Warner’s OCS Triangulation
Jim Gilmore sparred with Mark Warner in a U.S. Senate debate. When the debate turned to drilling on the OCS, Mr. Warner tried triangulation rather than be straightforward:
Apart from general questions of trust, the dominant issue of the debate was drilling for oil offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, currently forbidden by a federal moratorium.
Gilmore favors drilling in both areas and wants the federal government to have the final say. Warner opposes drilling in ANWR. He says the federal moratorium on offshore drilling should be lifted but that states can decide for themselves whether to actually drill.
“The ‘drill here, drill now, pay less’ sound bite isn’t going to solve the problem,” Warner said. He called it a gimmick.
Gilmore has made domestic oil drilling a centerpiece of his energy plan; apart from drilling, he and Warner both favor a variety of other energy initiatives, including more emphasis on alternative fuels.
Drilling domestically “makes a significant difference. It must be done,” Gilmore said. “Mark Warner has said he is against drilling in ANWR, and he has fuzzed up and confused his position on offshore drilling.”
Warner has said that while he favors exploring for oil and gas offshore, he’s concerned about the environmental impact of developing potential oil reserves.
Mr. Warner’s calling Newt’s Drill Here, Drill Now plan a gimmick tells me that he’s trying his best to diminish it. His saying that that sound bite won’t “solve the problem” is spin. The sound bite won’t; the policy will. How does Mr. Warner explain the huge drop in oil prices this week after President Bush announced the lifting of the executive ban on drilling on the OCS? We started the week with St. Cloud gas stations selling at $4.09/gallon. Saturday night, I filled up because the price had dropped to $3.69/gallon.
I don’t know how you triangulate on this issue. I don’t know why Mr. Warner would try. Saying that you favor drilling but that you’re worried about the “environmental impact of developing potential oil reserves” plays to environmentalists and economists. He can’t please both groups.
The question I have is whether Warner has the fortitude to say no to the environmental extremists. I’m not confident of that. At this point in history, we need to shove the environmental extremists off the political stage. They’ve impeded American industry every time they’ve had the opportunity.
Mr. Warner likely can get away with a policy that says yes to the OCS but no to ANWR. He’ll have trouble, though, if Gilmore is able to cast doubt about Warner’s commitment to opening up the OCS. There are several acceptable positions to take in this crisis. Doing nothing isn’t an acceptable position.
At the debate his message seemed more favorable to drilling, but Warner said he has made no change in his position. “Jim Gilmore refuses to take ‘yes’ from me on offshore [drilling],” he told reporters after the debate.
Mr. Warner is a smooth politician who thinks that he can charm his way through things. His saying that Jim Gilmore refuses to accept yes on offshore drilling is cute and possibly effective. Nonetheless, it’s a squishy answer, one that Gilmore should exploit.
One last thing: While Warner is saying yes now, why should we think that he’ll say yes when it matters?
Technorati Tags: Debate, Gas Crisis, Mark Warner, Triangulation, Jim Gilmore, OCS, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog