by Jill Zuckman
During a fundraiser in Santa Barbara last night, Sen. John McCain came face to face with the downside of his new call for off-shore oil drilling. People who live on the coast don't want it.
"Santa Barbara has among other things a great natural beauty -- one of our great natural beauties lies before you out there to the South," Dan Secord told McCain, gesturing toward the ocean. "We're really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we're goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore.
"So we ask you to look out there to the south and the southeast and remember the greatest environmental catastrophe that's hit this state and then balance that with the notion of winning California," continued Secord, a member of the California Coastal Commission.
"This gathering is adjourned," McCain joked in reply.
McCain said he knows that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disagrees with him when it comes to off-shore drilling, but that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist agrees. And he stressed that he believes in the rights of states to decide the issue for themselves. McCain also noted that in Louisiana and Texas, where drilling is allowed off the coast, two massive hurricanes have had little effect on the rigs.
"I think the environmental situation is today -- that we could probably do that," McCain said. "But I don't want to override the state of California."
He also said that he believes the need for more domestic sources of oil is a national security issue and that other alternative energy sources such as nuclear power plants will take a longer time to build.
Secord is a McCain supporter and a contributor to McCain's campaign, even if he doesn't agree on off-shore drilling.
"We support people who don't agree with us a 100 percent," Secord said. "I feel disappointment about the cavalier resumption of offshore drilling and I'm not so sure that it's a deal related to national security so much."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The Bush Doctrine is now officially in play !! If you want free speech eliminated, just mention " National Security "! If you want abortion eliminated, just mention " National Security "! If you want Social Security eliminated, just mention " National Security " !! If you want equality eliminated, just mention " National Security "! If you want democracy eliminated, just mention " National Security ". That is the true legacy of the Bush Presidency, fear-mongering in the name of " National Security " !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | June 24, 2008 10:48 AM
The difference between Florida and California-- Governor Crist has sold out the people of Florida because he wants to be McCain's VP candidate.
That McCain concedes that drilling off California isn't going to happen is more proof that this drilling business is just a cheap election-year political trick. Promote solar energy!
Posted by: rupert | June 24, 2008 10:58 AM
McCain's best chance in Florida has nothing to do with this issue. It's the 60% of Californians who don't want the state supreme court legislating from the bench and the referendum on gay marriage this November.
Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Santa Barbara is not representative of the folks in California being hammered by energy costs. The typical very affluent resident in Santa Barbara does not really care what it costs to fill their vehicle or run their home air conditioning. Santa Barbara is the poster child for Democratic Elites. Ask the residents of inner city Los Angeles. Consider allowing the State to receive a share in the lease royalty from oil leases. Consider that the drilling would not be seen from shore. Consider that the Gulf drilling weathered the Katrina hurricane and had no calamity. Consider that National Security trumps States' rights, and yes this is now a national security situation - sorry there Mr. Fitzgerald of Chicago. Try reading the "The Hidden Agenda Against Drilling for Oil" at:
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/the-hidden-agenda-against-drilling-for-oil/
Posted by: Ken Moyes | June 24, 2008 11:11 AM
While we're talking about off-shore drilling, Japanese automakers are scrambling to produce electric cars and flex-fuel cars that will run completely on ethanol like they have in Brazil. The Japanese will be ready to market the cars in the U.S. once we get a president with a serious commitment to fossil fuel independence. In the meantime, they will sell them to countries who already have decent leadership.
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | June 24, 2008 11:21 AM
ken, the people of inner city los angeles ride the bus.
and here's some interesting reading regarding your no oil spill katrina hoax:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/damaged+energy+facilities/
Posted by: crud | June 24, 2008 12:22 PM
Crud:
Your comment fails to indicate that the the oil spills were NOT from the off shore oil rigs, but from other sources. The people of inner city Los Angeles do not All ride the bus to get to work or school.
Nice try.
Posted by: Ken Moyes | June 24, 2008 3:00 PM
ken, you're right, lets start drilling off every coast because technically the oil spilled from pipelines and tankers but not directly from the rigs. except maybe the ones that were damaged and drifting in the gulf:
http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp
the republican lie has been debunked by several sources. you can read more about it here:
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/19/mccain-katrina-spills/
be sure to open the mms link.
Posted by: crud | June 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Grandbldv, ethanol??? Haven't we learned by now that turning food into fuel is NOT a good idea?
Why is the Left so interested in starving people, making food and energy so darned expensive no one can eat or get anywhere? Could it be that the Left's grand design is so people die to allegedly save this planet from us?
Posted by: Green Trees | June 24, 2008 3:53 PM
Dead Trees-
The Brazilians make ethanol from sugar cane, not corn. It's much more efficient. Sugar cane based ethanol has an energy balance that is 7 times that of corn based. Celulosic ethanol is also more efficient than corn based ethanol.
Do you have a way to create petroleum? If not, you want to go down a dead end.
Posted by: Lois | June 24, 2008 4:42 PM
Santa Barbara is one of the most conservative areas in California. You'd think they'd be drilling in their driveway to help the country out. Right?
Posted by: RomanB | June 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Stand on the beach in Santa Barbara, as I did last summer, and look out on the water. What do you see? Oil rigs. What has the experience been from them recently?
Posted by: DaveB | June 24, 2008 5:36 PM
Lois, then why is Canidate Boy Wonder in favor of keeping the tariff on the Brazilian Ethanol? Wouldn't you want to import Brazilian Ethanol as opposed to Venezulan Oil? Sorry, you probably want to support Chavez.
Posted by: Terry | June 24, 2008 7:25 PM
Trickle down Terry-
I agree Obama is wrong about the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.
I personally don't see much difference between my money going to Chavez or Saudi King Abdullah, they're both repressive autocrats, which is more your style.
I'm not a mindless partisan drone like you. I can admit it when I think my chosen candidate is wrong on an issue. None of them are perfect Terry.
Posted by: Lois | June 24, 2008 11:04 PM
Trickled On Lois - John E's main squeeze?
You don't see the difference between Chavez and Abdullah? Last I checked Abdullah doesn't want the United States wiped off the map like Chavez does. As far as represive autocrats, that is more left-wing than right-wing. It's the left wing that takes individual freedom thru taxation and limited choices (gov't mandates).
Trust me lOis - when McCain is wrong I'll admit. He's ususally wronge when he is agreeing with Obama (Global Warming, drilling in ANWR, Gitmo, etc...). And I will cal;l Bush out when he is wrong - over-spending the first five six years in office, tarriffs on imported steel, now backing GW, etc...
Posted by: Terry | June 25, 2008 8:57 PM