A couple recent ads from John McCain's campaign have drawn much fire from the MSM, which has declared their content unfair and too snarky.
First, the latest one:
Now, the precursor with a similar theme:
These ads turn comfortable conventional wisdom on its ear. Indeed, the lovable maverick of 2000 would never say such things about the Second Coming Barack Obama. Yet, this election only turns John McCain's way if he pops the protective bubble of Obama's celebrity.
This will grate on some people, even some Republicans like former McCain advisor John Weaver. And yes, if such ads are running in October then McCain is probably in a very bad place since by that time he'll have to be running on a forward looking agenda.
But for now, this election really is all about Obama. His celebrity status has to be confronted and by all means, he has to be beaten over the head with the one domestic issue where the GOP has a clear advantage: access to affordable, domestic energy.
That's why even as the tone of McCain's ads evolve over time (which they should), the lines like that near the end of the second ad above remain so powerful:
"Don't hope for more energy. Vote for it."
The talking heads in pretty studios will tut-tut, but it's a message that has to be delivered in these weeks of summer when many voters are still gathering information about Obama. Plus, it's not as if all the media attention hurts. The first ad above was already approaching 556,000 YouTube views as of this typing...and the ad only came out today.
UPDATE: first sentence edited for clarity.
UPDATE II: I see Patrick Ruffini has some similar thoughts on the theme of these ads.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 30, 2008 10:28 PM | Email ThisKeep it up McCain, you've struck a nerve. The truth hurts.
November 2008 is a referendum on energy and continuing growth in the USA. If you want to see success, vote for McCain and Energy.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2008 10:34 PMAnd Eric's ''Don't hope for more energy: Vote for it.'' line is very good. Ditto Jeff B.'s making this election a referendum on energy and growth. More and more this looks to me to be one of if not THE defining ''bread and butter'' issue in this election, that may just give McCain the opening to pull off a win in the EC.
And (R)s should hammer Obama without mercy on his fumble that was mentioned previously; about how we could make up for not drilling off our coasts by just properly inflating all car tires. Stuff like that is what happens, when a guy who is only used to crusing at 30,000 feet in his speeches tries to get down to the level of a street fight.
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 30, 2008 10:51 PMNow THAT'S a good line. You go, McCain! More of that! Keep telling the truth about "higher taxes, more foreign oil dependence Obama"
Posted by: Michele on July 30, 2008 11:17 PMPS--where can I get the "Don't hope for more energy et al" bumper sticker???? THAT inspires me.
Posted by: Michele on July 30, 2008 11:20 PMGeeee and I thought this guy was smart?? LOL
Dang, them Dem's said Gore was smart, then Kerry was smart and Hillary too.
More like a lightweights!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 31, 2008 06:06 AMIf left to the pundits like Chris Matthew's who has a "furrowing sensation up his leg" when in Obama's prescence, then McCain is doomed in November's election.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 31, 2008 06:27 AMI don't see how. Maybe I am too unconventional to see it.
Indeed, the lovable maverick of 2000 would never say such things about Barack Obama.
Are you serious? I don't see why not.
he has to be beaten over the head with the one domestic issue where the GOP has a clear advantage: access to affordable, domestic energy.
I think that is the weakest part of the ad. Not that it shouldn't be mentioned, but I think the best advantage McCain has is that he wants to make government smaller, and Obama wants to make it bigger.
Yes, that is harder to fit into a 30 second commercial than "don't hope for more oil, vote for it," but it's also a much more powerful message, because the Democratic response that more drilling won't do *enough* to help is also, to many people, compelling: it doesn't make Obama's position look any better, but it takes away from the urgency of McCain's position.
Absolutely on target ads - good for the McCain group.
Posted by: Dick on July 31, 2008 07:13 AMI hope he doesn't wait as long as Clinton did.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 07:37 AMI do think Obama is the second coming though. The second coming of Jimmy Carter that is.
Posted by: Vince on July 31, 2008 07:37 AMit's a big word, but pudge likes to use it, so perhaps we should use it in ALL appropriate circumstances.
"This ad asserts a McCain campaign talking-point that Obama wouldn’t make time for wounded troops unless cameras were allowed to follow him, but did make time to work out at a gym. This, of course, is a lie. It’s a blatant lie."
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 09:20 AM"The McCain camp wants voters to believe that Obama's "arrogance" befits his "celebrity" and makes him "selfish"--unlike (you guessed it) McCain, who always puts "Country First." Or so his slogan says. The only problem? It makes just as much sense to call McCain an elitist as Obama. Nevermind that the Illinois senator is a bi-racial child from a broken family raised in a modest single-parent household. Or that there are plenty of "country clubs" still unwilling to accept African-Americans as members. Or that the last "celebrity" to occupy the Oval Office was Ronald Reagan, McCain's hero. Simply imagine the memo David Axelrod could send to reporters about the Republican nominee. "Only a celebrity of John McCain's magnitude could star on blockbuster television shows like '24' and appear in big-budget motion pictures like 'Wedding Crashers,'" it would read. "These are not campaign commercials or news interviews, but major Hollywood productions--which is no surprise, given that he's pals with Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lorne Michaels. Only celebrities like John McCain own seven homes, date Brazilian models, marry blond heiresses worth $100 million, attend Virginia's tony "old boy" Episcopal High School, forget the last time they pumped their own gas and wear $520 black calfskin loafers by Ferragamo." Get the picture?"
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 09:24 AM"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags...For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness...There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 09:33 AMI have come to the conclusion over the past week or so that McCain is going to win this election. The fact that Obama cannot pull ahead of McCain at this point is telling. He appears to have a ceiling of just under 50% of the vote.
The voters are unhappy with the Republicans, but they aren't sure about the Democrats. And with Iraq going better and the GDP growth number of 2%, they may become a little less unhappy with the Republicans. With the Democrats offering no serious energy policy, higher taxes even if they hurt growth, and a weak foreign policy, the Republicans may win this election just because they are not the Democrats. It won't be the first time I voted Republican just because they aren't the Democrats.
Posted by: brent boger on July 31, 2008 10:11 AMhttp://prestekdesignservices.com/pds/Transfer/publik/
Next go to http://www.zazzle.com/custom/bumperstickers
click on the "get started button" and upload this art to make your very own high quality vinyl bumper sticker. $3.95 a pop, cheaper if you order more. Or you can just print it out on a piece of paper and stick it to your bumper. You choice.
For the personal use or anybody who wants to use it, not to be sold to others or for profit.
While the cost of continued occupation of Iraq as of DOD FY 2007 is $238,425 per minute. What a bargain.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 31, 2008 10:14 AMBut the Republicans will be more worried about the reactions of the liberal media. Who cares about them? They certainly shouldn't. The last thing Republicans should worry about is what big city liberals think. The majority that elected Reagan is what they should care about, if only they will take their message to the people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 31, 2008 10:57 AMApparently people don't care about your message, given that Obama and McCain are tied. With all the media hype and focus over the last two weeks on Obama's "triumphant" trip, he's gotten nothing.
Class warfare appears to be failing, your rant against ExxonMobil (who, for every dollar in profit PAYS $2.50 in taxes) notwithstanding.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2008 11:05 AMYou notice that NO-one say's zip about how much money the Gov get's from these profits.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 31, 2008 11:21 AMWell, yay! You say this like it's a bad thing. You don't like American companies making profits?
Fact: Going to Landshtul Hospital was scheduled by Oliar.
Fact: When told he couldn't make a campaign event of it, he canceled.
Fact: Instead, he wound up playing basketball at the Ritz-Carlton gym.
No matter WHAT his reasons for failing to visit the troops... those injured and wounded warriors who put their collective asses on the line for THIS country, something that scumbag Oliar is completely unfamiliar with... THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO CHOSE A WORKOUT OVER VISITING OUR WOUNDED TROOPS.
There. You get it? Have I stated it simply enough that even the more moronic among us understand? This arrogant, race-baiting, empty-suited, anti-American scumbag bailed on the troops so he could go play basketball.
And no amount of fringe-left whack-job spin can change any of that.
That the MSM are doing everything they can to spin this for their boy is meaningless. What the MSM thinks of this is meaningless. The FACTS speak for themselves... and the Oliar message of utter disdain for our military has been both sent... and received.
Posted by: hinton on July 31, 2008 11:28 AMIt is too late for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi with their abysmally low congressional rating. More and more of the electorate are figuring it out.
Democrats = Obfuscation of Energy, HIgh Gas Prices, Do Nothing or Do Unfeasible with regard to Energy, No Nukes, Pander To Greens, etc.
If you want energy and the continuance of our way of life, don't vote Democrat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2008 11:28 AMIt's the hard truth for Democrats. Their leadership is blocking usage of our own resources. Democrats love to point out the troubles we have had supporting the Saudi regime. But if that's the case, our best hope is to tap the billions of barrels of shale oil, coastal oil, etc. that give us many times over the reserves of the Saudis.
Barack Obama's solution is to check your tire pressure. Laughable. This is going to be the key issue in November, and the Democrats have already assured their demise.
When I watch this video, I think of dinesh, demo kid, daniel k, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2008 11:56 AMWhile the one ad tries to compare the emptiness of Obama with Spears and Hilton, it takes the Grand Master of the Kingdom of Obama to turn it into a racist comment about black (in his case, semi-) men and white women.
Barry, I am insulted and so are two of my good friends who have had successful bi-racial marriages.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 11:59 AMDid you also see that XOM is getting hit in the stock market because they didn't make as much as analysts expected?
XOM shares are down about %13 so far this year, and an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst said that this has been one of the worst years ever for Exxon Mobile. Full story here.
Also did you know that Exxon/Mobile has an effective income tax rate of 49% (up from 44% last year)? Why would government ever want these guys to make less money when government is cutting the pie down the middle?
Second, prove it is a lie. The facts are evident: he wasn't allowed to bring cameras or campaign staff, and after he found that out, he canceled his trip to visit the wounded troops.
So, make up your own reason for why he canceled his trip. Obama's people say it was because he didn't want to exploit the troops. But since he couldn't bring the cameras or campaign staff, what would be exploitative about it?
McCain's explanation makes a lot more sense than Obama's, and is perfectly valid given the facts.
Call it a lie if you must, but you can't back it up, unlike how I backed up the fact that you lied about McCain and the Keating Five (and you still refuse to fully acknowledge it).
dinesh, seriously, you suck at this.
Acid Brain,
Liberals love to moan about the evil Big Oil, and how it has obscene profits. NO ONE should make such obscene profits, but let’s look at the reality of the situation…
For starters, let’s define what a liberal considers an obscene profit. Answer the following question:
If company A sold $1,000 worth of product and got to keep $146, and company E sold $1,000 and got to keep $101, who is making the obscene profit? Who should get the punitive windfall tax for making too much profit? Who is price-gouging? Why does company A get to make 145% more profit than company E?
What if company A paid only $60 in taxes on that $1000, but company E paid $250 on their $1,000 – over 4 times as much tax! Who is the potential tax dodge? Which company is not paying “their fair share”, and which company is probably getting a LOT more benefits from the Government? The only who pays just 6% in taxes, or the one who pays 25%?
And what if company A sold $1,000 of product and got to keep the full $146, but company E actually sold $14,000 and got to keep $1,410 - is the $1,410 obscene? Company E has $1,410 to company A’s $146, but company E also had 14 times the sales of company A!
Now let’s put names to company A and company E. Company A is a recognized world-wide brand. It is seen as highly progressive, in touch with progressive politics. In fact, it’s board features a past Democrat vice president and Nobel laureate. Company A is Apple, with the face of modern environmentalism, Al Gore, sitting on its board.
Company E? Company E is the evil ExxonMobil – the biggest American oil company.
Where did those numbers I use come from? They come from the annual reports of the companies.
In 2007 (click the “Annual Data” link in the upper right corner), Apple had $24 billion in sales. Of that $24 billion, they paid $1.5 billion in taxes, and kept $3.5 billion. That is the 6% tax rate and 15% profit.
In 2007, (go to page 40 of the PDF), ExxonMobil had $404 billion in sales. Of that $404 billion, they paid a total of $102 BILLION in taxes (add the sales based taxes, other taxes and duties, and income taxes). Basically one of every four dollars in revenue was just to cover taxes. And they made $40 billion overall.
So who is price gouging? Apple keeps a LOT more of their revenue, in terms of percentage. And ExxonMobil pays a lot more in taxes! In fact, for every dollar ExxonMobil makes, they pay $2.50 in taxes. Who really is getting the windfall profits? Considering the Government makes $100 billion from ExxonMobil, and the OWNERS of ExxonMobil – the shareholders, you and me – only make $40 billion, I would say the Government is getting the windfall profits.
So why did ExxonMobil make so much absolute dollars? It’s simple – they sold a LOT of product. $400 BILLION in sales. They sell a lot of oil. A LOT OF OIL. If you have big sales, you have big profits, in absolute numbers. But it does not follow that you have big profit margins – that is the key! A company making 10% on their sales is pretty common (the DJIA average is 11.2%). There is nothing obscene about that level of profit.
What is obscene is a 25% GROSS tax rate. Especially when you consider that remaining $40 billion – which is given to the owners of stock as dividends – is further taxed at a 15% capital gains rate. Factor that in, and the total tax load for ExxonMobil’s owners – 401K plans, retirement investment groups, individual stock holders, mutual funds – is 27%. Literally 27 cents of every dollar that comes to ExxonMobil or its owners (and 98% of ExxonMobil is owned by people not employed by ExxonMobil) goes to the Government.
So we now see that the liberals in Congress – railing against Big Oil, and demonizing ExxonMobil – really are the leeches themselves. ExxonMobil is their scapegoat; Government is the one making obscene profits on the back of ExxonMobil’s work!
Furthermore, they can 'make' as much profit as they want - no issue there as far as I'm concerned. It's in their incessant whining about needing to dismantle environmental protections in order to make their product less expensive and their enterprise viable. It's baloney logic and your points illustrate it. The idea that these mega entities are able to twist this fact and sell it back downstream as some kind of celebration of the independent American spirit is despicable and disingenuous.
Thanks for sharing the pdfs, you make some great points in there.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 31, 2008 02:57 PMserious conservatives (as opposed to party hacks) have expressed concern about mccain for a long while (note that he didn't win in 2000) and were less than enthusiastic about his nomination. there are reasons for the lack of enthusiasm.
now the he is your candidate, you've done what you must and put on blinders and gone into the 'shill for mccain' business.
i am happy with obama's chances in november. based on his campaign's operations versus those of mccain's, i trust that obama will effectively point out that mccain's best days as a political leader are behind him and that our country's future has been too severely compromised by a republican party which says one thing and does another.
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 03:16 PM
McCain == Low Road Express
Plain and simple. McCain has forgone the straight talk for Bush-like/Rove-like lying. Yes Pudge, lying plain and simple. Want examples: see the Low Road Express, see the fact that on George Steph's show he stated that he was open to raising Soc. Security taxes (everything is on the table), yet days later stated he would not raise taxes. It is just like his being against off-shore drilling before he is now for it.
Give me a break here, if you don't like Obama, that is one thing, but to put up with the Bush/Rove-like crap from McCain is another. Bob Barr is a better candidate than McCain is turning out to be.
Posted by: tc on July 31, 2008 03:26 PMif you believe this assertion (who is responsible for higher gas prices? obama! obama!), then maybe we are doomed as a country....
short skirts and pom pom time--here come the cheerleaders/apologists!
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 03:30 PMBut because the democrat morons settled for this waste of skin to be their candidate, he has assumed the responsibility for impacting FUTURE prices... prices he would keep artificially high because of HIS dogged insistence, even against MASSIVE democrat rank and file support, to continue the totally bizarre ban on drilling where there are known and large oil reserves because he's kowtowing to the fringe left, moveoff.org types.
There. Let me know if I may be of further assistence.
Posted by: hinton on July 31, 2008 03:37 PMYawn. Throw around all the insults you like, but as you are apparently INCAPABLE of admitting that McCain did not, in fact, do the things you said he did, that it has been proven he did not do, why should anyone care what you have to say?
Once again: you said McCain admitted to intentionally filing a false tax return. You still refuse to take back that lie. You did take back the lie that McCain was formally reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, and you took back your false innuendo that McCain lied about his relationship with Keating, so why is it so hard to take back your other lies?
You've been so fully wrong, it's not like you should have any pride to protect at this point. So why the problem?
You refuse to actually discuss the issues, and instead insisting on spreading lies. So who is the "hack" here? (Don't bother answering, everyone else already knows.)
Once again, I am perfectly willing to discuss eevrything about Keating with you. You just have to take back all the lies you told. Shouldn't be that hard. I've given you multiple opportunities.
This is from the Tennessee Repub. party (I saw on Michelle Malkin's web site). I ordered 3
Posted by: ajday on July 31, 2008 04:08 PMafter 7.x years of bush/cheney, you guys actually believe that people will believe this mccain ad that suggests barack (the junior senator from illinois with insufficient experience) is responsible for higher gas prices?
No, but his Party - the Democrats - are responsible for higher gas prices. You do realize that since May 2001 President Bush has been calling for increased production here at home, to alleviate the increasing gas prices.
Thanks to the obstructionist Democrats we've gotten ourselves in a fine pickle. Imagine how much better we'd be if the Democrats actually cared about America first, and were willing to sit down and talk about an energy policy.
But no, the Party of Slavery needs to have something to keep the masses enslaved...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2008 04:19 PMI once had a bumpersticker that said "Thank me I voted for George Bush" on my Jeep and some crazy lady behind me yelled at me (I found it highly amusing) - but the NRA stickers seem to keep them at bay for the most part
Posted by: ajday on July 31, 2008 04:39 PMOil prices could come down tomorrow had the Reps voted to release some of the billions of gallons of oil in our Strategic Reserve. Tomorrow. Not waiting years for drilling. And yet, that didn't happen.
There's no national program to get us on the road to energy independence and yet, all by themselves, Americans are driving less. Think what would happen if we actually had a government that would help the process and not whine about it.
I can't wait for the debates.
You're not quite the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
Oil was $50 a barrel with the Democrats took Congress in January, 2007. Now it's up past $120 a barrel.
President Bush has been calling for more drilling and exploration since 2001, but the obstructionist Democrats won't let that happen.
Note that the current price started dropping on July 14th, 2008. It was $147 per barrel on that day; now in just 16 days it's dropped nearly 20%, down to $123 a barrel.
Why? What happened on the 14th? President Bush removed the executive order banning offshore drilling.
Guess what - the MARKET responded! The potential for increased supply immediately damped the long-term price of oil. And it would keep dropping if the Party of Slavery, the Democrats, would agree to at least talk about offshore drilling.
But no, the mantra is "we can't drill ourselves out of this problem". Which is complete bunk. We can, if the Democrats would get out of the way. We have 280 YEARS of PROVEN reserves sitting in this country. Yes, we could consume our daily 20 million barrels and not run out for at least 280 years.
But that wouldn't be good, because a healthy economy is bad for the Democrats. So they'll keep you enslaved to the pump.
Now, you bray about releasing some oil from the SPR. OK, let's do that. How long can we do that for? The SPR has exactly 35 DAYS of fuel in it. That's it.
So your solution - the boneheaded idea proffered by Pelosi and Reid - is to draw down our rainy day "fund" of oil for a quick fix. And the market would ignore the effort since it's a known, VERY short term supply.
And once it's gone, then what? What do you propose we do in the 35 days? Can we get more windmills on line? More solar panels? Can we switch from oil for all our cars?
Just like the former attorney general, spend spend SPEND! Kill that savings account, destroy the rainy day fund, and tax and control to the max.
Democrats - the "gimme gimme GIMME" party. All about instant gratification with zero consideration for the future. Why, they'll just squeeze more blood from the turnips they call "voters".
If Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats - including the uniquely unqualified and inexperienced Barack Obama - wanted to lower gas prices, they could do two things immediately:
1. Remove ALL Federal taxes on the production and sale of gasoline. That would save $1.15 per gallon IMMEDIATELY. Gas back under $3 a gallon, tomorrow. Simple vote, and have it take effect immediately.
2. Open up exploration. The shock through the world markets would see oil drop at least another $40 a barrel, and we'd have gas under $2 a gallon.
But no, the Democrats want us to feel pain, they want to control society and energy is a good way to attempt to seize control. They'll destroy the economy and the country all so they can gain power...
We can be 100% energy independent for the next 3 centuries if the Democrats would allow it to happen. But that's not bad for the Bush Administration, so screw the public and keep the resources locked up.
Frauds and liars all. Pelosi promised she'd lower the price of gas when she took control - how's that workin there, Nancy?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2008 05:34 PMThis is how it works. This is obvious. This is well-known. People who deny it are ignorant or lying.
Posted by: pudge on July 31, 2008 09:11 PMThe Dems are out for the big power grab, just as they feel the Bush Administration did, so that makes them feel justified to obstruct offshore drilling and as rumor has it to re-legislate the fairness doctrine if they get control of the Executive and Legislative branches.
However, there is a battle within and an external source may not need to invade America to weaken this country because it will be weakened from within by polarization and partisan attacks. I just hope that in the heat of the Election 2008 campaign that the left especially can be less self-centered and think about the consequences of divisiveness and Clintonesque slash and burn politics and this tide can be stemmed then and after new elected take office. However, that is probably asking too much mainly because the moonbats know no self-control or shame.
Posted by: KS on July 31, 2008 09:49 PMYes, when McCain puts out legitimate campaign points, it is "low-ball." When Obama lies about McCain, you defend it to the death.
Yawn.
I am curious how you equate increased drilling (either off-shore or in ANWR) will ease the future's market
Um.
Uhhhhhh.
Dude.
Increased supply == decreased price. The equation could not be much simpler, or more obvious.
The small percentage increase in oil production here doesn't necessarily ease the long term demand
No one ever said it does. In fact, you are not going far enough: increased production does not ease any demand, in any term, at all. It actually slightly increases demand, as we need to use oil to get the oil. However, what it DOES give us (the global market), obviously, is increased supply against that demand.
Let's call demand D, and supply S. The "small percentage increase" in production raises "S" more than it raises "D." Therefore, the difference between S and D, expressed primarily as a thing we call "price," is reduced.
The futures market is behaving based on the global demand for oil and the perceived limit in overall global reserves.
Yes. And the perceived limit increases if we increase our production.
We already saw this JUST in the last couple of weeks: Bush announced we could drill offshore, and -- surprise to you, but not to most of us -- the price came down.
The off-shore argument and ANWR argument do not solve the bigger picture. They also do not solve the global demand picture.
Correct: neither of these things will give us an endless supply of oil. So what? No one ever said it would. (Please look up "straw man fallacy.")
China's demand growth far exceeds any gain in additional oil provided by additional off shore drilling.
Your point is ... what?
I'll tell you what your implied point necessarily is: that because something will not completely solve our energy problem, it is therefore not worth doing.
I am certain I do not need to point out how nonsensical your point is.
Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2008 07:46 AMThere's nothing new under the sun.
Here is a page outline various economist's viewpoints on the question. As you can see, it is not an issue where economists agree. The key factor to recognize is that this is not the 1970's. China (mostly) and other developing nations have changed the equation when it comes to oil. We can't bury our heads in the sand and think 1970's solutions will solve today's problems.
Posted by: tc on August 1, 2008 08:45 AM... the supply and demand lines are curves (i.e., not straight lines). Increase supply may not necessarily decrease price.
Yes, adding one barrel of oil will not change the price. That is not an interesting point to make. Surely you do not believe tens of billions (on the low side) would not change the price. It may not change it much, but it will change it, absolutely and necessarily.
As you stated, demand may go up.
I did not state that. What I stated is that increased supply won't decrease demand.
Regardless, demand WILL go up, of course, at least in the short term.
What increasing the supply may do is delay the future need to move to alternative energy sources
Which is a good thing, of course, since we do not yet have alternative energy sources to replace oil.
but given China's current growth rate, this delay will be very short term.
Shrug. Bettter than nothing.
As you can see, it is not an issue where economists agree.
Any economist who does not agree that tens of billions (and perhaps more) of oil pumped into the supply will not move prices downward is not worth listening to.
We can't bury our heads in the sand and think 1970's solutions will solve today's problems.
Again with your straw man. NO ONE IS SAYING IT WILL SOLVE THE OIL PROBLEM. Stop implying falsehoods please.
To be blunt, you're an idiot.
Do you not know that the US has two TRILLION barrels of PROVEN reserves here? At current total US demand (20 million barrels a day), we have 280 YEARS of oil. Every drop we'd need, right here.
And each of those barrels can be had for under $40 a barrel. Yes, $40 a barrel - 1/3rd of today's price.
Within 3 years, we could have 3 million barrels a day additional DOMESTIC production. Guaranteed. And within 10 years, we could have the full 20 million barrels rolling every day, guaranteed.
It's called OIL SHALE. We have 62% of the world's proven reserves. Two TRILLION barrels. More than the oil reserves in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia combined. No shortage, no huge prices needed.
And this does NOT include ANWR or the offshore regions, which would bring on-line another 150 billion barrels of reserves.
Why is the price high? Supply is not meeting demand. Simple fact - Pudge can't lay it out any clearer than that.
So when faced with a too high price, you have two options:
1. Reduce demand
2. Increase supply
Apparently the Slavery Party, the Democrats, are choosing number 1. To hell with our economy, with industry, with technology. Screw the public. Raise the price higher and higher to destroy demand. Who cares if the economy is tanked.
The better option would be number 2 - increase supply. We could start in 3 years, before the next President finishes his first term.
If you want to push for alternatives, great! Start working on them. And when they are a suitable replacement for oil, then by all means let's switch over. However, why strangle ourselves in the mean time?
Do you realize that if the obstructionist party, the Democrats, were really putting America first they would immediately lift the offshore ban AND the ban on oil shale development. Why?
1. We'd have our own massive reserves - no longer beholden to another country for our energy. No need to buy a drop from anyone.
2. We'd be a NET EXPORTER of oil, bringing in billions of dollars a DAY in exports (and coincidentally, taxes). Consider that HALF of our trade deficit is for purchase of oil; that half goes away. And with the export of oil, the other half is pretty much eliminated. No more trade deficit.
3. We'd guarantee the oil production would be the cleanest in the world, with the fewest environmental disasters around. Who do you trust more? American companies, on American soil, with American oversight, and American technology to deal with any problems that arise? Or the Chinese drilling in Africa and Cuba? The Russians drilling in the 'stans and the Black Sea?
But no, that's not acceptable. That doesn't kow-tow to the environmental extremists, and it doesn't give the Democrats a chance to make the current Administration look bad!
Hey, here's a thought Donks - how about trying to make yourself look GOOD for a change, rather than making the other guy look bad?
Silly idea, I know...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 1, 2008 01:14 PMAgain, with the conservative brain trust! Sorry... even the President's spokespeople have said that this wasn't really what happened. If prices go up, demand goes down, supply goes up, and prices go down. It's not a system in equilibrium, and assuming that the President's announcement would make a lick of difference when he doesn't have the final say on things is just eleven kinds of stupid.
And apparently the conservative solution to an energy crisis continues this level of genius! This single-minded focus on oil is crazy, and getting new supply online in 7-10 years will not address the fact that our economy is very sensitive to shocks and spikes in that market. Let alone, of course, the fact that we're essentially (indirectly) funneling money to Venezuela, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Iran, and would continue to do so if drilling is the only thing on our minds.
Better to invest in drastic efficiency improvements and alternative power now, while the price of oil is still manageable enough for cheaper construction.
Posted by: demo kid on August 1, 2008 01:41 PMDrop in demand... even neoclassical economists realize that the economy is dynamic. Jack up prices, people economize, demand drops, prices go down.
Besides, there are plenty of other pieces of news that could have affected oil prices, and didn't...
@79: Estimates are California off shore drilling could be up and running in about 11 months using existing dormant platforms, and in about 18 months off the coast of Florida. So stop parroting the talking points of ten years or more. It is just not true.
You're thinking is interesting, but only in a very limited sense. Are you actually suggesting that all of the expansion in drilling could be done completely from existing platforms? And would the impact on the market be worthwhile enough to encourage this in the short-term? Given trends in demand and the narrow margins of supply, I'm not imagining that the price effects would really be significant enough to notice... and even with large-scale drilling, it's less a way to control energy prices, and more a way for certain companies to make a whole mess of money.
Now, in all honestly, I like the "Gang of Ten" approach. Modest offshore drilling is a concession that I can take, as long as the royalties and tax breaks from the oil companies aren't revenue that's being pissed away by the government. If we're going to be providing for this kind of expansion, there is no reason why the government windfalls shouldn't be diverted towards expanding elements of energy infrastructure so that the economy can be more resilient to spikes in energy prices.
Posted by: demo kid on August 1, 2008 06:22 PMNo one, except for people against McCain or Bush, or against increasing oil production, believes that the announcement did not influence lower prices. NO ONE.
Everyone who is neutral believes it did. EVERYONE.
You are, clearly, willing to claim ANYTHING contributed to lower prices other than something you dislike. You have no actual argument, just "I don't think it did." But it did. Get over it.
You would be far better off in talking about how the impact of such an announcement is small and temporary, than in denying the obvious.
As to no more government subsidies for oil companies, I doubt you'll get many arguments here, though personally, I see no reason why we should "divert" "windfalls" instead of, you know, simply *not spending it* on new or expanded programs, considering we have a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars already. I know it is hard for government people to not-spend, but the rest of us shouldn't have that problem.
Everyone?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/mccain-give-bush-credit-for-oil-price-drop/
Asked about McCain's comments today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino replied, "I don't know that we fully deserve the credit, but I do think in was important to send a signal to the market that we are serious about moving forward."
You are right in that the effect of the announcement was "small and temporary", if there was an effect at all. But you can't really argue causation here, especially given the actual results of that announcement on the ground... which pretty much amounted to nothing. What exactly about that would provide *that* much of a fluctuation in *global* energy prices?
Go back to playing the guitar... you have no future as an armchair economic analyst.
As to no more government subsidies for oil companies, I doubt you'll get many arguments here, though personally, I see no reason why we should "divert" "windfalls" instead of, you know, simply *not spending it* on new or expanded programs, considering we have a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars already. I know it is hard for government people to not-spend, but the rest of us shouldn't have that problem.
If you were advocating building something like a gold statue to yourself with that extra revenue, then yeah, sure... I'd be wary. Heck, I'd be concerned about supporting a lot of programs, new spending, or even existing spending with a revenue stream like that. However, not using that revenue to ensure that the energy infrastructure in this country is secure for the long term is remarkably stupid. If this is a nonrenewable resource, we're not going to be able to depend on it for a constant stream of revenue in the long term. If we can help to support energy independence with the windfalls from exploiting energy resources, such that we can recover cost savings later, how is that economically foolish?
And most other governments that receive royalties from oil exploitation actually, you know, do something to address the fact that this resource will not always be there. Merely using this to cut your taxes seems remarkably short-sighted.
Posted by: demo kid on August 1, 2008 07:50 PMDrop in demand... even neoclassical economists realize that the economy is dynamic. Jack up prices, people economize, demand drops, prices go down.
Now DK, are you ready to eat some crow? Check out the world production AND the world consumption. Production - what we "supply" in the economics world - is down. Consumption - what is known as "demand" - is up.
US consumption is down, but worldwide consumption is up. And oil is a global commodity; it owes no allegiance to a specific country.
The drop in price is DIRECTLY traceable to the President's statement, as it has a significantly impact on the potential for enormous reserves to come on-line. That is, if Pelosi and Reid - corrupt to the core both - will listen to their own constituents and the general population and actually allow exploration.
You're shown here to be FACTUALLY wrong, trying to spin spin spin away with the Slavery Party's line - that it was ANYTHING but the President's announcement that dropped prices. Well guess what - the facts simply do NOT bear out your claims at all.
See, facts are a curious thing; they are easy to gather, and impossible to ignore. Unless you're either an idiot or a hyper-partisan.
So which are you?
you have no future as an armchair economic analyst.
Says the man with zero ability to even verify the basic facts he needs to make his position. If you earned a degree in economics - heck, in any financial or mathematic field - you need to turn it back in, because clearly it was a mistake to issue to you.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 1, 2008 08:16 PMFirst of all, I'm incredibly amused that you think that I'm being the partisan hack here! Again, the idea that a single executive statement that had no practical effect on actual policy would have a significant effect on prices is pretty out there. I mean, seriously! If anything, the rise in reported inventory for oil and gas at around the same time would have far more of an impact than random noise on news channels. Pundits seem quite willing to divine many things from the rise and the fall of the markets, but when you get down to it, you cannot prove that there is direct causality related to minor events such as this.
So yes... in the grand scheme of things, I'm doubting that you're exactly bound for a successful career as a financial analyst either.
And in terms of "verifying basic facts", I'm not going to write an entire report to prove everything in a blog comment. So if far right-wing partisan idiots can post their opinionated rantings here without footnotes, I'm not exactly going to be held to a different standard. On the other hand, if you want me to explain things at a first-grade level, I might be able to cut down on the number of syllables for you.
You're too loquacious, so we'll go with hyper-partisan.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 2, 2008 07:36 AMYeah, you're right. The Slavery Party has found a new set of chains to keep their "property" on the plantation. Rather than Jim Crow laws and slaves from Africa, the Slavery Party now is using Federal tax laws and environmental regulations to take the place of the chains, and we, the energy consuming public, are their new slaves and property.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 2, 2008 10:06 AMI guess you can lead a conservative to an idea, but you just can't make him think.
Posted by: demo kid on August 2, 2008 10:07 AMNothing more offensive than someone from the Party of Greed, Hypocrisy, and Racism throwing the word "slavery" around like no one's business. Face it... your party's ideas are morally bankrupt, despite your bleatings that you're the party of "freedom".
Posted by: demo kid on August 2, 2008 10:14 AMYour speaking of the Democrat Party, of course. The shoe fits, so wear it proud, DK.
Posted by: KS on August 2, 2008 10:31 AMThe price of oil was on a continual INCREASE to $147 per barrel. On the day that President Bush announced his lifting of the executive order ban on offshore drilling, oil DROPPED $6 per barrel. And it has continued to slide since that very day, down to $124 per barrel.
I provided a link to worldwide supply and demand, and you apparently choose not to read it, but to continue spout off the Slavery Party talking points. Your claims are without merit or fact. Head in the sand.
You cannot acknowledge even the most simple of facts, and choose instead to lie lie lie to fit your agenda. The FACTS are that, in the face of DECREASING supply and INCREASING demand, the price of oil dropped only when the President said he supported offshore drilling.
Now about your apparent affront over the Slavery Party moniker? It truly does fit.
Which party supported Slavery as an institution, and which party was founded on an anti-slavery platform?
Which party claims the Great Emancipator as it's President, the first of the party?
Which party claims Martin Luther King Sr. AND Martin Luther King Jr. as members?
Which party pushed through the civil rights act?
Which party pushed through the voting rights act?
Which party has continually called for a color-blind society by eliminating the use of race for all Government purposes?
Which party pushes for equal rights for ALL, regardless of race, creed or color?
The answer to all of these is, of course, the GOP - the Republicans.
And to SHOW that the Democrats are the Slavery Party, explain the following:
Why do they have a self-declared KKK member and former Grand Kleagle as their most "revered" member?
Why did the DEMOCRAT wing of the Congressional Black Caucus shun and REFUSE membership to all black Republican Congressmen?
Face it - you may not like the term but it is 100% accurate. You're no better than Obama, whining about the truth.
Guess what - if you don't like the truth then own it, and work to change it. But that's not convenient or "self-esteem building" so I assume you'll go and rant on something else, and ignore the reality that you are in face a shill for the Party of Slavery.
I use a quote on another forum: Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible. It fits you to a "T".
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 2, 2008 10:35 AMAnd man, you know, I really tire of trying to cure idiot Republicans of their grand visions of somehow being the vaunted party of equality and fairness.
If you have the GALL, for example, to say that MLK was a Republican in the modern sense of the word, especially when the current Republican candidate fought to keep his holiday from becoming an official holiday, you're just insane. Why don't you tell me what MLK was doing in Memphis, and then get back to on whether he was a conservative or not.
Likewise, the Civil Rights Act was pushed through by Lyndon Johnson and Eisenhower, and the push for civil rights by some liberal Democrats managed to get many of the racists in the party to hop over... to the Republicans.
So tell whatever stories you like to in an attempt to make yourself feel better about how you've signed on to a morally bankrupt party. Justify it in whatever way you like! I can't save you from your own delusions.
Posted by: demo kid on August 2, 2008 11:00 AMOK, point to another time of such correlation. A world leader announces the intention and support of more exploration and the price of oil DROPS 5% that very day, and over the next 2 weeks slides 20%.
I'll wait for your answer.
The REAL answer, of course, it's not your fallacious "correlation" but ACTUAL causation. But that runs counter to your screed of "Bush=BAD" so you simply keep your blinders on and drink the swill that your Democrat, chain-holding masters feed you ladle by ladle.
And for the claims that MLK Jr. was a Republican? His father was a registered Republican, and MLK Jr. was too.
It was REPUBLICAN Dwight Eisenhower who integrated the military (over the opposition of KKK member Robert Byrd who wrote he'd rather die a thousand times than serve with a negro), and who started the push for the civil rights act.
It was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to start integrating schools in the SLAVE PARTY stronghold of Arkansas.
About Memphis? Yes, the Republicans were there marching arm-in-arm with MLK Jr, and even though the minority parties in both houses voted en-masse to support the civil and voting rights act.
Republicans were there marching with all to oppose racism. They were targeted by the terrorist wing of the Slavery Party - the Democrats - time and again. In fact, the Slavery Party allowed the KKK to take center stage at their 1924 convention!
You tell me which party is the Party of Slavery, and which is the party of Freedom and Justice. Bring your facts, not your rhetoric.
Bottom line: the Democrats are the historical party of Slavery. The party with a near 200 year history of slavery. And are trying to enslave us again by yanking on the chains of economic liberty and energy. Sit up and serve your slave masters!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 2, 2008 11:21 AMThe REAL answer, of course, it's not your fallacious "correlation" but ACTUAL causation.
You haven't proved a thing, except that you're willing to believe the truths that are being fed to you by the government. Next you'll be saying that Bush can affect the price of corn by telling people that he plans on having cornflakes for breakfast. Just because one thing happens after another does not mean that one causes the other.
In fact, the Slavery Party allowed the KKK to take center stage at their 1924 convention!
Wow... so why don't we argue about bimetallism, too? To be honest, the Republicans and Democrats today are a far cry from what they were 100 years ago, or even 50 or 25. Heck, I would have voted Republican at some points in their history. But look at electoral maps, and you tell me if there hasn't been a shift. Once upon a time, Democrats had a lock on party politics in places like Texas and Alabama, and now that's drastically shifted to support of Republicans. Why?
And for the claims that MLK Jr. was a Republican? His father was a registered Republican, and MLK Jr. was too.
Great! Well... again, tell me what MLK was doing in Memphis when he was assassinated, and then tell me again that he was a Republican. You can't, can you?
"Freedom and Justice", my butt. The Republican Party is nothing but a Party of Spin and Lies.
Posted by: demo kid on August 2, 2008 12:19 PMYes, both parties have become less accountable to the people. The Republicans (sans Bush) are like the Dems were 40-50 years ago and the mainstream democrats (not all democrats) are neo-marxists.
"Freedom and Justice", my butt. The Republican Party is nothing but a Party of Spin and Lies."
Another ad hominem attack aimed at those who don't embrace your liberal/progressive agenda. Alas, like all of the others on the far left you give no credible evidence and haven't proven a thing yourself. As long as you continue with your half-truths, I'll continue to not take your comments seriously and say - there he goes again...
Posted by: KS on August 2, 2008 02:44 PMWhen MLK Jr. was assassinated, he was in Memphis supporting striking black workers who were receiving 1/4 the wages - and none of the benefits - of whites, employed by the State.
He was campaigning for equal rights for public employees. And those employees were in a state run by the Slavery Party, the Democrats (the governor at the time being ).
So your point is? MLK Jr. was trying to promote EQUAL rights, in a State that practiced Jim Crow, and was run by Democrats. Excellent point there!
The FACTS are plain: MLK Sr. and MLK Jr. were registered Republicans. The Republican party is the party of freedom.
The DEMOCRAT Party is the Party of Slavery. You haven't addressed a SINGLE FACT in post 93, listing the unequivocal PROOF that slavery existed at the behest of the Democrats, Jim Crow and the KKK were because of the Democrats, and the current party wielding shackles and chains of economic subjugation and energy restrictions is again, the Democrats.
The facts simply aren't on your side. Feelings are hurt, so be it. Own up to the EVILS of your Party, and see that they are perpetrating the same evils today, but in a different guise. Once a slave-owner, always a slave-owner.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 2, 2008 03:33 PM"Everyone?"
Everyone who is neutral, yes.
Note that the quote you provide from Perino does not in any way disagree with what I said. I never said, nor implied, that ALL the credit goes to the announcement. And all Perino said is that she doesn't know if ALL the credit goes to the announcement.
It's almost like you don't understand simple English. OK, not "almost."
"You are right in that the effect of the announcement was "small and temporary", if there was an effect at all."
EVERYONE who is neutral believes there was an effect.
"But you can't really argue causation here ..."
I assert it as a clear and self-evident matter of fact.
"... especially given the actual results of that announcement on the ground... which pretty much amounted to nothing."
Yes, it is easy for you to argue your position when you ignore the facts. Because, in fact, prices did drop "on the ground."
"What exactly about that would provide *that* much of a fluctuation in *global* energy prices?"
Um. Uhhhh. What about an announcement about potential increased supply of billions of barrels would NOT cause a significant fluctuation of the price of oil on the futures market?!
It is amazing how completely backward your thinking is from reality.
"... not using that revenue to ensure that the energy infrastructure in this country is secure for the long term is remarkably stupid."
You said, "expanding elements of energy infrastructure." What did you mean by that, then? Since the topic here is oil, I presume you must have meant what The Obama always means when he talks about it, which is "investing" in "alternative energy" with government money, which is, to borrow a phrase, "remarkably stupid," and the reason is obvious: because the free market is many times more efficient and reliable in producing positive outcomes.
Who's the idiot?
See the fully annotated and referenced Wikipedia article on oil shale. There are up to 3.3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil worldwide, and the US has 62% of them. That's two trillion barrels.
That DOE site you link to is CRUDE OIL - oil in liquid form. Of that, we have just over 20 billion barrels of proven reserves right now. No question there. But that's different from OIL SHALE, and it's not counted as such.
So yes, you are an idiot, and you've only further confirmed your status.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 4, 2008 04:29 PM