Jack Kelly Sunday

While the AP is reporting that Senator John McCain's campaign has been "hampered by missteps," our own Jack Kelly points out the three signposts that point the way to a McCain landslide (yes, he used the word "landslide") in November. He quickly adds that it's an "unlikely event" that McCain will heed them.

No bother, let's take a look at these signposts.

One - the cost of energy. Kelly's solution, of course is to drill for more oil (off the coasts of Florida and California and in ANWR) and to build more nuclear power plants.

I do want to go on record saying that Jack Kelly calls John McCain a flip-flopper. Take a look:

Now that John McCain has flip- flopped on drilling off of our coasts, there is a substantial difference between him and Mr. Obama on the issue.

John McCain's a flip-flopper. Jack Kelly sez so.

Anyway back to the signpost:

Opinion polls indicate a large majority now supports drilling for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. That majority is likely to expand and harden as gas prices rise yet higher this summer. But Mr. McCain can't fully capitalize politically on this change in public attitude unless he completes his flip-flop and consents to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Here's where Jack gets into some trouble. The opinion poll mentioned is probably Gallup. In answser to the question:

Please say whether you would favor or oppose taking each of the following steps to attempt to reduce the price of gasoline. How about: Allowing oil drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off-limits to oil exploration.

57% favored, 41% opposed, and 2% had no opinion.

However (and this is the trouble for Jack) in the same press release, Gallup points out that last March when asked specifically about drilling in ANWR the numbers are a teensy bit different. In response to the question:

Do you think the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should or should not be opened up for oil exploration?

52% said no and 43% said yes.

See the problem? Gallup does point out a few things:

The differences in the responses to the broad May question and the earlier question focused specifically on ANWR could reflect the difference in the wording and could also reflect the difference in time frame. The May question asked about "coastal and wilderness areas now off-limits to oil exploration" while the March question was more specifically targeted to ANWR. Furthermore, there is a two-month difference in the timing of the questions. The price of gas has risen in a seemingly inexorable fashion even in this short time period, suggesting the possibility that attitudes may have changed concomitantly.

The point being, of course, that based on Gallup's numbers there's no way to tell whether at this point opinion polls show support for oil exploration in ANWR. And yet Jack Kelly writes that because a majority support exploration in previously off-limits areas, John McCain should push to open up ANWR.

Sneaky, our friend Jack is.

But let's say ANWR is opened up. What then? This is from the Energy Information Administration ("The Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government"):

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

So production will begin ten years from now and will peak ten years later. Depending on which estimate comes closest, it will add between 1.9 billion and 4.3 billion barrels of oil over those 12 years (and remember this is ten years from now). According (again) to the EIA, the US consumes 20 million barrels a day - now. Adding 800,000 barrels per day 10 years from now won't do much.

And as for off-shore drilling according to the same EIA:

The projections in the OCS 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.

And:

Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

It would be a HUGE boon to the oil companies' profit margins. Anyway to help those guys out, you know.

At this point the column really runs out of gas. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that he really wanted the entire column to be on the first signpost, but couldn't find enough material. So he had to add the follow (quite weak) arguments.

Sign post two - Foreign affairs. Jack writes:

The second sign post is Mr. Obama's clumsy embrace of a Sept. 10 attitude toward the war on terror. The law enforcement approach toward fighting it is precisely what led to Sept. 11, 2001. Fortunately, national security is the one issue Mr. McCain knows something about. The danger for him here is that he'll overemphasize it. The fact that we're winning the war on terror makes most Americans less interested in it, and more focused on economic concerns. Voter anxiety about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander-in-chief is a strong subsidiary issue. But this election will be won or lost at the gas pump.

As for McCain's expertise on foreign affairs, I'll point you to The Nation this week:

Given this all but unchallenged media narrative, it can be an astounding experience to scrutinize McCain's record of judgment in the harsh light of history. For instance, before the Bush Administration embarked on its disastrous course in Iraq, McCain promised that a successful US invasion would "serve as a counterpoint to the state-directed Arab media's distortion of the Palestinian conflict." He told CNN viewers on September 12, 2002, that he was "very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult" and, a month later, that "success will be fairly easy." When asked by Chris Matthews in March 2003 whether the Iraqis would treat Americans as liberators, McCain answered, "Absolutely, absolutely." In light of these and other such predictions, it is difficult to imagine just what the editors of the Washington Post were thinking when they instructed readers, "Whatever your position on the war, then or now, Mr. McCain deserves credit for foresight and consistency about how the war should have been waged."[emphasis added]

Some expertise. The Nation also points out some other mistakes by this foreign policy expert:

"As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq." As media scholar Jay Rosen pointed out, McCain made this false claim four times, although Gen. David Petraeus had refuted it.

And:

McCain also recently misstated the number of US troops in Iraq, saying on May 29 that "we have drawn down to pre-surge levels." The military, in fact, is two full brigades above the pre-surge levels.

Again, some expertise.

Signpost three. Now this one is confusing. Jack writes:

The third sign post was illuminated by the flap over the receipt by the (now former) head of Mr. Obama's vice presidential selection committee and two prominent U.S. senators of below-market-rate loans from Countrywide Financial Corp., which Mr. Obama has charged is in large part responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. One of those senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is trying to push through Congress a bill that would, in effect, bail out Countrywide.

This glaring conflict of interest hasn't attracted much attention from the news media because for most journalists a scandal isn't really a scandal unless Republicans are involved.

Let's see. Johnson is already gone and Dodd isn't running for President. So the conflict of interest is...where? I truly love that last sentence. I guess Jack missed the media's coverage of Jeremiah Wright (while largely ignoring Reverend Hagee) and Michelle Obama's lack of pride in the country (while ignoring both Laura Bush's comments and John McCain's own lack of love for the nation until he became a POW.

Yea, the media only covers scandals when Republicans are involved.

What newspaper is Jack Kelly reading??