Washington, DC - Today, John McCain's campaign released its latest misleading ad aimed at drawing attention away from his history of opposing efforts to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. After years of voting against incentives for renewable energy and green jobs, McCain has now offered a series of gimmicks and giveaways that even his own campaign admits won't reduce the price of gas.
"The real 'purpose' of John McCain's ad is to rewrite the history of how he has repeatedly stood in the way of responsible efforts to make America less dependent on foreign oil and create green jobs," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "In his 25 years in Washington, Senator McCain has been a part of the problem, not the solution on energy independence. Instead of political gimmicks and special interest giveaways, John McCain should offer a real plan that promotes green jobs, breaks our dependence on foreign oil and invests in America's future."
Ad WATCH: "Purpose"
MCCAIN AD: "A COMPREHENSIVE BIPARTISAN PLAN TO: LOWER PRICES AT THE PUMP. REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL THROUGH DOMESTIC DRILLING."
REALITY: EVEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND MCCAIN'S TOP ECONOMIC ADVISOR ADMIT THAT OFFSHORE DRILLING WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON GAS PRICES FOR YEARS
McCain's Plan To Lift Moratorium On Offshore Drilling Would Have No Significant Impact On Oil Production For At Least 22 Years. According to a 2007 report issued by the The Energy and Information Administration, "The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." [Factcheck.org, 6/20/2008]
Wall Street Journal: Domestic Drilling "Isn't A Short Term Fix," Would Likely Take A Decade For First Oil To Flow. "As politicians debate whether to open federal offshore waters to oil and natural-gas drilling, there is agreement on at least one point: It isn't a short-term fix. If the bans were lifted tomorrow, it would be at least seven years -- and likely as long as a decade -- before the first oil began to flow off the coasts of Florida, California and the eastern seaboard." [Wall Street Journal, 6/19/08]
McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Admitted That Increasing Domestic Oil Production Would Have No Immediate Impact On Gas Prices. According to the Los Angeles Times, McCain's senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters on a conference call that, ""allowing new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on supplies or gas prices. But, he said, "there is an important element in signaling to world oil markets that we are serious."" [Los Angeles Times, 6/18/2008]
McCain's Misguided Rhetoric On Lowering Gas Prices Is Causing Problems Among Key Supporters, Including California Governor Schwarzenegger. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a veiled swipe at Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday… From his podium at the conference, Schwarzenegger said, "Politicians have been throwing around all kinds of ideas in response to the skyrocketing energy prices, from the rethinking of nuclear power to pushing biofuels and more renewables and ending the ban on offshore drilling," Schwarzenegger said. "But anyone who tells you this would bring down gas prices any time soon is blowing smoke."" [Los Angeles Times, 6/26/2008]
White House Spokesman: There's No Quick Solution To Energy Crisis. "White House spokesman Tony Fratto, during today's briefing, said that "anyone out there saying that something can be done overnight or in a matter of months to deal with high gasoline prices is trying to fool people." "There is no tool in the toolbox out there that will lower gas prices overnight or in weeks, and probably not even in months," he said." [Potus Blog, Washington Times Online, 6/18/2008]
Former Romney Economic Advisor Said Oil Companies, Not Consumers Would Reap Benefits Of Summer Gas Tax "Holliday". Former advisor to Mitt Romney, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, debunked Senator McCain's proposal of a summer-long gas tax cut with a posting on his blog indicating that the idea is economically unsound. The idea would actually pass along the savings to oil companies, said Mankiw, because the temporary decrease in prices would just lead to people wanting to drive more, "the welfare gain from the tax cut falls almost entirely on producers rather than consumers." [Greg Mankiw, 4/15/08, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/]
MCCAIN AD: "A COMPREHENSIVE BIPARTISAN PLAN TO… AND CHAMPION ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR BETTER CHOICES AND LOWER COSTS."
McCain Opposed $290 Million For R&D On Renewable Energy, Including Wind Power. McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 Million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]
McCain Cast Deciding Vote to Cut Funding For the Rural Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program From $23 Million To $3 Million. McCain voted for a motion to concur in the House amendment with the Senate amendment on the bill that made changes to programs for a net savings of $39.7 billion over five years. [2005 Senate Vote #363, 12/21/2005]
McCain Missed Key Votes On Extending Renewable Energy Tax Credits. McCain missed numerous votes in 2007 and 2008 on tax credits for renewable energy. Several of the votes he missed on extending existing tax credits failed by just a few votes. [2007 Senate Vote #98, 3/22/2007; 2007 Senate Vote #223, 6/21/2007; 2007 Senate Vote #416, 12/7/2007; 2008 Senate Vote #8, 2/6/2008]
McCain Voted Repeatedly Against Establishing National Renewable Energy Standards. McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate that renewable energy sources must produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020, a minimum of 2.5 percent must be produced beginning 2008 through 2011. [2005 Senate Vote #141, 6/16/2005; 2002 Senate Vote #50, 3/14/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #55, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #59, 3/21/2002]