Another Baron Lie: “I’m for Drilling”

At a recent town hall meeting, Baron Hill proclaimed repeatedly his support for oil drilling:

Baron’s conversion did not exactly happen on the road to Damascus and it is not very believable. Once again, his assertions here in Indiana do not match his voting record in Washington.

(Read more after the leap)

It’s interesting to note that Baron’s latest television ad, which focuses on energy, is utterly devoid of any mention of drilling (despite his supposed and professed support for it). Somehow, I don’t think that an exclusive focus on regulations, lawsuits, red tape, and alternative energy is going to solve the problem. It’s certainly not going to do anything in the short term.

In Indiana, Baron Hill likes to say he is for drilling.

In Washington, Baron Hill has voted twelve times against expanded oil drilling (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times against offshore drilling, plus one, two, three, four times against drilling in ANWR).

Baron’s positions are nothing new. Eight of those twelve votes (four against offshore drilling, and four against drilling in Alaska) came before he got sent packing in 2004. But four of those votes came after he got reelected in 2006 on a campaign promise of lowering the price of a gallon of gasoline.

In 2007, Baron has even voted against tapping vast deposits of oil shale right here on land in the lower 48 states. There are estimates that American oil shale deposits contain five times more oil than the deserts of Saudi Arabia.

Instead of voting for drilling, facts show that Baron has voted repeatedly against oil drilling for many years. Recently, he voted for fig-leaf drilling legislation supported by Nancy Pelosi that would supposedly open a handful of areas to drilling, but the legislation Baron voted for was going to put such heavy restrictions and disincentives on the drilling that nobody would want to drill there.

Again and again, Baron Hill comes to Indiana and tells Hoosiers one thing.

He then returns to Washington and votes differently.

If Baron Hill “believes in drilling”, if he’s “for drilling”, then why doesn’t his voting record support that assertion?