Palin Gets All Mavricky On Robo McCain, Calls “Him” a Socialist

It looks like the latest strategery has been set in place for the McCain / Palin Campaig final two-week sprint.

From the looks of things, it’s a steady diet of the same: Smear, Lie, and Obfuscate.   From an objective viewpoint, it seems like they are sticking with the same general plan I mentioned before and running against one another.

Several top Republicans, including Senators Susan Collins and Norm Coleman, have condemned the tactic. Asked about those criticisms, Palin at first dismissed the matter as “inside baseball stuff” and said it’s “some of the campaign top brass’s call on that.”

But when asked if she would approve the use of robocalls if she were running the campaign, Palin said she’d probably chart a different course.

Ultimately, the Alaska governor said she was not calling for an end to the automated calls, and she did not say if she had spoken to campaign officials at any point about the calls.

[full article]

Nice, huh?  First she says they suck, then she says she wouldn’t use them, then she says that she hasn’t done anything to stop them.  Guess what I cut out…the part where she blames them on Obama.

“[The American People] get a bit irritated with just being inundated,” she continued, “and you’re seeing a lot of that of course with the huge amounts of money that Barack Obama is able to spend on his ads and his robocalls also.”

I haven’t seen anything about Obama robocalls from anyone except Free Republic (which I feel dirty linking to…but is the only thing I’ve found online that makes the accusation).    The rest of the google turns up empty.  At least now we know what Internet sites Sarah Palin reads.  

Go and check out Free Republic some time. I dare you to read a whole thread on Obama or the Democrats, which is to say in Freeperville, PURE UNADULTERATED EVIL.

I wonder if anyone will follow up Palin’s hollow accusation regarding the robo-calls?  I know the media *refuses* to follow up the allegation that Obama is a terrorist Muslim (and by “follow-up”, I’m using the Right-Wingian definition which translates to “Pass along rumors without research” in English), but maybe they could call St. Sarah out for this bold…assertion…based on what, exactly?  Hmmm?

And yes, it does get better and more hypocritical.  Are you ready for another round of Republican Scarewords: The Home Game!.  That’s right, it time for another All-American episde SCAREWORDS!! 

 The scareword for the day is SOCIALIST!!!!!

Palin was also asked if she and McCain believe that Barack Obama’s tax plan, which would raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 and provide tax credits to middle and lower-income workers, is SOCIALIST. At a campaign rally in New Mexico earlier Sunday, Palin said Obama wants to “experiment with SOCIALISM.”

“There are SOCIALIST principles to that, yes,” Palin said of Obama’s plan. “Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard working family and then redistributing that money according to a politician’s priorities. There are hints of SOCIALSIM in there.”

Before we continue… a poll….

The questions for Sarah continued….And, BTW, this all happened when she tried to answer questions directly from the press.  It’s why she contradicts herself from moment to moment.  Asking questions like this are what journalists are supposed to do.  It helps to find out if the hamsters upstairs are working, or just reading cue cards.

Asked if she thinks the government’s plan to inject billions of taxpayer dollars directly into troubled banks amounts to socialism — a belief held by many conservative legislators, talk radio hosts and bloggers — Palin said, “No, I do not.”

“I believe that there are those measures that had to be taken by congress to shore up not only the housing market but the credit markets also, to make sure that that’s not frozen, so that our small businesses have opportunities to borrow, and that was the purpose, of course, and that part of the bailout and the shoring of the banks,” she said.

To this anyone should scratch their heard.  If you just reverse a couple of paragraphs, she’s saying the same thing backwards.

“I believe that there are those measures that had to be taken by congress to shore up not only the housing market but the credit markets also, to make sure that that’s not frozen, so that our small businesses have opportunities to borrow, and that was the purpose, of course, and that part of the bailout and the shoring of the banks,” she said.

“There are socialist principles to that, yes,” Palin said of [The Government’s] plan. “Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard working family and then redistributing that money according to a politician’s priorities. There are hints of socialism in there.”

UPDATE: The previous bouts of hypocrisy and SCAREWORDS!! came from Colorado.  The game continues from New Mexico.    The game has evolved.   Palin is now going after all three men in the campaign.

“Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth. Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic,” Palin said. “But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman, I believe they think it sounds more like SOCIALISM.

“Friends, now is no time to experiment with SOCIALISM,” she told the cheering crowd.

[full article]

She then continued her attacks on the Senator from Arizona that voted for the SOCIALIST bailout plan.

“Our opponents keep saying, ‘No, no, no,’ to sound and responsible energy solutions,” she said.

Yes, I know (and fact-checked) McCain’s record of voting against alternative energy consistently….

Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy:

Obama: Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.

Here’s the Obama campaign’s list of the 23 votes. We find they’re overstating the case. In many instances, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates. Only 11 of the 23 votes cited by the Obama campaign involve reducing or eliminating incentives for renewable energy.

Meanwhile, McCain was indignant at the suggestion that he’d voted against alternative energy at all.

McCain: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time. … No one can be opposed to alternate energy.

But McCain’s record says differently. As we say above, he has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.

…so that was a pretty solid shot by Palin there.   Considering her own energy expertise is along the feeble lines of “Pray, Baby, Pray” (since we all know that drilling won’t even begin to solve a hundredth of the problem for 20 years), it’s kind of surprising that she would go after McCain on this topic.

I wonder how McCain will respond?

 

End the War or Drill Offshore: Which Will Yeild More Oil?

So I was thinking about drilling today (kinda been lonely lately) and drilling offshore specifically.

I recently had a post that illustrated how much oil, in barrels per day (BPD), that we could expect to gain by drilling offshore.

Here’s the pic.

Dril, Baby, Drill....You'll have to do it harder than that.

Dril, Baby, Drill....You'll Have to Do It Harder Than That

 I didn’t look it up then, but I wanted to make absolutely sure that these numbers were correct before making this comparison.  I am very confident the above number is correct.   It comes from here.

For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. 

 My point here isn’t that offshore drilling won’t affect prices (we already know it won’t impact them at all for at least 10 years, and then by a couple cents), but the point that in 22 years, what we can expect to see is maybe 200,000 BPD in extra oil production.  I haven’t seen estimates for the cost of extraction, which with oil prices tumbling with the rest of the world’s economy could severely hamper extraction attempts, but that’s the general figure outside of ther forces.   As the report states…

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

Now the other part of the equation: How Much Oil Do the Wars In Iraq and Afghanistan consume?

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world

“Military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S” [1]

“Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S” [2]

According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece. 

These are 2004 numbers, before the war in Iraq really got going, and the cost got calculated….

If you make the calculation for peacetime vs wartime, and remove the 40,000,000 extra barrals a year, we end up at “normal” military use of ….285,000 BPD.

A difference of 110,000 BPD with basic wartime consumption.

And that was in 2004.

In the May 2005 issue of the Atlantic Monthly article Robert Bryce says that “The U.S. military now uses about 1.7 million gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. … each of the 150,000 soldiers on the ground consumes roughly nine gallons of fuel a day. And that figure has been rising.” This mean in Iraq each day 40 000 b/d of oil is consumed by the US military.

Yes, something is wrong with that figure. Compare it with the one given by the Defense Logistics Agency spokeswoman Lana Hampton. Accroding to an American Forces Information Service News Article she said the U.S. military is using between 10 million and 11 million barrels of fuel each month to sustain operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This makes 330 000 – 360 000 barrel per day.

So now we are looking at a calculated difference of somewhere between 110,000 BPD on way low-end and 360,000 BPD on the high end.

We look quickly at history again…

According to a Rand Corporation report “1.88 billion gallons of fuel were consumed within the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility during Operations Desert Shild and Desert Storm (ODS/S), between August 10, 1990 and May 31, 1991.” [5]. This makes 44.8 million barrels, or 150 000 barrels a day. Note that ODS/S lasted 295 days.

[sourced here with additional sources]

…and we see that the easy, quick, and successful war in Iraq used at least 150,000 BPD.

Given all these numbers, and both wars, and a surge, I think it is very easy and accurate to say that our wars are currently consuming more than 200,000 BPD IN ADDITION to the regular, defensive operation of military forces.

So which is the quicker way and more effective way to get more oil? 

Peace.

Unsurprisingly. 

I know of no wise people in history who ever recommended consumption as a cure to addiction.  I know of many who speak of restraint and humility as a reliable course of therapy.

Drill, Baby, Drill!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House, responding to growing public demand for more domestic energy, voted Wednesday to end a quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, giving Republicans a major victory on energy policy.

An extension of the ban for another year was left off a $630 billion-plus stopgap government spending bill that President Bush had threatened to veto – possibly shutting down the government – if the anti-drilling measure were included.

The bill was approved 370-58 and now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to be approved within the next few days, also without the drilling ban.

WWL – AM870 • FM105.3 | News • Talk • Sports | OnDemand@1350 – AP – content.

My guess is that if Obama is elected, we’ll probably see a bit of a drawback on thiis one.  If McCain/Plain are elected, it will be expanded.

Opening up drilling doesn’t do much for now, but might help a tiny bit in the future.  If we structure the deals right, we could make some money, but without real pressure, expect to get raped like we were before.

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

[full story]

What this group did was collect money on the oil and gas we are already letting be “drill, baby, drilled”.  This office was rife with corruption as the profits involved in the gas business, and the payments tied to them, have skyrocketed in recent years.  What Big Oil realized was that by boozing and blowing certain humans that represented the government, they could avoid paying any extra taxes on those record profits.

This was one of the tactics in their strategy to maximize shareholder value.  And is something that would be multiplied a couple-fold by allowing more drilling (it’s really not going to change the equation that much).