McCain: Why, drilling in ANWR would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon
posted at 3:47 pm on June 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He says what he means and he means what he says, even when it’s really stupid. How rote are his talking points on this issue? January 16, 2008 conference call with bloggers:
Mike Goldfarb: Some people are perplexed by your rhetoric on global warming. Is this one of those ‘no surrender’ issues, or is there room for discussion?
McCain: There’s always room for discussion. But I don’t know how any conservative can not support cap and trade. We did it with acid rain. The Europeans are putting it into effect. It’s a capitalist process that encourages green technologies. If we’re wrong, all we’ve done is adopt green technologies, in an effort to give our kids a greener planet.
As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.
Goldfarb, incidentally, is now Team Maverick’s official blogger. Townhall meeting today in Philly:
He wasn’t happy the subject came up. “I knew I should have ended this [before that question],” he said.
He said that he opposed drilling in ANWR for the same reason that he “would not drill in the Grand Canyon… I believe this area should be kept pristine.” (Proposed oil and gas exploration in ANWR would only affect 2,000 of its 19 million acres, or 0.01 percent.)
McCain’s chief virtue is also his vice: Economic and political circumstances may change, but gosh darn it, he’s sticking to his guns come what may. You’d better come up with one honey of a VP pick, Maverick. Exit question: How high do gas prices have to get before that precious 0.01 percent starts to look somewhat less pristine? Do we need to see actual gas lines? Or does Obama’s weakness here mean McCain can safely ignore this issue for the time being?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It’s official, McCain is a dip-sh*t and has his head in the sand with respect to energy and “global warming”.
Troy Rasmussen on June 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM
There’s more here, Big S, than Romeo correctly argues. Drilling in ANWR has a tremendous symbolic impact. It would signal our turning away from stupid past policies. The primary effect would not be direct market influence as Romeo calculated, but upon the speculative market. World prices would start a down-slide because the US would be seen to be determined to open local oil reserves.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I wouldn’t be all that fussed about ANWR if McCain would say that we can get more oil cheaper and easier from the oil shale, or from offshore Florida … sigh
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I heard someone else mention that this might be a good thing that we don’t tap our own oil until later. Could you imaging in so many years that we’ve bought the world’s supply of oil for decades … and then as the price goes higher and higher as the other countries start to run out, then we start selling our out that we’ve been sitting on for such a long time, when the price is at an astronomical level to the people who still use oil.
By that time, if (and I say .. IF) we have invested in alternative energy sources – then we could be powering our domestic energy needs with solar-thermal, wind, possibly a new generation of Nuclear power plants, growing better crops for energy such as switchgrass instead of corn …
But I don’t see us(our government) as being crafty enough to actually pull this off.
wise_man on June 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Let’s drill in ANWR and bury our Nuclear waste in the drilling holes after the oil is sucked out. LOL.
Mister Ghost on June 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM
How would “drilling in the Grand Canyon” be any different than building “sky bridges” out over the edge of the canyon to fleece a few tourists – does it somehow add to the “pristine” nature of the Grand Canyon? I mean, come on, there are lots of natural glass bottomed walkways jutting out of the rim of the Grand Canyon, right?
Pristine my a**
Fatal on June 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I am just a smiling right now :)
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Funky.. fuss away! Please!
Better to let it out then keep it in. Alaskan are just as frustrated.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM
How about somebody talking to McCain about shale oil in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. They’ve got about 800 billion barrels, or about 80 times ANWR, and no caribou to worry about. It would create jobs in Colorado, a swing state this year.
Maybe McCain should take some time off from campaigning and talk to his colleagues in the Senate. Like this lady.
Steve Z on June 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I like it. I think spunky Gov Palin should initiate this process!
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Almost every time McCain opens his mouth, I lose another point in my running argument with those who say “no way am I voting for this jerkoff”. Right now, those people include my brother, who noted recently that “Bob Barr makes a lot of good points”, much to my horror.
He is far from resigned to voting for McCain, since McCain is far from thinking the way conservatives think.
In summary, let me just say that McCain is a complete and nearly total dipstick. Any notion that he has a functioning brain is quickly disproved by asking him about domestic oil exploration and production.
Jaibones on June 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Speculators are driven by profits, not ideology (as you seem to be.) Perhaps if we we able to ramp up production from oil shale and oil sands (in Canada), the price would drop on account of speculator activity. However, you’re using a simplistic model that speculators would not use; that is, ANWR is not the same as Coloroado Oil shale, and you can’t infer the roduction of one from that of another to any useful extent.
Big S on June 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I can’t believe that this man has a golden opportunity to win the election, and he’s throwing it all away!
On this issue alone he could do it, and now he’s blowing it
ToddonCapeCod on June 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Som of our more conservative states hould declare their intention to secede from the union and exploit their natural resources. The states with resources and populations eager to exploit them are by and large Red states and it is Blue state eco-Marxists that are standing in the way. Secede and solve the problem.
DerKrieger on June 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Orrin Hatch of Utah is leading the charge on the oil shale. I just don’t understand why the conservative media aren’t helping him. He’s been out trying to kick ass, and has been naming names, for over a month.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=ee6b47f8-1b78-be3e-e028-f16f10d0e3a5&IsTextOnly=1
and google “the politics of oil shale” and interview with Hatch and Sen Wayne Allard.
Hatch is hopping mad, which is uncharacteristic for him.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM
From my vantage point, Gas companies improve the land they drill…where as a hippie Sierra Club mother earth parties tends to leave mother earth in worse shape.
Same with the logging industry. It is the same concept with your own back yard. When you invest in your backyard, it looks great and is easier to maintain…leave it to mother nature and the yard is full of noxious weeds that can catch fire. If the wilderness is so great, why do creatures of mother nature keep invading my home?
And btw McCain, Anwr is not equal to the beauty of the Grand Canyon. There are by far more beautiful spots in Alaska than the section they want to drill.
Conservative Voice on June 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Bussard’s Fusion Reactor!
This is real, and research has been funded by the United States Navy
http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/science/2008/01/bussard-fusion-reactor-progress.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
PS- I support additional domestic drilling in the interim
gmoonster on June 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Standing on principle is one thing; mule-headedness is another.
Jezla on June 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Jailbones, Bob Barr is a nutter.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I completely disagree with McCain on ANWR, and I think we should find a way to drill, so long as it does not set a precedent for other wildlife refuges and national parks. We should drill, but make the conditions strict enough not to obviate the whole purpose of a national park or wildlife refuge.
The whole point of national parks, wildlife refuges, etc. is that pretty places to look at can often lie very close to very good places to live. Eventually, cities and other development may grow in the direction of places like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. If the land stayed on the market instead of being taken up by the parks system, it would eventually be worth so much money per acre its owner would be crazy not to sell, even if the buyer plans to pound the whole thing into a flat pancake and build a sewage treatment plant.
Putting a commercial operation in the middle of a park or wildlife refuge also means feeding and housing the workers, building roads to service the operation, fueling service vehicles (Ice Road Truckers!), feeding and housing the drivers of the service vehicles–all of which can bring development right to the doorstep of the park or wildlife refuge itself. Pretty soon you have a town if you’re not careful, and the only towns that don’t grow are ghost towns. Which obviates the whole purpose of a national park or wildlife refuge. So I can see putting a lot of restrictions on a commercial operation in Park Service land. Note I said, put a lot of restrictions on it, not ban it entirely.
Sekhmet on June 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM
ANWR, like NPRA, Chuckchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet, Bering Straights…. are ALL run by the BLM, Dept of Interior.
Do I need to start a grass roots movement?
If I did, would any of you care?
Would you join? Donate time or money?
Complaining on here ins’t going to help.
On another thread I posted names of people to get a hold of besides Congress… have any of you called or emailed?
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Yes, we know there are people crazier and more dangerous than McCain. But that’s not saying much!
JiangxiDad on June 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Go to McCain’s senate website and vent your disgust, then go to his campaign website and do the same. His lack of reality based logic regarding this issue and the fact you can’t wish it away or hope for an alternative to save us and our economy – the elitist mindset of both candidates makes my head hurt.
24K lady on June 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Uh, IS THERE OIL in the Grand Canyon? Aye, there’s there difference
originalpechanga on June 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Yelling ANWR, ANWR, ANWR at McCain isn’t going to change his mind.
But, he should be willing to listen to concerns about the PRC off the coast of Florida, and should be willing to listen to Orrin Hatch and Wayne Allard about oil shale. I think McCain, Hatch, and Allard all get along.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM
It’s total nonsense. ANWAR is nothing like the Grand Canyon in importance or in beauty. And he leaves the false meme on the table that drilling in ANWAR would destroy it. About one percent of the total reserve would be affected by oil exploration.
It’s just plain absurdity.
Asher on June 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Steve Z 4:51 was pointing to an article on National Review by Kay Bailey Hutchinson titled ‘Crisis Point‘.
rockhauler on June 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Their’s oil in the Grand Canyon? DRILL IN THE GRAND CANYON!
Kevin M on June 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Don’t get insulting. I’m not “driven” in this by anything like ideology. Not all speculators are American. I’m talking world pricing here. The price is currently in a bubble status. It is not bursting because there are no signs (yet) that Americans are serious about domestic production. Or even just North American production. You maximize profits by securing your future needs at the best price. The anxiety in the bubble is due in part to the fear that there will be no end of current demand strains. If US actually opended up the domestic tap, the bubble would be more likely to break.
By the way, I’m currently on task building a pipeline to bring sands oil to market. Is gov’t helping at all? No, we are being scrutinized over pop science terms like “dirty oil” — Until we get serious about developing our oil, the prices stay high.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM
be honest, you thought he was a dip-shit long before this.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:08 PM
I wrote this is earlier. The MM thread on drill here drill now. If you want to complain.. you may want to call or email these people as well.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM
John, put the kool aid down and step away from the table.
moxie_neanderthal on June 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM
You can call oil speculators investors, but they are basically just high stakes gamblers, and in a bubble they fuel their own speculation. ANWR is only a small part of a combination of things that could be done. If the US suddenly went on a crash program to develop our rescources these cockroaches would be dumping futures contracts faster than last nights bar whore, and a lot of them would get seriously burned.
alycan1 on June 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM
say what you will, but in all reality he probably just gained more votes than he lost with that statement. I am by NO MEANS saying I think he’s right, but I would say up to $10.00/ gallon, the average American voter would prefer we did not drill in Alaska.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM
word up, a large portion of the huge run-up last friday was little more than a short squeeze.
This in no way implicates the “dirty hedge funds” for our woes at the gas pumps, it just is what it is.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Remember this:
The ads do pretty much write themselves….individual candidates can run ads in their congressional elections showing video of dems promising cheaper gas in 2006, and then ask “how’d they do? let’s give the GOP’s ideas for increasing domestic production a try?”
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM
How many “average” americans do you ask? Everyone I know in the Lower 49 are saying drill it.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM
But he’ll be Conservative on SCOTUS right?
How does his stance NOT effectively cancel out his rhetoric on a supposedly conservative stance on taxes?
How anyone can think that this type of thinking is a conservative, and with this it seems a clarification – this man is not a conservative.
At best on this he’s pandering to the Left, but if that is the case – how is that conservative?
Acid rain? Another overblown environmental “crises”.
The “Europeans are putting it into effect…”? They tried and failed miserably and are just now trying to back out of this type of boondoggle
I’m sorry, the “he’s better than the alternative” meme is starting to run a bit thin…
catmman on June 11, 2008 at 5:18 PM
That wouldn’t bother me at all!
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Newt had an interesting thought yesterday. He thought that if the Pres. released 1/3 of the federal reserves, it would hit the speculators right in the wallet and immediately drop prices. Any thoughts on how that would play out along with drilling?
Les in NC on June 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Any “votes he may have gained” by saying this WILL NOT equal the votes he is losing for saying this.
catmman on June 11, 2008 at 5:21 PM
You’re throwing around the term “bubble” without any justification. There’s no reason to believe that demand for oil will decrease any time soon, so speculators’ “fears” are well-founded.
There you go again with the “bubble”. Perhaps we’d see some decrease in price based on a slighly increased world supply of petroleum.
Why is it that those who stand to profit directly from contracts for domestic production so strongly push the idea that opening ANWR will cause a huge drop in prices. I have one theory.
Big S on June 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Bingo.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Les in NC on June 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM
drilling would go up quite a bit.
Les only problem I forsee is which 1/3rd?
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I would like to hear your theory.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I will readily admit that I am a Northeasterner (NYC specifically), but it’s moves “to center” like this that give McCain a snowballs chance in this corridor.
Now, if the summer stays north of 90degrees followed by sub zero temps in October, this sentiment may change…the thing is Obama OBVIOUSLY will not want to drill in Alaska, so McCain cannot really lose votes with this approach…unless this just flat out keeps people from voting.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I respectfully disagree for the reasons above. The only way I could see this hurting him is if republicans simply don’t vote because they disagree with him…which is really pretty frigging idiotic, and I would thing republicans were smarter than this. You don’t hand your opponent a victory because you disagree with the guy wearing your uniform…that’s retarded.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:27 PM
You know where you can stick your theory. I’m trying to bring Alberta oil to the US market. I have no direct connection to Alaskan oil. If ANWR drilling lowered market price, it would reduce my company’s operating margin. Yet, I want lower prices. I say drill ANWR, pipe from the sands in Canada, open the sands in the US. Lower oil prices are good for US economy.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:28 PM
you didn’t answer my question. Who are these “average” americans?
If you have never asked anyone, then how would you know?
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Doc would it reduce it due tot he Natural Gas Pipeline trying to be pushed through Canada or would it reduce for the simple fact that you can relax your crew?
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I’m not sure I understand the question. From what I hear, the strategic reserves are somewhere near 97% capacity.
Les in NC on June 11, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Sorry Les, I should have said it this way.
What is the 1/3rd that will be given back to the States? I would assume that it would be the crappier areas that are given back. Non-Proffiting areas and areas with no Natrual Resources or very little.
Sorry about that… I should have explained better.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Business case based on anticipated 100 dollars a barrel. If prices dropped, we would have cost control auditors all over every paper clip I buy.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM
The people I associate with on a daily basis (range from school teachers to hedge fund managers, to musicians, to office workers in various capacities to of other randoms) Ulitmately choose conservation in our discussions.
The fund managers main arguments are that by the time it is online and producing enough to make a difference, the crisis will be averted, and we’ll have moved at least to a greener state of mind if not a greener society all together.
beefytee on June 11, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Pristine….ANWR may be clean but it isn’t a Grand Canyon, no one lives there and the area needed to drill isn’t more than a spit dot on a sidewalk. McCain is a tool on this one, cripes!
MNDavenotPC on June 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I will admit I am not an expert on it. That’s why I threw it out here to get more opinions on the theory.
Les in NC on June 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Hatch and Kay Bailey have a better chance getting through to McCain than Obama on this issue.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM
This makes me feel even better about taking a pass on the Maverick.
molonlabe28 on June 11, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Wasn’t that the same theory used by Clinton when he vetoed drilling in ANWR?
Les in NC on June 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM
DocKen–yes, the worry is that we ramp up domestic production and the bubble bursts, and you have oil companies really suffering like they did in TX in the early 80s. I remember seeing all the empty office space, and one of my Dad’s best friends is an oil guy who was unemployed for a while during that oil bust. He eventually got hired by a French company that he calls “Slumber J” can’t remember how to spell it right now….
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM
How about a windfall profits tax on our politicians…bet their income has gone up considerably since they were elected… certainly more than our standard of living has.
unaffiliated on June 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I honestly doubt that. Profit margins even for the North Slope are 45 dollars a barrel of oil to keep working and producing and that is high end. Low end is around 15 a barrel. Keep trying on that… because what you sadi doesn’t add up.
Well Hedge Fund managers are usually the type to inflate a dollar to get a nickel… if you catch my drift. They don’t understand the cost or estimate of the time with working 24 hours a day until it is completed. It usually takes a “normal” well, pipeline, and producing about 2 months to totally get online…. IF a pipeline in around. 6 months to a year if not. ANWR has exploration wells but they are plugged and abandoned. It just doesn’t have the pipelines close, even if they opened it right at this moment. Badami wells are the closest to intermingle a pipeline for ANWR. Other then you have to work in the middle of winter.. because the tundra is volitile… but we have plenty of Cold to do that!
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Meanwhile at NRO at 4:12pm, Stephen Spruiell notes:
INC on June 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Schlumberger
of how we call it…
Slum Buger
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Schlumberger — That’s a pretty good phonetic mnemonic your Dad’s friend came up with.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I didn’t say we couldn’t be profitable at less than 100/barrel. But we are p***ing money away and they don’t worry because of oil prices. If prices come down, we would be under internal scrutiny, suddenly caring where the money went.
Once actually built, internal calculations are between 16 and 24 to maintain.
DocKen on June 11, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Lets hope it isn’t BP managing the pipeline. Could have issues like up here.
But I see where you are getting at. But I have friends with ASRC who have to show where ever dime goes. they are not allowed to order anything special unless it is the Producers wish. Anything over a certain dollar amount has to be ok’ed BY the Producer.
Up here they are a little more stingy concerning money due to the cost comparison of construction.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I thought India was not going to be able to continue subsidizing consumer gasoline for too much longer and demand would drop because of the increased out of pocket consumer cost. Is that wrong?
a capella on June 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM
This energy issue ranks right up there with illegal immigration for me… and millions more like me with each passing day.
Having read this post, and seeing that McCain is too
stupidnaive to move from ideological pap to practical solutions, I’m about as disgusted with him as I was during the immigration fight. Un-fricken-believable!petefrt on June 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM
BS! There is NOTHING on the horizon to replace oil and there will not be for generations. We’ve got over 300 years worth of proven reserves right now! Compared to the alternatives, oil is cheap, clean burning and easy to access. We should be drilling in every conceivable spot on earth until we satisfy the demand.
edgehead on June 11, 2008 at 5:54 PM
HATCH ASKS ENERGY COMMITTEE TO LIFT MORATORIUM ON OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT
Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today called on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to lift a moratorium that essentially bars the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from leasing land for commercial oil shale development.
During his testimony, Hatch also presented a letter from Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., who asked committee members in the letter to lift the oil shale-lease moratorium, calling it a “matter of great importance for Utah and the nation.”
Hatch also submitted a written statement to the committee in which he stated his stand on oil shale and asked committee members about their stand.
“The question . . . for the members of this committee, and I should add, for the Democratic leadership of Congress, is whether you will adopt the anti-oil agenda of the environmental movement as an element of your own energy policy.” Hatch said in the statement. “So far, I have heard of proposals to tax successful energy production, to investigate the oil futures markets, to ban Canadian oil imports in favor of oil from Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East, and to call for delay after delay in the commercial production of oil shale. … These policies would not produce one drop of oil.”
The moratorium was imposed as part of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2008 and it inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), which directed the BLM to lease several tracts of federal oil-shale land for research and to issue commercial-leasing regulations.
Hatch said oil shale and tar sand development are more economical, environmentally responsible and require less water than ethanol production. What’s more, he told committee members, Utah and Colorado have between 800 billion and two trillion barrels of recoverable oil.
Because the U.S. is so dependent on foreign oil, the senator added, the nation is sending “$600 billion overseas, often to countries that are our enemies. We need to use that money for development” of domestic oil to meet our energy needs.
“We need to wake up and stop sending money to our enemies throughout the world,” Hatch said.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:55 PM
WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, Congressman Pearce discussed his recent victory in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on KKOB Radio in Albuquerque. During the interview, Pearce, a Vietnam veteran and former small business man, spoke about uniting the New Mexican Republican party after a spirited primary, as well as key differences between he and his Senate opponent Rep. Tom Udall.
“We had a great election. Heather ran a strong race, I ran a strong race,” Pearce told Bob Clark of KKOB. “She has endorsed me and I talked to Senator Domenici yesterday, so the party is starting to pull back together. As President Bush said, fight hard in the primary and hug when it’s all over. That appears to be what we’re doing.”
“Tom and I vote very differently on taxes, on the tough votes to cut wasteful spending – people are very tired of [the wasteful spending in Washington]” he said. “We restrict 85% of our domestic energy and Tom Udall has voted for those restrictions. I have said we should produce it.”
Congressman Pearce has consistently voted to increase domestic production to bring down skyrocketing gas prices, while Tom Udall has opposed using our own domestic resources which results in increased dependence on foreign sources. In the coming days, Pearce will introduce legislation to remove restrictions on domestic production and use the royalty revenue to invest in renewable technologies.
“Right now we’re 20 years or more away from wind and solar making a significant impact on our energy use. We need to accelerate the research.”
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I said I wasn’t voting for that idiot 3 months ago and he’s done NOTHING to bring me around. We are SO screwed with this guy. At least with Barry O as prez, we get to start rebuilding in 2008, not in 20 years. Go to hell McCain!
edgehead on June 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Have you seen where it has been on the news and written as to when (date) they will be doing it?
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM
And when “Barry O” screws this nation up so much that it will also take 20 yrs. Don’t complain about it.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM
:) you are just a posting away today!
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Ugh.
Exactly.
I have no idea why these people think that #1) an Obama win will somehow make republican primary voters choose a more conservative candidate this time – instead of the crappy choices they’ve made with McCain, W and ‘poppy Bush’ inthe last few decades. and #2) Think that an Obama presidency for one or two terms will be a walk in the park. Unbelievable arrogance and short-sightedness.
wise_man on June 11, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Ditto!
Sen. McCain is indeed an unfortunate choice for the Republican party. But he will do less damage to the Republic than Obambi. So while I don’t want to vote for McCain, I really must vote against Obambi. And so must anyone who loves this country.
MrLynn on June 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM
hey I am not one to smear the thruth, as you know. But seeing what B.H.O. hasn’t done.. makes me fear the future in more ways then one. Ignorance for other sure is blissful… I hope we don’t happen to go into a depression where you see these same damn people on a food line possibly.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 6:12 PM
If God put the oil where the sun don’t shine, thats where you drill.
meci on June 11, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Let me fill you in:
First; If McCain is elected it will give vindication to the Rockefeller wing of the party. They will have proved that not only do you not need to be Conservative to win, you don’t even NEED Conservatives to win. This will further marginalize us.
Second; Big trouble is coming with the continuing credit “crisis”, and the cost of energy crippling our economy. Add to that skyrocketing inflation and the cost of food starving the third world. The next Prez will preside over a rapidly souring economy and a very ugly world.
McCain will be NO DIfferent than Barry O on 90% of domestic issues and on the 10% that they do disagree on, McCain will be helpless with a massive democrat majority. He won’t get ANY decent judges confirmed, he will have a likely veto proof opposition and all of the “malaize” will be blamed on McCain and Republicans, and it will stick. The Dems will take over with bigger majorities and will keep power for a generation.
Third; McCain buys into the hoax that is the biggest threat the planet faces. From skyrocketing energy costs, third world starvaion, huge tax and regulation hikes all related to the hoax of global warming. Wars will be faought over this stuff if it is not stopped now. More evidence surfaces every day that man made global warming is a farce yet our standard bearer is all too willing to play along with Gore and the like.
MCCAIN IS A DEMOCRAT! Why can’t you see it? Winning for the sake of winning means nothing! Our ideas have to prevail. A McCain presidency will set back Conservatism more than a Barry O presidenct.
edgehead on June 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Sorry about the typos. I hit “Submit” instead of “Preview”.
edgehead on June 11, 2008 at 6:37 PM
McCain may be Democrat Lite, but he more of a Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrat than the party today. But most important, he is not a far-left radical socialist anti-American Black Liberationist, and he is not a stalking horse for George Soros. Obambi is. If you think Jimmy Carter was bad, just wait for Obambi, who will be a puppet for the most extreme anti-capitalist, anti-American forces in this country.
If for no other reason, think of the devastating impact Obambi will have on the US Military and our national defense. McCain will stand up for the armed forces.
There really is no choice.
MrLynn on June 11, 2008 at 6:48 PM
In addition to the typos, there was a lot wrong factually as well.
wise_man on June 11, 2008 at 6:48 PM
It’s painful to be forced to vote for that idiot McCain simply because he’s not Obama. On points such as ANWR there isn’t much difference. Maybe McCain has some of Obama’s pixie dust that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save the polar bears.
obladioblada on June 11, 2008 at 6:58 PM
McCain won’t stand up for anything. The guy will go where the polls and his uncle Teddy tell him to go. How much more are you “Republicans” going to let McShamnesty tell you to pound sand on every conservative issue. He spends more time courting Dems than Repubs. If he keeps this up I’ll move from None of the above ‘08 to Obama -08. What a wonderful year: a democrat who calls himself a Republican or marxist democrat. Man I’m fired up to go vote.
jwp1964 on June 11, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Why not move to the dark side now?
**Waves goodbye**
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM
The dark side depends on your perspective…seems to me your guy has already made the trip!
jwp1964 on June 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM
You must be including coal. I’m head of the line in doubting Global Warming(tm), but we aren’t going to win any elections on the image of firing up more coal burners right now. There is work to be done in showing it can be done cleanly, even assuming we can convince people that CO2 is actually a fertilizer.
Anyway, there are several full scale solar-thermal plants being built now. Part of the problem is the tech is not yet proven, which keeps the interest rate high, which prevents it from being proven. It could take years to find out what maintenance costs are as the system ages.
pedestrian on June 11, 2008 at 7:15 PM
my guy?
You mean my “Girl”.. who is Sarah Palin! McCain wasn’t my first choice but you don’t see me complaining about it.
I think you need to realize something. You are either with Obama or agaisnt Obama, and right now.. there is no freaking way on God’s Green Earth that I would go towards the Obamessiah, even at gun point.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM
If we could dump McCain for Palin I’d sign on for that.
jwp
jwp1964 on June 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Well I don’t see that happening… but I have a odd feeling something is about to happen.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Again, the Republicans will veer as far left as we will let them. The arguments that we have no choice or that Bambi is too dangerous to allow into the White House are adding to the leftward drift.
The only rebuke, the only message politicians understand is losing.
We can start getting the idiots back on track now, or we can let them keep drifting.
If McCain wins, expect a bunch more Mavericks.
misterpeasea on June 11, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Why not?
Allow illegals in the country. Choke the economy, which the pols care more about than Americans, by keeping gas prices high.
The longer I hear “drilling won’t have any immediate effect” the more time that passes that drilling would make a difference.
madmonkphotog on June 11, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Funny that the same people who refuse to drill in ANWR, off Florida etc. are the same ones who have no problem with building McMansions here in Colorado and becoming a never ending nuisance in the process.
jdkchem on June 11, 2008 at 8:23 PM
They are NIYBY’s. Not In Your Back Yard.
flenser on June 11, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Then don’t. If five percent of conservatives start polling as supporting Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, it will send the neccesary message to the GOP leadership – move right.
You’re not as powerless as you think you are.
flenser on June 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM
McCain = Obama = McCain. They’re one in the same.
KSgop on June 11, 2008 at 8:50 PM
No. Drilling in ANWR is not like drilling in the Grand Canyon. There is no oil in the Grand Canyon.
swampleg on June 11, 2008 at 9:12 PM
The synapses of his brain are filled with cement.
That’s a joke, right?
No, I guess it’s not a joke. Grasshopper, you severely underestimate voter anger — it has nothing to do with uniforms.
Ah, it become clearer — green is better, always, ever and no matter what.
Nichevo on June 11, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »