It looks like Sarah Palin, the second-year Alaska governor, is John McCain's veep nominee.
Picking a pro-choice, pro-death penality, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, female governor from Alaska plays to several key constituancies for McCain. It appeals to embittered Hillary supporters; women; oil interests; coal interests; auto interests; rust belters; religious/"value "voters; and, perhaps peripherally, minorities. If McCain can convince voters that the GOP isn't the party of old white men, he might be able to access some new voters.
And I don't now about you, but does this one-time Miss Alaska runner-up look faintly Latina, and have a faintly Latina last name? We'll see how this plays out.
Is this who you would trust to run the country if John McCain's age and cancer catches up with him? I look forward to the reaction from the Obama camp.
Well, it looks like Barack Obama has finally cracked under the pressure:
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.
This is disappointing, to say the least, and makes me wonder what sort of policies Obama intends to implement in order to lower gas prices without compromising his energy policy. If Al Gore and other experts are to be believed, we need to act fast to ween ourselves off of carbon energy dependence, not encourage it by making it cheaper. See Al Gore's landmark speech to We Can Solve It:
{youtube}dt9wZloG97U{\youtube}
This is especially problematic when you consider all of the reasons to raise the tax on gas on Pigouvian grounds, due to the externalities involved in burning gas. Check out this article detailing some of these externalities, which comes to the conclusion that:
Combining all these numbers, along with the other reasons why we should tax gas (e.g. wear and tear on roads), it seems easy to justify raising the tax on gas by at least $1 per gallon. In 2002 (the year I could easily find data for), the average tax was 42 cents per gallon, or maybe only one-third of what it should be.
Without a magic hat filled with new supply, or without lowering taxes, I don't know what Obama could do to lower gas prices, with the exception of stabilizing the trading situation (say, by bringing more stability to the Middle East and thus lowering oil risks and oil futures). "Change" and "hope" will involve spending the time, money, energy, and investment in capital replacement, research, and lifestyle changes, not illusory hopes for cheaper oil in 30 years.
In apparent desperation, McCain has turned to some pretty disingenuous attack ads against Obama. The first one to startle me, a former McCain fan, was this one, entitled "Pump:"
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
FactCheck.org, the non-partisan group charged with assessing political ad claims, calls the ad "ridiculous" and "a full tank of nonsense." They go on:
"What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble. "
Well, that's no good. This isn't miraculous thinking. Set aside the fact that there are plenty of places to drill in the US that aren't protected. Next, consider the fact that to finance and build the infrastructure to drill for, refine, and distribute this rare substance would take a long time to build, and may even require some companies to hike their gas prices in order to pay for it.
Don't get me wrong--I understand this political move, and why his staff has decided to use it. McCain's the underdog. He needs to act fast to seem competant, solution-oriented, and in control, and to paint Obama is ineffective. But for undecided voters, this low-blow suggests that McCain is struggling to find a weak point in his opponent, assumes that people don't understand Congress (can one senator really destroy the "family budget?"), and displays an ignorance of energy policy that suggests that we could immediately get back to the "good old days" of cheap oil if we just drilled more.
For me, it makes me seriously question McCain's alleged commitment to renewable technologies. McCain is clearly in bed with some new people now, including the people that brought Bush to power. If he's changing the way he conducts his campaign, who says he won't change his content?
