Energy: McCain’s defining difference?
If you have yet to see the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, you probably aren’t looking hard enough. From the war in Iraq to their respective tax plans to their stance on social issues, the two men couldn’t be further apart. Yet, many pundits have criticized McCain for not developing an energy platform starkly different from his Democratic challenger.
That criticism has undoubtedly been laid to rest this week, as McCain has come out swinging on the issue of America’s energy dependence, in the process painting a monumental difference between himself and Sen. Obama.
McCain began rolling out his energy platform Monday, calling for the moratorium on off-shore drilling to be lifted. The moratorium, which has been in place since 1980, prohibits oil exploration along approximately 80% of the nation’s coastal region.
A big win for McCain was getting Florida governor Charlie Crist behind his efforts to reverse the off-shore drilling ban. Crist has long been opposed to any legislation that would allow drilling off Florida’s coast (and, if nothing else, Crist’s 180-degree shift on the issue should put the Crist-for-VP rumor mill into full swing).
Obama immediately criticized McCain’s plan as being a “short-term fix.” But the only plan Obama has offered so far to combat the oil crunch is to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Obama’s campaign says he plans to use the revenues from the windfalls tax to provide assistance to families who cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Vagueness is what empty campaign promises are made of. It would be interesting to see who would be in charge of determining which families do or do not qualify for energy bill payment assistance.
In a speech Tuesday, McCain drew on an obvious comparison of Obama’s tax proposal: “If the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big idea too — and a lot of good it did us,” McCain said in the speech. “Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I’m all for recycling — but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s.”
Wednesday, McCain continued on the energy offensive, calling for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors over the next two decades and promising to sink $2 billion federal funding annually into clean-burning coal.
In calling for off-shore drilling, McCain will likely lose much of the support he’s been touting from environmentalists, which typically support Democratic candidates anyway. And, he risks a bit of a backlash in coastal swing states such as Florida — even with Crist’s support — and Virginia, not to mention the Carolinas. Obama figures he should fare well in each of the latter three, Republican strongholds all and despite McCain’s strong military support in South Carolina. McCain is also likely to be called out for his complete policy shift on the issue. During his run for the presidency in 2000, he opposed off-shore drilling and even criticized the Clinton administration for favoritsm towards off-shore drilling.
But McCain’s about-face on the issue is still a wise political move that will ultimately benefit him. A recent Gallup poll found 57% of Americans in favor of off-shore drilling. A Rasmussen poll is even more favorable, with 67% favoring off-shore exploration and just 18% opposing it. Even a majority of residents from California appear to be warming to the idea, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, conducted in San Diego, which found a narrow majority (53%) now favoring off-shore drilling.
This much seems clear: With the national average for a gallon of gasoline pushing past $4 a gallon, energy dependence has become a bigger issue than it has been in American politics since the oil embargo 30 years ago. One must wonder how long Obama can afford to wait before he starts to offer his own solution to the problem . . . one that includes something other than a tax hike. Thus far, Obama has focused primarily on biofuels as a way to reduce the energy crisis, which isn’t likely to work. Other than that, his primary focus on energy has been to go green . . . something that could well increase our energy costs before decreasing them.