For weeks McCain and surrogates have said things that have been declared false across the political spectrum (even Karl Rove made that point, on Fox News, on Sunday). In just the days since McCain added Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket, they have said she opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. She didn’t, and Alaska still has the money. McCain has said Palin opposed congressional earmarks. False: She requested $200 million this year alone. McCain said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners. In reality, Obama voted to make sex-ed teaching age-appropriate, and tightened the standards on it. McCain says his tax cuts will provide money for more Americans than Obama’s plan. Not true.
In response, news media such as The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and TV networks are laying bare the facts. So far, so good for people hoping to be informed.
In response, though, the McCain campaign has made clear it has no plans to change its claims or, more generally, its approach. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers told Politico.com on Friday, “We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” when McCain wooed the press with his “Straight Talk Express” campaign. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”
But we should be working to get off of oil. The republican plan is to stay on oil but just get it from someplace else. Oil is a finite resource, whether its now or in 50 years we are going to run out.
Not to mention the envirnmental damage. What is wrong with working to get away from oil? We could make millions of jobs with the creation of the “green” industry. Jobs that can’t be outsourced.
You’re telling lies again. The Republican plan is the plan of reality. We realize there is no magic bean that is going to save us from our oil addiction. All options have to be on the table, which is the McCain plan.
Lies? Do the republicans want to get the country off of oil? NO.
Thats what I said and thats not a lie.
And as far as reality is concerned the republicans have been living in a bubble for years. McCain still thinks our economy is strong.
We could get ourselves off of oil as a fuel source if we put some significant resources behind alternative renewable fuels. Yes it will take years but its a lot better in the long run than “drill-baby-drill”.
Why do you want this country to stay trapped with oil so much?
I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel)
event at the Bradley Center this weekend if anybody wants them.
He’s going to try to jump 5000 Obama supporters with a bulldozer.
Should be a good time.
Let me know…
In two posts you have yet to tell me I’m wrong in my statement. Republicans want to stay on oil. Yes they will include alternative energy sources. But the cornerstone of their energy plan is to drill which in my opinion is a step in the wrong direction. All of our resources should now be focused on wind, solar and nuclear.
And stay away from the ad hominem arguments because you’re the only righty here worth debating.
It’s not the cornerstone. There is no “A is better than B” in the Republican plan.
I love how simple you make it sound. “We just need to get off oil” like it’s just a matter of throwing some Obama hope into the research sector and his purple unicorn will deliver us the magic formula for an oil free life.
The truth is the US is going to be on oil for 50 years, probably more. The amount should be decreasing but we’re still going to need it. Imagine the day when we decreased our demand for it so much that we could rely on ONLY domestic oil. But hey, doesn’t that mean it’s a good thing to increase our domestic oil?
We need better MPG cars like the Volt, at prices that will make them a reasonable alternative for mainstream America (unlike the Volt). We need a clean source of electricity to charge these cars, like nuclear. We more money invested in clean energy like solar, cellulosic ethanol, fuel cells, battery storage capacity, and clean coal.
I know wind is the big hippy movement right now but I’m far from sold on it due the the massive amounts of land it takes to get a small amount of power. Solar seems like such a better investment considering you can retrofit almost any house with solar panels. Add in the constant wear and tear from all the heavy moving parts on big wind generators and solar looks even better.
We Republicans, and the majority of Americans, realize that no amount of domestic drilling is going to secure our energy needs, but every little bit helps. If you’re so hell bent on only looking for single green solutions to replace oil you’re kidding yourself. How can you honestly be happy about something like the Lackawanna windmills when they almost take up more space than the number of houses they are capable of providing power to? Those are great, but finding more domestic oil is a waste?
In addition to all these goals to increase our supply we need to take steps to cut our demand, not just in oil but electricity.
You really should go read link I posted for McCain’s plan instead of continuing to spout this crap about the Republicans only wanting to drill. If you refuse to it’s senseless trying to have a good debate with you because you’ll just keep sitting there on your incorrect assumption that all Republican’s want to do is drill.
As you have said finding domestic oil will not get rid of our dependence on foriegn oil only temporarily shrink it. In the 10 years it will take to get oil offshore and in my gas tank gas will probably be at $10 a gallon.
We need to find ways to get off of oil end of story.
I love how people still are against wind power. In Jefferson/Lewis county the farmers have saved their well being by inviting in these wind farms. They still are farming the land just as before and energy output is not minimal like many of you indicate. I cannot remember the numbers but they are very large for each farm and do have a significant impact on sources for energy.
from what I remember reading, it would take a wind farm approx the size of a major city (like NY/LA) to provide the same output as a conventional power plant.
no time to back that statement up with a link though. I don’t think anyone’s really against it as much as they see it not worth the hassle when there are more efficient ways to make power
