Straight Talk on Gasoline

John McCain's new ad says that Barack Obama's refusal to open America's coastline to drilling is to blame for high gas prices:

They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices or that the long-run price reductions would be anything other than tiny. Meanwhile, it's McCain who has no plan to help bolster alternative fuels and no plan to bolster alternatives to driving.

Meanwhile, take something like the accessory dwellings issue. Here you have a bunch of regulations that make it illegal for people to live more densely. Illegal, in other words, to build the kind of communities where the gas price issue wouldn't hurt so much. But there's a movement afoot to change things. Similarly with minimum parking rules -- regulations that interfere with the operation of the free market in such a way as to make it more difficult for people to live energy efficient lives. And again, there are people trying to change this. These things are regulatory barriers to solving our energy problems every bit as much as the ban on offshore drilling is. And conservatives are against regulation, right? Except the anti-drilling regulation is good for the environment and for coastal economies whereas anti-urbanist regulation is economically inefficient and environmentally destructive. Naturally, conservatives have chosen to aim all of their fire at anti-drilling regulations. And that's the sort of thing that makes the conservative movement hard to take seriously -- it's an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds but basically can't be moved to act unless some lobbyists pay them too.

Comments

Well said.

Posted by David J. Balan | July 21, 2008 5:05 PM

MY -

I've never been one to harp on your grammar, but honestly, I had to read that first sentence about four times before I even had an inkling of what you were trying to say.

Posted by Nitty Gritty Grammar | July 21, 2008 5:06 PM

I really wish Matt would stop using the term "conservative" as co-extensive with "the Conservative Movement." Just because the people who have taken charge of the Republican Party called themselves the Conservative Movement doesn't mean they actually represent all conservatives.

Posted by DTM | July 21, 2008 5:09 PM

They so nobody after went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared...

I believe Jules Winnfield said it best when he said "English Mothafucka - do you speak it?!?!"

Posted by BFR | July 21, 2008 5:09 PM

MY -
If you can't bother to re-read your posts once before submitting them, why should we read them once they have been submitted?

Seriously: "They so nobody after went wrong"...

Huh?
Beth

Posted by BethanyAnne | July 21, 2008 5:11 PM

John McCain's new ad says that Barack Obama's refusal to open America's coastline to drilling is to blame for high gas prices

Yes, because John McCain's supporters are dumber than mealworm doo-doo.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 21, 2008 5:22 PM

John still has yet to explain how a potential 8 billion barrels of new offshore oil is going to drop oil prices, when a potential 34 billion barrels are already leased and unexploited.

"I'm John McCain, and I don't know what the f*** I'm talking about."

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 5:24 PM

Matt is so pissed off he doesn't have time to check his grammar. I can't see anything wrong with what Matt said, though Obama probably shouldn't use this post as a talking point.

Posted by Craig | July 21, 2008 5:27 PM

Matt is so pissed off he doesn't have time to check his grammar. I can't see anything wrong with what Matt said

That's because he fixed it - huzzah!!!

Posted by BFR | July 21, 2008 5:28 PM

I like how a one term Senator is now to blame for gas prices. Really? One Illinois Senator is the sole reason that gas prices are so high? Not that war in the Middle East and tensions with Iran? You know, the epicenter of global oil production. The place with the 1st, 2nd, and 4th largest oil reserves in the world. That place we are waging one hot war and one cold one. That might have something to do with it. Hmmm? HMMMMMM? No, just blame it on the black guy.

Posted by freddiemac | July 21, 2008 5:35 PM

McCain Calls Benefits of Offshore Drilling "Psychological":

I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.

Posted by croatoan | July 21, 2008 5:35 PM

And people think that Matthew doesn't read the comments!

They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public

No, "they" don't say that, and never did. "They" say that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public - "they" being HL Mencken.

Posted by Al | July 21, 2008 5:37 PM

Oh and maybe the run up of oil prices is due to a weak dollar. And that is totally Obama's fault, I mean come on. One Illinois Senator is responsible for huge deficit spending for the last 7 years. Not George W Bush, who signed all those budgets into law. No, of course not. Not Bush, who got us into a trillion dollar war. No, that isn't it at all. And certainly not Bush's Federal Reserve appointee, "Helicopter Ben", who has been cutting rates. No, there was no way Bush could know that when he appointed "Helicopter Ben", that he would carpet bomb the market with liquidity. No, that's craaaazeeee talk. No, we should just blame it all on Obama, because he, like voted to, uh, not, uh....yeah, he like, voted and stuff. And he's black.

Posted by freddiemac | July 21, 2008 5:42 PM

I like how a one term Senator is now to blame for gas prices. Really? One Illinois Senator is the sole reason that gas prices are so high? Not that war in the Middle East and tensions with Iran? You know, the epicenter of global oil production.

And don't forget the destruction of the U.S. dollar, which occurred due in large part to the disastrous policies of Phil Gramm, the man McCain gushed all over about knowing about the economy. As a result, McCain wishes to continue many of Bush's dollar destroying policies.

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 5:46 PM

"Except the anti-drilling regulation is good for the environment and for coastal economies whereas anti-urbanist regulation is economically inefficient and environmentally destructive."

Principle would lead you to conclude that ->

Anti drilling regualtion helps the environment about as much as drilling lowers gas prices.

Anti drilling regulation is economically inefficient.

and you would support more drilling along with removing anti-urbanist regulation.

You might have certain conditions about the drilling and coastlines etc but you would support more drilling.

Posted by someguy | July 21, 2008 5:54 PM

Also a lot of the power and privelege aligned against both things comes from the same source, relatively wealthy property owners.

Posted by someguy | July 21, 2008 6:03 PM

This is idiotic. I'm in favor of doing away with parking requirements and I'd love to see greater residential density.

But where I live and where Matt lives and where most everyone lives in the USA, liberals oppose those changes. Not conservatives. Does Matt think that land use planners are conservatives? That the "experts" who recommended these bad laws were conservatives? I'd bet that the only people who objected to them were conservatives--"know-nothings" would be what Matt would have called them, or, worse, mercenaries interested in furthering the agenda of greedy developers.

Posted by Thomas | July 21, 2008 6:38 PM

They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices...

Obviously, this ad is not aimed at credible people but rather conservatives and misinformed independents.

Posted by Naveen | July 21, 2008 7:03 PM

you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices or that the long-run price reductions would be anything other than tiny

But you can find credible people everywhere who understand it took 30 years of liberal Democratic obstruction - blocking any and all large-scale energy development - to get to where we are today and that the sooner we get going on drilling, oil shale, nuclear, CAFE standards, ending mass immigration of new energy users - the better. The same credible people laughed 5 years ago at "miracle ethanol!!" as Agribiz pork and a looming food pricing disaster, and laugh at the idea of small scale and unreliable solar and wind as credible substitutes for oil.

And those people well understand that drilling and domestic oil substitutes are essential in the long term to stop the bleeding of 700 billion in accumulated US wealth every year overseas, which would bankrupt us. And to avoid Depression as we begin a 40-year transition off oil. Also, with 75% of our oil supply domestic and the rest coming from reliable, friendly foreign suppliers, we DO have the ability at that point to end OPEC's ability to dictate to us. And we have ability to say we will expect reasonable markets or we drop out of the international market and set a 100 a barrel price on oil or synthfuel.

Except the anti-drilling regulation is good for the environment and for coastal economies whereas anti-urbanist regulation is economically inefficient and environmentally destructive.

And the impact of tripling plane fares and 6-7 dollar a gallon gas on tourist-dependent coastal states like Hawaii, Maine, Florida? Even on non-coastal Las Vegas of "No drilling EVER!!, Harry Reid??? Lets just say that people are beginning to get highly nervous in places like Virginia Beach, Honolulu, Myrtle Beach, San Francisco, Tampa, Cape Cod and are engaged in frank conversation with the politicians who whored out to environmental Elites.
As for pollution, modern technology has meant that huge modern fields have been developed and exploited for decades with little or no spillage. 99% of USA coastal oil spills come from tankers and oil barges, not oil rigs. And we also need to go offshore to drill for gas so we don't end up in the same desperate situation for gas as we are in for oil.

Naturally, conservatives have chosen to aim all of their fire at anti-drilling regulations.

No, they want dramatic reductions in the ability of any group to block energy and infrastructure improvement in courts for 20-30 years, rational regulations of nuclear, shale oil, nat gas exploration, coal liquification, avoiding getting 120 million new immigrant and spawn energy users by 2050 (Census says expect 434 million Americans then, nore than lived in China, 410 million, in 1900). Conservatives are also fine with wind, and if they are Agribiz whores like many Democrats are, a little too fine with mandated ethanol.

Posted by chris ford | July 21, 2008 7:05 PM

you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices

Shorter Matthew and the Democrats: We're Democrats and we oppose long-term solutions!

(Then the Democrats bring up global warming, when all of a sudden, they are in favor of long term solutions.)

Posted by Al | July 21, 2008 7:42 PM

it's an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds

Which seduces all the Asperger Syndrome Right-Wienies who can't distinguish between rhetoric and reality.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 7:52 PM

Re: I like how a one term Senator is now to blame for gas prices.

The GOP has realized rather belatedly that public anger over gas prices is likely to sink them the way Carter was sunk back in 1980. It took a while for this realization to hit home of course because few of these poobahs have pumped their own gas since their college days. As we saw, the President had no idea just how high gas prices were. Well now they are flailing about in desperation to find a way to blame gas prices on the Democrats in general and on Obama in particular. They might as well try to fly a lead zeppelin though since they've been running the show for almost eight years and the buck is going to stop on their table. Moreover they had better be careful with their "drill, drill, drill" mantra. It might just lose them Florida where coastal drilling is less popular than water moccassins in the swimming pool, and where even Republicans, even the President's own brother, are on record as opposing such schemes.

Posted by JonF | July 21, 2008 9:19 PM

Do these McCain TV ads all have smiling, flattering pictures of Barack Obama taking up most of the screen? This campaign doesn't even know how to do attack ads.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | July 21, 2008 10:30 PM

"Yes, because John McCain's supporters are dumber than mealworm doo-doo."

hysterical, because it gets to the point so succinctly. John McCain really must be trying to appeal to the cretins of America, 'cause who else is gonna buy this ad?

Posted by cnnr | July 21, 2008 10:39 PM

It's amazing that Republicans can find the nerve to stick up for John McCain again and again, based on I guess the vain hope that he will some how get rid of all the brown-skinned foreigners in our country if he is elected, when Barack would so clearly be a good president and McCain has nothing to fight him with on so many issues but lies.

Posted by Swan | July 21, 2008 11:19 PM

There is the point that land use regulations are a municipal manner and thus rather hard to bring up in a presidential campaign!

The fact that many conservatives are exceptionally outspoken about the idiocy of most land use restrictions further harms your point. Check out a certain Atlantic Blog or Hit & Run for examples. But if you're reading national political opinion, you won't see much about it. Hard to make overarching points when there are 10 000+ different sets of rules and restrictions. Someone needs to educate himself before spouting off.

Posted by Hey | July 22, 2008 9:17 AM

Hit & Run, in its entire seven+ year existence, has never run a single piece denouncing sprawl zoning, snob zoning, or parking requirements.

On the other hand, they run denunciations of the Smart Growth movement every couple of weeks.

The greatest distortion of the housing and real estate markets in American history, brought about through strict regulations on what people can do with their land, and the flagship publication of libertarianism steadfastly refuses to say a bad word about it, while constantly taking to task those who do criticize it.

Something's not right there. I don't know if it's their donations from the National Association of Homebuilders, or their cultural aversion to admitting that dirty hippies could ever be right about something having to do with the environment, but the inconsistency between the beliefs they proclaim and their stance on this issue could not be more glaring.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:00 AM

Thomas,

When these regulations were developed in the 40ds-80s, they were utterly uncontroversial. There was no left-right divergence. (Except the Birchers, oddly enough. The John Birch Society was also against the Interstate Highway System, on the grounds that it would lead to the disturbance of the established, "wisdom of the ages" pattern of how human settlements are designed and operate by embracing a technophilic ordering of society and the build environmenta around cars. Score one for the Birchers, I say!)

It is only today that a major divide has sprung up, with the left criticizing the regulatory system and the right defending it.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:07 AM

"And that's the sort of thing that makes the conservative movement hard to take seriously -- it's an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds but basically can't be moved to act unless some lobbyists pay them too."

Very nicely put. Couldn't agree more.

Posted by john i | July 22, 2008 11:42 AM