I probably don't need to say this (after all this blog IS on townhall.com) but I am voting for John McCain in November.  One of my close friends has decided he wants to vote for Barack Obama.  Three to four times a week I drive him home from the studio where we rehearse and record, about an hour drive.  For that hour, I feel like I'm part of the Hannity and Colmes show.  We've discussed every topic about the candidates from experience, to Iraq, to domestic issues to how hot their wives are (naturally we disagree on which one is hotter but agree they're both attractive women). Our most recent debate has been about drilling for oil offshore and before I go on I want to give you a little bit of background. 

   I do not consider myself conservative.  If I had to label myself politically, I would go with that label so much maligned by Rush Limbaugh-MODERATE.  On some issues I consider myself pretty liberal, on others pretty conservative, on most I tend to stay pretty close to the center.  I'm a hunter, a firm supporter of second amendment rights and a HUGE supporter of conserving our natural resources.  I also studied biology in school and especially loved the incredibly complex way that life on earth interacted with the environment around it.  Because of this, I always take the position of environmental protection on any issue if there is a chance that there will be a negative environmental impact.  Am I a foaming at the mouth green peace tree hugger?  No I am not.  I understand that mankind is part of the environment and that it is inevitable that our actions will have negative effects some of the time.  We build cities and highways, thereby destroying forests, ecosystems and killing thousands of plants and animals but those things are necessary to continuing our way of life.  Sometimes the needs of human beings need to come before the delicate ecosystems we inhabit.

   When this campaign started, I was somewhat against offshore drilling.  Gas prices had not yet started to impact my budget (or most people's) and offshore drilling had not yet come to the national spotlight the way it has recently.  I didn't know much about offshore drilling and so took the position that if there was a chance that it would create lasting negative consequences, well then we shouldn't do it.  I also felt that if we limited ourselves to the amount of drilling we now had, it would force us the market to create better ways of doing what we do now with oil-alternative fuels, improved fuel economy, conservation, alternative energy and who knows what else.  As gas prices started to rise and the debate came more to the forefront, I decided to do a little research.  I went to the library and look up some books on oil drilling and the environment, I googled "environmental impact offshore drilling" and I read every possible article I could on drilling offshore.  What I found blew my mind.

     The full environmental impact of drilling offshore is still somewhat unknown but right now it is considered completely negligible.  The claims that it disrupts the marine wildlife are absurd, as in almost all of the wildlife populations studies, they returned to their pre-drilling sizes or greater within four months and were sustained for greater than eleven months.  The claim that offshore drilling causes oil spills is even worse as it contributes to less than 10 percent of the total oil spilled in world (this figure also includes rigs owned and operated by foreign countries who have looser environmental standards).  In fact the most common way that oil is spilled is aboard transport ships.  Of the 1 billion barrells of oil extracted by the 26 oil rigs off the coast of California, they have spilled only 852 barrels.  Let me say that one more time-of the 1 billion barrels of oil extracted,  only 852 have been spilled.  Also, while there is some evidence that the drilling spreads toxins and drill cuttings into the water, there is NO evidence to suggest that anything harmful comes of this.  For one thing, most of the particles settle back to the ocean floor or are dispersed throughout the ocean waters.  The toxins that DO accumulate are not able to be absorbed by local marine life in harmful quantities.  While the oil rigs do produce some pollution in the form of waste and CO2 emissions, they are no more significant than any other large industrial complex.

   Google this: "environmental impact offshore drilling".  In addition to finding the same things that I found, you will find endless news articles and blogs saying how drilling is horrible and terrible and a hoax.  But read those articles carefully.  None of the articles that I found were able to name any specific ways that the environment would be impacted.  When the whole of your argument is "drilling offshore will not produce enough economic beneifts to justify the environmental impact", then you better damn well be able to state some specific environmental impacts.  Since none of them COULD (aside from citing an oil spill from 1969 that would probably be impossible with today's technology), the argument boils down to drilling for oil won't affect prices.  This is also a load.

   All of these articles cite the lowest possible estimates in untapped oil reserves in an attempt to tilt the argument in their favor.  The reality is that the amount of oil that can be extracted and WHEN it can be extracted are vast unknowns.  Numbers vary depending on which agency you ask and which variables they used in their estimates.  Another talking point that people love to throw around, "We won't get any more oil for at least 10-15 years", is just flat out wrong assumes a few things.  Number one it's assuming that they have not done any exploration to find where the wells could be located.  That is not true.  There has been a lot of research done to determine that the oil is there and ready to be extracted.  It also assumes that the ban on drilling will continue until 2012.  Congress can reverse this ban whenever they want and speed up the process.  It ALSO assumes that technology is the same and will remain the same as it was five or ten years ago.  The fact is that technology will continue to improve and that could speed up the process.  While it is true that it will take years for the oil to reach the consumer, the fact that they are drilling for the oil will help the market by decreasing speculation and stockpiling.  Oil is valuable because it is in high demand and short supply, and so people buy it in hopes of turning a profit.  If the knowledge is out there that we will have a much greater supply, the people who bought oil in hopes of a profit will sell it off before the price goes down, thus lowering the price even more.  If you want proof of this, just look at how much oil prices have dropped since the president lifted the ban on drilling.

   After doing all this research, I have become a very strong advocate of drilling offshore.  Do we still need to do all the things that the other side suggests?  Things like conserving energy and fuel, exploring alternatives like wind, solar and hydrogen power, improving fuel economy on cars and lowering the strategic oil reserve?  Of course we still need to do all those things.  In addition to being good for the environment they will also lower demand for oil, thus lowering prices even more.  Converting our economy from being oil dependent to being dependent on some type of renewable energy source is essential to our continuing economic health.  However we also need to think about what is happening now and how we can help with the current problems.  Drilling is one way.

There is a lot of media attention being given to Barack Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East, much of it centered around the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's comments stating that he agrees with Sen. Obama's plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq by 2010.  The Obama campaign and many major media outlets are making this seem as if Barack Obama's plan was right all along and is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  This creates a problem for the McCain campaign as it makes it look as if his insistence on "winning the war in Iraq" is based out of a stubborn adherence to the unpopular policies of the current administration.  Nothing could actually be further from the truth and the McCain campaign is making an effort to combat this perception.  By pointing out that the only reason Barack Obama is even able to visit Iraq in the first place is because of the troop surge that John McCain supported and Obama opposed, they are hoping to show that Obama was in reality wrong about Iraq the whole time.  Is this the right strategy to take?  I don't think so.

Almost from the very start of this campaign, I have been a vocal supporter of John McCain.  Most of my friends and relations have leaned democratic and fell in line behind Barack Obama when he finally clinched the nomination.  As such, I have found myself debating the merits of John McCain versus Barack Obama over and over again.  One thing that I have found coming up over and over again, not only in debates between my friends and myself, but also in the national media has been the clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in their plans for the war in Iraq.  John McCain has steadily been showing how he backed the troop surge and Gen. Petraeus, hammering away at the fact that the surge has turned the tide in Iraq.  This is a good strategy but I'll point out how to improve it in a second.  Barack Obama has tried to make the case that the American people want to end the war in Iraq, a war that he says is unpopular both home and abroad, is too expensive in this time of economic crisis, and has pulled focus away from Afghanistan.  Barack Obama says that he represents the will of the American people by setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.  The point that I have been making in my personal debates, and one I feel that John McCain needs to make, is that McCain's policies are already causing troop withdrawals.  Not only did the troop surge caused violence in Iraq to plummet, but it has also started the gradual independence of the Iraqi military and government and the gradual withdraw of American troops.  Take this article from the AP.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hs-ThQKMSx_4zBsYMixXu0gC2jVAD922CQ400