MyDD :: "Obama says he'll support offshore drilling"

"Obama says he'll support offshore drilling"

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:48:14 PM EST

Well, this is your Friday's news dump. By Monday, it'll have been Obama's position all along.

Now, in the spirit of a victory lap, I encourage the haters to go and read the trash they put in the comments here when told that Obama would flip his opposition to drilling offshore. You know who you are-- ya little jerks owe me a dollar! Here and here, if you want more of the advice. Or just listen to Obama:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

It's a good move by Obama. It's not great that he's been on the record opposing it for the last couple of months, and that's why he dumped this now, but I think there's momentum enough for just the type of comprehensive plan that Obama is talking about, to take shape in Congress in September (or at least for electioning on). Better he flip now and be on the right side of the issue going forward, than continue being in the wrong with a losing message.

It's been clear for nearly a month that drilling was providing an opening for the Republicans. And what's become obvious to me in the last few days is that they were framing it as a patriotic issue, with Obama advocating "Foreign Oil" for the US- that was the real kicker in the 'Celeb' ad.

Republicans are fired up about this issue. I watched a McCain crowd jump to its feet in a standing ovation at his town hall in support for it today. They've framed it as a patriotic duty and it has serious legs. Pelosi can suck it up and actually do something to save the planet instead of just talking about it. Democrats can now take the opening by saying, 'yea, we'll compromise' and then make the bill a real long-term energy solution.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 116 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (2.00 / 2)

The supreme court is mostly the only reason I have to vote for Obama as the day goes by .

He is shifting on the drilling issue after arguing against it for weeks , even though he is shifting to a position I agree with.

Its hard to argue he is a principled politician....

I am yet to feel re - assurred he is ready to lead or has the experience to in any case.

On a whole host of issues he seems to hold on to ideological position which I don't agree with and when he his pressured he simply can't even hold on to these positions .

From Iraq surge , Iran , talking to dictators without preconditions , Israel , oil drilling he has had the wrong judgement in my view.

The supreme court might not be enough of a reason for anymore .

That said I would wait to see who he picks for VP and how the elections play out .

Just days ago he was saying it was a political gimmick etc .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM EST

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (2.00 / 4)

If being a principled politician means never admitting to being wrong, changing your mind, or showing the slightest bit of nuance in your positions on an issue, Bush is without a doubt the most principled politician ever.

PS. Point me to a single politician who has never changed positions on an issue. Your local dog catcher doesn't count.

by Whash on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (none / 0)

Which position has Obama stuck too ?

Positions big and small he has either had too naunce his positions or basically just reject his initial position.

Every human being or politician has the right to change their minds but you should at least give voters that you have a core .

By the way It would be nice if he can admit he was wrong about the surge and acknowledge the troops and the military have turned things around there .

Maybe he would yet do that when the polls indicate he should.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (none / 0)

Clinton was wrong in her judgement on the surge as well as much of the democratic establishment , I have said that as far back as the time she was first voting against the supplemental .

I almost switched my support to Biden because of that vote

I don't recall you blogging here then , I may be wrong on that.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was here (none / 0)

But he didn't vote against the supplemental .

His decision and reasoning for doing that was sound.

Obama and Clinton both said they didn't want to play chicken with the troops and the military , and then they both went right ahead and did.

That said Obama is the nominee now , I am not ecstatic about him , but it would be improbable I won't cast my vote for him based on where the court is .

Like I said I don't expect to come to a decision until election day.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

If I won't be satisfied with a clinton presidency I won't have supported her the way I did.

She is a moderate politician and on some issues she is conservative.

I would be happy with her president , Obama might indeed still govern as a pragmatic politician if he is elected and that would make me satisfied.

It is hard to hold him to a position now since he his changing on issue after issue..

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

Ias't changint on issues by definition pragmatic? The question is why does he change? In both McCain's and Obama's case, they have each changed for purely political reasons: taxes, drilling, campaign finance, etc.

Both are politicians and both change depending on the situation. I don't expect politicians to be mindlessly consistent.

by elrod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:00:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

Changing on issue after issue big or small , and usually to the side of what is politically viable indicates a lack of conviction or principles.

Being pragmatic in governance has more to do with doing what is right or prudent even if it conflicts with what is popular with the public or ideological positions in my view .....

Obama's change seems to have to do with what is in his political interest and not what is prudent or right .

Every politician changes positions on issues but in the middle of the campaign if it seems you are basically running against yourself ( the general election candidate is running against the primary candidate ) voters would get a sense you don't have a core.

Obama is changing on too many issues and there is a danger he would fall into the template the Mccain camp is trying to build in the voters mind.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

On most all issues he occupies essentially the same place he outlined in his book in 2006. As for oil drilling, it IS a good idea, and more importantly, it's a way to actually get something done.

McCain doesn't want to actually start the meme that Obama changes position, because he is far more guilty and far more visible about it. Once Obama decides to start playing serious offense, it takes 2,3 ads tops to show what a buffoon Mccain has become.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:54:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

I find it funny that you find Clinton to be such a good Moderate to Conservative politician. It is not that I disagree with you, but it is because almost everyone else of her staunch supporters sees her as the liberal politician that Barack is not and never can be. Have you gone to TalkLeft lately? For them, Barack is way too right wing and only HRC will stand up for those progressive issues.

I personally think that your view is closer to the truth. But, if HRC decides to make her staunch, vocal supporters happy, she could be in for a very hard turn to the left. In other words, Barack might actually be that more moderate politician you are actually looking for.

by gavoter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now I'm confused (2.00 / 1)

Unless you really want to re-argue stuff that is behind us know, you ought to refrain from this sort of cheap shot. Not to mention, the irony of mocking Clinton for supposedly changing positions on this of all threads is not lost.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now I'm confused (none / 0)

" I thought she was the true Democrat standing up for progressive principles. "

- Yes she is.

Unless you think being a moderate politician or holding some conservative positions doesn't make you a " true democrat " or " standing for progressive principles " ( whatever that means ).

If you look at it that way you won't remain confused.

Howard Dean and Al Gore are examples that come to mind . Dean governed as a moderate and Gore holds moderate positions yet they are regarded as heros to those on the left.

Clinton is conservative on fiscal issues i.e. fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets , even voted to put a lid on flag burning .

She is clearly to the right on national security issues .

On domestic issues she is where the average democrat is.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "fiscal conservativism" (none / 0)

I think I made it clear her position on those issues were conservative.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

Every era of major progressive change in this country has been accomplished because people like Lori supported the Democratic Party. And people to the right of her, frankly.

Because they're more hawkish on foreign policy, you want to send them over to the other team? Keep your eye on the ball.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

Appreciated .

The funny thing is Obama has actually come closer to the positions I hold on foreign policy .

Wonder why that is ?

Hey Steve , Jeralyn and the gang must be really keeping you busy these days .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The third sentence (none / 0)

Lots of stuff keeping me busy. Took the New Jersey bar this week. There was an awesome essay question about some girl named Christine from an escort service, and a fellow named Governor Spitfire who paid her lots of money for sex... you gotta love this state, to actually go there on the bar exam.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I feel like I'm reading a RedState post (none / 0)

from the 2004 election.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

O Lori! (none / 0)

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (2.00 / 1)

Funny this is not the standard that BO supporters held HRC too as i recall. Her every position and words were parsed to death. But now it is ok for BO to change his position if it is politically expedient. Funny what a bad person Big Bill and HRC were and even worse then were trianglators but is is ok for BO to do this.

Funny. Who is the hypocrite now, not HRC. But of course since i support HRC i am not a true democrat. I am old and my views are out of date. And since i support HRC i am a troll.

It is my understanding that we need a new democratic party and BO is Mr Change. Well that is clear since he seems to be changing his positions daily.

david

by giusd on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (2.00 / 2)

Wow...WTF happened to you? Obama has always been pragmatic anyone who thought otherwise were naive. To suggest that because he is considering opening up some off-shore areas in return for more focus and funds on alternative energy is a bad thing shows why our partisanship government over the last 8 years has not gotten a single thing accomplished on the energy crisis.

Compromise....

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (2.00 / 2)

If you're looking for a principled politician you are out of luck. But I've always though Obama was closer to your positions, even on foreign policy, than he is to mine. If you disregard his primary rhetoric and observe his "moves to the center" I think you will see that he is approaching you on the surge, Iran, talking to dictators and Israel. He is a very flexible politician, but his instincts are largely centrist and supremely pragmatic. His pragmatism speaks to his ability to lead.

by souvarine on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama shifts, says he may (none / 0)

Sure .

I remember during the primaries from the flag pin , Iran , talking to these dictators without preconditions , Iraq and the surge , the wright thing , general foreign policy , I was predicting his positions didn't make much sense and he was going to flip, I know he has moved closer to my views even on issues of the 2 nd amendment ,but it is really unsettling how he is basically disavowing most of what he said during the primaries .

His position on choice is basically why I can't bring myself to vote for Mccain as much as I agree with him on more issues than Obama and of course his military service.

I have never been a one issue voter , but this year might just be different because of the impact of the courts.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this your first election? (none / 0)

" Based on this post, I guess it's safe to say you're pretty much a pro-choice Republican. "

- I like to think of myself as a pro choice conservative democrat .

If I show you around Tennessee or dixie , you would meet a lot of us.

There are some in the mid/mountain west too , as well as in PA .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (2.00 / 1)

I don't think you know the history of my comments because you are clearly so off the mark , it is almost hillarious.

I have said it for the longest time now that I have a favorable opinion of Obama I just view him suspiciously because he is ideologically liberal.

I don't know how many folks would argue he is not a real democrat whatever that means.

I have also said if Clinton were the nominee against Mccain , it would have still been a tough vote for me because I admire both candidates equally and on issues I care about their positions are close enough although differ.

My attraction to Clinton is mainly based on issues and ideological compartibility , as well as her position as a pioneer on women's issues .

I disagreed with her position on Iraq , I agree with her hardline position on Iran and negotiations which is similar to Mccain's for all intensive purposes .

She emphasized balancing the budgets , fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint and on cultural issues although I have a disagreement with her on the 2nd amendment , she spoke on issues of choice in a way that was appealing to me by recognizing the need for choice and also advocating for adoption and other parental and family care issues.

And on military issues , she is just perfect . Well except voting against the supplemental which was political in nature.

My issues with Obama is ideological in nature.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kudos (none / 0)

I didn't hate on you before, but I'll give you kudos anyway. This position is significantly different than out and out supporting it, but it effectively puts him in the position of supporting it, since the Republicans will try to get it pushed through. I'm not opposed to it if it could be safe, but I don't like the argument that its somehow a quick fix, b/c its not, its a bullshit argument. So I'm not really pissed by this move, but if he starts saying that it will help gas prices short term, then I'll be disappointed.

by cycl06 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST

we have always been at war with oceania. (2.00 / 5)

it HAS been barack's position all along, o ye of little faith. if you remember differently, that's just a sign that your resolve is weak.

ok, are we all sold out now? is anything left? FISA, social security, public campaign financing... the bargain table is pretty picked over, if you ask me.

by campskunk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM EST

But he's a different kind of politician (2.00 / 3)

Get with the new politics, skunk.

by catfish2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we have always been at war with oceania. (none / 0)

Mojo for literary reference.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

obamas last position left (1.00 / 4)

This is unreal, surreal. Is there any position this guy has left that he hasn't done an about-face on?

Is there a single one?

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:14:25 PM EST

^Criticism, albeit exaggerated, is not (none / 0)

zero-worthy

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Hedge (2.00 / 2)

Even though I'm against offshore drilling I'm actually relieved Obama is hedging the issue. His opposition could have been lethal in the 4th quarter, and by basically saying "Hey I'm not enthused about it but if necessary I won't block it" it takes one more attack off the table. The fact that McCain did a complete flip on this issue is going to give Obama some cover over any flip-flop charges, which will likely come from the coastal editorials and not the McCain camp.

by Homebrewer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:26:32 PM EST

Re: "Obama says he'll support offshore... (2.00 / 4)

Sigh. It pains me to say you were right, Jerome. For more reasons than my pride. I don't like a pander.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"Comprehensive energy policy" != "bring down gas prices."

For one thing, there's absofuckinglutely nothing that any President can do to lower gas prices aside from helping to shape demand over the long term.

For another, gas is on its way out. Right now. A comprehensive energy policy would be looking towards the next evolution of transportation, not trying to prop up our gas habit for another few years.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

There is no such thing as a "careful, well thought-out drilling strategy." United States oil production peaked thirty years ago, and nothing we do or don't do can change that.

And even if there were such a thing, that "well thought-out drilling strategy" would not include meaningless restrictions about where the oil can be sold, since oil is a fungible good with a global market and where it gets sold makes exactly zero difference.

And as for the "avoid significant environmental damage" bit?

It opens up fucking ANWR. You know, that place we've been trying to protect from the oil vultures for three decades now.

I can understand the politics of this move. He knows the bill is going to pass the Senate with the help of the five Democrats in the Gang of 10. He doesn't want to appear to be on the losing side and look like he can't even control his own party, and he wants to give cover to those five Dems.

But it's still a bald-faced pander. The House better not touch this bill with a ten-foot pole.

I'll have pretty much lost hope for the Democrats if, with Bush at one of the lowest approval ratings in history, and with them in control of both houses of Congress, they still manage to be unable to stop this attack on our environment that we defended against for 30 years from Reagan, Bush Sr., and Newt Gingrich and his cronies.

America needs an intervention, we need to kick the gas habit, and Obama has suddenly become a passive enabler.

(For the record? I'm still an Obama supporter, and I'm still going to vote, volunteer, and donate. I'm just deeply disappointed in this action.)

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:30:36 PM EST

Re: Dude (2.00 / 3)

No, this bill is going to do nothing to get us off the oil addiction. This bill is going to send us deeper into it. There's no practical benefit in this bill.

I say that, because everything that the Republicans give as a "compromise"--CAFE standards, alternative energy, what have you--is something that we could force through if the Democrats actually grew some balls. And even if we couldn't do it now, we will be able to do it in five months when President Obama and our several new Democratic Senators and Representatives are sworn in.

The only benefit to supporting this bill is political, and as I said, I understand the political calculation. But I find it distasteful, especially with the statement he gave, because the statement does not even respect the intelligence of the reader.

Say it's a bad bill that you're voting for because it could be a worse bill. But don't call it a good bill, or even a good compromise. Definitely don't call it well thought-out when it's nothing but a knee-jerk proposal drafted by idiots that will do nothing to help the American people but everything to help Exxon-Mobil grab another $12 billion profit next quarter.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Key Point (2.00 / 1)

And how about after the next three months of TV ads pounding the fact that, even if we pass this bill, the best-case effect will be a few cents off a gallon of gas in 2018?

That we wouldn't see a drop of new oil in the next seven years?

How about video of McCain himself admitting that there would be no real effect but maybe it would help people feel better?

People can be educated if we try.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that would take (2.00 / 1)

Exactly.

You can't reason with American voters on some issues.

Didn't we try that in 2000 and 2004?

And, if you try to reason with them, you're using up all the oxygen on some micro-issue instead of the big picture.

by Bush Bites on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

addendum (2.00 / 1)

The worst thing Obama can do now is to be pulled off into the weeds on some issue like this.

That's why McCain keeps raising these things: He knows if the conversation switches to the direction of the country and where he would take it, he'd lose in a heartbeat.

by Bush Bites on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that would take (2.00 / 1)

I thought the big picture was "a new kind of politics."

I thought it was "I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear, I'm going to tell you what you need to know."

We are giving up the big picture with this blunder.

I'm stunned how cynical some people in this thread are about the intelligence versus selfishness of the American people. This is the sort of crap we're supposed to be trying to move away from. What happened to idealism and hope, for god's sake? Were they really "just words" for everyone but me?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are "giving up" (none / 0)

Barely got him out of the primaries? Seriously? It won him the primaries. He was never, ever, ever supposed to win the nomination.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "New Kind of Politics" (2.00 / 1)

I'll tell you what.

If Obama manages to get something substantial passed thanks to compromising on this bill--a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions or a windfall profits tax with its proceeds going to alternative energy research, for example--while Bush is still in office, I will eat my hat.

But that's not going to happen. This isn't a compromise, because we're not going to get anything out of it that we haven't gotten already. Anything.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

I agree that Pelosi should not allow a vote on the GOP bill. We should, however, submit our own bill that throws a few bones to the drillers. We have both houses here. Let's force the Republicans to explain their opposition to a bill that expands wind and solar, increases environmental protection at existing drilling locations, and opens up select new lands to safe (as we can make it) drilling.

"Action comes easy; it's the moments just before that are hard." ~Defiance, Ohio~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTD H4

by ScienceTeacher118 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and one more thing (2.00 / 1)

The point isn't that Bush supported it and it's therefore unpopular. The point is that the Democratic Party holds all the cards right now. We control both houses of Congress and we're sitting against a lame duck President who nobody likes.

If Carter's Democratic Party was able to defend ANWR against the oil-thirst of the American electorate during the late 70s oil shock, there's not a reason in the world we should lose that battle today.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And still (2.00 / 1)

No, we didn't lose, because the election is still three months away. We didn't lose, we're giving up.

When McCain and Clinton were peddling the gas-tax holiday pander, Obama stood up against it. When it was first suggested, the polls showed people were strongly in favor of it. Within a few weeks, Obama turned those poll numbers around and it became a winning issue for him.

The same thing has been working with this oil drilling issue. The support for new oil drilling has been steadily decreasing week by week. The latest polls I saw around last week had it tied.

I think that if Obama had his way, he'd keep up that line of attack, continue trying to educate the voters, but the Gang of 10 forced his hand. He had to give in then, and I get that. But he didn't have to insult our intelligence at the same time.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh and btw (none / 0)

There were many reasons Carter lost. Protecting ANWR was not one of them.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

Yep, so when we win and get sworn in in five months, we'll have to embark on a very aggressive program to achieve long-term energy price stabilization and decrease.

Giving up the fight for ANWR now, after 30 years, three months before what looks like it will be a Presidential victory and a sweep in both houses of Congress, would be the biggest mistake our party could make.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama says he'll support offshore... (none / 0)

You are a good player. I didn't see any other way out for Obama, other than risking losing over it, which I knew he wouldn't do.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama says he'll support offshore... (2.00 / 1)

Again, I don't think it was a threat to Obama's numbers. The polls have been improving on the topic since it came to a head, and given the next couple months of hammering McCain over his own admission that new drilling would do nothing to lower gas prices, we could have turned it around.

I think it was about Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson, Licoln, and Conrad. He did it to provide cover for the five of them, and because he needed to maintain an air of party discipline after their insubordination. That's my reading of the politics, anyhow.

I would have been much more ready to accept this if he hadn't put out that intellectually insulting statement of explanation.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intellectually insulting? (2.00 / 1)

Did you read my initial comment?

He said that he wants a "comprehensive energy policy" that "lowers gas prices." The bit about "lowering gas prices" is just a scrap of meat tossed to a gas-starved populous and has nothing to do with a long-term, comprehensive energy strategy. Which Obama knows, and should know that we know.

He said that the oil drilling proposal put forward by the Gang of 10 was "careful and well thought-out." There's exactly one drilling strategy that would be "well thought-out": don't bother doing any more drilling. Because it doesn't matter how much we drill here in the US, we're tapped out. We peaked in the late 70s, the oil ship has sailed. It's further not "well thought-out" because it puts in a restriction that the oil drilled must be sold in the United States, which means absolutely nothing on the global market. Any "well thought-out" plan that was looked over by anyone with expertise in the industry would not include such a meaningless restriction.

And he also said that it was "carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage"--but left out the part about where it opens up ANWR, one of our few pristine natural wildlife refuges left, to oil exploration.

It was intellectually insulting. It's a bad bill, we know it's a bad bill, he knows it's a bad bill. We may understand the politics forcing him to support it, but he shouldn't try putting lipstick on that pig.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 4)

1. What does HRC have to do with anything? The primary is over. I'm not sure why she is still part of the discussion unless you're searching for hollow vindication. My suggestion: let it go and try to keep on topic.

2. The central theme of Obama's candidacy has not been adherence to liberal/progressive dogma. Sorry, but no, his central theme has been bi-partisanship. That means, almost by definition, compromise. Obama is a pragmatist, not a partisan progressive. Perhaps more importantly his still has this minor hurdle of actually getting elected. Something like 60+% of Americans support drilling. That's getting harder and harder to ignore.

3. Why is offshore drilling a non starter for some progressives. If offshore drilling can alleviate some of the burden on the American people and can be done in such a way as to maximize benefit and minimize environmental harm then I say go for it. Moreover, if the issue can be used as leverage to get some concessions from Republicans regarding a long-term energy package, then all the better. In fact, I say flip the issue on the GOP. Say, "yeah, you'll get your drilling on OUR terms, but only if you agree to XYZ on long term energy policy"--then when the (almost certainly) balk at that, take it to the American people just like the GOP is (effectively) doing right now. Bam!

4. Curse the day when the catchphrase "flip-flopper" was coined. The concept actually REWARDS people like Bush for staying "principled" in the face of overwhelming contradictory facts. Gotta hand it to the GOP on that one. Getting people to disbelieve their lying eyes is an amazing accomplishment.

5. I only post here occasionally and more often in the last 4 months or so. I don't know who Jerome Armstrong is, but he's always on the front page and since I've been here he's been nothing but negative regarding our nominee. Is this guy an actual liberal/democrat/progressive? What's his deal? Its like all snark/concern trolling--in a very subtle way. Maybe its taboo to criticize a front page diarist, but its frustrating to say the least.

by bigdaddy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

I agree with everything you said, except about Jerome Armstrong (the proprietor of this blog). I actually think he is making a valid point:

Republicans are fired up about this issue. I watched a McCain crowd jump to its feet in a standing ovation at his town hall in support for it today. They've framed it as a patriotic duty and it has serious legs. Pelosi can suck it up and actually do something to save the planet instead of just talking about it. Democrats can now take the opening by saying, 'yea, well compromise' and then make the bill a real long-term energy solution.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

Oops! I didn't realize this was his blog. No, some of his points are valid. He often makes valid points. I guess I just notice that he's not real positive about the nominee by and large. Oh well.

by bigdaddy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No shame (2.00 / 1)

in calling it like you see it. :-)

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 2)

Why is offshore drilling a non starter for some progressives. If offshore drilling can alleviate some of the burden on the American people and can be done in such a way as to maximize benefit and minimize environmental harm then I say go for it.

You're right. If it could do all those things, then let's go ahead and do it.

But it cannot do those things. It will not now and it never will.

If we start drilling today, we will not see a drop of new oil for seven years.

The overall effect of the increased drilling will be, at best, a few cents knocked off the price of a gallon of gas in ten years.

That's even assuming that the oil companies that lease the new land do drill it. Most likely they won't, they'll just sit on it, like they're sitting on the millions of acres of leases they already have and are doing nothing with.

They don't want this land to drill immediately. They want to lease this land now so that in years and years and years, when petroleum is a luxury product, they'll be able to drill it and make a killing (and only have to pay today's lease rates, not the lease rates years from now). Right now, it would cost more to drill the stuff than they'd even get selling it.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 2)

And of course, they support it because only the kooky liberals live on coasts anyway...who gives a damn about offshore drilling when the closest you've gotten to a shore was that vacation you took 10 years ago? (The exception, of course, is the Gulf Coast, which is (a.) full of Republicans anyway, and (b.) not exactly a beach-tourist mecca.)

It's a pretty easy position to demagogue, considering there's no sacrifice involved for vast swaths of the country. Sadly, when people are starving for cheaper gas, they're not gonna think about coastal ecosystems many miles away. Now throw in some utter bullshit claims about Cuba and China drilling off Florida, and you've got a winning position! Heck, at least with ANWR, Democrats could evoke images of cute polar bear cubs.

The only way the sheeple will change their minds about offshore drilling is when it happens and (a.) oil prices don't fall, and (b.) there are some major oil spills and environmental disasters.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a good point (2.00 / 1)

The election is not for more than three months. There is still time to do this.

The "drill! drill! drill!" proponents are trying to shove this through now because they realize it's their one last shot before the election, and after the election they have no chance.

They're the ones who are in a hurry, we don't need to be.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

Like it or not, most renewable solutions like wind and solar will take just as long to have an effect as new drilling. Even if we went full speed ahead, the capacity is not there to completely end our oil addiction in the next few decades.

There is a lot of room for a win-win compromise here. There is also a lot of room for cave-ins and give aways too, I'll admit, but the pragmatic way forward is to find a holistic solution that includes oil, at least for the near future.

Everyone here is "wasting" energy to power their computers, and it needs to come from somewhere.

"Action comes easy; it's the moments just before that are hard." ~Defiance, Ohio~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTD H4

by ScienceTeacher118 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

Wind, solar, and electricity have nothing to do with oil. Oil is used almost exclusively in the transportation sector, not in the electricity generation sector.

And in any case, it's really not up to us whether we "end our oil addiction in the next few decades."

Because it's going to be gone very soon and then we're going cold turkey whether we like it or not.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

What Obama is doing here isn't changing his view based on new information or "overwhelming contradictory facts". He pandering, pure and simple. He saw the polls and decided he couldn't win this argument, so he folded.

The fact is frilling is a panacea. It does absolutely nothing to lower gas prices in the short term, or in the long term for that matter, and Obama knows it.

The whole issue is a giant red herring, and Obama just took a big bite. Call me a concern troll if you like, but I find this very disturbing. I know some people here thinks it's leadership to change his position on this, but I find that laughable. Leadership is deciding the right course, even if it's unpopular, and trying to convince people why you're right. If you discover new facts or the situation changes in some way, then by all means, adjust your position accordingly. You'd be a fool not to do so. But that isn't what happened here. You can't lead by reading the polls.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And when people aren't convinced... (2.00 / 1)

Your facts are not accurate.

A June 19 Gallup poll showed that 57% of Americans were in favor of increased drilling but 52% to 43% were opposed to drilling in ANWR.

Further, this was after an earlier poll that Jerome was happy to crow about showing 73% in favor of increased drilling. People were starting to buy it.

The number's been fluctuating back and forth, but it's not a lost cause, especially when there are three months yet to go till the election.

A large amount of the American electorate is uninformed, but they aren't stupid. We still have a very strong opportunity here to educate them.

Also, Alaskans have always been in favor of drilling in ANWR, mostly because 90% of them live in Juneau far away from ANWR and Ted Stevens promised them hefty tax income from it. The state of Alaska literally gives its residents money from oil tax receipts. That's little comfort to the natives who live much closer to the area in question as well as to the fragile ecosystem.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And when people aren't convinced... (2.00 / 1)

Oops, misread the poll that Jerome posted, it was actually about a week after. :P

Point is, the numbers have been fluctuating wildly and it largely depends on how the question is asked. People are desperate for a solution, yes, but they're still willing to listen to reason.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And when people aren't convinced... (2.00 / 1)

People in Alaska live in Anchorage, not Juneau.

I've never seen a proposal that would open up anything but a very limited area of ANWR, and I can tell you from firsthand knowledge, the oil majors have much less interest in ANWR as a whole than you think. People hate to hear it, but this has always been a largely symbolic issue for both sides.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:59:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't the issue (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that. I mean, the issue on the table is an increase in domestic oil production, which mostly means offshore but obviously can mean ANWR too.

The environmental impact from drilling in ANWR is of a completely different type but I'm not sure I could tell you whether it's better or worse than offshore drilling. I mean, at least we won't have an Exxon Valdez incident in ANWR, I suppose.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't the issue (2.00 / 1)

Um, you're the one who brought up ANWR, so why are you complaining about it now?

Here's the larger point: we had a chance to change people's minds, and we fumbled. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But we don't get anything by not trying if it looks too hard.

This isn't leadership, it's follower-ship (I think I just made that word up). Obama is capable of much more than this, and I'm very disappointed. Everything that Obama is saying he wants in order to consider offshore drilling are things he can without this so called compromise. In order for a compromise to mean anything, there has to be equal consideration. What do we get that we couldn't already get without this?

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Better fuel effiency (2.00 / 1)

We already raised CAFE standards and passed a big incentive bill for renewable energy. We already did it even with the Republicans being able to filibuster and Bush being able to veto. They didn't.

Why do you think it has now become impossible to do what we already did?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Better fuel effiency (2.00 / 1)

Furthermore, why do you think that the Republicans would allow anything through as part of this "compromise" that they wouldn't let through before?

If you think they're going to let through a windfall profits tax, you're dreaming. The Gang of 10 won't even let us pass the amendment that would attach it to this bill, mark my words.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't the issue (none / 0)

Well. I would swear on my mother's grave that when I read the news stories about this proposal last night, they said ANWR was part of the deal. Now I can't find a mention of it.

So, I withdraw that portion of my complaints, anyway.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama (2.00 / 1)

While I support offshore drilling, am I'm disappointed that Obama is running away from the issue he argued against. He took a principled position and now he is running away from it.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:38:40 PM EST

Re: isn't it obvious (none / 0)

He's doing it only if he gets what he wants.

If that's the case, then that goes against his "new politics" theme. Following the polls and changing positions on the issues for political purposes. I don't blame him for the change. He had to do it, we all know that.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oil (2.00 / 2)

There is a huge opening here- tie the drilling to alternative energy. The oil companies are like the military in Iraq and Afghanistan- they only have so many resources in personnel and equipment to move around- so its not like every piece of land between Maine and Seattle will have an oil rig. No one likes it- but it calls their bluff.

by Bob Beard on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:03:28 PM EST

Kudos to Jerome (none / 0)

I gotta give it to you Jerome, you called it. Do you think this will bite him in the long run or was it the right call? I sort of think he should have waited a couple weeks to see where his $1,000 relief package went...Maybe it would have grown legs...

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:05:52 PM EST

Re: Kudos to Jerome (none / 0)

Probably right, he's gonna have to deal with Pelosi, but it nips McCain in the bud.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good move (2.00 / 3)

I have supported a moderate increase in offshore drilling all along, so I am pleased to see Obama coming around. We are at or near a peak in global production. Ten years from now, when there may be virtually no oil available to import, an extra 1-2 mbd could make a very big difference indeed. We are going to be forced to turn away from oil for transportation in the next 10 years anyway. But we still need a feedstock for things like plastics, fertilizer, etc. I want to add that we shouldn't open the most environmentally sensitive areas, and we should dole out the rest of our reserves very gradually. The U.S. is the most explored territory in the world, there's not much more oil to be found other than offshore. We should also only agree to allow a bit more drilling as part of a broader energy plan, probably using revenues to fund alternative energy. This move allows Obama to shift the energy discussion back to his alternative energy plan.

I don't think McCain will be able to make much of this issue after his timetable and ss taxes flip-flops this week, not to mention the fact that his pro-drilling stance is a flip-flop by itself.

by Nissl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:50 PM EST

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

We are at or near a peak in global production. Ten years from now, when there may be virtually no oil available to import, an extra 1-2 mbd could make a very big difference indeed.

United States oil production peaked thirty years ago. More drilling here isn't going to make a difference in the overall trend, our oil output is still going to continue declining from now until forever.

And with oil supplies diminishing globally but global demand increasing exponentially, we're going to see a worldwide shock, oil prices double, triple, quadruple and more in the next decade, and within ten years we're not even going to be using oil any more. So any extra drilling is going to be irrelevant in the long term.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 2)

Yes, U.S. output will continue declining. I want that to be a slow decline rather than a fast decline. A slower decline does not fix the problem, but it does make it slightly less severe. It might be the difference between a mild recession and a bad recession, or a bad recession and a depression.

Have you tried modeling demand destruction across all sectors of the U.S. economy (spreadsheets available on request) and looked at potential technology improvements and substitution rates in each? The only way we won't be using any oil in 10 years is if society collapses.

by Nissl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

Yes, U.S. output will continue declining. I want that to be a slow decline rather than a fast decline. A slower decline does not fix the problem, but it does make it slightly less severe. It might be the difference between a mild recession and a bad recession, or a bad recession and a depression.

But every dollar and man-hour we spend on lengthening and slowing the decline of our oil production is a dollar and man-hour we're not spending on transitioning off of oil altogether. And we shouldn't be relying on domestic production in the first place, since we already import the vast majority of oil we use. Even if we manage to slow the decline of our domestic oil production, we're still totally at the whim of our foreign oil supply.

Have you tried modeling demand destruction across all sectors of the U.S. economy (spreadsheets available on request) and looked at potential technology improvements and substitution rates in each? The only way we won't be using any oil in 10 years is if society collapses.

Sure, link the spreadsheets. But I'm not talking about what society wants, I'm talking about what society is going to get.

Ten years ago, oil cost $20/barrel. It is now around $130/barrel.

What happens if the price rises another 650% over the next ten years, and we're faced with $850/barrel? What happens if the price rises even faster than that?--which it probably will, because over the past ten years world supply was roughly stable, while it's now begun to decline, and demand is growing at a much faster rate now than it was in the past decade, thanks in particular to China and India.

It doesn't matter whether society is ready, what matters is society is going to have to find a way to deal with it, immediately.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

Oh, another important point to note in that Oil by Numbers diary.

It took five years between 2001 and 2005 for oil to double in price. Then it took three years between 2005 and 2008 for it to double again. Now, between March and July of 2008, it's increased another 40%.

The rate of doubling is getting faster. The price of oil is not just growing exponentially, it's growing super-exponentially.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (none / 0)

In response to this and what you said to me above--what's the source for your information. I'm not saying I don't believe you. I've heard similar things before myself, but I'm curious as to where people here get their information.

by bigdaddy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

Some good numbers were posted earlier in Oil by Numbers. The rest of it just comes from reading about Hubbert Peak theory, I haven't got any specific sources to cite.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

A good layout of the peak oil rationale for domestic drilling is Gail Tverberg's article The US Offshore Drilling Argument: The Debate Between "Starting Now" and "Waiting a While" over at TheOilDrum.

The piece argues that if the U.S. doesn't drill soon we'll probably be unable to do so later. The idea is that once we're clearly on the downslope of Hubbert's curve of inexorably declining world oil production, the U.S. will simply no longer have the enormous financial or energy wherewithal which drilling would require. It also attempts to refute a number of commonly voiced anti-drilling arguments. Well worth a read along with the accompanying 285, mostly intelligent, comments.

by Johnny66 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

The piece argues that if the U.S. doesn't drill soon we'll probably be unable to do so later.

I fail to see the problem here.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Somebody else (2.00 / 1)

Somebody else will drill in our territorial waters, I'm sorry??

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good move (2.00 / 1)

The majority of arguments that he argues against are straw-men. Nobody here has yet said that oil rigs "spoil their view" for example.

I think here may be the kicker:

The oil that is off limits may not be all that much, but it is all that we have. If we are no longer able to import oil without having goods to export in return, we are going to have to use our own oil, or no oil at all. Even a relatively small amount of oil can go a long way toward making medicines and textiles and the many other goods that can be manufactured from oil. We may no longer have enough oil to burn.

He admits that the added drilling wouldn't do much to increase supply or lower prices, but we should do it anyway, he says.

We don't need petroleum from the ground to make these products. On a very small scale, we can use the Fischer-Tropsch process to synthesize our own oil to produce these things.

He seems to be suggesting we need to drill so we have oil for things other than transportation in the future--but that's not even an issue. If we no longer use oil for transportation, then our oil needs will be so small that we can efficiently use synthetic for all oil-based products.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:02:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama says (2.00 / 1)

OMG. Compromise! C O M P R O M I S E!!!!!!

1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.

by QTG on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST

This guy cannot negotiate. (1.00 / 3)

Ugh do not let him in a room alone with Putin.

by catfish2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST

Holy hell. We have a full-fledged PUMA festival. (none / 0)

I'm gonna put my two cents in.

Anybody who has read Obama's books, or seen his legislation, who is surprised by this is a goddamned idiot.

Get over yourselves, you lunatics.

Howard Dean is my go-to guy

by lojasmo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:55 PM EST

Re: Holy hell. We have a full-fledged PUMA festiv (2.00 / 1)

I've noticed that any time Obama does something which isn't the progressive position, the standard response is "you're a moron if you thought he was progressive on this." It's actually kinda cute.

I'd imagine this particular "flip-flop" originated not with Obama, but with the Dems who are up for reelection this year or otherwise vulnerable, who have presumably been begging the leadership to compromise on this issue for some time. I doubt it has much to do with, you know, Obama reading his own books and suddenly realizing this was his position.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy hell. We have a full-fledged PUMA festiv (none / 0)

Webb's pretty gung-ho on drilling, and he just won election. I'm not sure where the motivation is coming from - maybe a few directions.

by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy hell. We have a full-fledged PUMA festiv (none / 0)

I recall the fall of 2006, when the Democrats just couldn't wait to fold on the Military Commissions Act or whatever the controversial issue was, so they could get it off the table and win the election. That seems like the usual Dem dynamic.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy hell. We have a full-fledged PUMA festiv (none / 0)

Obama's a died in the wool centrist.

Seriously, those who don't understand that, were not paying attention.

(Talking to you, Lori)

Howard Dean is my go-to guy

by lojasmo on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:12:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I'd like to see what legislation they hammer out before passing judgment. At the moment, this is the one issue that McCain has.

by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:32:28 PM EST

Well, well, well... (none / 0)

I believe it was only two weeks ago that some of us more moderate Democrats were singing this tune...

by ejintx on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:57:06 PM EST

Re: Well, well, well... (2.00 / 2)

Yep, and you were as wrong then as you and Sens. Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor, Conrad, and Lincoln are now, and Sen. Obama for supporting them.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, well, well... (none / 0)

Touchy, touchy. All I'm saying is that this is an opportunity for Democrats to demand better fuel efficiency, create an incentive plan for private research in improving hybrid technology/hydrogen fueled vehicles and issue grants for increased research on green energy. Hell, we could even get some funding to generate cap-and-trade carbon incentive systems like the one that's going to open up in the Northeast in the next few years. Or be standoffish and lose political capitol because of it. Either or. I think you know where I stand.

by ejintx on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, well, well... (2.00 / 1)

All I'm saying is that this is an opportunity for Democrats to demand better fuel efficiency, create an incentive plan for private research in improving hybrid technology/hydrogen fueled vehicles and issue grants for increased research on green energy. Hell, we could even get some funding to generate cap-and-trade carbon incentive systems like the one that's going to open up in the Northeast in the next few years.

And we could do all these things without compromising on drilling. In fact we have been doing these things. And in fact we already had planned to do more of these things when we win in four months.

Which we would have done whatever Obama did on this issue. Obama's poll numbers have been trending upward this whole time, even with his vocal disapproval of any plans for new drilling.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How (2.00 / 1)

We go about with business as usual, like when we passed the Clean Energy Act of 2007 which included many of the programs and incentives listed above. We pass more bills like that one, which miraculously survived filibuster and veto and was signed into law.

And then in five months we will have a significantly higher margin in both houses of Congress and a President Obama to push through even more of these.

See, this is the issue:

We tell the people "Sorry, we didn't even bother to try to help you guys out ...

You're surrendering the frame. You're saying that this bill that Obama is supporting is going to help "the people."

It isn't.

Nor is anything else we push through alongside this bill going to have any immediate effect on "the people."

None of these bills will have any immediate effect.

So what's the deal with waiting another five months when we can yet more easily pass this stuff through without having to compromise on our environment?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's DOING something (2.00 / 1)

That's John McCain's argument. It won't do anything, but it'll have the psychological effect of making people feel good.

Until this evening we were all rightly deriding him for that.

You're effectively arguing that we should be exactly what the Republicans say we are--spineless poll-chasers and opportunists with our fingers always in the wind. What was one of Obama's earliest premises for running? "I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear, I'm going to tell you what you need to know."

He needs to follow that, and have faith that the voters will respond positively to it. If we can't have that faith, then why are we even bothering to continue this little exercise in democracy we call America?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain's not wrong (2.00 / 1)

There's no such thing as "safe hands" to put a dictatorship in. I think we're approaching this from completely different directions.

My faith that the American people can make the right decision is still intact. Sometimes they're slow to do it. Sometimes they're a little fickle. Sometimes they disappoint me--I had some dark days there in 2004 after Kerry lost.

But America can still redeem itself, and I think the people have it in them.

And for this reason, I do not feel it is enough to say that we must win the Presidency, whatever is required to do it. What does it profit us to gain the whole world but lose our own soul?

We can't just be the poll-watchers and the focus-group-testers. We have to stand for something, or we're little better than our opponents.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What does this mean? (2.00 / 2)

Is there a specific bill in question? Or is this just a theoretical point?

The problem is that the oil companies might not even explore off the coasts given the high costs of refining gas.

I think this is politically smart for Obama. It's not like McCain can say he was for this all along; he just flip-flopped a month ago so he only wins points for doing it first.

The only question is if progressives start flirting with Nader again. My guess is, just like with FISA, they'll scream about it and then go back to Obama again.

by elrod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST

late night ditty (none / 0)

Slip slidin' away
slip slidin away
you know the nearer the election the more he's slip slidin' away

Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!

by brooklyngreenie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:32:15 AM EST

I see Obama is being attacked the same olds. (none / 0)

He won't get their votes regardless.

by Glaurung on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:53:53 AM EST

Re: I see Obama is being ... (2.00 / 1)

Same olds like me? I'm rightly giving him his knocks on this, and I'll be giving a phone call tomorrow as well.

But he's still my candidate, and he still has my vote, my money, and my time.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PSSSST..... (2.00 / 1)

There isn't going to be any offshore drilling. It's all hot air.

So don't waste time getting your knickers in a knot over it.

by Glaurung on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:57:46 AM EST

Ugh (none / 0)

You do not know what you're talking about if you think "If you do it right, it doesn't hurt the ecosystem. Hell, why don't we make these rigs double as natural reefs?"

First of all, oil rigs aren't "naturaly reefs."

Second of all, ocean floors, especially nearshore, are pretty much the most sensitive kind of ecosystem there is, and building an industrial facility in the middle of them is brutally disruptive to ecosystems that are already under a lot of stress from pollution and climate change.

Third of all, oil spills are inevitable. There are thousands of small spills, and some large ones (New Orleans 2 weeks ago) every year.

So don't feed me the right-wing bullshit lie that "If you do it right, it doesn't hurt the ecosystem." They say that same shit about drilling in ANWR or doing any kind of massive industrial or commercial development in sensitive ecosystems.

Fortunately, Nancy Pelosi gets this better than you or Jerome or Obama and is not going to let such a shortsighted and stupid policy get out of the House as long as she is speaker.

by lorax on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:02:12 AM EST

Re: Ugh (none / 0)

I haven't gained a lot of respect for Pelosi over the past couple years, but she'll impress me if she stands firm on this.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ugh (none / 0)

Not me. If THIS is what she takes a stand on, she's utterly useless.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great move by Obama (2.00 / 2)

I agreed with Jerome back when he first brought this up, and so I'm glad to see Obama showing flexibility on this. Post election day he can always change his mind, but first he must be elected.

Continuing to be dragged down by firm opposition to more drilling is a losing strategy. We need to win first and then show America that there are other ways to lower energy costs.

by existenz on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:57:44 AM EST

Re: "Obama says (2.00 / 2)

Did anyone really read what he said?

If necessary to pass a comprehensive energy bill, he would be open to some compromise. He would not be "rigid".

He is not for open season for off-shore. He is not for ANWAR drilling at all.

If it isn't necessary he won't.
(Let's get those Democratic Senators elected)

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM EST

Re: "Obama says (none / 0)

I don't think McCain wants to get into attacking Obama for flips..I am sure there are more by now...but a reminder of a month ago.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956 /

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:58:24 AM EST

Re: "Obama says he'll support offshore (none / 0)

I think that Obama is a genius. He is a political genius. I am so proud that we have a democratic nominee who is a politician and a man who has integrity but who loves america by understanding that everything is not black or white but sometimes grey. I love this guy.

by Spanky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:15:28 AM EST

Re: "Obama says he'll supp (none / 0)

by Spanky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:16:27 AM EST

Re: "Obama says he'll support..." (2.00 / 2)

You know who you are-- ya little jerks...

Way to stay classy.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST

It's a loser issue. (2.00 / 1)

Like Gun Control.

You're not going to win it and you may lose everything by standing behind it.

Only thing I would add is that they should give the individual states veto power and should make individual states responsible for any accidents.

by Bush Bites on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM EST

Re: It's a loser issue. (2.00 / 1)

It does give individual states veto power--or rather, they can choose to opt-in or not. The states also share in the revenue generated.

There are a lot of losing issues that we need to stand behind and turn into winning issues. We can't just throw up our hands and say, oh well, the polls are against us, so it's time to fold. That's not leadership. That's just confirming the Republicans' stereotypes of us as spineless poll-watchers.

We can still change the voters' minds.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In Florida (2.00 / 1)

You're right that it doesn't include ANWR, I misread that. But it is not only pre-existing leases. The oil companies are perfectly free to drill on their existing leases today if they wanted to.

This bill is to give new leases, not to allow drilling on old ones.

Given that ANWR is not in fact part of this bill, I'm not as strictly opposed to it as I was before, but it's still a handout to the oil companies that will do exactly zero to help the American people. And we should hammer that message until it sinks in. We have to stop letting the Republicans define the frames of the election.

And again, I consider it naive to think the Republicans will allow through anything with this compromise they wouldn't have allowed through before. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He'll do and say anything to get elected. (2.00 / 1)

I'm voting for Obama but I just refuse to let go of the lines he used to trash Hillary Clinton. The above is my favorite.

by Thaddeus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST

Yes, he actually said it (none / 0)

by Thaddeus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama says he'll support offshore (none / 0)

A phrase in your posting leads me to believe you do monitor the diaries. In any event, I have been trying to come to terms for myself on what I believe is the best solutin for America. Between Pickens, Gore, McCain, I am glad to see your pragmatism which I personally have to support whole heartedly, and thus, support Obama on this "pivot". Pelosi and Reid need to read your posting. This is a "chip" to bargain with.
P.S. Happy blogger, google, whoever, fixed the glitch.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.