MCCain is focusing his whole campaign on drilling for oil?

To get the first drop thirteen years from now? If that's all he has to offer, then this is worse than the Twilight Zone.MCCain is focusing his whole campaign on drilling for oil?
For starters he isn't basing his whole campaign on drilling, it's just the hot button topic currently. Secondly, drilling experts say there isn't a drop of oil on the planet they couldn't recover within six years. The notion that it would take 10+ years to have new oil start flowing is absurd and nothing more than political rhetoric from the Pelosi/Reid machine.MCCain is focusing his whole campaign on drilling for oil?
Its because McCain has little to go on, he cant possibly win a campaign based on foreign policy, healthcare, or social liberties, so energy is his main weapon.





The 10-13 year things is inflated to make him look bad, its not really true.





But still the potential damage to the enviornment has every enviornmentalist hardlined against him, which is losing him alot of votes.





Besides, if people would do thier research, they'd realize that simple having more oil doesnt do to much to gas prices, as of now the country hasnt made any sizable upgrade to its ability to REFINE oil in over 20 years





What im saying is, if you can refine 1 barrel a day (to keep the numbers simple) and you get one barrel of oil in per day, great, if you can refine 1 barrel a day but get 3 barrels of oil in a day, you still only get one barrel of fuels at the end of the day ...see what i mean?





Also, most people are trying to limit the NEED for energy as opposed to the cost, BOTH save money, but people don't realize that.





Besides, while non of the ultra-conservatives on this site will admit or accept it, McCain is going to lose, he doesnt even have the support of a solid 3/4 of the REPUBLICAN party, let alone the number of liberal voters he would need to swing to win anyways.
I doubt it will be 13 years. Free enterprise with the consent of Government can get things done very quickly. Drilling for oil isn't a bad alternative.





Obama has one and only one campaign issue - raising taxes! (on the rich) This will slow the economy because a corporation is not a person. Taxes are a cost of business. corporations will simply make their employees work harder for less. They will make customers pay more for less. They will make stock holders earn less in investments. What sort of Twilight Zone Scenario is Obama's plan? People seeking to do good, and who want to help the poor, increase taxes on corporations and by their envy of the rich, actually cause more misery, poverty and unemployment. Then they cause energy prices to skyrocket on top of it.
Almost...he is also running ads slandering Obama, by insisting that high oil prices are Obama's fault, and the latest one is literally aimed at Obama's popularity, using Brittney Spears---I think he is getting desperate.....
That's not true, he is also for no new taxes, depending on what show he happens to be on at the time, staying in Iraq until and attacking Obama.
If you truly believe that's his whole campaign (or even his whole energy plan), then I'm ashamed my country lets people like you vote. Or procreate.
Bush rhetoric on energy strays from the facts


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_o鈥?/a>





Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices.





THE SPIN:





Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. ';We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity in the world right now,'; he said. Blaming ';the lack of refinery capacity'; for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.





FACT:





Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.





On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use. They note, for example, that few bases are near pipelines needed to bring crude in and move finished product out.





When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.





While no new refinery has been built in more than 30 years, companies have been adding on to existing refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates an additional 800,000 barrels a day of production will be added to existing refineries in the next three years. A joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and the Saudi Arabian oil company is expected to double capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.





Even the industry's refinery expansion plans have been scaled back over the last few years because companies anticipate less demand for gasoline since the government now requires a huge expansion of ethanol as a motor fuel. They ask: Why should refiners make more gasoline if ethanol is to be used?





THE SPIN:





Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.





';If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR,'; said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies ';likely will mean lower gas prices.';





FACT:





Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.





Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil 鈥?pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day 鈥?would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.





In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.