In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert:

"Reality has a liberal bias."

McCain should probably also avoid books, as they're "all fact; no heart."

Can't blame him. No reason to stand in the middle of a puddle of oil to talk about the need for oil, less people like Alex jump all over him and use this as a universal reason to not drill for oil. After all, we don't need oil, right? It would be similar to Gore talking about global warming in the middle of a major cold front.

Of course we could talk about the major clean up effort and the impressive accomplishments of science to get these spill cleaned up quickly and effectively, but then someone's agenda would be interfered with there.

Or we could talk about the rain going through the area currently and planned for all day, but then that would contradict the self proclaimed meteorologist buddy, wouldn't it.

The McCain campaign is now criticizing Obama for planning ahead.

In The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder reports that "Sen. Barack Obama has directed his aides to begin planning for the transition."

A McCain spokesman responded, "Before they’ve even crossed the 50-yard line, the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team."

First, they criticize Obama for having too many enthusiastic supporters. Now they criticize him for planning ahead. What next? Will they criticize Obama for not dumping his wife for a younger and richer one?

Given the complexity of running a large country and the number of issues we're all facing -- not to mention the mess that Bush et al will likely make of their side of the transition -- planning for a transition can't be started too soon. The implication from the McCain campaign is that McCain hasn't started any planning for the transition, which -- if true -- strikes me as idiotic.

prevent him from making an important address.

It seems like the Republicans are snake-bit lately, but this is another example of how they made their own luck. The cancellation of McCain's appearance due to an oil spill wouldn't be so ironic if they hadn't been claiming off-shore drilling is so safe that Katrina caused no oil spills (http://www.ravensblog.net/#katrina-oil). They wouldn't have been caught by Maliki essentially endorsing Obama's withdrawal timetable if they hadn't repeatedly ignored Iraqi requests for a timetable (http://www.ravensblog.net/#mccain-basics). McCain's surge gaffe wouldn't have hurt if they hadn't been trying to hard to turn the Iraq debate into a narrow debate about whether the surge worked, or they had always acknowledged that the awakening and the A-Mahdi truce were the real causes of security improvements. Bush's line about Wall Street being drunk wouldn't have happened if they hadn't privatized and deregulated everything in sight.

Obama is being a smart camaigner and getting lucky, but the Republicans are making the luck.

How about the outrageous from McCain ... See oil prices went down when Bush announced lifting the off shore oil ban. Are his supporters really dumb enough to think this going to have an immediate effect on oil prices. It takes 10-25 years to get the oil pout of the ground to the gas pumps. In that time period we could be spending money on alternative sources to save the environment.

It takes 10-25 years to get the oil pout of the ground to the gas pumps. In that time period we could be spending money on alternative sources to save the environment.

AFAIK, the Republican plan is:

1) Tell voters that more drilling will lower the price of gasoline. Don't bother to mention the many years of delay before it could possibly make any difference.

2) Rush through a bill to rescind the ban on drilling offshore and in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve so that Bush can screw us yet again by giving the oil companies sweetheart deals on leases to drill OUR oil for their own profits.

3) When the price of gasoline doesn't come down right away, blame the Democrats.

After all, we don't need oil, right?

If all you've got is a strawman argument to defend your candidate, it seems he's more hopeless than I'd given him credit for. No one is contesting that we need oil, so your argument here in insipid. The discussion is whether or not to open new gulf areas for drilling, given the environmental devastation that can occur, and is occurring now. The oil companies already have leases to drill in many, many other areas and they aren't acting on those leases. They don't need leases to drill in these new places.

Plus, it's not worth the risk. A short-term gain for a potentially long-term disaster. While one sometimes has to decide in this manner, it's no way to base long-term policy, as McCain would like to do (to benefit his benefactors in the oil industry).

It would be similar to Gore talking about global warming in the middle of a major cold front.

You also don't understand climate change. It's not just warming. Even McCain can understand this much. Why can't you?

Of course we could talk about the major clean up effort and the impressive accomplishments of science to get these spill cleaned up quickly and effectively, but then someone's agenda would be interfered with there.

No. Rather, it would be beside the point that if the spills hadn't occurred in the first place, the area would be one hell of a lot cleaner.

I'm afraid your arguments are one donut short of a dozen. Go and read some more, then come back and try again.

This is what I said (essentially) to someone in my community who seems convinced that drilling would lower gas prices. It worked! Now, passing in on.

ARGUMENT ONE

Drilling for oil will not produce any marketable product for 8-10 years. It will cost billions of dollars. From a purely financial standpoint, if we are going to take 8 years to reap the benefit, and spend billions of dollars, wouldn't it make more sense to use that money and time to build something that creates energy from sources that never run out? It will be 8-10 years and billions of dollars spent regardless. Why waste it on a resource that will eventually run out? Wind,and Solar particularly and perhaps a better way to do coal...maybe even nuclear...these are worth thinking about.

ARGUMENT TWO

But, they will say, the gas prices will go down as soon as we announce that we're serious about getting off of foreign oil. To answer this use this simple easily understandable analogy.

I sell cookies for $10 each. You MUST buy my cookies, you really have no choice.

One day you get pissed and decide you're going to build your own cookie plant and make your own damn cookies. We know that it will take anywhere from 8-10 years for your plant to be constructed and for you to start pumping out cookies.

Would it make sense for me to lower the cost of my cookies when you say you're going to build a cookie factory?

No. Why would I lower the cookie price? You still have to buy my cookies until you can make your own. As a matter of fact, I COULD try raising the cost of my cookies in an attempt to bankrupt you so you cannot even build a plant of your own. But even if i don't do that, I certainly wouldn't immediately lower the cost of a commodity that you HAVE to buy from me for at least another 8-10 years. That would make no sense. And the closer you got to being done with your cookie factory, the higher my prices would be. Guaranteed.

I'm actually thinking of making an animation or something of this. Its the truth at a very basic level..the same level you need to use to reach people dumb enough to believe drilling will lower gas prices by Christmas.