HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

LA Times: McCain's energy record is on/off

Here's the lede:

The Republican presidential candidate has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the government's role in energy policy.

And an excerpt:

Crisscrossing the country over the last two weeks to promote his energy plans, Sen. John McCain promised a forceful national strategy to combat global warming and end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents," the presumptive Republican nominee told a crowd of oil executives in Houston.

But McCain's record of tackling energy policy on Capitol Hill shows little of the clear direction he says would come from a McCain White House.

Instead, the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy.

At times he has backed measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Other times he has voted to keep them.

He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry.

He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing "nothing to increase our energy independence." Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a "vital, vital alternative energy source."

...But the senator's legislative work on energy and climate change is also full of contradictions. McCain -- who argues the federal government should not be "picking favorites" -- has routinelybacked federal subsidies for some energy producers but not others.

While McCain has talked tough about giveaways for oil companies, for example, he has only occasionally challenged the industry.

In 2003 and 2005, McCain criticized his colleagues for giving tax breaks to oil producers. "It doesn't make fiscal or common sense," he said in one debate, "to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of energy by companies that are already gaining tremendous riches at today's sky-high oil and gas prices."

He has also acted to protect the industry's bottom line. In 1999, McCain backed efforts to prevent the Interior Department from collecting more royalties from oil companies drilling on public land.

The department wanted payments to reflect the market price of oil, a change that could have boosted receipts by an estimated $60 million a year or more.

Six years later, after rejecting offshore drilling, he voted for legislation that opened up large sections of the Gulf of Mexico to exploration, a major industry priority.

Holtz-Eakin said McCain believed that states should have the authority to decide whether there was drilling along their coastlines. (In contrast, McCain voted to deny governors authority to veto liquefied natural gas terminals in their states.)

McCain announced two weeks ago that he favored more oil exploration off the nation's coasts to bring down the cost of gasoline. "We must deal with the here and now," he said....

On his recent energy tour, McCain also called for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, a goal he is prepared to back with billions of federal dollars.

That too is a change for the four-term senator. Earlier in his congressional career, McCain was a consistent opponent of subsidies for nuclear power, voting five times in the 1990s against taxpayer aid for research on new-generation nuclear reactors. As recently as 2003, McCain opposed federal loan guarantees to help the nuclear industry finance new plants.

Three years ago, however, McCain began pushing more taxpayer assistance to help develop nuclear power as part of his proposed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions ...

On the campaign trail, McCain has also said the federal government should spend $30 billion over the next 15 years to help companies develop less polluting ways to burn coal.

And he has indicated support for legislation to force automakers to build more vehicles that can run on fuels other than gasoline.

"This can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology, allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars," McCain said last week, adding he is prepared to sign a bill to do that.

Yet McCain has been a consistent opponent of standards that would require utilities to derive a minimum percentage of their power from renewable sources, such as wind, solar or geothermal.

"I have heard from utilities in my own state that a federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement to import wind," McCain said during a 2005 Senate debate. McCain has voted against renewable standards at least four times since 2002. He has also opposed tax incentives to encourage the development of power from sources other than nuclear.

In 2002, he ridiculed a proposed federal incentive for companies trying to convert animal waste into power, asking on the Senate floor: "What's happened to man's best friend, the dog? Why can't he make a deposit to help reduce our energy dependence?"

He opposed tax credits in 2001 and 2006 for companies that generate power from solar, wind, geothermal and ocean wave energy, all of which produce no greenhouse gases.

McCain derided the same tax breaks two weeks ago as a "patchwork of tax credits" that are "temporary and often the result of who had the best lobbyist."

"We will reform this effort," he promised, "so that it is fair, rational and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy."

But when McCain summed up his energy initiative last week -- recapping plans for more oil exploration, more nuclear plants, and federal support for cleaner coal plants and new car batteries -- he offered no proposal to expand the use of renewable energy.

It would be one thing if he could explain why he has so consistently changed his mind, but of course he cannot. Because if he did, he would either have to admit that he did so because his political circumstances suggested he should, or because when it comes to most policy areas he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I've long joked that McCain simply doesn't understand that YouTube and Google make all of his past statements accessible with a simple search, but I'm beginning to think it might actually be a much broader problem with McCain's cluelessness.

Up, down, left, right. You, know, something like this:

Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes - and I was just reading the thing he wrote- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it."

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception - I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."

"I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was."

Is that the kind of man you want leading this nation? I mean, what's the thought process here?

"Hey advisor! I'm being asked a very basic question about contraception and HIV. What's my position on this? Yes, yes, I know, an 8th grader could answer this one, but so what? I'm only a United States Seantor. Cut me some slack and help me out! Better yet, tell me what my position on this issue is. I'm stumped! And I simply cannot be bothered to think for myself!"