Among the pieces of paper stacked on my desk is a question I had hoped to ask John McCain at a campaign stop in Florida back in late January regarding a contradiction in his energy policy.

As with the other GOP contenders last year, McCain often framed the question of breaking our dependence on foreign oil (and his further support for measures to combat climate change) as a "national security issue." Yet at the same time, he's voted against drilling in ANWR and constantly defers to decisions against boosting local production at the state level under the guise of taking a "federalist approach" to offshore drilling, which he summed up in a response at the Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan last year:

I wouldn't drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to. And I wouldn't drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to, and I wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.

Obviously, the first problem with McCain position is that for years Alaskans have overwhelmingly favored drilling in ANWR. So much for the "federalist approach."

A further contradiction is this: If breaking our dependence on foreign oil is truly an issue of US national security as McCain suggests, then isn't his obligation as Commander in Chief to urgently pursue all possible options to achieving that goal?

Those options include alternative fuels and nuclear power, as McCain has proposed, but they would also most certainly include boosting domestic exploration and production.

McCain is trying to have it both ways which, last time I checked, is the opposite of "straight talk."