Some Clarification On McCain's Cap

So here's what I think John McCain was referring to when he said that he opposes mandatory caps.

The reporter who asked McCain the question referred to a new European plan to impose mandatory targets on renewable energy. McCain opposes that, apparently. But what's confusing is that McCain answered by noting that he favored cap-n-trade instead, which is kind of like answering a question about your team's defensive line by referring to their offensive line. Defense: how you limit carbon emissions. Offense: how you promote renewable energy resources. Incidentally, and again, I write this without a detailed understanding of environmental policy: is it contradictory to tour the country and lecture us about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and on petroleum generally and then, at the same time, propose to allow states to find patches of oil (and natural gas) offshore and exploit them? What am I not getting here?

Comments

I am still waiting for the day McCain is going to get grilled on his policy proposal. The guy is so confused that he can't understand the logic/correlation between his cap & trade proposal and drilling for oil in United States.

When is the media going to do their job? Why are the folks in the media giving this guy a benefit of doubt? I just don’t understand it.

Posted by Bee | June 16, 2008 5:52 PM

Marc: "Leave John alone! Just leave him alone!"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Posted by P.M.T Barnum | June 16, 2008 6:13 PM

Marc, dont forget: it is ageist to say that McCain is confused.

Posted by goethean | June 16, 2008 6:16 PM

Bee

I think there are a few reasons that the media isn't examining McCain's policies thoroughly yet:

Most interest (from the media and the public) has been on Obama's campaign and victory in the Democratic primaries. Focus hasn't yet fully switched to the general election.

The media prefer a close election. There's more to report on and their opinions count for more. McCain seems to be the only glimmer of hope for the Republican cause this time round. (There's no joy for them in the Congress or the states.)

Conservatives are always going to complain about a 'left-wing media bias'. When the media begin to look as closely at McCain as they have been doing at Obama the conservatives will complain even more about bias. Obama is so much more skilled as a campaigner, so much more knowledgeable on policy and and so much more impressive in his response to challenges that he stands up to scrutiny so much better than McCain does.

Posted by Klippa | June 16, 2008 6:27 PM

What you're not getting is that he's fucking clueless.

Posted by P.M.T Barnum | June 16, 2008 6:27 PM

It must be so nice for McCain to have a press base like Ambinder who instinctively tries to get at "what I think John McCain was referring to..."

Too bad that Obama never gets the same contextual or interpretational effort. Nope, he's just that guy who said "bitter" and "cling" -- no matter what he was actually trying to say.

The MSN sucks.

Posted by Frank | June 16, 2008 6:28 PM

Marc, I think what you're missing is that McCain likes to be on the environmentalist side, without really knowing about the issue. This is a position like a lot of people (I might include myself, as I am no expert, but consider myself pro-environment). The problem is that he happens to be running for President, and it would be good if he did know.

Posted by Jay | June 16, 2008 7:16 PM

Marc, I'm really confused. You definitely do lean toward doing this more for John McCain ("here's what I think he really meant, so let's react to that") than you do for Barack Obama. It's obvious, to the point that you really can't deny it.

Serious question: why? Do you feel like your readership is more inclined toward Obama (not a outlandish assumption, obviously), so they need more explanation of McCain's views? Or do you reflexively think that McCain, as a serious politician with a long history in DC, is entitled to a little more deference on these matters?

Posted by Brian | June 16, 2008 7:31 PM

Taking the second question first, offshore oil isn't foreign oil; the more we have of the former, the less we need the latter. That's true even if we're reducing the amount of oil we use overall. So I don't understand Marc's confusion; maybe I'm misreading him?

As to the first question, a cap-and-trade system will require emitters to reduce their emissions. One way to reduce emissions is to switch to renewable energy sources, so cap-and-trade will create incentives for more renewable energy. So cap-and-trade is both defense and offense, to use Marc's terms. And since any mandatory target has the potential to be set at a non-optimal level, McCain may well think that if an emissions level is set, market forces will be more likely to create the optimum amount of emission-reduction by way of renewable energy.

McCain's positions may be wrong, but they're not at all contradictory or confused.

Posted by Alex | June 16, 2008 7:37 PM

Is it contradictory to promote ANWR/offshore drilling and simultaneously argue for independence from foreign oil? No. Is it contradictory to promote ANWR/offshore drilling and simultaneously argue for independence from oil generally? Very much so.

McCain's strategy for maintaining the 'maverick' mantle despite having swung sharply to the right on taxes and domestic policy in general seems to be emphasizing his relatively mainstream views on environmental policy. I don't get it. Part of his appeal in the 2000-early-2004 period was his Theodore Roosevelt, 'hawk-on-foreign-policy-progressive-in-the-TR-sense-on-domestic-policy image. I think that would be his most plausible path to victory. He survived the primaries, but he has yet to pivot back to the center on domestic policy; he has all but abandoned his reformist agenda on domestic issues. To what end?

Posted by Will | June 16, 2008 9:52 PM

Is it contradictory to promote ANWR/offshore drilling and simultaneously argue for independence from foreign oil? No. Is it contradictory to promote ANWR/offshore drilling and simultaneously argue for independence from oil generally? Very much so.

McCain's strategy for maintaining the 'maverick' mantle despite having swung sharply to the right on taxes and domestic policy in general seems to be emphasizing his relatively mainstream views on environmental policy. I don't get it. Part of his appeal in the 2000-early-2004 period was his Theodore Roosevelt, 'hawk-on-foreign-policy-progressive-in-the-TR-sense-on-domestic-policy image. I think that would be his most plausible path to victory. He survived the primaries, but he has yet to pivot back to the center on domestic policy; he has all but abandoned his reformist agenda on domestic issues. To what end?

I think McCain is interested in big moral issues like The Battle Against Islamic Fascism, and (at least until recently) REFORM, but doesn't seem very interested in the nitty gritty of domestic policy.

Posted by Will | June 16, 2008 9:54 PM

But Will, neither McCain nor anyone else is arguing for "independence" from oil in the sense of using near-zero amounts of it in any meaningful time frame. The goal is to reduce oil consumption substantially, not eliminate it. And even if the country cut oil consumption in half, we'd still need additional domestic sources to be foreign oil independent. So I'm stil not understanding the contradiction.

By the way, McCain continues to oppose drilling in ANWR, so its probably a mistake to connect it to offshore drilling in discussing his policies.

Posted by Alex | June 16, 2008 11:23 PM

Sorry to join a pile-on, but this really is kind of extraordinary. By far the simplest, most logical way to square the circle here is that McCain was confused by the question and then in his answer dishonestly tried to pretend that a "cap-and-trade" does not involve a "mandatory cap".

It really is odd to see a reporter put himself through such logical and semantic contortions to try to explain away McCain's answer in a way that doesn't involve McCain either making a mistake or lying.

Why, in the face of all the evidence, will you not accept that (a) McCain doesn't know a lot about environmental policy and (b) spends a lot of his time shading the truth?

Posted by Mark | June 16, 2008 11:52 PM

Come take a ride with John McCain on the Disoriented Express!

(Hat tip to the TV series "Barney Miller")

Posted by LFC | June 17, 2008 10:15 AM

What you are not getting is.

A) a clue.

B) big john in your eager mouth.

You're too many dumb posts gone for the former, but just a few away for the latter.

You make andrews man love for obama seem so platonic and refined in comparison to your 'officer and a gentleman' fetish.

We saw the pictures on your bookshelf

Posted by P M T Barnum | June 17, 2008 10:27 AM

Marc,

Would you admit you are a McCain hack already? It is getting embarrassing and your readers are on to you. If you admit it, then you can give McCain constructive criticism and advice and you won't need to pretend you are just interested in finding the Truth behind McCain's blunders and gaffes.

McCain just reacts to words. cap and trade: good. mandatory: bad. victory: good. surrender: bad. incentives: good. subsidies: bad. His policy knowledge is as shallow as Bush's

I'm starting to believe that McCain was a completely media generated phenomenon. I can vaguely remember him being somewhat truthful and refreshingly honest when he was running in 2000, but that guy is nowhere to be found now.

Posted by jjmckim | June 17, 2008 10:37 AM