Barack Obama advisers today slammed John McCain's energy stances - saying the Arizona senator has flip-flopped on issues such as CAFE standards, and that his support for drilling in the Outer Continental shelf is just one example of energy solutions that merely "tinker around the edges" of our very expensive problem of oil dependence.

"He just has rhetoric but doesn't back it up with any substance," Obama's economic policy director, Jason Furman, told reporters during a conference call.

Despite all the "rhetoric" on how it's vital to our national and economic security to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, McCain "looks the other way when the tough decisions come," added senior energy adviser Jason Grumet. They called his gas-tax holiday proposal the "perfect storm of political pander."

Advisers were asked about an article today that looks at the close relationships some of Obama's advisers and supporters have with the domestic (corn-based) ethanol industry. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, for example, is an adviser who serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works on renewable energy issues at a Washington law firm.

Obama's people said the candidate has always stressed that corn-based ethanol is a "transitional" fuel and has argued that we need to accelerate to a new suite of advanced ethanols. They hailed his past work on CAFE standards as brave, given the fact that the issue used to be a political hot potato, and noted that the fuel economy bill Congress passed last fall was almost exactly the same as what Obama introduced the year before. See how Obama wasn't afraid to "roll up his sleeves" to tackle tough issues? That's the kind of president he would be, they argued.

At the same time, McCain today released a new TV ad entitled "Energy Security." View below

the Next Right is on top of the last few days hoorah around Republican and conservative circles. The intense focus on oil, offshore drilling, etc. has moved beyond the usual circles into Evangelical territory:

he American Family Association sent out an alert to its massive list and got 400,000 letters sent to Congress for more oil drilling. Why is this important? In presentations, I often cite the AFA's monster list as the biggest on the Right. And in my years on their list, I've never seen them focus on anything other than social issues. Their focus on oil is a big, big deal.

It's pretty much the only topic that anyone on the right is talking about, for three straight days. Talk about on message. Today, The Next Right speculates as to whether, in the face of the $4 a gallon gas and crashing support for bans on drilling, the Democratic party will abandon environmental concerns in the same way they have essentially abandoned gun control. This is a good comparison, but it's early yet to see if it will work out the same:

The conventional punditry on McCain's call to end the ban on offshore oil exploration has focused on whether President Bush's suppport for the idea will hurt McCain in the fall. But that could change, and soon, if what's happened in just the past few days develops into a real trend:

• Sen. Jim Webb announced he now supports exploration off the coast of Virginia.
• Ex-Gov. Mark Warner also supports opening up the Virginia coastline to possible drilling.
• Meanwhile, the latest Gallup survey shows Democrats are split on offshore drilling, with 39% in support while 59% still oppose.

Better yet, it's an issue where independents side with the GOP, although the margins are not so wide (80% in favor vs. 56%). Overall, Americans favor opening up U.S. coastal waters by a 57% to 41%.

Now, what does this issue remind you of? How about gun control in the late 1990s?

And then goes on to highlight this Chris Bowers quote from MyDD, a traditional liberal blog.

The politics have changed, and I don't see the principle that guides Democrats to be unequivocally against offshore drilling for oil at this point. We are stuck on oil for a long time. Congressional Dems should adopt the position, include some safeguards, and alongside billions in funding for finding alternative fuel solutions, make it part of a long-term solution.

He sees that the Democrats cannot sustain opposition to drilling in the face of overwhelming popular support without terrible consequences at the polls. It really is just common sense and the need to win and pick your battles.

The Senate is debating a huge mortgage bailout bill this week amid fresh allegations that certain high-powered senators and former cabinet officials received preferential treatment from mortgage giant Countrywide Financial on their personal loans. Sen. Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and chief sponsor of the mortgage compromise legislation, received two below market loans from Countrywide in 2003 under its "friends of Angelo" program. "Angelo" is Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo. After first denying it, Dodd has admitted that he knew he was receiving special treatment on his loans as a "V.I.P.," but continues to deny that he sought any deal that would benefit him financially.

But Dodd's troubles are growing, and may eventually wind up killing the mortgage bailout bill he co-authored with Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby. A new examination of Dodd's campaign contributions reveals that since Dodd became chairman of the Banking Committee in 2007, he has received over $70,000 in contributions from Bank of America and its high-level employees. Bank of America recently bought Countrywide Financial and all of its existing loans. Since Countrywide held the most sub-prime mortgages at risk of default, Bank of America is potentially exposed to huge losses, unless a government bailout moves those risky loans off Countrywide's balance sheet. Dodd has written such a bailout, and some are now questioning whether his low interest loans and Bank of America's campaign money influenced that legislation.

Obama says, hey, I'm OK with NAFTA after all.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

What's interesting about this is that Obama may owe an apology to one Mr. Austin Goolsbee:

Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA." The Obama campaign denied that story, which (if you believe DeMora's account) was only slightly off the mark, and declined to elaborate. On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private." It looks like President Obama may owe one to our friendly neighbors to the north.

At the time, Obama insisted that Mr. Goolsbee was misinterpreted, or misquoted, but maybe not so much. The bottom line here is that neither candidate, once in office will do much about NAFTA. Tinker around the edges? Maybe, but it was a centerpiece of a Democratic administration, is a counterpoint to the Euro Free Trade Zone, and with the dollar sinking, American manufacturing is gearing up for exports.

The only losers are the Anti-free trade voters who believed the "overheated rhetoric"

Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped 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. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

According to Rasmussen, this appears to be a popular move:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey-conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Larry Kudlow on Oil

But here's an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.
...
Obama continues to lambaste oil companies while congressional Democrats push for cap-and-trade. They're missing the point, big time. The public wants more energy and more fuel to cut high prices and spur economic growth. But the costly cap-and-trade plan would produce less fuel and less growth. It would only raise gas pump prices while mounting a Gosplan-type taxing, spending, and regulating program that would be the moral equivalent of Hillarycare on nationalized medicine.
Sen. McCain has an opening here. Yet he, like Obama, would have voted for cap-and-trade, which went down to defeat in last week's Senate vote. And while Mr. McCain favors some off-shore production and has been strong on nuclear development, he is against drilling in ANWR Alaska.

Hold that thought.... there does appear to be some movement on that issue, at least according to Lindsey Graham on Sunday:

On ABC's "This Week -with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a McCain friend and supporter, said the Arizona Republican would be open to talking about looking for oil and gas "in our own backyard."

"John McCain would allow offshore explorations, if the states consent," Graham said Sunday.

Graham's statement echoed the position McCain took in response to a survey conducted by the League of Conservation Voters last year. The League questioned all the 2008 presidential candidates about whether they supported maintaining current moratoriums on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling.

As convoluted as that statement is, it's still more coherent than most liberal Democrats on the subject of high fuel prices. The link is just one sample but sadly typical and refers finally to the attempt by the Democrats to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Oil prices are bad, therefore we should tax the profits of the oil companies, which will make us all feel better, because everyone will get shafted equally... Huh? How about actually doing something that will affect the price of oil. I could almost see it if the windfall profits were to be distributed as rebates at the pump, but no, not exactly, they were planning to keep the money.

The bottom line is that the first presidential candidate to convince the public that he has a serious credible plan to reduce oil prices will go into the general election with a serious tailwind. John McCain, by simply not having to align with the environmental lobby, is at a structural advantage, but he needs to seize the opportunity

It's a game that's all the rage in this year's campaign: Linking your rival in the race for president to a past commander-in-chief. From the get go, the Democrats and Barack Obama have made the case that electing John McCain is tantamount to ushering in a third term of George W. Bush. After all, the two share a similar view on the Iraq war, corporate and personal income taxes, education, and right-wing court appointments. Obama and the DNC's have shown lock-step message discipline in shrinking McCain into Bush's "Mini-Me." And a veritable YouTube cottage industry has arisen to guarantee that the two men are forever joined at the hip in the minds of the electorate. Here's just one example:



Recently, John McCain has started pushing a comeback cooked up by the RNC. If McCain is left-over Bush, then Obama is thawed and microwaved Jimmy Carter. That's a pretty good retort, in that it attempts to link Obama to the days of out-of-control spending, inflation, and a daunting energy crisis. Unfortunately, McCain isn't really eloquent enough to flesh out the argument to a younger generation of voters who don't know why they're supposed to revile Carter. Here's McCain in one of the two interviews he gave yesterday in which he made the Carter claim:

According to a May 29 Pew study, Barack Obama is in a dominant position over John McCain on important issues, just as the general election campaign gets underway.

Obama holds sizable advantages over McCain as better able to handle the economy as well as the nation's energy problems. Currently, half of voters say Obama could do a better job of improving the economy, while 36% favor McCain. Obama's lead over McCain on the economy is about the same as it was in April (53% Obama vs. 33% McCain).

Obama holds comparable leads over McCain on dealing with nation's energy problems (18 points) and improving the health care system (17 points). In addition, about half of voters (48%) say that Obama better reflects their views on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, while just 34% favor McCain.

The report does show McCain with a lead on Iraq, but one that has shrunk from 12 points in April, to a statistical tie, 3%, in May. This before Obama has even been officially nominated. How much trouble is this for McCain?