Subject: [big campaign] Tracking Update: McCain Speech on Energy Houston, TX 06/17/08
From: "Cammie Croft" <[email-masked]>
To: "big campaign" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:11:09 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Hello Big Campaign,

Just off the phone with our tracker Jacob, who is on the ground in Houston.
Below are the notes from our call.

*BIG HIGHLIGHTS:
*

   - McCain flubs: "with gas running at $4 a barrel-- a gallon," jokes that
   he wishes it were the good old days like that
   - Links Obama to Jimmy Carter: "I like recycling but it's better applied
   to paper and plastic than the failed policies of the 60s and 70s"
   - Says the next President must be willing to break policies not just with
   the current Administration but the ones that came before it
   - Says offshore drilling is now safe enough that even Hurricanes Rita and
   Katrina couldn't cause spillage
   - Promises a series of talks on energy in the weeks ahead
   - Says we need to look beyond special interests and pursue policies that
   are good for both parties
   - Says some tasks will be the work of decades, some of years; they will
   all begin in the term of the next President
   - Continues to promote nuclear energy
   - McCain Campaign advisor and former lobbyist, Charlie Black in
   attendance

*Houston, TX: McCain Speech on Energy 06/17/08*

*Background Details:*
- Tracker had no problem getting into event
- Charlie Black in attendance -- we got footage of him standing off to the
side, lurking in the shadows
- Even located in a giant ballroom (Apprx 1000 capacity); Room cut in half
by press risers
- Audience in the front half – aprx 300 out of 1000 person capacity in
attendance
- Audience enthusiastic, more so than normal
- Event had a rotary club feel: white people, and business attire
- Press turnout was fairly good– but no notables; Houston Chronicle, local
networks, KPFT
- Little stagecraft – American and Texas Flags – no campaign signs except
for Reform, Prosperity, and Peace on the podium and the audience had no
signs,
- Advance staff handed out campaign press release
- Texas Senator introduced Texas Governor, Rick Perry
- Texas Governor, Rick Perry introduced McCain*

Speech Excerpts:
* Excerpts From Remarks As Prepared For Delivery Houston, TX June 17, 2008

…Among its other distinctions, this great city is known as the oil capital
of America. But people in Houston and all of Texas understand as well as
anyone that the high price of oil and gas today is causing great harm all
across our economy. People are hurting — small farmers, truckers, and taxi
drivers unable to cover their costs, small business owners struggling to
meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks falling.
All of this, in large part, because the price of oil is too high, and the
supply of oil too uncertain. These citizens believe their government has a
duty to finally assure the energy security of this country, and they are
right.

I first addressed this issue at the outset of my primary campaign. And in
just that time – a little more than a year – the price of a barrel of oil
has more than doubled. And the price of a gallon of gas in America stands at
more than four dollars. Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134 dollars.
And various oil ministers and investment firms have confidently informed us
that soon we can expect to pay 200 dollars for every barrel, and as much as
seven dollars for every gallon of gas.…

Somehow the United States – in so many ways the most self-reliant of nations
– has allowed and at times even encouraged this state of affairs. This was a
troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation twenty years
ago. It is a dangerous situation today. And starting in the term of the next
president, we must take control over our own energy future, and become once
again the master of our fate.

The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not
just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded
it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for
America. So in the days ahead I plan to return to the subject in a series of
discussions to explain my reform agenda. And I will set forth a strategy to
free America once and for all from our strategic dependence on foreign
oil.…Among these is a challenge we hardly even understood back when America
first learned to associate the word "energy" with "crisis." We now know that
fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten
disastrous changes in climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken
lightly, and least of all the need to avoid the consequences of global
warming.

In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy
conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue.
Conservation serves a critical national goal. Over time, we must shift our
entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power
sources. This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar,
biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented. It will include a variety of
new automotive and fuel technologies — clean-burning coal and nuclear energy
— and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to put the
power of the market on the side of environmental protection.

But to make the great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels, we will need all
the inventive genius of which America is capable. We will need as well an
economy strong enough to support our nation's great shift toward clean
energy. And this gives us only further incentive to protect ourselves from
the sudden shocks and ever-rising prices that come with our dependence on
foreign oil.

Up to a point, these sudden rises in the price of oil are explainable in the
terms of basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, prices always rise,
and this has happened very dramatically in the demand for oil. Two powerful
forces in the oil market today are China and India, nations in which a third
of humanity is suddenly entering the industrial era – with all the cars,
construction, and consumption of oil that involves.

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which
in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery
of oil. When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the
idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility
of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian
Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to
know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A
futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.

That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street
are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on
the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising.
And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most
Americans are coming up on the short end – using more and more of their
hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.

Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering,
unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the
market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and
pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they
need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we
must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so
that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks,
bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must
assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.…

At the time of OPEC's oil embargo, we imported roughly a third of our oil.
Now we import two thirds. At that time, every day, we produced more than
nine million barrels of oil domestically. Now America produces five million
barrels a day. Five million barrels sounds like a lot until we compare the
number with the oil we use, which comes to 20 million barrels, or a quarter
of all the oil used every day across the earth.…

It takes a very short leap in logic to wonder why we produce less and less
crude oil, while we use more and more of it, or why politicians talk so much
about promoting alternative energy sources, but often do so little to
promote these alternatives. A reasonable observer, presented only with these
numbers of consumption and production, might draw the conclusion that
America has accepted this fate because we have no choice in the matter, or
because we have no resources of our own. But just the opposite is true: We
do have resources, and we do have a choice.

In oil, gas, and coal deposits, we have enormous energy reserves of our own.
And we are gaining the means to use these resources in cleaner, more
responsible ways. As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that
not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from
the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston. Yet for reasons
that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign oil, the
federal government discourages offshore production.

At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new
refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and
thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people – especially in the
summer season. But the policymakers in Washington haven't got around to
that, either. There's so much regulation of the industry that the last
American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.

As for nuclear energy – a proven energy source that requires zero emissions
– we haven't built a new reactor in 31 years. In Europe and elsewhere, they
have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we've waited so long
that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants.
Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable
energy supply, as other nations understand. One nation today has plans to
build almost 50 new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26
major nuclear stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants
to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people – a
population of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China,
Russia, and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great
goals in energy policy, then why don't we?

So, taking stock of our energy situation, it is time we draw a few sensible
conclusions of our own. In their sum effect on the American economy, the
policies of our government could hardly have left us more dependent had they
been designed to do precisely that. This vulnerability is clear in many
ways, and never more than when American leaders are reduced to supplicating
for lower prices before the sheiks and princes of OPEC. Of course, they are
unmoved by our troubles. They regard even the need to ask as a sign of
weakness. And in the end, they take their cues not from our entreaties for
relief, but from our failure to diversify and to produce.

Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our
country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a "refuge" for a reason.

But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with
gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the
luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have
proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But
a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and
production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift
these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of
environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration,
there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state
governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a
matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and
assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.

We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to
come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from
oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve
us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our
resources where they are – even as we press on with new and cleaner sources
of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on
oil, and over the next two weeks, I'll be offering a vision that will be
bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling
right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life.

What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons
along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says
that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too
quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support
new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either.

So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters he
supported the energy bill of 2005 – a grab-bag of corporate favors that I
opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a
windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans
for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was
President Jimmy Carter's big idea too – and a lot of good it did us. Now as
then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our
dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic
exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling – but it's better
applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's.Oddly
enough, though, Senator Obama doesn't want to lower the gas taxes paid by
consumers, which would be the most direct and obvious way to give Americans
a break at the gas station. Even in tough times for our economy, when folks
are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just isn't change he
can believe in.

-- 
Cammie L. Croft
Tracking/Media Monitoring Director
Progressive Media USA
[email-masked]
202-609-7679 (office)
206-999-3064 (cell)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---