Don’t like the fake vulgarity? Move along, sweetie. Don’t have time for weenies (at least that kind).
You’d think one ad chock full of lies would be enough for Mitch McConnell, but no, it wasn’t. His latest ad smells worse than Jim Gooch’s chair on the House floor. Check it out:
After you finish gagging, we’ll examine the sort of horse hockey that passes as a campaign ad these days.
Mitch McConnell claims that Bruce Lunsford wouldn’t open a single acre for offshore drilling. Fact of the matter is Bruce has always and consistently supported expanded drilling– including… dun dun dun… OFFSHORE DRILLING!
Want proof? Check recent media coverage (Google is your friend, Mitch!):
- Bruce Lunsford ‘agrees that parts of the arctic refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf should be opened to drilling.’ [C-J]
Sick of it yet?
There’s more after the jump…
- At a July 24th press conference Bruce said the following, “Well, I think that we have plenty of places offshore and ANWR as spots that we could [drill], but I think that it needs to be done judiciously, and I’ve said that before and I still believe that now, but I think that we do need to drill for oil. I think that it’s one of the many things that we can do here, but I gave you a whole litany that I would do.”
- Lunsford welcomed ‘every opportunity’ for more domestic production, including more offshore drilling. [H-L]
- In an op-ed for the Herald-Leader, Bruce called for increased domestic production. [H-L]
Mitch McConnell claims that Bruce Lunsford supports new energy taxes. While the only thing Bruce supports is a windfall profits tax on giant oil companies to make up for a retarded gas tax holiday.
- McConnell defends Big Oil companies in ad; attacks Bruce Lunsford for supporting taxes on oil companies. In case you were wondering? A windfall profits tax is a tax on unexpected profits for big oil– the only folks who can afford to pay their own fair share that they have never paid. It’s not a tax on consumers. [PolWatchers]
6 responses so far ↓
1 Bull Moose // Aug 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Don’t you think that the cost of a windfall profits tax will be passed on to consumers?
2 jake // Aug 8, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I’m pretty sure big oil can afford to lose a few bazillion dollars.
3 Dean // Aug 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Did Bruce happen to mention that the oil companies already own leases to millions of acres they’re letting lie idle. Or did he state that if the oil barons were given the gift of those off shores leases tomorrow it would be years and years before any benefit came of it?
Lundsford is doing what every Dem does, it’s what Obama has been letting Rove/McCain do lately. Control the debate. The Democrats spend their time not attacking but defending themselves from Republican half truths and lies. It keeps working.
4 Dean // Aug 8, 2008 at 8:36 pm
The off shore drilling is a Republican/oil company windfall waiting to happen. It’s a distraction and(as always) the Democrats can’t control the message so they play the same games over and over.
I just think someone needs to ask the oil companies on camera why they won’t, or can’t drill the lands they already control, and how long before there’s an off-shore drilling benefit. Congress likes to call them up to Capital Hill anyway occasionally to “question them sternly” and try to make themselves look like they’re doing something.
5 Dean // Aug 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Don’t you think that the cost of a windfall profits tax will be passed on to consumers?
No. What would more likely happen would be a reduction in domestic oil production. Especially at first. Something should be done though. To see oil companies rolling in profits while people(me included) are struggling.
Perhaps a corporate income surtax.
6 Steve Bittenbender // Aug 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Bull,
Don’t you think oil companies will pass on the cost of new drilling/land acquisition activities to the consumers?
Leave a Comment