Sorry and self-loathing they may be, but the Log Cabin Republicans have been instrumental in fighting for and winning one of Obama's campaign promises, for which he hasn't even bothered to put up much of a fight for (except as Kabuki theater.)
Apparently, we have to take our "fierce advocates" where we can find them, and God help the Democratic Party if they continue to distain their own voter base.
I've never claimed "that the Obama administration is now allowing 27 new rigs into the gulf."
I qouted from the piece about the 27 waivers, and okay, I'll take your word on the inside baseball view of what seemed in March, to those of us not as well-informed, as Obama's support of new off-shore drilling.
I'll also believe, based on what you've written, that the Obama administration won't push for more off-shore drilling.
Based on my experience on the issues I am familiar with, it seemed Obama was backtracking -- yet again -- on being the fierce advocate of whatever he'd claimed to support.
However, I doubt that I'm alone in that perception, if we go by the enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters.
So perhaps you can answer this question: why the hell would Obama want to give the impression that he was advocating more offshore drilling in March?
"President Obama has packed the Debt Commission (also known as the cat food commission) with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.
The “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” is operating in secret over the objections of both parties."
And you respond with "half-cocked" instead of responding with, for instance, a viable refutation that the members of this commission have a history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security --and yes, to be taken seriously you must show your work, the links, etc.
Members of Congress -- from both parties --protest the secrecy of the Commission, and you respond with only "half-cocked."
If you have evidence otherwise that the Commission isn't secret, we'd need to see it. Or, if you were you referring to the penis size of the Congressmen protesting the secrecy, we'd also love to see that evidence.
This has been a basic lesson in reasoned argument, wasted, I'm sure, on an Obamabot.
I'll bet the fisherman and tourist industry of several states wish this were just a game.
Few baseball games make major dents in the economy (of two, three? Do we even have a clue how many?) states, or for that matter, create environmental disasters of this magnitude.
As for the "game not starting yet," this game has been afoot my lad long before Obama did his aboutface.
Long enough that if you read the Pdf of the organization you claim to belong to, you'll see they detailed the environmental problems of off-shore drilling, long before the current disaster.
3,700 or so off shore drilling rigs in the Gulf alone, 2 million barrels a day of oil exported from the United States -- so tell me, how does increasing those numbers benefit the American people, or the environment?
They don't! But they could be of benefit to the oil companies, of whom the former fierce advocate of the environment of is apparently more concerned.
And it's that kind of aboutface (or call it a lie) that eats away at the Democratic base, who also aren't enthused by the danger to the environment and economy.
Let me be clear: I'd love to believe in your fantasy that Obama will make a repeal of DADT happen this year.
Love it, but then again, everybody loves fairy tales because they always have a happy ending.
But nobody actually believes in fairy tales beyond a certain age.
Because after childhood, we're better off assessing the evidence, and there's much evidence Obama makes noises to loop in voters, and then backs off acting on what he's said, or actively works against what he's promised.
I'm grateful his lies elected a Democratic President and helped elect a Democratic majority in Congress -- although I would have been much happier if they'd been the truth, not the least because following through would have improved the lives of the American people and because those lies are losing major segments the Democratic base in the midterms.
Why no answer to my question: how many off-shore oil drilling rigs are already up and running? Too many to count?
Also: Obama's about face for opening up new drilling: oops, not popular with the voters now either. (Way to dispirit the base, Mr. President!)
"A new poll (pdf), commissioned by Clean Energy Works, and conducted by President Obama's chief pollster, Joel Benenson, finds strong public support for a strong new energy bill. As broken down by Greg Sargent:
* Overall, 61% of 2010 voters support and just 31% oppose a bill "that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like oil."
* 54% would be more likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted for the bill (just 30% would be less likely to re-elect).
* 51% would be less likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted against the bill (just 30% would be more likely).
* 39% of voters now say they are more likely to support it in the wake of the oil spill.
So we're endangering our coastlines, ruining the fishing and tourist industries, killing off wildlife, contanimating the ocean and a thousand other evils so the oil companies can make a profit by selling that oil in other countries?
Yes, more of that, please, Mr. Obama! Just what the Democrat base wants!