NBC, CNN repeat McCain's criticism of Obama for 2005 energy bill vote, but neither report included Obama response
SUMMARY: NBC and CNN uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's charge that Sen. Barack Obama voted for an energy bill in 2005 that was "full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies," while McCain voted against it. Neither provided a response from the Obama campaign, which says that Obama voted for the bill because it included extensive investments in renewable energy. Nor did either report note that the bill actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas industry.
Reporting on Sen. John McCain's tour of a nuclear power plant in Michigan, NBC and CNN uncritically reported McCain's charge that Sen. Barack Obama voted for an energy bill in 2005 that was "full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies," while McCain voted against it. Neither provided a response from the Obama campaign, which says that Obama voted for the bill because it included extensive investments in renewable energy. Nor did either report note that the bill actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas industry.
NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported on the August 6 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News that, "touring a nuclear power plant today, McCain pointed out Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill three years ago." She then aired a clip of McCain saying, "When the energy bill came to the floor of the Senate full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies, I voted against it. Senator Obama voted for it." Similarly, CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry also uncritically repeated McCain's claim August 6 on The Situation Room, despite the fact that former Sen. Tom Daschle said earlier on the program that Obama voted for the bill "because, in large measure, it included for the first time some of the alternative energy developments that this country so badly needs." Neither report mentioned Obama's responses to the charge, despite their inclusion in recent Associated Press and CNN.com articles.
Indeed, an August 4 Associated Press article reported that "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democrat voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy," and an August 5 CNN.com story said Obama defended his vote during the primary season, saying "it was the best that we could do right now, given the makeup of Congress." Further, Obama issued a press release on June 29, 2005, that said: "This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil." The release went on to cite the legislation's investments in biofuels, plug-in hybrids, flexible-fuel vehicles "that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline," and clean-coal technology as reasons he voted for the bill. The release also quoted him saying:
"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey toward energy independence."
And contrary to McCain's claim that the bill was "full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies," a February 27, 2007, Congressional Research Service report found that although the bill "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry," it also "provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years":
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857 million minus $1,501 million).
From the August 5 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MITCHELL: And touring a nuclear power plant today, McCain pointed out Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill three years ago.
McCAIN: When the energy bill came to the floor of the Senate full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies, I voted against it. Senator Obama voted for it.
MITCHELL: In fact, as energy prices climb this summer, both candidates have shifted with the political winds. McCain is now a true believer in offshore drilling, which he once opposed.
McCAIN: We're going to drill offshore and we're going to drill now.
From the August 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
DASCHLE: Well, Wolf, it's impossible to separate yourself from the record, and the record is very clear when it comes to energy in particular, but a lot of the issues. On 90 percent of the votes taken in the Senate over the course of the last eight years, John McCain and Barack Obama -- I mean, John McCain and George Bush have been together. He has voted against --
BLITZER: But a couple years ago in an energy bill that the president supported, Senator McCain opposed it because he thought it was too much -- there was too much fat in there. Senator Obama supported the president's energy bill.
DASCHLE: Well, that's because, in large measure, it included for the first time some of the alternative energy development that this country so badly needs. It included some of the conservation methods that we have been trying to get in the books for a long period of time. John McCain opposed that bill, [unintelligible] --
BLITZER: But it had a lot of -- it had a lot of benefits, though, for big oil, that legislation.
DASCHLE: Well, it had -- it's had some benefits for energy overall, but clearly, if we're ever going to change course, we've got to understand the importance of alternative energy.
[...]
HENRY: Obama has a much more cautious approach to nuclear power. He does not want to build any new plants without first getting a better handle on safety and security.
OBAMA [video clip]: It means finding safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.
HENRY: Now, in that speech, Obama also stepped up his attacks on McCain by charging once again that he's in the pocket of the oil industry. But McCain is firing back that, back in 2005, when the president's energy bill came up for a vote, Obama voted for that. That had some huge tax breaks for oil and gas interests. McCain voted against it -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Ed Henry, for that.















"Just words, just speeches"
...
I thought you left lots of white space in your posts to demonstrate how you pause in your natural speech, not because you wanted additional attention or anything.
You have to pause in this post? Why? Did you forget which screen name you were using? You made one comment. Why did you feel that it was so important that it deserved all that extra space? It was already the first comment. You've had so many first comments recently, one would think that you were hanging around just so that you could post first. On another thread, you posted so quickly that you didn't even know what Media Matters was talking about!
And you still want us to believe that you're not a rightie? A rightie trying to disrupt this site? A rightie who paired with Science101 to give him a couple of clear opportunities to disrupt the site?
Is it cause you a space cadet?
English please.
EC,
The dumbest poster in the land taking Pearline to task.
All I can say is WOW EC. You are dumber than I thought.
In 2006 republicans passed the gulf of mexico energy security act which opened up 8 million acres and an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil for exploration. Oil was $60 a barrel then.
This year the Saudi's said they would increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. The price of oil still went up.
Now we get another stunt about "drill here, drill now" to get access to app. 8 billion more barrels of oil. Wanna bet the price of oil goes up?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/gas_prices_not_rising_as_fast_as_oil_prices/
In 2004, for example, a gallon of gasoline retailed for about $2.00 while a barrel of oil sold for about $33. Today, oil’s price is higher by 275 percent while gasoline’s price is higher by only 100 percent.
So I guess the price of gas should be about what $12-$20, right? (I'm not a math major, BTW)
There was yet more strange reporting from Andrea Mitchell (as seen on MSNBC): "In fact, experts say both campaigns are exaggerating the virtues of their energy proposals and not telling voters how truly difficult it would be to become really independent of foreign oil."
Note she does not bother to name those "experts." But, most important, she misleads by not telling viewers that Sen. Obama specifically calls only for ending oil imprts from the Middle East and Venezuela in ten years; he does not call for independence from all foreign oil. Similarly, CBS Evening News misleadingly reported Tuesday that Sen. Obama had vowed "to end oil imports in a decade."
Interestingly, neither MSNBC nor CBS bothered to mention Sen. Obama's call for businesses, government and the American people to reduce US demand for electricity by 15% by the end of the decade. CNN, on the other hand, did report that his plan "embraces ambitious energy efficiency."
Don't know if you're aware of this but there are federal and state incentives that help pay for solar too. Check this site out. Using Austin as an example I can qualify for the following:
Austin - Residential: the lesser of $13,500 or 80% of invoiced cost per fiscal year, per site.
Federal - $2,000 for solar-electric systems and solar water-heating systems; $500 per 0.5 kW for fuel cells
So up to $15,500 is a pretty good incentive.
this argument is so silly. oil is a world commodity. it doesn't make any difference where we get it from, except if we produce our own we can join the party.
obama is an enviromaniac. he knows nothing. he is dangerous.
Sandsssss,
If we produce our own? So you are not an advocate of drilling but an advocate of building more refineries?
Please explain!
We've done some amazingly difficult things in the last 100+ years. things someone well informed in 1850 would say,"Impossble! Never happen." We went ahead and did them anyway. Compared to say, putting a man on the moon, about 5 years from saying,"Lets go." Finding sustainable options, something beyond burning hydrocarbons or using nuclear fission to boil water is impossible?
Somehow a vocal(One'll be along shortly) population says we can't and we shouldn't.
ewe,
I don't know why you rule out nuclear energy? My guess is that we've come a long way technologically speaking in the 20+ years since the last one was built. It's clean. It's cheap. And it doesn't add CO2 to the atmosphere. Lets use that resource too until we develop sustainable solar/geothermal/hydrogen/other types of energy.
AA,
What are the thoughts of insurance companies on nuclear energy? Until we get past that hurdle, good luck.
i guess all the nuclear plants in europe do not have insurance coverage. as for being cheap, it is not cheap. the estimated cost of constructing a plant has increased markedly in recent years. the plants that were sold below replacement cost can be profitable. it is unlikely that new plants will be profitable in the near term.
fossil fuel is the cheapest way to go, coal, oil and nat gas. obama wants a complete, not a partial, a complete transformation of our economy to no fossil fuels. at what cost. he will destroy the economy while we try to compete with the likes of china, india and brazil. we know fossil fuels work on a grand scale. we don't know that about any b.s. alternative energy.
Sandss,
Do you know how stupid you sound. Why do you have to lie about someone to get your point across? Why not try having a reasoned debate about real issues?
Saying stupid things about Obama and his positions, just makes you a joke, not a person to take seriously.
Fossil fuel is CURRENTLY the cheapest energy available but it is clearly trending upwards while other methods are trending down. Idiots like you would have us do nothing to change things until there is a crisis. Forward thinkers want to plan now for the inevitable need to do things differently.
Eurpean countries have moved onto anerobic prime movers for their submarines. Granted this are legitmate missions for the nucs. The energy requirements of an aircraftcarrier are hard to meet otherwise. Still there's good places for other options. Naval internal politics have placed the nuclear navy as a good career choice. They got the glory and the money, and the power structure supports this.
Jet powered vessels have replaced the nuclear cruiser fleet sucessfully, and wholly. Their decomissioned hulls have been and still are being turnrd into razor blades.
ECMARAUDER = Idiot
EC, did Snoop blame any admin for TMI? No! So why twist his words?
If your argument can't stand on it's own merits, then it means you are wrong.
Please come back when you have something honest and useful to say.
Really,
You can't deal with the truth and facts. I already knew that.
Thanks.
EC,
By saying Obama=Carter, are you saying Obama is a smart, organized and honest politician that is trying to make America better?
Or are you saying that he will win like Carter did?
I know EC,
You're too stupid to have a conversation with so WOW is the best you can do.
I'll fill in the blanks for you.
EC: WOW I really am stupid. No one just believes the stupid things I say. Duh.
Skep: Well EC if you made an intelligent comment or had something compelling to add to the conversation, then you might be taken more seriously.
So, basically all you got to offer here are snide platitudes. I didn't think you'd really contribute anything useful.
McCain=Hitler
C'mon Snoop, you gotta admit that post rated better than "snide platitudes". I think my post to you was humorous without being nasty, and it did contain a core of truth, so I really do have to object to "snide". Labeling it a platitude, well that's so subjective , guess it's in the " eye of the beholder" realm. Surprised you're so thinskinned, though. Guess that's something you have in common with your leader, THE ONE.Oooops, darn it, there I go again.
EC,
Where was the core of truth? I don't think anyone could see it.
I know Ec,
you don't like to have your stupid notions challenged, then you have to think about how truly dumb you are.
I understand, so don't respond anymore. It really doesn't bother me, but I will keep pointing out how stupid you are.
Oh, I can pretty much take what you're dishing, I just dismiss it for what it is - snide redirection from the point. You should try out for the half hour comedy hour though, I think your brand of "humor" will fit right in.
McCain=Hitler
You see , Snoop, I have seen on some posts in mmfa McCain=Bush. Now a sane , honest , rational person would have to admit that is just rediculous, an honest, factual, case just can't be made to support that absurd notion. So I decided to counter that equation with one more realistic, more truthful, more on point, and see what the response would be. First response from the wiz of diz is representative of his usual snarling, rabid response, Then you surprise me by putting all your chips in the pot and going as low as possible. Congrats,snoop, you take the pot with McCain=Hitler. You really can't get any lower than that , and I am sincerely surprised it was you that did it. Thats it for today, outta here.
Bad Snoopy,
You surprised (I think he meant disappointed) EC and now he has run away.
Please don't be so mean to EC, he's very funny and makes my day.
EC,
That's it from the stupid factory. Now my day is ruined. I won't laugh again until I see one of your posts.
I'll just have to go back and re-read your old ones to get a chuckle.
cause he's outta there 1/20/09. I know , I know , it's confusing to you guys cause your guy appears to be running against Bush,
LOL
Of course you understand since you're still running against Bill Clinton.
LOL
It's cheap...
Yeah, right. It costs about $10 billion a year to dispose of nuclear waste.
Then there's that pesky safety issue. Davis Besse in Toledo came within a few milimeters of stainless steel of a radiation leak a couple years ago.
No, it would be you who is minimizing the risk and ridiculing people who don't deserve it, but that's typical behavior for you, the man who supposedly has multiple advanced degrees but doesn't know that "mid evil" is not the medieval period. It's not an easy word to spell, but you didn't have a clue that you'd done it wrong.
It doesn't matter that there's only a small amount of radioactive waste from any one nuclear plant in a single year. If an accident happens, it can contaminate and/or threaten people and the land for many, many miles. Because the waste is so dangerous, it is highly problematic to find good disposal sites, and those waste products will be dangerous for eons.
I happen to support a great increase in the amount of nuclear power utilized in our nation.
But I do it without lying or deceiving people about the issues involved, unlike you.
EC,
If by hoot you mean correct, then I agree with you.
If by rational, you mean deceitful, then I also agree with you.
Even if no new reactors are built, getting rid of the country's nuclear waste will cost $96.2 billion and require a major expansion of the planned Nevada waste dump beyond limits imposed by Congress, the Energy Department said Tuesday.
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20080806/NEWS/284699744/1068/SPORTS&parentprofile=-1
Wow. You ridiculed my post even though I was off by about $90 billion.
Science,
Why do you try to minimize the problems with Nuclear power?
Well because of unresolved issues with the waste. Also at current extraction technologies and use rates, we run out of uranium in 80 years. If we increase our use to cover a significant replacement of hydrocarbon producers then we run out sooner.
Per the nice folks at Princetons Carbon Mitigation Initiative. 700 new 1000 megawatt nucs will reduce carbon emissions by 1/7th of the reduction needed to stabilize CO2 concentrations at 500ppb.
That's also 700 new terrorist targets. Finding, somehow comercial insurer's for those plants. They won't do it, so the insurance costs will be past onto the government and the tax payer. Can you say socialism to benifit industry and hide the cost from the public? Smaller power sources means that one or two going off line isn't potentially some thing to turn off the lights in the population centers that they serve.
Using fission to heat water has always struck me as like using a 50 ton hydralic metal press to crack walnuts. It works but there are easier and less capital intensive ways to do the same job.
The country contains geothermal resouces to equal our total energy use by a multiple of 5000. Unless we try to take the fizz off the yellowstone hot spot and fail spectacularly the risks are small and resolvable. The sites in the Basin and Range are said to produce pressurized heated gases, an added advantage.
Grass roots industries are already to convert your car to hydrogen at a good price. Hydrogen can be produced in at least two ways that I know of at a cost comparable, or cheaper than gasoline. A home solar array hooks in nicely here.
we run out of uranium in 80 years.
Wrong. uranium is on scale for 200+ years, while plutonium is on for about 2000+.
That's also 700 new terrorist targets.
LOL - you've got to be kidding me. As if a thousand windmills 20 miles off shore isn't even easier. Where do you guys come up with this garbage?
Wooh, got my ass handed to me again by a comprehensive, reasoned and totally objective rebutal by good ol good ol Mr.Science. No wonder Ecmarauder considers you the bee's knees. No doubt soon the Kuwala's (sp) nightie.
I know there's alot of head slapping and cries of,"Of course, how foolish of us!" in Terror Central. A spread of radiation and contamination to an area of a couple hundres miles, if we're lucky. Is easily cleaned up. A simple no bid contract and a few vacume cleaners. FEMA could handle it with a few keystrokes on an email about more important things.
How could we compare that to the disaster of sinking our wind mills. Boy is my face red.
DUH,
The bees knees, golly, yowser!
EC, you have expanded your vocabulary, good job!
Ewe,
I have no problem with geothermal unless it is a Super Volcano. :-) Think the environmentalists will let us drill in Yellowstone let alone build the generator facilities?
I have not heard of those economical hydrogen conversion methods you mentioned. Any link is greatly appreciated.
Ewe,
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the government subsidize insurance for homes built along the coast when hurricanes blow them over?
We all know government subsidizes everything from home mortgages to farm land to child care and medicine. I would think reducing our reliance on foreign oil by subsidizing nuclear power plants would be a good trade off.
Snoop,
I think it already is being done. I hope Bill's link to alternative energy pans out.
I have not heard of those economical hydrogen conversion methods you mentioned. Any link is greatly appreciated. - AA
Try Googling "cheap source of hydrogen" and you will find links to several articles citing several different competing methods at various stages of development. I'm a bit of a science buff and have been reading for years of breakthroughs, big and small, in hydrogen production technology. In simple terms of hydrogen production, we're closer to viability than many of the fossil fuel addicts want to concede.
Here's a pretty recent article from Science Daily. A couple of excerpts:
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
...
The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up
...
Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.
I've always had confidence that the main barrier to a hydrogen economy was lack of funding and competitive incentive to develop the technology. I always knew that it would take the pain of new fossil fuel price hikes to really push us in the right direction, but we seem to be pretty close to that push. Luckily, there has been ongoing research in the field on which we can now build.
I don't know why you rule out nuclear energy? My guess is that we've come a long way technologically speaking in the 20+ years since the last one was built. It's clean. It's cheap. And it doesn't add CO2 to the atmosphere. Lets use that resource too until we develop sustainable solar/geothermal/hydrogen/other types of energy.
Here's what Public Citizen has to say about nuclear power:
The Case Against Nuclear Power
Costly nuclear power poses unnecessary safety and environmental risks, is heavily dependent on taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, and generates deadly radioactive waste. Building new nuclear power plants will also not effectively address climate change. Public Citizen advocates phasing out nuclear power in favor of safe, clean and affordable energy alternatives.
<more>
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/