If you watched the Presidential Debate, I'm sure you all remember the moment, where McCain refers to Obama as "that one" when accusing him of voting for a bill that gave "all kinds of goodies" to the oil companies. And if you check the voting record, Obama did indeed vote in favor of the 2005 Energy Bill, and McCain voted against it. But we're not naive. Most of us know that bills often serve conflicting interests, much to our dismay. The reason they do of course, is so that they will PASS! It's got to have a little something for both sides, or nothing would ever pass. So the bill did contain some subsidies for oil companies and also some incentives for alternative energy industries. Now it's not so clear. Did Obama vote yes to support the alternative energy, swallowing the bitter pill of oil subsidies? Did McCain vote No to block the alternative energy incentives, or was his No vote because he opposed the oil subsidies? I don't know, and really the neither does anyone else besides Obama and McCain. The problem seems to me to be the insane way bills are structured.
To check out the video of McCain: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccainvideos/youtube/mccain-that-one.htm
For more information regarding the 2005 Energy Bill and how it was used during the debate:
McCain-Obama Debate Ignored Impact of Economic Crisis on Energy Plans - US News and World Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/what-does-the-2005-energy_b_83130.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I found the "that one" comment particularly disgraceful. Mr. McCain along with the governor of Alaska are not fooling anyone with their rhetoric. They are anti-environmentalists and if the price is right, then the "energy situation" will be ignored like it has been in the past.
RESPONSE TO ROOSIE:
Thank you for your comment. I would agree that McCain and Palin are looking less and less concerned about the environment as the campaign goes on. Their focus is increasingly on reducing dependence on foreign oil as opposed to reducing our dependence on oil in general. Palin's position on global warming is particularly confusing due to the fact that she doesn't necessarily agree that man is causing it. I am now firmly behind the Obama/Biden energy plan, and believe they are our best hope for a comprehensive energy plan that considers environmental issues to be a priority.
Looking at the McCain/Palin campaign now it seems like their not so much going on their issues as much as their just trying to win. However, I havn't been a big fan of mudslinging.
Should we be supporting someone who is willing to be "swallowing the bitter pill of oil subsidies"? I think we need to do something about how tied into the government the oil industry has become.
RESPONSE TO VOLT-AIR:
I agree that the mudslinging is tiresome, and I think both campaigns have participated in it, and unfortunately I have probably done it myself. As for my theorizing about how and why senators vote the way they do, I was just speculating about Obama. But just as you said - I was trying to shed light on the bigger problem which is how bills are structured, and one of the reasons they often have conflicting interests is because of lobbying groups. I truly believe that there needs to be a major change in the way lobbyists influence government. I also was trying to show that it's not always easy to try to interpret what it means when looking at either candidate's voting record. The voting on the 2005 energy bill is a case in point where both sides tried to use it against each other.
Post a Comment