McCain and Obama Spar Over Oil Regulation
June 22nd, 2008 at 02:13pm Mark Noonan
Really does take a lot of guts to demand the closure of a loophole your party created and kept open, but Obama is proving himself up to the task of Democratic mendacity:
With the cost of gas a top issue in the presidential campaign, Barack Obama on Sunday will announce a plan to crack down on oil speculation by tightening regulations on energy traders.
The announcement is further evidence that an Obama administration would take an activist, populist approach to regulating business.
Obama wants to close a loophole in federal law that exempts some energy traders from regulations that govern other exchange-traded commodities. Democrats call this “the Enron loophole” because it benefited the Houston energy-speculation firm that collapsed in an accounting scandal.
In response, John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said: “The truth is Barack Obama is following John McCain’s lead to close a Wall Street loophole that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. John McCain has supported bipartisan efforts to close this loophole and will work to address abuses in oil speculation.
“Barack Obama has voted the party line for Democrats who claim the loophole is fixed. The fact that Barack Obama is attacking John McCain, despite McCain’s leadership on the issue, shows that Barack Obama is driven by the partisan attacks that Americans are tired of.”
Rather typical of the liberals - enact a “solution” which actually becomes the problem, pretend to be shocked by the results, blame Republicans for it and then present another “solution” to the problem, which merely starts the whole process over again.
While there is grounds for reformed regulatory oversight of the commodities market the plain fact of the matter is that oil will remain high - no matter what regulations we enact - as long as people are willing to pay a high price for it. Speculators have done a lot to drive up the price, but so has increased demand outside the United States - the solution, however, to high energy prices is not to seek a Evil Enemy to blame (which is the basic plan of Obama and his Democrats), but to find cheap energy to replace the expensive energy. In this area, McCain simply blows Obama’s class warfare, socialist nonsense right out of the water.
McCain proposes increased production of American oil; increased development of nuclear power; increased use of clean coal technology…Obama proposes a Carteresque “windfall profits tax” (as if oil companies should be punished because other people are willing to pay a high price for their product…perhaps we should do a “windfall profits tax” on whomever makes the next hot Christmas toy on the same theory - if people want it a lot and are willing to pay a premium for it, then you’ve done something wrong), increased regulation and proposes nothing which will actually add to America’s non-oil energy supplies.
We’ve got a choice in November - between the hidebound, liberal practices of the 60’s and 70’s, or the forward looking policies set afoot since Reagan became President in 1981. For all Obama’s talk of change, he’s really all about implementing the policies McGovern advocated 36 years ago. Past vs future at stake - and Obama is stuck in the liberal economic dark ages, as if he’s learnt nothing at all.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Economy, Republicans
23 Comments
1. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I more and more believe Obama to be a sock puppet of the entrenched liberal establishment. He is not his own man. He is the more presentable and palatable vehicle of which the repressed liberal leadership can push their socialist agenda that has yet to resonate with the American electorate.
This fact will become more evident as the campaign unfolds.
peace, neocon
2. William Teach | June 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I’m waiting for the Missiah to explain exactly how this will reduce gas prices.
Someone call 911, because I plan on holding my breath.
3. franc | June 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Deleted - off topic.
4. William Teach | June 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
We’ve tried, but you leftards keep blocking every measure to drill on our own land, build new refineries, and build nuclear power plants. It is leftards who block the transmission lines going from a solar farm to Los Angelos. It is Ted Kennedy who is the primary blocker of the Cape Wind Project.
But, say, while you leftards are whining about Bush and oil, as Freidman and you are doing, do you have any ideas? A litany of complaints is not a plan.
5. franc | June 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Deleted - off topic, commenter to be banned.
6. kmg | June 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Deleted - off topic; Ed Note: And even if so, if it happend in 2000, then Bill Clinton signed it into law. Concentrate on the subject at hand…Obama and McCain and their contrasting plans for America’s energy FUTURE not Democratic talkings points PAST.
7. William Teach | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Well, like all good Leftards (sorry about the thread getting nasty, Mark), franc, you yap on and on, yet, provide not one alternative to drilling.
So, time to put up or shut up. Do you or your Missiah have any ideas? Repeating the idiotic “we have to invest in alternative energy sources” doesn’t cut it. Which ones? How will they be implemented? When will they be available? How will they replace oil? What will replace all the oil necessary for lubrication? Got anything, or just the typical seething liberal whine and cheese?
8. franc | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Deleted - off topic.
9. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Deleted - response to off topic, raving lunatic comment.
10. Evergreen | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Deleted - paranoid conspiracy theories.
11. William Teach | June 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Amazingly, there have been very few oil spills in all these years, just like there have been very few nuclear incidents, and only 1 bad one, caused by Soviet incompetence.
Now, to step back, I am all for alternative energy sources. We need them. We want them. I want ones that are cleaner and cheaper, and, when I say cleaner, I mean for real environmental issues, not the silly CO2 BS. But, what are they? Oil is not the long term answer. It is the best available at this time.
12. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“In other words, the market is predicting McCain’s 100 year war.” - Vicodin
Au Contraire Mr V. The market is predicting an Obama withdrawal and an uncertain future. And…Mr Context…..why did you take McCain out of context to prove a point?
“…for a commitment to end the wars and not pursue new ones…” - Vicodin
This statement is premised on America as the aggressor and solely responsible for the conflicts. Is that what you believe Vicodin?
The answer to our current energy problems is not difficult. Explore and extract domestic resources, accelerate the implementation of more sustainable energy sources and diversify the countries energy platform: nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc…..
13. hermie | June 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Obama dismissed the idea of more exploration and more refineries stating that it would take years to get any benefit from them. Well, alterative energies such as solar and wind are barely out of their infancy and are not capable of replacing any significant percentage of our current needs. We will still need oil now and in the near future. We will still have gasoline and diesel fueled cars, trucks, trains, etc for the next couple of decades. These will need to be fueled with oil until we can switch over to more efficient or practical, alternative fuels.
Obama’s ‘plan’ to order Detroit to increase fuel efficiency is laughable; as if they can magically make 60 mpg cars that consumers want and need; and do so without sacrificing safety standards and be ‘carbon neutral’ at the same time. Eventually, the US auto industry will be able to deliver on these expectations, but it cannot be delivered on a naive politician’s whim.
We have the technology in place now, to drill for more oil, and this technology has more potential for improvements as we are not starting from scratch.
14. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 am
Deleted - off topic.
15. OpChaosUK | June 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 am
Someone call 911, because I plan on holding my breath.
Don’t worry, William; you’ll pass out and resume breathing. But we’ll call 911 anyway; you may bump your noggin.
Mark, another disadvantage of my being five hours ahead of EST is that you delete comments before I get a chance to lmao. Please feel free to e-mail me any deleted comments. I may include them in my new book:
“Useless Banter From Useful Idiots”
Geez, I could’ve written twenty volumes by now…
16. Dollardays | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
Only wingnut commentary remains; similar selective dialogue got us into the Iraq mess.
17. neocon | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Vicodin,
You got deleted? Did the meds wear off?
18. Smokedsalmon | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Supply And Demand Its Economics 101.
How the hell can an educated person say that our opening up the US reserves in Anwar or drilling along our coasts (including MI by the way) would not effect oil prices. Its the expected supply versus demand that is tipping the speculators into a frenzy. Merely agreeing to open more shoreline to drilling tips the supply equation in our favor and reduces the pressure on speculative oil futures. That plus agreeing to open up say 10 new nuclear power plants a couple of refineries as well as letting the greenies open some large windmill farms on federal land would go a long way toward putting downward pressure on oil prices and it would have an instantaneous effect.
19. OpChaosUK | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 am
How the hell can an educated person say that our opening up the US reserves in Anwar or drilling along our coasts (including MI by the way) would not effect oil prices.
You’re not dealing with educated people when you deal with our trolls; we have pseudo-engineers, pseudo journalists(from hell), and pseudo students.
And a heck of a lot of spoofs…
20. hermie | June 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Turns out that Obama’s connections to ‘Big Corn’ are behind his pushing ethanol so hard. But will the MSM let this pass like they do Obama’s other connections to special interests?
21. HeyNow | June 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The massive oil spillage left in Katrina’s wake may have drilling company executives skeptical of drilling off our southern coasts.
22. Tractatus | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
If you paid for your education, you might want to get a refund, Smokedsalmon. The fact check: “Offshore oil wouldn’t have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.”
But hey, at least you’re able to fool the even lesser-educated like keefer. That’s a backhanded compliment, I know (keefer’s never met a discredited or stupid right-wing talking point he didn’t love), but it’s a starting point.
It’s also worth noting that the states whose coasts are in question aren’t interested in the drilling you guys are suckers for. Are you states’ rights conservatives going to overrule them? Or do states’ rights only matter when we’re talking about black people?
23. Gina | July 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Obama is not only a Socialist, who wants Americans to hand over their hard earned cash, in a grandiose scheme to redistribute America’s wealth … he spent 20 years listening to the anti-American, racist sermons of black liberation pastor Jeremiah Wright, which were based upon Marxist ideology … along with his wife and two children … and they still attend the same church, listening to the same anti-American trash!