Impossible: Finding An Expert Who Says McCain's Energy Plan Provides Short-Term Relief

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Impossible: Finding An Expert Who Says McCain's Energy Plan Provides Short-Term Relief stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 06-23-08 03:54 PM   |   Updated: 07- 1-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Mccainoil

Last week, Sen. John McCain reversed his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling. The Arizona Senator and his campaign surrogates framed the move as a much-needed effort to combat energy costs in the wake of record high gas prices - political action to Sen. Barack Obama's inaction.

"Floridians are suffering, and when you're paying over $4 a gallon for gas, you have to wonder whether there might be additional resources that we might be able to utilize to bring that price down," said Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who also changed his stance on the policy.

But is there one credible economist or energy analyst who actually believes that offshore drilling could have a short-term impact on the market dynamics?

The Huffington Post took on the task of finding an expert who thought that Americans would, within the next decade, receive relief at the pump from McCain's plan. Querying the entire scope of the ideological spectrum -- and putting aside the debate over whether or not offshore drilling was sensible policy -- the consensus seemed to be that if the presumptive GOP nominee was persuading voters that he could help decrease their gas bill, he was either living in a political fantasy or being disingenuous.

We started out with the conservative crowd, the one seemingly most predisposed to the idea of drilling.

"There is no question it would take quiet a bit of time for this to come to the market," said Max Schulz, an energy analyst for the Manhattan Institute. "But it was the same argument that was used any time over the past ten years, that it would take too much time for this stuff to have an effect... Having a couple million extra barrels on the world market would eventually help ease those markets."

Other expressed similar, qualified skepticism about the short-term benefits of McCain's plan.

"Would starting to drill now do anything for consumers in the near future?" asked Ken Green, an energy analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. "The answer to this one, again in my opinion, is probably not, since it'll take so long for new oil or gas to come to market. There is some small chance it would have immediate benefits if the current price of oil is fueled by spectators convinced that supply will continue to remain stagnant in the face of growth. They could take a commitment to drill as evidence that supply constraints will loosen, resulting in lower prices (or slower increases), making oil futures a weaker investment that would trade for less."

Story continues below

Added Jerry Taylor, a fellow at the Cato Institute, "I think it would have an effect, just not a major effect. The odds are you couldn't get any significant amounts of crude from coastal areas within the next decade. Offshore rigs, if you want to go get one, tough luck. They are all leased out. Even if the infrastructure is there, it would be hard, but the infrastructure isn't there... But markets react to future developments and even if the crude is not flowing, the project itself could have an impact on markets."

But the assertion that offshore drilling could have an impact on oil prices by placating oil speculators is itself a contested proposition. And some analysts insist that it is wishful thinking that the market would suddenly perk up because of the prospect of more supply.

"There are a number of problems with that argument," said Rob Shapiro, formerly undersecretary of commerce under President Clinton, and co-founder and chairman of Sonecon, LLC. "First of all I don't think anyone thinks that within the time period of futures trading, that there would be enough additional supply to affect global future prices. Second of all, the market will look at this not only in terms of, 'there is more supply,' but also, 'there is more supply at substantial greater costs to recover than current supply, and with substantial new liabilities' -- the communities that are going to sue them when they destroy their beaches."

Indeed, as Taylor pointed out and as a number of independent studies have emphasized, there are a host of loopholes, costs, delays and uncertainties that make offshore drilling far from a sure oil market boom. There is a five-year waiting period just to lease land for drilling, and even more time on top of that to get a contract for the oil rigs. The American Petroleum Institute recently acknowledged that there is a dearth of equipment to drill on the land and coasts that are already accessible. And depending on the size of the station being built, and the possibility that oil may not be found immediately, it could be upwards of ten years before crude is even brought to the surface.

The Energy Information Administration estimated that oil from these sites would hit the market around 2017 and peak around 2027. Rushing the process would likely only result in less supply. "The faster we try to drain the less efficient the drainage," said Dr. Ralph Byrns, Professor of Economics at UNC-Chapel Hill. "If we drain it dry and still get 14 billion barrels of oil [the President has suggested 18 billion], that itself would still take 20 years."

Which brings us to the other side of the ideological spectrum, where analysts and experts not only see offshore drilling as a relatively fruitless enterprise, but precisely the wrong type of solution to achieve energy independence.

"Oil companies make more money on oil they own as long as the price stays high," said Marc Cooper, Director of Research for the Consumer Federation of America. "So the primary effect of drilling offshore will be increasing the profit of the oil companies. Today when they make a deal to drill in Saudi Arabia, they deal with the local government who takes all the rent. When they own their own oil, when they go to the outer-continental shelf, they don't have to pay OPEC."

A Democratic analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, had a more nefarious explanation for McCain and President Bush's support for the offshore exploration: "If you wanted to go into Iraq, you saw 9/11 as a way to do that. And if you want to do offshore drilling, you see $4.00 a gallon gas as a way to do that."

To be fair, McCain and his aides have publicly stated that in this battle, as well during his press for a temporary gas tax holiday, the Senator was not casting his lot with the economists. And in a moment of sincerity, a senior adviser to the Arizona Republican,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, acknowledged that new offshore drilling wouldn't have an immediate effect on gas prices. In fact, three weeks before he came out in support of drilling, the Senator himself acknowledged that offshore resources "would take years to develop."

And yet McCain has been arguing that he is taking proactive steps to relieve the burden consumers are feeling at the pump, even declaring that offshore drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." It is, some say, the antithesis of straight-talk politics.

"Obviously McCain's people know this is kind of a joke," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "But they have the media frame that they want. They have Obama sitting there whining about the environment and he is there doing something about five-dollar gas, when in essence there is nothing his plan does for short term relief."

Bolu Adeyeye was a contributing reporter to this story.

Last week, Sen. John McCain reversed his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling. The Arizona Senator and his campaign surrogates framed the move as a much-needed effort to combat energy costs in...
Last week, Sen. John McCain reversed his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling. The Arizona Senator and his campaign surrogates framed the move as a much-needed effort to combat energy costs in...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
349
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)

If Obama coninues to tell people his solution to the problem is they just need to sacrifice and we'll raise taxes on oil companies, he's not going to win on this issue. First off, it looks like his answer to everything is a new tax or regulation...not sound. The public in poll after poll are resoundlingly in favor of new domestic oil exploration and the vast use of Nuclear. Obama has to come around on this because this is a pressing problem for the upcoming election. If he is seen as just another lefty beholden to envionmental extremists, the independents and many hillary dem voters may never come around to his campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 06/24/2008

Here's the problem with drilling.

Stock markets are pessimistic.

They won't look at it as "Yeah, we have more oil ... lets all invest in something else." You can't pull the wool over people who have money invested. The stock market will more likely say "Whoa! They are drilling offshore? Its that bad? I better buy as much as I can cause this sucker is gonna skyrocket."

Think about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 06/24/2008

Ahhh, no, stock markets are not pessimistic (maybe optimistic, but definately not pessimistic). They are, in fact, forward looking. What they see is a Democrat Congress and an Obama Presidency and they predict less US production because of Democrat policies and an increased likelihood on oil installations in the mid East.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 06/24/2008
- WIpatriot I'm a Fan of WIpatriot 36 fans permalink
photo

Stock markets are also exuberant. They are emotional and fickle. The stock market is also overvalued and due to correct. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything regarding the stock market.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 06/24/2008

I've heard people suggest that he changed his stance on drilling to get the people who want to drill to vote for him, also he doesn't say how long it will take to get that oil. Before I knew that it would take 10 or 20 years for us to start using the oil we find off our coasts, I thought that this would be good to keep oil prices from rising too much before we can find our alternative energy sources. And this article I read called The Oil “Melt-Up” and Why the U.S. Economy Won’t Run On Windmills Alone... explains why we need oil until then. And if we don't find those alternative energy sources within 20 years then I am positive its not because we can't, its because we were bogged down by bureaucratic factors. I don't see why we can't have a think tank with the leading global experts on the topic and decide what the best plan is. We did it in World War II, what's stopping us now? Check out that article it really gives you a good perspective of our current energy situation what the reality is now. Its easy to say we need to change but the real question is how.

The link for that article http://www.energyandoil.com/the-oil-%e2%80%9cmelt-up%e2%80%9d-and-why-the-us-economy-won%e2%80%99t-run-on-windmills-alone%e2%80%a6

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 06/24/2008
- WIpatriot I'm a Fan of WIpatriot 36 fans permalink
photo

Of course he did. Does anybody NOT realize that??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 AM on 06/24/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

Certainly it's not "Impossible". For example, it's probably about as difficult as finding an economist that thinks corn based ethanol (Obama's plan) is a good idea. Turning food into fuel when food prices are already high enough to cause concern around much of the world. That's an idea anyone with their head in the sand can get behind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 06/24/2008
photo

McCain now says the impact of offshore drilling will be a psycholgoical one.
The problem is due to his economic advisor, PHIL GRAHAM, who was the guru for allowing the Enron Loophole, Black and the man himself, who voted for this legislation.
Expert on the hill yesterday testified that the price at the pump may be may be double due to hedge funds futures speculating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 06/24/2008
- Doofus I'm a Fan of Doofus 25 fans permalink
photo

As long as we're looking for economists to sanction
stuff, please find one to support the '$300 million
reward for new car batteries'.

Also, get some approval for a scheme to replace
the income tax (personal AND corporate) with
a new federal lottery, top prize of (say) $300
million. It'll be HUUUGE!

Also, if Native Americans can do casinos
on reservations, why can't the National
Park service do likewise? And add
some brothels. Talk about
'national service'!

This is the sort of Repo ingenuity
the nation cries out for!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 AM on 06/24/2008
- BushBites I'm a Fan of BushBites 33 fans permalink

But the Corporate Media just lap it up because they're stupid and corrupt.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 06/24/2008

THIS ACCOUNT DEACTIVATED BECAUSE OF HUFF PO CENSORSHIP, PROTECTIONISM AND CAPITULATION TO BIG MONEY INTERESTS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

Please ignore this poster. he/she has posted this statement on multiple stories this morning. In the past, I have only witnessed individuals removed from the boards for repeated violation of the comment policy. As such, I think we should all not only respect the decision of the moderators, but also commend them on doing such an action.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 AM on 06/24/2008

not true, I was banned, as were many posters, apparently, a couple of months ago due to some glitch in the reply function or something like that. I've been cool as a breeze since then, knock on wood. It feels terrible to be banned, especially if you didn't post anything offensive!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 AM on 06/24/2008
- piul05 I'm a Fan of piul05 58 fans permalink
photo

That's a funny headline! This is already the 2nd economic issue they distance themselves from (gas tax breaks for the summer being the first). If McCain can't come up with anything vaguely competent with regards to the economy what chances does he have? Oh..wait...there's always a bogeyman ready to attack when it's most needed!

Honestly, is the GOP sure they want him as their candidate? Not that their disarray bothers me but isn't it kinda embarassing? They still have time to change their minds...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 AM on 06/24/2008
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 230 fans permalink

He won't have to come up with anything, since he already admitted to being a moron on economic matters. The MSM (pronounced Lap Dog Media) won't question the poor mental patient, because he might throw a fit, and his election chances with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

McCain proposes a moratorium on gasoline tax to provide the American consumer immediate relief to the tune of about 60 cents per gallon for the summer.

And the left whines that that's no good because it isn't a long-term plan.

So McCain proposes drilling as a long-term strategy to bring gas prices down.

And now the left whines that this is no good because it isn't immediate.

The left comes across as a bunch of peevish old women who don't want to solve the problem. They are much happier just complaining. That's their short-term and long-term plan.

I haven't heard Obama propose ANY solution; the only thing he has to offer is to add a punative tax against big oil. How does this solve a problem? Anyone that knows anything knows that this will make things even worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

Phil123,

I have already posted on your comments the links to Obama's energy plan. Here it is again.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Some high level goals are:
* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

The details to achieving these goals are laid out in the webpage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

These are all 20+ years out. How can you possibly criticize a plan to drill for oil based entirely on the assertion (which is wrong) that it would not help for 10 years, and then seriously claim that a better answer are some vague concepts that will not happen for at least 20 years? Don't you see the logical inconsistency of your argument?

Also, nonsense like "Improve Efficiency by 50% by 2030" is a goal. Writing this doesn't mean that anyone has a clue how to do this. It is therefore not a "solution." If you are going to write goals out of thin air, why make it 50%? Why not make it 1000% or 10000%?

This list also contains other vague and ambiguos terms like "Invest in..." and "Support..." and "Set America on a Path..." These are completely unspecific. They are mere bromides, and no more than that.

"Drill for oil" is a specific action plan that can be quantified. This other stuff is pablum.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

Where are you getting this 60 cent figure from? Please provide a reference.

Also, please research the gas tax issue in more detail. When states have passed similar proposals, the oil companies have simply raised the price to take the tax dollars the states have given up.

The simple fact is that the proposal by mccain will save tax payers at most 30 dollars.

The proposal also does not address the issue of the lost tax dollars that go into the highway fund. How will we pay for the needed maintenance on our federal highways under such a proposal?

These issues are why many Americans see the gas tax proposal as a gimmick.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

I have already addressed you unsubstantiated assertions in prior responses to your rehashed post here. Please educate yourself on the issues opposed to making childish degrading remarks about the opposing party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

The problem is that many of your "facts" are inaccurate, and none of the proposals that you cite are short-term solutions either.

The main issue is that not only does the left criticize any plan to fix this, but they obstruct every effort made by others to fix it.

McCain has made 4 specific proposals in the last 2 weeks. Every one of them was met with ridicule.

What comes from the left are platitudes about improving energy standards (which have already been in progress, and will not happen immediately) and new plans to tax energy producers more heavily.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

... and your solution is? You're just flapping your gums. Get out of the way, and at least let others solve the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

Economists have reviewed the proposed gas tax relief bill by mccain. They agree that at most it will provide the average gas user 15 in relief. This is of course dependent that the oil companies do not increase their prices to assume the tax dollars.

The proposal also does not address the shortfall that would happen in the highway fund. This fund is used to pay for the maintanence of our highway system. It is funded by the gas tax.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

... and your solution is?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

That federal gas tax is 18 cents a gallon and the average driver would see NO change in the price, as the oil companies will merely pocket the former tax.

At least H'illary tried to explain how our highway maintainance would be funded with any incoming tax revenue, Mc'Cain has NOT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 06/24/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

... and your solution is?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 06/24/2008

There might be some truth to the notion that if we had started drilling offshore or in ANWR ten years ago, gas would cost less today. Maybe gas would cost $3.75 now instead of $4.00.

But there is also truth in the notion that if we had stayed on the conservation and alternative energy course that Jimmy Carter laid out in the '70's - and Reagan promptly changed in 1981 - fuel, natural gas, electricity and a lot of other things would cost less today AND we would be less likely to be making war in the ME.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

There is also truth in the fact that if you cut off some of the speculation in the oil market brought about by the Enron clause, the price of gas would surely drop in the short term.

There is also truth that if you put more stringent gas requirements on auto manufacturers, you would help to curve the growth in demand for gas.

There is also truth that if you put efforts behind renewable and clean energy sources, we would reduce our oil need in the next ten years.

The sad truth though is the Republicans won't do any of these actions. They are instead utilizing the current crisis to attempt to embark on a big oil giveaway to their lobbyist friends.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 06/24/2008

So tell me lefty's. What is the immediate answer? How do we drop oil prices this week?

I wonder what would the price of oil be if a veto had not been made in 1995?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 AM on 06/24/2008

Pass a CAFE law that means something. Offer a graduated tax break to buyers on new vehicles based on their MPG.

That will make long-term oil futures worth less, especially as a hedge on the value of the dollar. That will cool speculation on crude oil. Fuel prices will drop by the end of the year.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 AM on 06/24/2008

Oh, and lower interstate highway speed limits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 AM on 06/24/2008
- openhand I'm a Fan of openhand 36 fans permalink
photo

See the brilliant movie "who killed the electric car".
GM has had the answer for 15 years but it was a threat to the oil industry so they killed the project. Sad thing is that Toyota are using old U.S. technology for the Prius. The U.S. is 10 years ahead of the Prius, you are just not supporting your own advanced because of Bush/Cheney investment with the oil lobby.

You have to play to your strengths, China its cheap labor, Middle East is Oil, the U.S. its technical advances. But you rather spend over 40% of your budget on the arms industry, again contracts for special interest groups.

You could catapult your economy into a growth run if you backed your own people, but you would have to give up support to big oil and coal first. This is something that Bush is not willing to support in the U.S. or Iraq.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

A simple quick fix would be to revise the regulation to hinder oil speculation. The so-called Enron loophole needs to be removed. Such an action could quickly result in a drop in gas prices by 50 to 75 cents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 AM on 06/24/2008
- WIpatriot I'm a Fan of WIpatriot 36 fans permalink
photo

Why do the prices need to be dropped, winger?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 06/24/2008
- DaOne I'm a Fan of DaOne 45 fans permalink
photo

A couple of months back Brazil announced a major oil find, biggest ever in the country and crude oil went up. If the price goes up when proven reserves are actaully found, why do we think they will drop when unproven areas are tapped to be drilled?

The key lies in modifying consumption, fuel efficiency, and finding alternative sources.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 AM on 06/24/2008
- bbbear I'm a Fan of bbbear 22 fans permalink
photo

You nailed it!

I divorced Big Oil in 2004 by modifying an old VW Jetta Diesel to run on pure Vegetable oil. I used soyoil oil from Costco. Just poured it directly into the tank . It comes in 4. 3 gallon jugs and, at that time, sold at about $16.00 per jug. But it was a long drive to Costgo, so I switched to a local source.

Now I simply pick up free Waste Vegetable oil from a local asian bistro, filter it, then pour it info the tank. The VW gets over 40 mpg on carbon neutral nearly free fuel. A couple of years later I modified a Mercedes 300D, as well as our GM Diesel truck... Wife long ago parked her Lexus and commutes in the Mercedes, which gets 30 mpg on carbon neutral fuel. The old truck gets about 15 mpg, but it's only used for garden chores, etc...

The point is, playing the "Ain't It Awful" game regarding gasoline is a waste of time. There are many creative ways to avoid relying on pertroleum products. The price of gasoline may drop a bit, but the trend is definitely upward. That writing has long been on the wall for all to see. It seems to me, apart from just doing the right thing by not spewing more green house gases into our fragile atmosphere, if only for the sake of our budgets, we need to emulate the Europeans.
That is, take the bus or Amtrak.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 06/24/2008
photo

And for those who don't live in the large cities, how do you suggest they get to work and bring in their crops? Additionally, based on your technology, how many McDonalds do you think it will take to run your local power plant?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 06/24/2008
photo

It was the world market price of oil that went up.

Energy independent countries can set their own prices at will. Before the war, gas in Iraq was eleven cents a gallon. In Venezuela gas is twelve cents a gallon, in Mexico, just over two dollars. Canada places heavy taxes on it and pays for most of their social programs.

You are right about one thing. If gasoline and diesel continue to rise faster than the price of goods and salaries there will be a modification in this country. A huge one.

Meanwhile energy independent countries laugh at the once powerful US and charge what they want to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 06/24/2008
photo

I think the most discouraging aspect of the democratic energy plan is that not only do they not have a short term plan to address this situation but are determined to ensure that in the long term, we continue to face this crisis in an ever worsening state of dependency.

"We got to do this and we got to do that" while actually not doing a damned thing AND obstructing any effort to ensure a brighter future, seems to have become a hallmark of the democratic party. Whether we are talking about energy, terrorism, the war in Iraq, illegal aliens or anything else for that matter, it is the party of obstruction and fairy tales, AND NO ACTION.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

Simple not true. The Democrats short term plan is sound. The quickest way to impact gas prices is to curb energy speculation that is going on. Obama is pushing such a proposal. Here is the link:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5Rzb

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 06/24/2008
- billrott I'm a Fan of billrott 9 fans permalink

The dems also have a sound long term strategy. Here is the link:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Some high level goals are:
* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

The details to achieving these goals are laid out in the webpage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 06/24/2008
photo

That's all really great but what do we do until 2030 or 2050 and democrats said this same stuff 30 years ago only it was supposed to have happened by now. However, NOW we are in a bind.

Eight years of Clinton and Gore saw nothing, though, if we were to listen to Gore, you'd think he was sleeping back then.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 06/24/2008
- bbbear I'm a Fan of bbbear 22 fans permalink
photo

HaHaHa! Oh man, you are one funny dude! So surely you're merely being sarcastic. Because unless one is totally out of touch, it's patently obvious that the spineless democrats merely do what they are told by the grotesque, corpse effin' republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 AM on 06/24/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect