McCain Camp: ANWR Too Pristine to Drill; Rest of U.S. - Who Cares !

On Fox News Sunday this morning McCain camp surrogate Tom Ridge had this to say about off-shore drilling:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3699 82,00.html

From the transcript:

WALLACE: All right, but let me ask you, if it is such a crisis and because of that the senator has decided to end his long-held opposition to drilling along the coastlines of Florida and California, why not also drill in ANWR?

RIDGE: Well, my friend would give you a straightforward answer. Apparently he's seen the region, feels very strongly about the region up in Alaska and he said no.

We'll begin the process. We'll drill offshore. I'm not sure his feet are in cement on this if prices go to $10 a gallon and whatever.

But right now, he would prefer to see what these other measures that we would take -- drilling, nuclear, alternatives, conservation, clean coal technology -- before we really go into the pristine environment up in Alaska.

By the way, which we could do in a very protective, environmentally sensitive way, but John says today, "No, we won't do it. Let's go after these other alternatives first."

WALLACE: That's part of the answer I don't understand. He keeps saying that ANWR is pristine. Is ANWR, which is as we just showed a map, in the farthest northern reaches of Alaska that most of us will never see -- is that any more pristine than the coastlines and the sea life along California and Florida?

RIDGE: Well, I use the word pristine, and I guess we've all enjoyed the beautiful coast of Florida and California. But right now, my friend John has said, "Look, there are many, many different things we need to do in a very aggressive way." ...

So, bottom line, McCain feels that drilling in ANWR is not OK because the area is too sensitive in terms of potential damage to the environment   However, McCain apparently feels that the rest of the country is fair-game when it comes to off-shore drilling.  

Talk about a man without any principles.  He not only flip-flopped on off-shore drilling, but now insults the residents of all coastal areas by stating that, in effect, their areas are "not pristine enough" to try to protect from potential environmental damage.  

Not sure if the McCain camp realizes that 55-60% of Americans now live in coastal areas (this includes only people living in counties adjacent to the coast, not whole states), and that by 2025, 75% of Americans are projected to be living in coastal counties: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/re tiredsites/natdia_pdf/3hinrichsen.pdf

We're not only talking about coastal residents of states like Florida and California, which Wallace mentioned, but also about the residents of states bordering the Great Lakes - like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin.  Why not do off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes ?

It should be noted in all this that McCain is opposed to drilling in ANWR for the time being ("I'm not sure his feet are in cement on this"); if prices hit $10 a gallon he'll be willing to flip-flop on ANWR too as his surrogate admits.  McCain simply cannot be trusted to become the next President of the United States.



Display:


Re: McCain Camp: (none / 0)

I actually don't see the ANWR thing to be as inconsistent as you do.  That being said we should bludgeon the hell out of him for it.  If he's going to draw the line at ANWR the least he can do is tell us why.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:52:56 PM EST

that's ... (none / 0)

exactly my point.  I think we ALL agree that ANWR is too pristine to drill (and it is indeed a special place), but so are many, many coastal areas in other parts of the country -- and how do the residents of any coastal area feel when you start talking about drilling off THEIR coast ??


by silver spring on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

democrats on the wrong side of anwr (none / 0)

If Mccain wasn't such a flip flopper we'd be in trouble.

But we're not.

We shoud be drilling, conserving, exploring, using technology, and everything at our disposal.

The price of energy should be high to discourage so much usage.  

Our main problem is that if we don't drill more here, we will have to stay more involved with evil people in the mideast.

Not drilling compromises our safety.
that is wrong.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: democrats on the wrong side of anwr (none / 0)

Why has everyone forgotten why we've been reluctant to drill our own oil?

We want to run out last.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there no "right side" of ANWR? (none / 0)

Or of protecting coastlines, et al?  Saying Democrats are on the wrong side is saying that our country's priority should be to emphasize lowest possible oil prices rather than understanding risks and consequences.

In my own area of Florida, the issue is more than just tourism.  The bay estuaries are vital parts of marine life food chain.

Where offshore drilling goes, beaches suffer

Leatherman has seen what offshore drilling can do to a beach. Texas beaches, for instance, "tend to be the trash can of the gulf." Waste from the western gulf's wells -- everything from empty oil drums to tar balls -- washes up there.
[...]
The Coast Guard documented more than 239,000 oil spills across the gulf between 1973 and 2001.
[...]
Critics like Enid Sisskin of Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, a Pensacola group that has opposed offshore drilling for more than a decade, say they are not as concerned about oil spills as they are about what she calls "the routine, everyday, day-after-day pollution they dump in the water."
[...]
In 2002, the Mobile Press-Register tested grouper and other fish caught around Alabama's offshore rigs. They contained so much mercury that they would not be acceptable for sale to the public under federal guidelines. The source: the drilling muds, which left mercury in the sea-bottom in concentrations as high as that found at Superfund sites.

My fault with the Republican policies over the past 28 years is that they consistently take a short-term view, and McCain's latest proposal is another PR ploy. In his statements, he actually rationalized that drilling would provide short-term price relief--yet industry experts agree that it would be years before that oil hit the market. And even then, it would be a proverbial drop in the world oil supply.  

I'll gladly take being on the "wrong side of ANWR" than to be on the "right side" and invoke long-lasting damage to local environments, which itself has a ripple effect on local economies.  The "right side" of ANWR probably has greater negative economic impact than whatever oil price benefits might be reaped.


by sawgrass727 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Camp: (1.00 / 0)

I found that he draws his line on everything Newt does. And Newt is surprisingly coherent on saving those pristine parts and digging around them. If you get to read or hear newt and then mcCain --- you would think they are selling the same plan.  

example: Newt---no on rocky mountin where you go to ski or pristine parts of it. But yes on the 'rest' of rocky mountian shales.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Camp: ANWR Too Pristine to Drill; Rest (none / 0)

I think this might be a political ploy. I've heard people suggest that he changed his stance on drilling to get the people who do want to drill to vote for him, also he does not ever 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. We just need to get out of own way.  I understand there are many views and opinions for what's right in alternative energies but I don't see why we can't have a think tank with the leading 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 and what the reality is now.  Its easy to say we need to change but the real question is how.  

The link to that article is:
http://www.energyandoil.com/the-oil-%e2% 80%9cmelt-up%e2%80%9d-and-why-the-us-eco nomy-won%e2%80%99t-run-on-windmills-alon e%e2%80%a6


by PaulHunt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.