys.

Bush's directive expanded a moratorium Congress imposed in 1982 that removed 736,000 acres off the coast of northern and central California from leasing for oil and gas exploration and production. The concern for possible environmental damage and social disruption caused by both routine activities and accidents, such as oil spills, resulted in local pressure to prevent these possibilities by removing areas from the lease schedule. In 1998, President Clinton extended Bush's Executive Order until June 2012.
Moratorium on Offshore Drilling (1990)

The enviromental reasons given were from a spill in "69".....we've come a long way since then as PROVEN with Katrina.

Have a good one!:s4:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone surveyâ??conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% donâ??t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.
Rasmussen Reportsâ?¢: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Seems that this issue has strong support from both sides of the aisle....this is one fight the enviromentalists will lose with the price of gas and fuel oil climbing every day.

Have a good one!:s4:

Nothing wrong with opening up drilling. It won't solve anything though. We still have thousands of wells in this country that aren't even being utilized. Hopefully no new tax encentives for these assholes to start drilling.

Now Bush has jumped in to back up McCain on this one --- so that'll probably kill it. McCain keeps trying to distance himself from Bush and counter Obama's claim that McCain is no different from Bush. And Bush keeps blowing it for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Now Bush has jumped in to back up McCain on this one --- so that'll probably kill it. McCain keeps trying to distance himself from Bush and counter Obama's claim that McCain is no different from Bush. And Bush keeps blowing it for him.

---

I can't stop laughing at this. Almost makes me feel sorry for old man McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I can't stop laughing at this. Almost makes me feel sorry for old man McCain.

---

It is hilarious. Poor McCain. At this point Bush wants the Republican party to win so that the election can be an affirmation of his presidency, but every time he pops in to support McCain, it makes it that much more likely McCain will lose.

Obama says, "McCain is running for Bush's third term."

Then McCain says, "That's preposterous! You're not running against Bush, you're running against me. Here's what I want to do."

Then Bush jumps in to say, "Yeah! That's the right thing to do! That's exactly what I would do if I had a third term!"

Hahahahaha! The same thing kept happening to Gore with Clinton eight years ago. These on-their-way-out Presidents just can't help making it all about themselves....

This is wonderfully funny to watch right now for me, too. My wife pointed the phenomenon out to me last night at the hospital in some of her various papers she'd managed to obtain and then explained what it meant for both sides. The McCain taint by association with Bush is marvelous. Hey, and here on these boards, it tickles me even more to watch how the former Bushies have distanced themselves as well. When the lame duck gets lamer and lamer, well, time to revise those loyalties...

Here's my thinking on the association with Bush, and this is really something Bird pointed out to me. Need to give credit to the sharper political eye here. The lady sees strategy and communications tactics behind the scenes. The association with Bush will harm the McCain v. Obama contest. That's clear.

As Bird explained to me, though, the Bush-McCain connection is going to raise the esteem of McCain. Meaning in the eyes of the stronghold arch-Republican donors and those Rs who're not fully convinced that McCain's conservative enough. That's going to help pull the diehard righties in and help reassure them. They'll persuade others. Those others'll hear reassurance in future Bush validation of McCain and bring subsequent R-side skeptics aboard. More money and support will pour in. So it's going to influence McCain-hating Republicans in a positive way. Birdie says this has all been plotted and calculated by McCain's and Bush's communications and fundraising staffs and is part of their grand plan. I don't know if that's the case or not but assume she's probably right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

This is wonderfully funny to watch right now for me, too. My wife pointed the phenomenon out to me last night at the hospital in some of her various papers she'd managed to obtain and then explained what it meant for both sides. The McCain taint by association with Bush is marvelous. Hey, and here on these boards, it tickles me even more to watch how the former Bushies have distanced themselves as well. When the lame duck gets lamer and lamer, well, time to revise those loyalties...

Here's my thinking on the association with Bush, and this is really something Bird pointed out to me. Need to give credit to the sharper political eye here. The lady sees strategy and communications tactics behind the scenes. The association with Bush will harm the McCain v. Obama contest. That's clear.

As Bird explained to me, though, the Bush-McCain connection is going to raise the esteem of McCain. Meaning in the eyes of the stronghold arch-Republican donors and those Rs who're not fully convinced that McCain's conservative enough. That's going to help pull the diehard righties in and help reassure them. They'll persuade others. Those others'll hear reassurance in future Bush validation of McCain and bring subsequent R-side skeptics aboard. More money and support will pour in. So it's going to influence McCain-hating Republicans in a positive way. Birdie says this has all been plotted and calculated by McCain's and Bush's communications and fundraising staffs and is part of their grand plan. I don't know if that's the case or not but assume she's probably right.

---

That's an interesting take. McCain has had trouble bringing aboard the hard-core conservatives, and has had trouble raising money. So maybe getting closer to Bush would help with that. He needs the orgainzation and the money to run his campaign. But they say the key to a national election is the middle and the independents who might be turned off by a close association to Bush. The balancing act is always to bring aboard the "true believers" who do the hard work of a campaign and raise the money, without going so far as to alienate the middle-of-the-road swing voters. Getting cozy with Bush will maybe help the one and hurt the other.

McCain in my opinion is nothing like Bush.

McCain is in the middle, he is far from being a Conservative Republican (not that Bush is a real Republican, he's a bit Liberal in some of his stances). McCain has screwed Republicans left and right. He's not really getting cozy with Bush and I doubt he will. Taking a few pictures with him does not qualify as anything special.

He'll get money from the Conservative Republicans when it comes down to it however. Republicans don't like McCain but they hate Obama a hell of a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

McCain in my opinion is nothing like Bush.

McCain is in the middle, he is far from being a Conservative Republican (not that Bush is a real Republican, he's a bit Liberal in some of his stances). McCain has screwed Republicans left and right. He's not really getting cozy with Bush and I doubt he will. Taking a few pictures with him does not qualify as anything special.

He'll get money from the Conservative Republicans when it comes down to it however. Republicans don't like McCain but they hate Obama a hell of a lot more.

---

I agree that McCain is nothing like Bush and is far closer to the middle. I'm more of a moderate myself, but a Democrat. So McCain appeals to me a lot more than other Republican candidates have in the past. But all that aside, as a campaign strategy, linking McCain to Bush has worked for Democrats so far, I think. From a campaign point of view, it's not as much about policy, it's about linking him to Bush's unpopularity.

I don't think the whole McCain-Bush thing will stick THAT bad.

Though I do like the counter attack, the whole Obama-Carter thing. Though I don't think that will stick THAT bad either. Though I find this one a lot more suiting.

Well, it might stick but only for people who are already pretty much decided.

Just another bumper sticker political attack.

All the tricks come out of the bag in an election, fair or unafair. Neither comparison is really accurate. But if one or the other looks like it is getting any traction, then they will use it. The problem for McCain is that Bush wants to be part of the election, so it makes the charge harder to shake off.

Since the opinion poll of Bush is low and McCain agrees on offshore oil people therefore won't like McCain. Pretty funny to say the least!

Now lets see...Bush is for the war in Afghanistan the same as the dems and republicans so they all MUST hate each other. Also, 67% of U.S. citizens want offshore oil drilling like McCain and Bush so that leaves quite the minority that hates ALL these people......along with McCain and Bush of course.

Hell, 67% agree with McCain/Bush? Doesn't that mean that McCain just won the popular vote by a landslide?

Have a good one!:s4:

Hehehe this is for the Liberals ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

McCain has screwed Republicans left and right. He's not really getting cozy with Bush and I doubt he will. Taking a few pictures with him does not qualify as anything special.

---

Believe it or not, Rebgirl, McCain hasn't "screwed" Rs as much as you think. Or if he has, he's been an equal opportunity screwer to Ds, too.

If you were able to look at what he's done in his history from both L and R sides equally and removing any degree of bias perspective on each side, you'd likely see that McCain has been an admirable straight shooter and someone who's not been afraid to call an ace and ace, no matter which side of the aisle the card was on. I think the more you learn about history and politics and the older you get, you'll begin to see and respect that level of guts. That's the centrism of maturity.

It is easy to tow a party line and blindly fall in with the general direction of a herd of sheeple and say what's expected or agree. Real courage and leadership often means going against the herd--sometimes even your own herd if you think it's misguided--and standing up for truth or justice or something you believe is morally right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

Believe it or not, Rebgirl, McCain hasn't "screwed" Rs as much as you think. Or if he has, he's been an equal opportunity screwer to Ds, too.

If you were able to look at what he's done in his history from both L and R sides equally and removing any degree of bias perspective on each side, you'd likely see that McCain has been an admirable straight shooter and someone who's not been afraid to call an ace and ace, no matter which side of the aisle the card was on. I think the more you learn about history and politics and the older you get, you'll begin to see and respect that level of guts. That's the centrism of maturity.

It is easy to tow a party line and blindly fall in with the general direction of a herd of sheeple and say what's expected or agree. Real courage and leadership often means going against the herd--sometimes even your own herd if you think it's misguided--and standing up for truth or justice or something you believe is morally right.

---

I do respect him. I don't always agree with him but I respect him and his service for our country. With McCain I feel feel he bended to a lot of pressure when he was picked to lead the Republicans to victory. And that's a shame because I believe that there should be a mix of left and right. I mean that's why I'm Libertarian. I'm for gay rights and "drugs" which many on the right aren't for. And I'm certainly not religious and I feel that contradicts a lot with Conservative values.

I'm glad he's standing up for what he believes in but I don't agree with what he's standing up for. Especially now that he is throwing himself at the Conservative base for acceptance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone surveyâ??conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% donâ??t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.
Rasmussen Reportsâ?¢: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Seems that this issue has strong support from both sides of the aisle....this is one fight the enviromentalists will lose with the price of gas and fuel oil climbing every day.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

One thing about this is that even if a vast majority of the country were to favor offshore drilling, people in the states affected are far more likely to be against it and in a position to prevent it. I don't think the Congress willl vote for what Bush and McCain are calling for. But even if they do, I don't think you will see any new drilling off of California, and Florida is pretty iffy too.

Another point about this information is that even if a person believes new drilling will bring down the cost of gas, they still might not personally be for it. I do not favor offshore drilling, even if it does bring down the price of gas. The full cost of extracting oil or coal is not reflected in the price we pay for the commodity. Usually that extra cost is in the form of environmental degradation as the point of extraction. So the economics may be that we all pay less for gas if we have offshore drilling, but the people along the coast pay for it in the form of polution, oil spills, erosion, etc. A lot of the people who actually live on these coasts don't want to pay that price so that everyone else can enjoy marginally cheaper gas.

^ Drilling today is much more environmentally friendly than it used to be. Especially because they follow the EPA's strick standards.

But yeah I believe the actual state should control the final decisions but if they refuse they should have no right to bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

. . . . I believe that there should be a mix of left and right. I mean that's why I'm Libertarian. I'm for gay rights and "drugs" which many on the right aren't for. And I'm certainly not religious and I feel that contradicts a lot with Conservative values.

---

Gay rights
Legalization of drugs
Separation of church and state

Where do you stand on women's reproductive freedoms?
Environmental issues?

Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I'm glad he's standing up for what he believes in but I don't agree with what he's standing up for. Especially now that he is throwing himself at the Conservative base for acceptance.

---

Well, I think perhaps you do agree with some of the things he's standing up for, like lifting the moratorium on drilling and such. At least you seemed to agree with that earlier here. Perhaps there are others which you do not.

I agree that he is throwing himself at the conservative base. He has to win this election. With luck, I'm hoping he can bring some more sanity and moderation to that arch-right group in the process, even in this election. Republicans all used to be a lot more like McCain than what we see in modern-day Bush/Cheney. President Bush's grandfather Prescott, although a Republican, was one of the most reasonable and moderate senators this country has ever had. The media-influenced polarization we have is not good for this country. It's damaging here, too, but in the scheme of things, relatively uninfluential on this site.

I am for complete women's right. Abortion, birth control, it's all a women's choice.

And I'm all for protecting the environment, only a fool wouldn't be. I really disagree with a lot of the Global Warming thing however I'm still for doing all we can. Like hydrogen cars and solar power and even simple around the home stuff.

I do agree with some of his views, like guns, no socialised healthcare, less welfare, low taxes, the war and a few other things.

And I agree, the media has gotten out of control. It's sad to say but people are very inpresionable and they will follow these news people's every word. Slogans define who our next president is.

Things have gotten out of hand.

If you don't think Global Warming is serious......

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf