McCain: New Energy Know-How Will Turn Off the Energy Crisis


By Steve Kraske, Kansas City Star
June 19, 2008

Article Excerpts:

Sarah Craig's question was as predictable as the summer sun. And nearly as hot, politically.

What can you do, Sen. John McCain, to help my family right now when it comes to $4 gasoline?

The query was the first posed after his remarks at a town hall meeting at Missouri State University.

In the last couple of days, energy -- and where to get it -- has emerged as a burning and sometimes uncomfortable political issue.

McCain already had talked about wanting 45 more nuclear power plants and $2.3 billion for "clean coal" research.

But those weren't going to help the 30-year-old self-employed traveling saleswoman peddling nutritional products.

McCain's answer wandered over pork-barrel spending, Social Security, a possible new economic stimulus package, and ending Washington squabbling before coming around to restoring trust in government.

"We're putting our parties ahead of our country," McCain said to ringing applause. "I put country first."

But somewhere in his reply, he had touched on his idea to temporarily halt the 18-cent federal gas tax this summer -- a proposal roundly criticized by economists.

Craig's impression? Band-Aid solutions. And to McCain's opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

"I'm more concerned about my family than I am about caribou."

Monday, McCain had started the barrel rolling by calling for an end to the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling and allowing states to decide themselves whether to allow drilling near their shores.

It was a policy change for the Arizona Republican, who in the 2000 election had argued to keep the beaches safe from spills. Then the pump price was $1.56 a gallon on average.

McCain has been accused of flip-flopping and endangering his support among the environmentally worried.

He continues to irritate many in his party, however, by continuing to oppose new oil drilling in the Alaska reserve. In Springfield, he likened that to drilling in the Grand Canyon.

"I don't know how you do it in an ecological manner, and that's one reason I oppose it."

Tuesday came Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Like other pols from the state, he had opposed drilling off the west Florida coast, a tourist magnet.

When he changed this week, he insisted it had nothing to do with McCain's reported consideration of him as a vice presidential candidate. "It's something I would least like to do, but I also understand the economics of what's happening in our country," Crist said.

"It's a huge disappointment, and a big flip-flop," said Mark Ferrulo, director of Progress Florida. "The reason we don't have rigs off our coast right now is because Florida's leadership has been unified in its opposition. Any major cracks in that wall of opposition could open the floodgates to drillings up and down the coast."

Then Wednesday, President Bush weighed against the drilling ban, which runs against the executive order his father signed in 1990 banning coastal oil exploration. "Our nation must produce more oil and we must start now, he said, saying expanded offshore drilling could produce enough oil to meet U.S. needs for 10 years. . . .

"I'm very perplexed by the choice of topic," said George Connor, a political scientist at Missouri State. He said McCain still has work to do in shoring up support among the region's social conservatives, as shown by in February's primary.

Focusing on energy probably won't help him build bridges to that key group, Connor said.

McCain acknowledged Missouri's importance during his presentation, saying: "I will be back and back and back. I need to win here."

Replying to Craig, McCain acknowledged the fast-shifting national issue menu, noting that six months ago, the chief concern was health care.

"We don't know where we're going to end up." On energy, he said, the nation needs a "concrete plan with concrete dates."

McCain offered some concrete ideas, including a commitment to adding 45 nuclear power plants to the current U.S. total of 104 by 2030.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he said.

He also proposed spending $2 billion a year in clean-coal research to ensure the future of an industry he said provides about 85 percent of Missouri's electricity. "Perhaps no advancement in energy technology could mean more to America than the clean burning of coal and the capture and storage of carbon emissions," he said. . . .

Click here to read the entire article.