News Does Offshore Drilling Impact Gas Prices as Claimed by McCain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a McCain campaign ad that blames Obama for rising gas prices, asserting that his opposition to offshore drilling is a key factor. Critics argue that McCain's claims are misleading, pointing out that oil prices need to be above $60 a barrel for deep-shelf drilling to be economically viable, and that bans on drilling have not significantly impacted oil prices. They emphasize that even if drilling were allowed, it would take years to see any production increase, and many oil-producing countries are already in decline. The conversation also highlights McCain's previous support for offshore drilling bans, suggesting that his recent shift in position is politically motivated rather than in the public's interest. Participants debate the implications of the ad, with some arguing it unfairly targets Obama as a scapegoat for complex economic issues and questioning the integrity of McCain's campaign tactics. The discussion touches on broader themes of political deception, the role of campaign ads, and the responsibilities of candidates to present truthful information.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,425
Here is one that jumped off the page for me.

From a McCain commercial:
SCRIPT “Gas prices. $4, $5, no end in sight. Because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? (chant) Obama, Obama. One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.”[continued]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/politics/22adbox.html

Generally, McCain has been trying to blame Obama for the price of oil because he does not support offshore drilling. However,

Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. [continued]
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/

Considering that until 2005, the price of crude hasn't been above $60 a barrel since 1985,
http://zfacts.com/p/196.html

It is clear that bans on ocean drilling have had no effect at all on the price of oil. Until a supply is price justified, it will not be tapped, regardless of access. So even if there were no bans on ocean drilling, only now would the oil companies be interested drilling. And even if they had begun drilling as soon as the price was 60$ in mid 2005, since it takes between five and ten years for new sites to fully come online, we would still be three to eight years away from seeing significant production levels.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I wouldn't think supply development is that important right now. There are 98 countries that produce oil. 60 are in terminal decline in production and 64 are thought to have surpassed their production peak (geologically imposed one). Any new supplies probably couldn't be extracted quickly enough to offset prices that much anyways. Most analysts do not contest the fact that oil production will peak in the near future if it hasn't already.
Developing supplies wouldn't be useful unless we can increase efficiency too. That way, we can develop the infrastructure to transition to when the world runs out of cheap oil. It's not how much oil, it's how much cheap oil.
 


The title says it's a deception, but you did not claim, much less attempt to prove, that what McCain says is different than what he believes. All you really did was tell us why you think McCain's position is wrong.

What's more, though, is that there is a flaw in your logic:
And even if they had begun drilling as soon as the price was 60$ in mid 2005, since it takes between five and ten years for new sites to fully come online, we would still be three to eight years away from seeing significant production levels.
You are assuming that the oil has to hit the street before it can affect the market price. Why?
 
Last edited:


Ok...what person wouldn't believe anything that McCain said had an aspect of fallacy in it? McCain supports offshore drilling and among his campaign promises is to develop domestic natural gas resources and promote oil exploration. Yeah, he's probably going to go through with that, but all of his energy reforms are probably not going to manifest themselves as he promised, considering the lies he's given during his campaign.
 


There are already many millions of acres of continental shelf under lease to the oil companies, that go undeveloped. The call for more leases is aimed at transferring more public property to the oil companies. If the oil producers want more leases, they should make an honest effort to develop the ones that they hold already. Quite frankly, it's not in their best interests to do so. They are making record profits with the status quo. McCain surely knows this. Until a month ago, he opposed any expansion in offshore drilling - with this latest flip-flop he has shown that oil money is more important to him than the public interest.
 


Herodotus said:
...McCain supports offshore drilling and among his campaign promises is to develop domestic natural gas resources and promote oil exploration. Yeah, he's probably going to go through with that,

That's great! Glad you agree.


Herodotus said:
but all of his energy reforms are probably not going to manifest themselves as he promised, considering the lies he's given during his campaign.

I thought we were talking about McCain, not Obama??!

**And yet another, illogical, pro-obama spin thread is created**
 


turbo-1 said:
... McCain surely knows this. Until a month ago, he opposed any expansion in offshore drilling - with this latest flip-flop he has shown that oil money is more important to him than the public interest.

Or perhaps he considers it a legitimate idea for the same reasons that all the other countries that do offshore drilling do...
 


seycyrus said:
I thought we were talking about McCain, not Obama??!

Are you saying McCain has not flat-out lied during this campaign?
 


WarPhalange said:
Are you saying McCain has not flat-out lied during this campaign?

Certainly not demonstrated in this thread.

Perhaps another thread didicated to bashing McCain is in order? Maybe we could start it another deceptive title?
 
  • #10


Someone help me out here, where's this McCain deception. I feel like I finished my box of cracker-jacks and didn't ge my prize.
 
  • #11


Here you go:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12


drankin said:
Someone help me out here, where's this McCain deception. I feel like I finished my box of cracker-jacks and didn't ge my prize.
McCain's ad blames Obama for high oil prices, though it's difficult to see how a junior Senator from Illinois has had time to manipulate the oil market. That's lie#1 #2 is that if McCain wants to blame anyone for high oil prices based on a ban on off-shore drilling, he only needs to look at himself in the mirror. A powerful senior Senator from Arizona who supported that ban for many years, only to reverse himself last month.

People may believe the McCain ads if they lack the knowledge of McCain's own positions and/or lack the logical capacity to see that McCain is trying to load up on Obama for holding a position that he held for years, and with his seniority in the Senate, he had a LOT more influence than Obama ever did.
 
  • #13


russ_watters said:
The title says it's a deception, but you did not claim, much less attempt to prove, that what McCain says is different than what he believes. All you really did was tell us why you think McCain's position is wrong.

That's true, he could just be confused again, so I modified the title.

What's more, though, is that there is a flaw in your logic: You are assuming that the oil has to hit the street before it can affect the market price. Why?

True, there wouldn't be enough oil to make a significant difference in price.
 
  • #14
Whether it's confusion or deception I don't know, but does it matter? I wouldn't say that it's preferable to have a confused president over a decitful one, or vice-versa.

I totally understand that a man in his 70s would be expected to have changed his position on some issues over the course of a lifetime. But many, many of these shifts have happened in the last few years (the Bush years).

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15


Enough of the idiocy.

McCain voted against a certain VERSION of the GI bill. Do you think there has only been ONE version of the bill ever put forward?

This forum is supposed to be filled with people who have brains. I suggest we start using them. Maybe a good place to start would be to avoid offering an obviously biased site as *evidence* of anything.
 
  • #16
Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

Nothing about policies that Obama supports, or has supported or might support. I want to see an clip of a personal accusation.
 
  • #18
lisab said:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops"

Yeah, that's quite a list there. A quick glance shows that some of the items don't even have a 1-2 statement but justthrow down a point.

Another quick glance shows that some of the links the site gives in an attempt to bolster credibility are actually just links to a site that restate the exact thing from another blogger. Ooh, that's hard hitting!

Why are people acting like depraved hungry animals, ready to gobble down and regurgitate *anything* that attacks McCain?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
seycyrus said:
Meanwhile Obama is once again playing the race card.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928S7080&show_article=1

Obama does needs to address the issue rather than be blindsided by it. In the 2000 primaries when McCain and Bush were running close in South Carolina, Karl Rove released a picture of McCain's adopted dark skinned daughter.

It was published in a monthly southern journal, The Daughters Of The Confederacy.

McCain discovered that these tactics do work
 
  • #21
seycyrus said:
Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

This isn't good enough for you? Seriously?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
seycyrus said:
Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

Nothing about policies that Obama supports, or has supported or might support. I want to see an clip of a personal accusation.

Who are you kidding McCain only has to say: "I approve of this message."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
WarPhalange said:
This isn't good enough for you? Seriously?




You beat me to it.:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
WarPhalange said:
What would that prove? After all, McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16342.html

Uhm, OK. I guess the integrity level of this forum is going downhill.

We're not adult enough to realzie that the ad was discussing policies of the past, present or future that are being supported or not supported.

Ok, I'll raise the bid of stupidity...

Those were Obama supporters that were chanting Obama, Obama. Not anyone affiliated with McCai or his campaign.

I don't understand inference either if you don't.
 
  • #25
seycyrus said:
Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.
Here's your clip. When the narrator asks who is responsible for rising gas prices followed by chants of "Obama! Obama!" "I am John McCain and I approve of this message."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
edward said:
Obama does needs to address the issue rather than be blindsided by it. In the 2000 primaries when McCain and Bush were running close in South Carolina, Karl Rove released a picture of McCain's adopted dark skinned daughter.

Oh, so it's okay to assume someone is going to be racist?

In fact it is OK, to publicly state what "THEY" are going to do?

I hope that this behavior doesn't become the norm, and I sure hope that *I* don't get targeted for what I am *going* to say, next month.
 
  • #27
turbo-1 said:
Here's your clip. When the narrator asks who is responsible for rising gas prices followed by chants of "Obama! Obama!"



Who's doing the chanting?

If we want to be adult, we can infer that the ad is claiming that the policies that Obama has supported, is supporting and will continue to support are to blame. That is of course another subject of discussion.

If we want to act like 3 yr olds, and pretend that we don't understand the concept of inferrence, then hey, I can play stupid too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
seycyrus said:
Uhm, OK. I guess the integrity level of this forum is going downhill.

Okay, I'll stop pointing out flaws in the candidate you support. Will that make the integrity level go up?

We're not adult enough to realzie that the ad was discussing policies of the past, present or future that are being supported or not supported.

The ad is blaming a single man for high oil prices. It's either downright stupid or downright lying.
 
  • #29
seycyrus said:
Oh, so it's okay to assume someone is going to be racist?

In fact it is OK, to publicly state what "THEY" are going to do?

I hope that this behavior doesn't become the norm, and I sure hope that *I* don't get targeted for what I am *going* to say, next month.

As long as you have things like this popping up fairly often, it's safe to say racism is still an issue.


http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/30/fox_identifies_osama_bin_laden_as_obama_again.php


Now obviously you are right, just because they did something bad once (like 20 now actually) doesn't mean they'll do it again. But you'd have to be pretty naive to trust them and assume they won't.

EDIT: No, actually, scratch that. This is beyond racism. If the left somehow implied that McCain was a terrorist, the entire station would just be shut down and Obama would feel the burn, too, for not immediately burning down the HQ of the company.

Fox gets away with this stuff all the time. McCain isn't stupid enough to call Obama a terrorist (only a traitor apparently), but when other organizations do it, Obama has a right to defend himself.

Honestly, saying "they're going to play the race card, don't fall for it" is bad?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
seycyrus said:
Who's doing the chanting?

If we want to be adult, we can infer that the ad is claiming that the policies that Obama has supported, is supporting and will continue to support are to blame. That is of course another subject of discussion.

If we want to act like 3 yr olds, and pretend that we don't understand the concept of inferrence, then hey, I can play stupid too!

I've Got to admit that's the best strawman I've seen for a while. So because the recorded chanting is from an Obama rally, it is not McCain who used it in his attack add??
 
  • #31
WarPhalange said:
Okay, I'll stop pointing out flaws in the candidate you support. Will that make the integrity level go up?

Sorry, but I'm not even close to suggesting that.


WarPhalange said:
The ad is blaming a single man for high oil prices. It's either downright stupid or downright lying.

No, the ad is blaming the policies that a certain person supports for high oil prices.
 
  • #33
edward said:
I've Got to admit that's the best strawman I've seen for a while. So because the recorded chanting is from an Obama rally, it is not McCain who used it in his attack add??

How many times do I have to actually say that "You're going to play stupid, I can too."?
 
  • #34
seycyrus said:
No, the ad is blaming the policies that a certain person supports for high oil prices.

The ad asks "who can you blame for rising prices at the pump" not "who's policies..." or "what kind of policies..."
 
  • #35
WarPhalange said:
The ad is blaming a single man for high oil prices. It's either downright stupid or downright lying.
The ad is lying, cynical, and just "out there" enough to appeal to the Limbaugh "dittos". Laying the blame on Obama for high gas prices is beyond stupid. Failing to mention that McCain supported the same off-shore drilling ban for years is dishonest at best, especially when you factor in McCain's senate seniority during the many years when he supported the ban. Obama is a junior senator. What kind of leverage could he have applied in the Senate to cause a spike in gas prices?

I used to admire McCain. No longer.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
As long as you have things like this popping up fairly often, it's safe to say racism is still an issue.


[/QUOTE]

That's a joke in poor taste. nothing to do with racism.

WarPhalange said:
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/30...ar, the warning applies to Obama, not McCain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
WarPhalange said:
The ad asks "who can you blame for rising prices at the pump" not "who's policies..." or "what kind of policies..."

Do we understand what inference is?
 
  • #38
turbo-1 said:
The ad is lying, cynical, and just "out there" enough to appeal to the Limbaugh "dittos". Laying the blame on Obama for high gas prices is beyond stupid.

It's amazing how you guys can't restrict the argument to the candidates themselves or even their campaigns. Who we going to bring in next? waiit...let me guess...let's throw down a few shots at papa bear too!

turbo-1 said:
Failing to neglect that McCain supported the same off-shore drilling ban for years is dishonest at best, especially when you factor in McCain's senate seniority during the many years when he supported the ban.

*sigh* The inference was about the future as well.

turbo-1 said:
I used to like McCain. No longer.

I don't believe the majority of the "I used to support McCain, but now I don't crowd."

I believe that the crosshairs wasn't on Mccain and that's why he was ignored. Plain and simple.

Now that Hilary is out of the way... target acquired, lemings activated! Ignite bloggers, start the digging!

Hilary clinton is no longer the one who is going to be racist Why she could *never* be racist, after all her husband was the first black president! It's McCain who's the racist!
 
  • #39
seycyrus said:
Do we understand what inference is?

Yep, and the add definitely inferred that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices.

There are no semantics that can talk around that fact. BTW inferring that posters here are playing stupid will get you banned. You can play however you wish.
 
  • #40
turbo-1 said:
Obama is a junior senator. What kind of leverage could he have applied in the Senate to cause a spike in gas prices?

That would seem to be McCain's strongest weapon against Obama. I don't know why he doesn't try to stick to it more. He goes out to these far-fetched ads that don't make much sense.

Even if he stuck to what seycyrus thinks he's doing (attacking policies, not the man), he'd be better off. I find it hard to believe that they would "accidentally" make an ad that vague, though. They could just hammer it in. Obama keeps saying his record on Iraq, i.e. voting against it, is better than McCain's. McCain should respond with ads directly attacking Obama's "naive" voting record. Just make sure McCain didn't vote the same way Obama did at that point.
 
  • #41
seycyrus said:
I don't believe the majority of the "I used to support McCain, but now I don't crowd."
I don't appreciate being called a liar, either. I supported McCain when W and Rove were trashing him and would have voted for him over any Dem candidate. Life is not black-and-white, nor are political affiliations. I am an unaffiliated independent conservative. We have had enough of Rovian smears and lies over the last 8 years (including their attacks on McCain). McCain has taken the low road with his last series of campaign ads, and I have lost respect for him.
 
  • #42
seycyrus said:
Do we understand what inference is?

I can't speak for you.

See what I did there?
 
  • #43
edward said:
Yep, and the add definitely inferred that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices.

No, the inference is about the policies.

edward said:
There are no semantics that can talk around that fact.

I'm not the one talking semantics here. Are you going to apply the same standard to every single future ad by Obama that might show a picture of McCain?

edward said:
BTW inferring that posters here are playing stupid will get you banned. You can play however you wish.

Yeah, the statement was finally dragged out of me after a few iterations back and forth.

Oh, I guess I'm not smart enough to realize that little zinger at the end was implying that I was playing stupid... gotcha.

Do you feel that the moderators here are incable of watching the forums, or do you get something else out of your warning?
 
  • #44
turbo-1 said:
don't appreciate being called a liar, either.

I purposesly wrote the "majority", so that i didn't single you out specifically. I have seen ads on tv that use this "I used to support, but now..." take, and I don't trust em at all. I believe it is simply a tactic used to give an opinion.

turbo-1 said:
McCain has taken the low road with his last series of campaign ads, and I have lost respect for him

Strange, I don't see you voicing your lack of respect for Obama, over the fact that he called McCain a racist.
 
  • #45
seycyrus said:
No, the inference is about the policies.

So why didn't the ad simply claim "who's policies are responsible?" If it were more clear we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not the one talking semantics here. Are you going to apply the same standard to every single future ad by Obama that might show a picture of McCain?

You're damn right. If Obama's ad shows a picture of McCain and says "Who's responsible for the Iraq War?" I will take the ad as meaning that McCain did it himself and will be equally disgusted.

Yeah, the statement was finally dragged out of me after a few iterations back and forth.

Oh, I guess I'm not smart enough to realize that little zinger at the end was implying that I was playing stupid... gotcha.

Do you feel that the moderators here are incable of watching the forums, or do you get something else out of your warning?

His post was meant to infer a warning, not a threat. :rolleyes:
 
  • #46
seycyrus said:
Strange, I don't see you voicing your lack of respect for Obama, over the fact that he called McCain a racist.
Please post one clip or quote in which Obama calls McCain a racist. Your claim is unfounded and is not supported by any facts.
 
  • #47
WarPhalange said:
I can't speak for you.

See what I did there?

Yes, you selectively applied your ability to infer based on your personal bias. Straneg that you can turn it off so easily, I certainly can't.
 
  • #48
My personal bias? You mean towards reality? I think I'll keep it.
 
  • #49
turbo-1 said:
Please post one clip or quote in which Obama calls McCain a racist. Your claim is unfounded and is not supported by any facts.

I find it interesting that only now, after my lengthy discussion with WarPhalange where he apparently argues that it is proper of Obama to make such a statement because "fox news is racist" (or at least I think that's what he was claiming, based on the links he posted), you are now asking for a citation.

I ask you to go back and read my original link on this topic, it has a video clip attached to it as well.

***
"doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
***

Apparently we are being warned by Obama that McCain will try to scare people off by what Obama *looks like*.

Reminds me of how Hilary was put in the spotlight because she said "you people" or "those people" or whatever it was.

Do we want to get into the semantics of how racism is defined?

Or are we going to argue that Obama didn't say McCain *was* (present tense) trying to get people to make a decision based on looks, but only that he was *going to* (future tense)?
 
  • #50
WarPhalange said:
My personal bias? You mean towards reality? I think I'll keep it.

The guy who talked about a station being shut down because of a comment about McCain thinks he has a tight grasp of reality. How ironic.
 

Similar threads

News Will Obama's New Plans for Domestic Oil Drilling Lower Gas Prices?
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Louisiana leaders want Gulf drilling to resume
Replies
1
Views
2K
News Gulf Oil Production Moving to Africa
Replies
34
Views
6K
News What is the Optimal Minimum Price for Petroleum?
Replies
3
Views
3K
News How Can We Improve Mass Transit to Reduce Dependence on Cars?
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
3
Replies
133
Views
27K
News The Long Emergency: Oil Crisis & US Economy Impact
Replies
14
Views
3K
News How Much Power Does the U.S. Vice President Really Have?
Replies
11
Views
4K
News Is America's Critique of China's Policies Justified?
Replies
23
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top