Obama Distorting Facts on Cheney Energy Bill
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Energy, McCainThe AP alerted me to an interesting story. Let’s begin with part of Barack Obama’s current speech about energy:
“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this. Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.”
Here’s the problem. Look at the vote on the 2005 Energy Bill, which Obama is now trying to tie to John McCain. Obama voted for it. McCain voted against it.
Obama says he voted for the bill because it gave so much funding to renewable energy. McCain opposed the bill because he said, at the time, it included too many tax breaks for energy companies.
Obama’s current message distorts the facts. A new kind of politician? Not in this case.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Energy, McCain. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I believe this is what is known as irony.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
No… this is “change”
August 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I guess I’m just a little confused as to how Obama is distorting the facts on this one. Isn’t he essentially saying that McCain, for whatever reason, is ignoring our need for renewable energy, and that McCain, by voting against this bill, is proving that point?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Tyler,
That would be an interesting argument for Obama to make, but it’s not the one he’s making. He’s tying the 2005 energy bill and its handouts to oil companies to Cheney and then tying Cheney to McCain, saying McCain will give us more of the same. Thing is, at the time of the 2005 energy bill vote, McCain was the one who stood up against the handouts while Obama voted FOR the bill and its handouts. Seems a bit odd to bash a bill you voted for, don’t you think? And even odder to tie the bill to McCain when he voted AGAINST it.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Define irony–accusing Obama of distorting facts on Cheney Energy Bill, but distorting the facts on what Obama said.
Actually, Obama is tying McCain to the Cheney energy POLICY, not the 2005 energy BILL. The POLICY is the goal of the Bush administration; the bill is the compromise between congressional Republicans and Democrats that Bush eventually signed.
It was a bad bill given the GOP majority, but the Dem’s (including Obama) did work hard to get alternative energy concessions inserted.
I want to state at the onset that I actually think McCain did the right thing voting against the bill, but his vote puzzles me when you look at his long history of supporting the oil industry, the number of his advisors from big oil, and his significant lead in donations from big oil and its supporters in this election cycle.
The cynic in me says that he was opposed to the alternative energy insertions; but I concede here that at the time, he said he was opposed to handouts to big business and big oil and tip my hat to him.
Instead of talking about the 2005 Energy Bill that Obama voted for, let’s talk about that Cheney Energy Policy before the bill and why Obama is critical of it.
Remember that the Energy Policy pushed by the Bush crew was so embarrassing that even a GOP almost super majority had to toss a few bones the way of the Dems in the form of alternative energy.
The policy began with Cheney holding 40+ secret meetings with God knows who God knows how many times…despite Cheney’s repeated refusals to reveal how the policy came about, we do know a few things.
There were 40 plus meetings before anyone with any alternative energy credentials was invited–when those people were finally allowed in, the task force had pretty much completed everything and Cheney felt that the contributions of alternative energy folks was so important he didn’t even bother to show up.
OK, who were those people who were important enough for Dick Cheney to meet with? Well, we know that James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil, and Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp. were there, as were executives from Duke Energy, Constellation Energy Group and British Petroleum. We also know that executives of the National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were there.
We know much of the work was done by a six-person staff, led by its executive director, Andrew D. Lundquist. Who is Lundquist? Well, he WAS a former aide to Republican Sens. Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski of Alaska. He was also the Bush 2000 campaign’s energy expert (Bush nicknamed him “Light Bulb”–isn’t that cute?)
We also know that Lundquist is a lobbyist, and in the past 8 years has represented — surprise– BP, Duke Energy and the American Petroleum Institute.
Now, what did some of these tell Cheney and Lundquist?
Well, Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining Association, later said he urged the administration to give the Energy Department responsibility for promoting technology for easing global warming and to keep the issue away from the Environmental Protection Agency, which could issue regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
The administration adopted that position.
Another Task Force visitor was Eli Bebout, an friend of Cheney’s from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company. Don’t know what he told the task force, but I can guess.
Probably the same thing Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, who also met with Lundquist.
Another gentleman who admits meeting with the task force was J. Robinson West, chairman of the Washington-based consulting firm PFC Energy. West was and is a proponent of opening up more areas in the United States and offshore for oil drilling
To his credit, West has since said that the administration has not done enough to dampen energy demand. West also said he urged the administration to pursue a cap-and-trade system that would include China and India in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (yeah for him, but I personally don’t think a cap and trade system is a good idea).
Another guest? Daniel Yergin, then chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of “The Prize,” a history of the oil industry.
Who else met with the task force? We may never know, but even the most kind observer has to admit that the Cheney Energy Policy was oil-rich and alternative energy-poor
That is the policy that Obama is being critical of–not the eventual energy bill that was passed.
Let’s not distort that, please.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I agree with gerrf, Obama is not tying McCain to the energy bill but to an energy policy that gives too much say to big oil.
Obama voting for the Cheney’s energy bill is just another example of his pragmatism. He will give up some things he doesn’t want to get things he does. It all depends on which is more important to him. In this case starting the country on the road to developing wind and solar energy was more important.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I think most people are missing the point here. Why does Congress have to make concessions to please both sides of the aisle when the American public in general favors only one of them? America wants renewable energy, not tax breaks for big oil. Thus, why does the bill have to have both?
This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing either. Why, when America wants to drill more, does Congress not listen? It happens on both side of the aisle.
I say good on McCain for not voting for a bill because it included something of which he did not approve. Obama should had done the same along with all of Congress. Congress needs to stop pandering to lobbyists and looking out for their particular constituents at the detriment of the whole U.S.