McCain Promises Complete and Eternal Dependence On Foreign Oil

Straight talk:

"No drilling in ANWR, nor in the Everglades, nor off the coast of Florida, nor off the coast of Florida... If states want to have drilling off their coast, as Louisiana does, that's their right. As a federalist, I will respect that as well."

"To think that drilling in ANWR is the solution to our incredible energy needs is frankly, is not keeping in the reality of what's there, and what it would take to get it out."

Some might consider this a dishonest "shuck and jive" pander to fuzzy-headed independents who think our energy woes can be solved by wind farms and Magic Beans.

Not so. This is Maverick talking here. This is the truth, straight up no chaser. We can miracle our asses into energy independence by continuing to pour billions into boondoggle "green sources" of energy.

He went on to promise that "before the end of my presidency, Detroit will produce a car that runs on love."

McCain's lying here. Alaskans want ANWR tapped. Trouble is, the Federal government owns the land in question. It's the Federal government making the decision to not drill in this Pristine Ecologically-Sensitive Wasteland and not the state itself. His claim of deferring to "federalism" as regards to this issue is a lie in its entirety, from beginning to end.

Bonus: The ruling has come down. Hillary: The Movie, a perfectly legitimate if politically-edgy documentary about the Sob Sister Number One, will have to go without advertising, because advertising on its behalf would run afoul of McCain-Feingold.

A conservative group must abide by campaign finance laws if it wants to run ads promoting its anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie, a federal court ruled Tuesday.

Citizens United had hoped to run the television advertisements in key election states during peak primary season. The court ruling means the group must either keep its ads off the air or attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors.

Lawyers for the group had argued its 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was no different from documentaries seen on television news shows "60 Minutes" and "Nova." That prompted skepticism and, at one point, outright laughter from the judges during a hearing last week.

Campaign regulations prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and identify candidates. Citizens United argued that the advertisements promoted the movie and should be treated as commercial speech as opposed to advocacy against the Democratic New York senator.

A three-judge panel disagreed. The film does not address legislative issues and was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," the court wrote in an unanimous ruling.

The court ruled specifically that a 4.5 second disclaimer must run with all ads for the film, which is particularly bothersome (it is claimed) when running ten second advertisments.

Though I'm kind of wondering who the hell runs ten second advertisements. Still, even in a thirty second ad that's a lot of nonsense to spend your advertising budget on.

Further, the rule seems ridiculous, as here the makers of the film would not be required to announce that they're associated with a particular campaign (as most political ads do), but that they're not associated with any campaign. What's the point of a disclaimer announcing you have nothing in particular to disclaim?

posted by Ace at 07:23 PM

| Access Comments