The Hill reported McCain's immigration bill "damaged his credibility with conservatives," but not that he responded by now opposing it
SUMMARY: The Hill reported that Sen. John McCain "sponsored legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants" and said "[t]his damaged his credibility with conservatives, and they do not trust him on the issue." While asserting that McCain took a "harder stance" on immigration during the primary, the article did not note that McCain now says he would no longer support the bill he co-sponsored with Kennedy if it came up for a vote in the Senate.
In a May 21 article headlined "Illegals Haunt McCain," The Hill reported: "[Sen. John] McCain sponsored legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. This damaged his credibility with conservatives, and they do not trust him on the issue. Though the bill did not pass, many conservatives view the McCain-Kennedy legislation as a black mark on McCain's record." The Hill continued: "McCain adopted a harder stance on the campaign trail as his primary opponents painted him as soft on the issue. Since he emerged from the field as the GOP's presumptive nominee, McCain has steered clear of immigration whenever possible." But while asserting that McCain took a "harder stance" during the primary and now tries to avoid the issue, writer Jeffrey Young did not report that McCain has actually reversed himself on a key question in the immigration debate and at the January 30 Republican debate said that he would no longer support the bill he co-sponsored with Kennedy if it came up for a vote in the Senate. McCain now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
As Media Matters for America has documented, a May 5 Hill article on McCain's courtship of Hispanic voters reported his sponsorship of the McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation without noting that McCain has said he no longer supports it.
From the May 21 Hill article:
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is backing the renewal of a $250 million-a-year program that will pay illegal immigrants' hospital bills.
The very idea that McCain is again supporting a program that some view as rewarding illegal immigrants is certain to attract attention from the same conservatives he's trying to win over for the White House.
The measure, which would reimburse hospitals for the cost of treating illegal immigrants, has broad support from both parties, including from some immigration hardliners and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).
Even some of McCain's toughest critics on immigration admit it is a relatively benign program. But McCain's association with it underscores his rift on immigration with the right wing, which sees him as championing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"It's another reminder that he's 'Amnesty John,' " said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, who nevertheless has no major objection to the proposal. "It's another reminder of his role in promoting not just amnesty but promoting illegal immigration in the first place."
An aide to McCain said the Arizona Republican stands by his position.
Federal law forbids hospitals from turning anyone away from emergency rooms, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay for care. Hospitals have been complaining for a decade about the increasing financial burden they bear treating illegal immigrants. Congress responded by creating this funding stream in 2003; it is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year.
McCain is not alone in supporting the program. Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), who are illegal immigration hardliners, also support it.
Yet McCain sponsored legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. This damaged his credibility with conservatives, and they do not trust him on the issue.
Though the bill did not pass, many conservatives view the McCain-Kennedy legislation as a black mark on McCain's record.
McCain adopted a harder stance on the campaign trail as his primary opponents painted him as soft on the issue. Since he emerged from the field as the GOP's presumptive nominee, McCain has steered clear of immigration whenever possible.
Since he emerged from the field as the GOP's presumptive nominee, McCain has steered clear of immigration whenever possible.
He also steered clear of a senate vote on Webb's GI bill that was passed with a veto proof margin today.
Which brings to light a need for a fitting name for our "maverick".
In the war of 1812, Andrew Jackson was called "Ol Hickory".
In WW2, Patton was called "Ol blood and guts".
Makes sense that in 2008 McCain should be called "Ol flip and flop".
Snoopy,
Please link the vote on the GI Bill if you would, I am very, very curious. Some who post on this site were looking for a McCain rebuttal before judging him and I would love their thoughts.
Columbus,
Are you Christian?
Columbo,
It matters if you are a hypocrite!
I feel bad for the woman...
I feel bad for the woman Laura Bush killed with her car too. See, we can both play this stupid, childish game, can't we?
Columbo,
If you are worried about that girl, how do you think her family feels when idiots like you constantly remind them of her tragic death?
It wasn't a murder... Kennedy was never brought up on murder charges. What DID happen was that he was charged with leaving the scene of the accident and subsequently received a sentence of 2 months which was suspended.
Quit trying to 'revise' history... your personal views of the Senator do not change the facts of the case.
OH please, I know you want to bring up a fascinating story to try to back your beloved idiot of a senator. But the fact is he left her to die in the car that was sinking, and never went to tell authorities and came up wiht a cover - all because he's a Kennedy.
Many writings and studies have concluded that you are wrong, and I am right. Protect away though...after all, it wont be long until (as the saying goes) "who goes around comes around".
On November 4, 1979, CBS presented a one-hour special entitled "Teddy", during which the journey from the cottage to Dike Bridge was retraced by a car-mounted camera. As the car makes a sharp turn off the main road toward the bridge, the camera jumped up and down because of the rougher surface of the new road. According to one account, this suggested to viewers that Kennedy could not have been telling the truth when he said that he was unaware that he had taken a wrong turn. This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination.
Wow,
you mean in the how many years since the accident, the roud couldn't have deteriorated?
That does it for me. He must have been drunk and tried to kill her because the road was bumpy.
Excellant analysis!
That doesn't mean anything. It has as much cred as those 'specials' that were done after the Kennedy assassination, the ones that concluded that Oswald COULD have done it. Uh-huh.
COULD have done it isn't the same as ACTUALLY DID IT. So, your point about the CBS 'special' - btw, good plagiarizing from Wikipedia - has no merit.
I was just giving one example of the stuff that is out there. But in my view - he "doesnt remember what he said/did after the accident", and hes sorry for not calling the cops.
Yeah, sure signs of GUILTY.
Yup,
Because you are the judge, jury and executioner! I take it you have never made a mistake in your life?
Ive never killed someone and tried to cover it up, no.
Stuff and nonsense. Should LB have been charged with something? Yeah, I think so. Could she have gotten away with things because of political influence? Yeah, Im with you on that.
But did Teddy run from the scene and not tell the authorities for a reason? Yeah, without a doubt.
Smells like .... looks like .... acts like. Must be.
I'm sure these 'writings and studies' are unbiased and 'apolitical'. *cough*
Oh, care to link any of them for us? Transcripts of Rush, Hannity, Levin, et al do not count.
Oh, but apples to apples, my friend. You assume kennedy was dead drunk though no clear proof of that exists either. You assume a coverup when no proof exists, in fact all you have is assumptions about his state, what he was doing, and an alledged coverup, but where's the proof?
That's right, it's about as transparent as my proof. See how that works?
Columbo,
You were there with Kennedy, you know what happened?
I'm having a hard time getting this picture out of my mind.
Early each morning before they unlock the doors for business Brock assembles his loyal staff and does his best impression of Walmart by leading them in the cheer "McCain will no longer support the bill he co-sponsored with Kennedy if it came up for a vote in the Senate."...c'mon let me hear you...louder this time.
McCain has said that he would not vote for his "own" bill again...why?...because it will not come up for a vote again...mmfa knows this but chooses to play cheap politics...just like their archenemy Hannity...lmao.
This conservative does not believe for one minute that McCain has changed his core belief on amnesty...he has just kept it hidden in order to pander to his base. If elected, you can bet your ass that he will sign on to legislation proposing amnesty.
...he has just kept it hidden in order to pander to his base.
A sterling example of honesty and integrity...we need more of that in politicians. ;>)
...he has just kept it hidden in order to pander to his base.
What else do you think he's hiding?
Is he secretly opposed to the Bush tax cuts?
Is he secretly against waterboarding?
Is he secretly supporting pro-choice causes?
I think real conservatives should vote for Obama (or Barr) in protest, for having a 'fake' conservative on their ticket. Come on, who's with me??
Wesley,
I think you are missing the point, MMFA is citing McCain's own words. I'm not sure what you are accusing MMFA of doing here, but your making their point!
Ironic that the linked article could be construed as anti-Maverick misinformation for not mentioning that McCain no longer would support the bill. I'm sure Maverick proponents routinely remind the conservative base that the Maverick no longer supports it.
Is he secretly against waterboarding? He has publicly been against waterboarding from the debates to the Bill OReilly interview.
Is he secretly supporting pro-choice causes? No, thank god.
I think real conservatives should vote for Obama (or Barr) in protest, for having a 'fake' conservative on their ticket. Come on, who's with me? No thanks. We don't like McCain because hes a fake conservative whos really a liberal. I dont think Obama is very trustworth either, but if we dont like McCain because we think hes liberal, what makes you think we want to vote for any other liberal?
I could care less about any of those 3 topics. However - if you want to lower the debt, then stop the earmark & unneccesary spending like farm bill, increasing SCHIP, expanding unemployment, the housing bill, etc.
Any by saying "i could care less about" them, Im referring to my decisions on who to back for the general election.
None of those are high on my importance list for President. After all, they're controlled mainly by Congress anyway, not the President.
And I wish that's all they care about... just care about their own miserable lives and stay the hell out of everyone elses. The issues of 'gay marriage' and 'abortion' come to mind...
Why do you think everyone who is a conservative actually cares that much about gay marriage? This country gives me the right not to care about it one way or the other. I personally have no problem with it. I wont vote for it or against it.
And abortion - well some people just see it as morally wrong. I don't advocate it, but I wont tell someone not to do it.
Why do you think everyone who is a conservative actually cares that much about gay marriage? This country gives me the right not to care about it one way or the other. I personally have no problem with it. I wont vote for it or against it.
And abortion - well some people just see it as morally wrong. I don't advocate it, but I wont tell someone not to do it.
Can't say ALL conservatives but the general consensus on righty talk radio is that they are against gay marriage. As an example, M. Rotten Levin used the flimsiest of excuses to explain his outrage over the recent California decision - the way the decision was reached by the court. Of course, he did let it slip that he is opposed to same-sex marriage for a 'variety' of reasons but didn't elaborate. Big surprise.
I wonder where was his outrage over the President basically hijacking - no pun intended - the Constitution and perverting it to achieve his sordid goals. Oh, but that's different... 9/11 justifies ANYTHING, right?
Columbus,
Real conservatives are white?
So people of color cannot be conservative in your opinion?
Ah, but you did say that:
Real conservatives (aka, middle-upper class white suburbia) to vote for the guy who says to eat less, stop driving your suv, and pay more to help fight global warming (ugh)? Doubtful.
Now you are back tracking?
Well,
When you clearly state that to be conservative you must be white, I would say that gives me justification in calling you racist.
Columbo,
Could you please define liberal and conservative in your own words?
Heaven forbid I try to make myself & my family happy during my 70+ yr lifetime. I must be crazy.
Columbo,
You are crazy and I can't imagine anyone being happy that is related to you.
Nothing crazy about that. Just a little selfish, I think. Haven't you ever just had the urge to help someone in need? Come on, I know if you think hard of an example, you could come up with something.
Now think about when you did that thing. Didn't it make you feel good? Ever wonder why helping others (not just family) makes you feel good?
Columbo,
From your comments, I don't think you have ever stopped to help anybody in your entire life, whether it cost you something or not.
You are one miserable, hopeless, unhappy, selfish and sorry person.
You wouldn't gamble your life on hope? Who would want to do that? Have hope in a better world, hope to be a better person hope for a better life for your family?
I must be crazy for having hope!
You are one miserable, hopeless, unhappy, selfish and sorry person.
Sorry, I prefer: happily engaged, expecting father, well educated (two BS, one MS), financially responsible, Range Rover driving 28yr old man who's starting a family in upper-middle class suburbia 20 miles outside of Columbus, OH. But thanks for the inspiration.
hope for a better life for your family?
I difference between you and I? I dont "hope" to do those things, I actually get up off my butt and make them happen.
So Columbus,
How old are you?
Heaven forbid I try to make myself & my family happy during my 70+ yr lifetime. I must be crazy.
Ah, yes the average lifetime. I'm sure that's what you were referring to.
Did it take you that long to come up with a cover story? Columbus, if you are going to come here and try to be taken seriously, please don't make up stuff about yourself.
No one really cares that you are a washed up 70+ year old dope living in someone's basement.
Make peace with your self and then you won't be so bitter.
No one really cares that you are a washed up 70+ year old dope living in someone's basement.
You clearly have no argument, just being obtuse. And if what you say above were true, then I'd be a democrat now wouldnt i?
Keep coming back Columbus. I love your tenacity. In the face of your racist and ignorant comments as well as lies about yourself, you keep coming back.
Good job.
You should put that to use and get a real life.
Looks like somebody forgot which fake life story goes with which log in name he's using again.
Hey Collie, tell us about how you once met Golda Meier while you were having a subcrontractor put shingles up on the hut you were monitoring the Ohio election results from again. I love that story.
Columbus,
I'm a 22 year old billionaire with 3 BS's, 4 MS's 1 JD, 1 MBA, 4 PhD's own 8 Mercedes Benz, have seven children and I am married to Scarlett Johansson.
How's your fantasy life again?
Columbus,
I need to know, are you a 28 yo living in a 70+ body or a 70+ yo living in a 28 yo body?
I might write an article about you in The National Inquirer.
Well,
If he is trying to make a point by telling us those things, then it is important!
Sorry man, I dont gamble my life on "hope". And I know much about BO from living in Chicago from 2003-2007.
5% isn't much....but then again, it all depends on how much you are putting in it.
...during my 70+ yr lifetime.
No fool like an old fool...
Columbo,
You finally answered my question, you can't be a Christian and think like that!
Its comparing you to Richard Dawkins. he has a book that basically thinks he knows everything about everyone by their religious views.
However, you fail on this respect becuase my religion does not define me at all - given that I have not voluntarily gone to church in 10+ yrs.
Columbus,
Do you get a commision on the word obtuse? Or did you just learn it?
You are one delusional dude. Your success and happiness are all in your head man. Come into the real world, you might not like your own reality, but eventually you'll feel better.
Well, I do live in the real world. I don't make stuff up about myself to try to impress anonymous bloggers.
So my reality would be good for you.
How to tell if a right winger is losing an argument....
"You're just being obtuse."
Someone watched the Shawshank redemption yesterday!
You can always leave... after all, you Righties love to throw that in our faces, right?
Love it or leave it... that sort of thing.
Well, looks like your vote will be a wasted one. Obama is on track to get the Dem nomination and he is beating McCain in the polls for the general. Oh, and do not forget about those congressionals too. Your side has already lost three of those... you, know, those special elections? The one in Miss. was a real shocker, wasn't it?
Get ready for a bloodbath come November. Hopefully, you guys will be OUT for the next 40 years... ideally for ETERNITY.
Current polls mean nothing. I personally am preparing myself for another 4+ yrs of hell regardless which of the 3 get into office. Higher gas prices (no ANWR, Coastal, SD drilling), more of my money going down the drain to someone elses healthcare, my standard of living decreasing due to fighting a non existant man-made climate fabrication. All we need now is for each candidate to take a smiling photo with Hugo Chavez, and Hamas at the dinner table, and we'll be all set.
Columbo,
You've got those ridiculous talking points down to a tee. Do you ever actually think on your own or do you just listen to right wing radio talk show hosts?
Everything's bad, nothing's good, how do you make your family happy again?
Everything's bad, nothing's good, how do you make your family happy again?
Sure theres good things. No terrorist attacks on american soil since 9/11, people like Rev. Wright have been brought into the spotlight to be seen for who they really are, and housing prices are finally back to a normal level. Whats wrong w/ those?
Be a bit more specific. What exactly are you asking me. I dont see what my new child has to do with my pessimistic/optimistic political views.
The shouldn't you be happy and optimisitic about your future, instead you come here saying very pessimistic things and acting like a curmudgeon.
I just see a little disconnect between your two different personalities.
He wants to be self-reliant.
Then he's going to build his own baby bed, make all of his own baby food, build all the roads his car travels on, lives on one income so the second spouse can teach the kid (since you can't rely on others to help pay the teacher's salary, books, classrooms, cafeteria space, gym equipment, etc), never vaccinate his child against any childhood illnesses because it was through the sacrifice of others that we now have those vaccinces, etc, etc.
What a fool.
Let's see: Housing prices - hmmm, says the crash is still continuing, it's a bad time to buy. That's good in conservative world...
Terrorist attacks: hmmm, dozens yearly around the world, increasing, not decreasing. Oh, you said American soil - it was what - 10 years between the 1st and 2nd world trade center attacks? I fail to see your point again.
I sure hope your next pitch is a home run, cause you sure just missed a few easy swings...
Let's see: Housing prices - hmmm, says the crash is still continuing, it's a bad time to buy.
False. Its not a bad time to buy when you look at the big picture. If you are looking to buy to turn around a profit in 1-2 years, then yes I would agree. However, even if the price drops 3-8%, the mortgage rates will increase thus actually costing more. So it is a good time to buy, its just a terrible time to sell.
Terrorist attacks: hmmm, dozens yearly around the world, increasing, not decreasing. Oh, you said American soil - it was what - 10 years between the 1st and 2nd world trade center attacks? I fail to see your point again.
American soil. You just proved my point on that. Let them terrorize their own countries.
I sure hope your next pitch is a home run, cause you sure just missed a few easy swings...
You obviously do not play baseball.
American soil. You just proved my point on that. Let them terrorize their own countries
See? Ya missed again. There is no difference between attacks on american soil between Clinton and Bush. When you hit 8 years you may have an opportunity to form a point. Until then, nothing different on the "homeland".
Same goes for housing prices. "it's a great time to buy!" How about you admit that is at best a localized concept? "hey, poop cost's 5 cents in bumfuk, egypt, what a great deal! We've never had it so good in Bumfuk!"
Are you honestly comparing the housing market in the US to Egypt? How ingenius.
Homes are cheaper to buy now than they have been in a long long time. Not to mention that up until a few years ago, 5% interest rates were unheard of. If you honestly cannot see right now as the perfect time to buy a home....
Again, what a fool.
So, it affects us not at all when terrorists hit Spain, or Great Britain? It affects us not at all when terrorists running amok in Iraq (who were not there before we invaded their country) are costing us billions of dollars by their damage of the infrastructure? It costs us nothing?
What an absolute fool!
Be honest with yourself Columbus. Oil prices have nothing to do with drilling in ANWR. Ask yourself who is lobbying for that and why. Gas prices are a direct result of the energy policy set forth following the secret meetings Cheney had with the Oil Executives. We bought lunch for those guys and we still don't know who in the hell was there or what they talked about.
The reality is that since that time gas prices have risen to levels never seen before and it just so happens that the folks in that meetng are the only ones reaping the benefits of that energy policy crafted behind closed doors. Quit blaming oil prices on environmentalist who want to protect the earth. Start blaming them on speculators, oil companies, and the policy we have in the middle east. A volatile middle east leads to speculative price gouging for us all. Ask youself this as well, why is it that the congress released 42 million acres in the gulf for oil exploration and only 12 million acres are being explored? I'm sick of this ridiculous argument that the government is not letting oil companies do more drilling. Perhaps if they found something and was able to harness it and the oil prices really went down then maybe you could convince the people to move on to other areas.
The oil companies could lower the price of a gallon of gas by one dollar tomorrow and still reap extensive profits. What is sickening is how you want to defend tose guys when they are doing nothing more than enriching themselves off the backs of every hard working American and soldier in a time of war. Their conduct and those who defend it is the most unpatriotic thing I have ever witnessed. I hope you are proud of yourself.
Gas prices are a direct result of the energy policy set forth following the secret meetings Cheney had with the Oil Executives.
Stuff and nonsense. Gas prices are a result of price gouging & monopolistic policies of other countries. You can sue a corporate entity of monopoly, but not a country in terms of selling their own resources. Dont get me started on future trading either, as I'm not a fan. But the facts are that we've got other countries drilling in places just a few hundred miles off our coast, where we should be drilling. We've got enough oil to sustain ourselves and greatly reduce our foreign imports from OPEC countries to a bare minimum. You can deny or change the subject as much as you want, but bottom line is that we are at fault for not using our own resources - as thats the only way we can control our prices.
Quit blaming oil prices on environmentalist who want to protect the earth. Start blaming them on speculators, oil companies, and the policy we have in the middle east. A volatile middle east leads to speculative price gouging for us all.
They are both to blame. Our corporate policies and environmentalist clashing head to head only adds fuel to the fire. The same democrats complaining about the price of oil and that Bush did not do enough to force the price down from Saudi's are the same ones who wont let us drill our own oil. In fact, how hypocritical is it that the senator from Illinois bashed the oil companies because gas prices in his state are higher than any other state, without noting the fact that his state has a 20% tax rate on gasoline? Ahh yes, the progressive tax that they dont want to talk about.
What is sickening is how you want to defend tose guys when they are doing nothing more than enriching themselves off the backs of every hard working American and soldier in a time of war. Their conduct and those who defend it is the most unpatriotic thing I have ever witnessed. I hope you are proud of yourself.
I'd like for you to prove that I have, or am, defending oil companies. You are making incorrect, baseless assertions about my views, and they are entirely skewed. I don't like oil companies - but the fact is, our congress for the last 30 years has failed us when it come to oil indepenence. Now that its the 2nd crisis in 30 years, they are trying to take the blame off themselves.
Boy you jump around a lot. So now you are against all government, yet you take their handouts.
Who again is taking our oil? Just a few hundred miles off our coast? Can you back up that claim?
While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.
The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to sell his country’s oil to China, oil that is currently coming to the United States.
Meanwhile, a new left-wing populist regime in Bolivia has nationalized the natural gas industry, threatening to cut off supplies to the United States.
SLANT DRILLING
There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou. Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.
As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.
After elections in Mexico in early July, when a new regime hostile to Washington is expected to take power, the United States might be without supplies of Mexican crude oil. The United States gets about 40 percent of its imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.
China is eager to tap into oil reserves in the Florida Straits and then make a deal with Castro to control it. The Chinese have already reopened an abandoned Russian oil refinery in Cuba. Much of the gas refined there is believed to be destined for Freeport in the Bahamas, where the Chinese, through front company Hutchison-Whampoa, has developed a massive port facility and airfield.
With the refinery reopened and expanded it will also meet the needs of Castro.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has introduced legislation to ease U.S. restrictions that prevent dealing with Cuba to drill in the Florida Straits. It is hoped that Florida regulations that prevent U.S. oil drilling off the state’s coasts could also be eased.
The irony is that Chinese drilling could be even more of an environmental hazard since China is not as concerned about or equipped to deal with any potential ecological disaster as a result of a spill, said Craig.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html
And that was from 2006. They are already drilling. Do some research, or pay attention to the news, or something.... man.
Not to mention things like this where we have republican flip floppers, and liberal environmental whacko like Defenders of Wildlife that are responsible for our oil prices by prohibiting us from getting our own oil...
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2006/7_12_2006_drilling_deal_approved.php
Columbus,
So what you are saying is that China is drilling for oil in Cuba's oil fields, getting Cuba's oil and we should do what about that?
Your reports about slant drilling into the "USA's" oilfields is false by the way.
The state of Florida (Gov. Bush) had asked for the ban on US companies drilling in US waters off the coast of Florida.
I'm not sure what your point is, but Cuba is a sovereign nation drilling for oil off it's own coast, in it's own waters from it's own oil fields.
If we lift the trade embargo with Cuba, then the US could benefit from that oil (if and when it ever comes out of the drilling rigs, nothing much so far).
You obviously dont know what slant drilling is. It means that they can drill our oil while not residing on our land/water. They can be outside of our borders, but the drill itself goes on a slant once its buried beneath the surface.
Stuff and nonsense. Gas prices are a result of price gouging & monopolistic policies of other countries. You can sue a corporate entity of monopoly, but not a country in terms of selling their own resources. Dont get me started on future trading either, as I'm not a fan. But the facts are that we've got other countries drilling in places just a few hundred miles off our coast, where we should be drilling. We've got enough oil to sustain ourselves and greatly reduce our foreign imports from OPEC countries to a bare minimum. You can deny or change the subject as much as you want, but bottom line is that we are at fault for not using our own resources - as thats the only way we can control our prices.
So it is then your assertion that the energy policy set forth behind closed doors when gas was around $1.54 a gallon has nothing to do with the currrent prices we now see? Perhaps you can enlighten me on how that secret energy policy has moved us toward energy independence. the fact remains that the congress opened 42 million acres to exploration and drilling and we just aren't doing it. where is the logic in opening other areas when we can't even get the guys to use what is open? Here is the reality sir, the futures market is dictating the price of oil and it's primary factor is the uincertainity in the middle east, thanks to our rouge foreign policy. Supply plays a much smaller role than you believe.
corporate policies and environmentalist clashing head to head only adds fuel to the fire. The same democrats complaining about the price of oil and that Bush did not do enough to force the price down from Saudi's are the same ones who wont let us drill our own oil. In fact, how hypocritical is it that the senator from Illinois bashed the oil companies because gas prices in his state are higher than any other state, without noting the fact that his state has a 20% tax rate on gasoline? Ahh yes, the progressive tax that they dont want to talk about.
It's not a democratic policy to hold hands with the Saudi's and beg them for more output. If I remember correctly Jimmy Carter started this nation on an energy independence trail only to have it snuffed out by the omnipotent Ronald Reagan. It's funny how noone complained about those taxes in 1998 and your belief that knocking off around .80 cents off a gallon somehow lets the oil companies off the hook is laughable, considering that tax money is a direct investment in infrastructure, which by the way the oil companies benefit from. We get most of our oil from Canada anyway so your ongoing argument about Saudia Arabia is off base.
I'd like for you to prove that I have, or am, defending oil companies. You are making incorrect, baseless assertions about my views, and they are entirely skewed. I don't like oil companies - but the fact is, our congress for the last 30 years has failed us when it come to oil indepenence. Now that its the 2nd crisis in 30 years, they are trying to take the blame off themselves.
Point taken. It has just been my experience that the conservative view on this issue is to stick up for the oil companies by yelling "free market" while trying to convince people that it is the Democrats fault for gas prices because we can't drill in Alaska or get the shale from Colorado. that is ridiculous given that supply is basically at an all time high,(until recently) and the oil companies are just doing the bidding of the speculators for nothing but greed. I agree with the need for energy independence and congress's failure. But I firmly believe that the oil companies cold lower the price of a gallon by a dollar or more tomorrow and still make very good profits. I just don't see any movement on their part to take these record profits and apply them to anythign other than lobbying for more drilling and lobbying against alternative fuel. I also see them making policy behind closed doors and then somehow reaping record profits in a time of war. While both may be to blame I think we can all agree on who the villians are here.