Obama Makes Major Error On Drilling

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:28


To pile on Matt's earlier post, Obama's flip on drilling strikes me as a major error. Even when analyzing it entirely as a political move, where the specifics of the legislation and the popularity of drilling are irrelevant, it still comes off very poorly. Straight up, it just looks like he caved. That is a terrible image for any politician to radiate.

It isn't about moving to the left, right and center. It is about not moving away from yourself. That looks bad, no matter what the bill is, and no matter how popular is may be.

This won't help him get elected. This will do the opposite. Last week, after the Berlin speech, I thought there was no way Obama could lose the election. Now, I worry it might be a toss-up.

About the only thing that could save Obama in this case is that McCain did the exact same thing on this issue earlier in the year. So, they look equally bad, and it is mentioned in the coverage:

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon.

But, that is in the third paragraph, while title reads "Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling."

Oh yeah, it is a really sucky idea, too. While allowing Republicans to go through with all of their sucky ideas has actually been an electoral boon for Democrats of late, since the ideas cause major problems. Then again, there is also the problem that those ideas cause major problems. In this case, Obama will help the creation of a major problem along, but actually receive a negative electoral benefit from it. And that is a big-time political error.  

Chris Bowers :: Obama Makes Major Error On Drilling

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Makes Major Error On Drilling | 97 comments
Here comes the pile on (4.00 / 3)
Great next the left will join McCain in attacking Obama.
I see (4.00 / 10)
My role should just be to agree with everything that Obama does, and say how smart a move it was?

How far should I go? If Obama says "Poland is not under Soviet domination," should I agree with him?

Just checking to see what level of yes-man I should be for Obama, and wondering why that would make progressive blogging relevant to the world in any possible way.

I know--let's build this whole new medium where anyone can publish their thoughts, and make sure that everyone just says exactly the same thing as our leaders! That sounds like a great  new medium. Ah, the wonders of the Internet.  

[ Parent ]
You can (4.00 / 3)
disagree, but here comes the hyperbole.  You and Matt will join the traditional media in swearing his poll numbers are dropping.

Paul Rosenberg will start with personal attacks.  Fisa redux, except with fisa you actually had a valid concern.  This response is almost Pavlovian.  Its the same Obama can't do anything that can even appear to not be left.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry Chris ...BUT (0.00 / 0)
There are many wingnut talking points that have been based on yours and other progressive bloggers posts. ....That is fact!. You can write whatever you want it is your blog. But you also have to take the responsibility for your words.

I agree I think it is an error on Obama's part , especially the way it is being framed in the MSM and in the posts here.  READ the entire quote and see if it is a CAVE as claimed in the other post. While I believe nuance is always lost on wingnuts and their band of low-info voters. I would expect critical thinkers like you and Bowers would use it to discuss and have a thoughtful debate on EXACTLY what is being said...sadly AGAIN that is not happening here, just the same on declarations you read and see on the MSM!

[ Parent ]
In Defense Of Chris (2.00 / 2)
There is hardly anyone who has been as loyal to Obama and overlooked many things he has done that were noteworthy but Chris refused to address.

Now Obama has has 'caved' on oil drilling - nuances aside - he has still opened the door and taken up the GOP position for political expediency. This once again shows that there is no issue that Mr. Post-Partisanship will not bend over for.

So here we have Chris addressing the reality of the situation, and then we have you and others who want to sweep it under the carpet with not a word of concern about the flip-flopping and it's ramifications, nor about the drilling itself which could lead to the devastation of our coastlines. Not a word!

You see for you guys it's either protect Obama against himself at all costs - or it is you just don't care what he does even if it is wrong. Either way that is not a Progressive position.

Lastly if Obama is willing to partially accept the GOP position on drilling now - just what do tyou think he will do as President when the GOP mounts a full court press on him. Frankly Obama has shown he is pretty spineless on many issues he caves on and there is no reason to think he would do otherwise as President.

Chris is right to blog the obvious. And you protectors of all things, right or wrong, are just flat out wrong in your ostrich view of things.

BTW, how can anyone take this mornings double-talk explanation, if you can call it that, seriously. Obama always, and I mean always, has some double-talk weasel words to say when he has stepped in it the previous day. Aren't you tired of the last 7 1/2 years of that or is it just IOKIYAD?

[ Parent ]
personal attack (4.00 / 2)
his once again shows that there is no issue that Mr. Post-Partisanship will not bend over for.

And here come the personal attacks.  Just because someone has a different approach or opinion doesn't mean they have personal deficiencies. Here are you and Matt in his headline calling Obama weak.  Its  straight from the GOP, but we have to let you do it or else we are being cult like.  Another GOP talking point.

[ Parent ]
Yeah right man (0.00 / 0)
And you never criticize a Democrat ever.

Sounds like you are the one with talking points. It's the same tune over and over and over...

[ Parent ]
educate yourself (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
I think you need some educatin" (0.00 / 0)
From press conference this morning....unlike wingnuts and low info-voters, I can read and comprehend an intelligent thoughful answer from Obama....I don't rely on so called progressive pill-ons

from the mouth of Obama
"
"This wasn't really a new position,'' he said today. "What I was saying was, we can't drill our way out of the problem.

"What that means is, if we want to have true oil independence, true energy independence, then we're going to have to become more efficient,'' Obama said. "What I said was... what I've seen so far (from a so-called 'Gang of 10'' energy bill which several senators are promoting) has some of the very aggressive elements'' that he wants to see in an energy plan.

"I remain skeptical of some of the drilling positions, but I will give them credit that the way they crafted the drilling positions are about as careful as you might expect... from a drilling agenda. What I don't want is for the bad to be the enemy of the good.''

The Palm Beach Post had reported that Obama, making a two-day tour of Florida, said that he would be willing to open the coasts to more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy legislation. ""My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama had said in an interview with the 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.''

read and LEARN



[ Parent ]
take a chill pill (0.00 / 0)
i was replying to bowers
[ Parent ]
ooou should I be scared? (0.00 / 1)
whatevuh
[ Parent ]
Don't be a jackazz (2.00 / 2)
You mistakenly thought Aiko was replying to you and then you attack again when this is pointed out.  
[ Parent ]
so instead of owning up to (0.00 / 0)
a mistake, you troll rate me.

Classy.

[ Parent ]
Obama and McCain did not do "the exact same thing." (4.00 / 5)
This is the big error in the post.  Obama said that IF it was necessary in order to get a comprehensive bill that had major incentives for clean alternative technologies, he would be willing to look at allowing a limited amount of further drilling with stingent environmental safeguards.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told 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."

 

The measure that is being talked about would allow drilling only off Florida's west coast and allow Georgia, South and North Carolina and Virgina to decide if they want more drilling.  It would explicitly not include the Northeast and Pacific Coast and the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.  It is part of a package that includes repealing $30 billion of oil company tax breaks.  

What McCain did was take $1 million in donations from oil companies and then reverse to comepletely be in favor of drilling on federal loands, without apparently the approval of the states involved or any new environemntal safeguards--i.e., what the oil companies want.  Moreover, he continues to say that aaccording to "oil company executives" that removing the moratorium would bring oil quickly and lower the price within weeks.  This is nonsense.  

I don't know whether I would accept the compromise being floated--evidently Florida's two Senators and Governor are vehemently opposed because it would undo safeguards they enacted recently.  However, if you can't see the difference between what these two candidates have done, you are letting ideology and emotion trump your considerable intellect and critical faculties.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Weren't you the one (4.00 / 4)
who wrote that Democrats should cave on offshore drilling, ANWAR, gas tax holiday, etc. just to prove that they won't change gas prices?

And now Obama shows some minor flexibility on offshore drilling and you pile on, saying he could lose the election over it? How's he ever gonna please the Stoller/Bowers crowd if that's the case?

This reminds me of the VP debate. One post you guys say he should pick ANYONE that allows him to win, yet in another post you say that anyone who isn't completely progressive is a sellout. So he is either stuck with Kaine/Bayh sellouts who help him win more electoral votes, or Clark/Sebelius progressives who can't help him win any more electoral votes. And either way he has disappointed us in your eyes.

Obama still isn't saying that drilling is the answer, he's just saying he would swallow it for the greater good, if it is in legislation with higher fuel efficiency standards and more money for renewables.

I think the drilling issue is the one that was going to damage Obama the most, and I'm glad to see he's not going to be pigeonholed as Dr. No on it. I support Obama's move 100%.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
If Obama says "Poland is not under Soviet domination," should I agree with him?

Yes.

[ Parent ]
In Russia, candidate votes YOU out of office! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Come on.. (4.00 / 6)
So this one thing changed your mind about the whole election? You claim that this one comment made you change your mind about his chances from "no way he can lose" to "tossup". Talk about a visceral response. Come on Chris, you usually don't let emotions get the best of you. This is unlike some of your colleagues here. Let's try to keep a level head in the analysis. That's why so many of us respect your analysis.  

Demockracy.com

yeah (4.00 / 1)
I think the title should be:
"Obama Makes Minor Error on Drilling"

There's a great post on dKos right now by devilstower about Exxon's profits that leaves me convinced that the industry isn't ready to take on new leases anytime soon as it is, so all the alternative energy incentives would be worth it.

In other words, the error is political-- it does make him look bad, imho. As in, not an agent of "change" so much. His campaign should've found a better way to frame the issue.

[ Parent ]
this is a great framing (4.00 / 2)
Obama hasn't flipped as hard as McCain, who is now pretending that offshore drilling will somehow make a difference.

Obama states flat out that drilling isn't an answer, but he'll swallow it if it is paired up with higher fuel efficiency and more money for renewables. After the election he can change his mind on drilling anyway, it's such a long term process that no new oil rigs will be built between now and Nov. So I think Obama has framed it right. He should run some ads on his general ideas -- including the idea that oil companies should start making use of their current leases.

McCain flipped on this issue, so it's hard to him to credibly attack Obama for it.  And if McCain does attack, it will simply highlight to voters that Obama is now pro-drilling (which I think is a positive). And it steals away McCain's number one domestic policy attack line. Read Jerome Armstrong at MyDD and Steve Benen at Carpetbagger - they also agree this is good politics.

And most voters aren't paying attention right now anyway. Does anyone really care about the FISA flip-flop anymore? It seems like old news already. I'm glad Obama flipped/refined/adjusted now rather than in September.

[ Parent ]
fisa (0.00 / 0)
I care more about FISA than I do about the drilling, personally. The FISA vote sticks in my craw.
[ Parent ]
Mine too but (0.00 / 0)
we need to not project from that issue to all others. I've seen a lot of that in this thread. It does a disservice to the awfulness of his FISA move to equate all over moves as equally bad as FISA no matter what just so we have another chance to complain about FISA.
[ Parent ]
The Berlin speech? (0.00 / 0)
The European trip had a brief but ultimately minimal effect on the polls, as I believe the Obama camp itself suggested prior to the trip.  I'm surprised that that event, standing alone, would cause anyone to think that the election was sealed.  Likewise this event, standing alone, will not make or break the campaign.  
prisms (4.00 / 5)
The European trip had a brief but ultimately minimal effect on the polls

This is the wrong way to look at this sort of thing. It's not that the Europe trip should have driven up O's poll numbers; it's that, when people are standing in a voting booth on November 4th or whatever, they have some vestigial, subliminal memory of Obama standing before a cheering world. That sort of thing won't be reflected in the Gallup fucking tracker.

As for the drilling business, I don't think it's as bad as Chris suggests. Yes, it plays into the usual conservative narratives - but they hardly needed the help, did they? Meanwhile, it reinforces that Obama is a pragmatist, looking for non-ideological solutions to problems. So, overall: a vaguely dispiriting wash. Nothing that changes the fundamental fact that Obama is likely to win.

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (0.00 / 0)
In fact, I'm sure that that was the idea all along (and to cut off foreign policy as a line of attack).  However, the idea that a subconscious memory of Obama from months ago (and before the "real" race was underway) would ensure victory is farfetched.  That's the aspect of Chris's analysis that I'm taking issue with - both impressions are emotionally charged and don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny.  
[ Parent ]
how about 6 billion subconscious memories? (4.00 / 1)
or is the advertising industry simply a gift to the entertainment industry from other corporations?  Not everything (and perhaps nothing) is determined by rational argumentation.
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I understand (0.00 / 0)
Honestly, I don't think that 200,000 people waving American flags in Berlin would work on a subconscious level to automatically hand us the election, either.  There will be plenty more displays of symbolism, some of it arguably more relevant and meaningful, in the months ahead.
[ Parent ]
i'm just saying that image consciousness is good (4.00 / 1)
it's all those images cumulatively - with some that will likely stand out more than others - which can help Obama win.  Think of the speech he gave that was followed by McCain in the weird room with the green everywhere.  It all adds up and you can't always plan or determined which ones will be which moments in which people's minds to be the ones that stick out--though you can guess.  So you don't think it's this one - that's cool.  It'll be some other image as long as they keep conscious of the strategy.

It's sick in that it's a hallmark of consumer capitalism (and I think fascism too, but I'm not as sure about that), but it's also some part of how American elections work (since Reagan at latest).

[ Parent ]
you're right about that (0.00 / 0)
Nothing that changes the fundamental fact that Obama is likely to win.

Obama's a smart enough politician to know that the drilling won't lose him the election. He's not going to do anything that will jeopardize his chances in November.

At the moment, he's taking the path of least resistance, choosing not to make waves in Congress. Bad strategy in the long term--he's announcing to Congress that he's not going to push them too hard--but it won't stop him from becoming president.

[ Parent ]
the Congress we have now (0.00 / 0)
and the Congress we have in 2009 are going to be totally different. Right now Republicans have 49-50 votes with which to mount a filibuster. In Jan, they will hopefully have just 43.

Big difference.

[ Parent ]
it's amazing (4.00 / 7)
after all the bellyaching people did about Gore and Kerry supposedly being wishy-washy and not distinguishing themselves enough from Bush--which was, to my mind, highly exaggerated and due as much to the media's framing as anything else.

Now we have Obama, who is not just failing to distinguish himself from the Republicans. He is actively moving towards them on not just one, but two issues, in an electoral year when the Republicans have reached new lows of popularity.

He already reversed his position on FISA and voted to legalize Bush's illicit wiretapping program and grant immunity to the telecoms. Now he's making noises about offshore drilling.

But instead of the howls of protest that met Gore and Kerry's supposed equivocations, Obama's blatant reversals are met with defensive lectures on the nature of compromise and how Obama has to give ground to the opposition to win.

I'll tell you how Obama can win--it's very simple. Stand for something. Anything. Choose a reasoned, principled position, and make your case to the people. This should not be a hard thing to do, in a time when the Republicans are so unpopular.

People respect leadership. If you're firm--and there is a difference between firmness and rigidly sticking to a position beyond all reason--even your opponents will respect you.

What they will not respect wholesale reversals of position. And at the moment, that is what Obama is giving us.

Stop Making Sense! (4.00 / 1)
the Talking Heads don't respond to this sort of logic...
[ Parent ]
It's not so hard (0.00 / 0)
You'd think, right? Is there no way to get through to his campaign about BS like this?
[ Parent ]
you want firm positions? (4.00 / 3)
16 month withdrawal from Iraq
Pro-choice
Anti-torture
Pro-diplomacy
Ledbetter Equal Pay Act
Gays in military
Infrastructue investments
Higher taxes for the wealthy (ie letting Bush tax cuts expire)
Net neutrality
Cap-and-trade
Universal health care

The list goes on and on. I can't believe some of you would want Obama locked in a policy straightjacket. The guy is a good, pragmatic progressive. Give him some wiggle room once in a while.

[ Parent ]
standing for the greater good (0.00 / 0)
I didn't buy the FISA justifications, but in this case I think Obama is standing firm for something - pragmatism to achieve a greater good.
[ Parent ]
This is a disaster! (4.00 / 2)
Forget that it's just insane from a policy perspective. Forget that the only people who were fixated on drilling our way to energy independence were REPUBLICANS (74%), that DEMOCRATS opposed this and Independents are simply waiting for an energy plan that makes sense. So this gets him NOWHERE in terms of the election.

Forget that all Obama had to do is say forthrightly "this is a LIE. It will do nothing to reduce oil prices for 8 years, and everybody knows it. John McCain knows it. But, he's fixated on presenting this to the American people because he doesn't have anything else. He HAS no real energy plan."

Forget all that: The ONLY thing this will do is spawn at two weeks of McCain triumphalism "Obama's a flip-flopper! Obama opposed drilling, before he supported it!"

That will be the media narrative until September. Forget all "nuance." He doesn't get to do Nuance in a media that only focuses on the surface and is just waiting for a real narrative.

Obama. Elitist flip-flopper! And he just handed McCain a silver-bullet!

As of right now Obama's lead is down to 2 points in Rasmussen and tied in Gallup polling. And that's BEFORE this insane gaffe! McCain now really WILL be leading in all the polls by the time of the convention and Democrats will be angry and confused. Republicans who thought 3 months ago that they were doomed to a slow death-march are picking up their heads.

How can he be so smart and so incredibly STUPID at the same time? You don't get to change major policy decisions in the middle of a Presidential Campaign!

You take your position and defend it! Rip your opponents for opposing it. Bush understood this. He understood that you take your position and never change it, even if it's wrong!

Did you see Bush cave on issues? No! If he hadn't also been a prize idiot, if he'd actually been able to pick CORREECT policy choices once in a while this would have been a towering strength!

Bush realized that it doesn't matter if people criticize you as long as you are clear about what you want. Who gives a DAMN if the oil companies are pressing on this? Screw them. That's the policy. Stick with it.  

Have any of you read anything about this issue? (4.00 / 1)
Are you aware of the measure being floated?  Obama did not "reverse his position on offshore drilling."  All he said was that he would not be so adamantly and unequivocally opposed to any change in off-shore drilling policy that it became impossible to more forward on incentives for clean energy.  That isn't a flip-flop, it's called pragmatism.  What we seem to be seeing here is a retreat back to "I'm too pure for all this" posturing.

I'm not saying I approve of this gang of 10 proposal, especially the ethanol provisions, and it may not fly anyway without further environmental safeguards because of Florida's opposition.  But to say that Obama is not allowed to talk about any proposal that contains any change from a "no more offshore leases ever" position without being brqanded as a traitor and a sell-out is pretty silly.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Is there any issue Obama will stand firm on? (0.00 / 0)
Does he have any real core beliefs that he will not back down on?

The "I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright" guy is back.

well he believes in getting obama elected (0.00 / 0)
and he doesn't believe it's okay to be dumb, unlike Bush (on everything) and McCain (on economics).  I'd rather there was a  better option to actually elect, but there isn't - and I don't think there ever was from a policy standpoint.  So I hope he wins, but he's probably not getting much of my time; I'll be spending my time working for the longer term unless it's really close and McCain reveals himself to be Pol Pot or something.  I think everyone should be doing this anyway instead of just fixating on next November or 2012 or even 2016.
[ Parent ]
The problem is.... (4.00 / 1)
....on global warming, we don't have until 2012....some are now saying we have 100 months (under optimistic assumptions) to avoid runaway greenhouse effect.....I see no, zero, zippo willingness on Obama's part to rally people to the challenges of global warming.

I mean, Jesus Christ, what would be controversial about saying we're going to invest in a brand new electrical grid to cut energy waste, to help wean ourselves off our ME oil dependency?  Who could oppose that?

Where is the fucking imagination with this guy?

[ Parent ]
On multiple occasions (4.00 / 2)
Obama has listed his top 3 priorities for his administration: global warming, the Iraq war, and health care. Additionally, he has spoken repeatedly and often about global warming. Additionally, he has talked up the possiblity of using Gore in his administration in some fashion. Additionally, he has laid out detailed plans of what he would do; if memory serves it was in Wisconsin during the primaries. Additionally, he has spoken forcefully about the importance of curbing global warming in the exact context of this particular issue.
[ Parent ]
The fucking imagination (0.00 / 0)
if we were looking for that, we shouldn't have invested this heavily in the Democratic Party.  His personality and Hillary Clinton's are both not suited to radical change (whether in American terms--i.e. sensible pro-capital policies--or global terms--i.e. pro poor and other disempowered groups) and there's nothing that makes me beleive that John Edwards would have been a marked improvement on either.

And it's still possible not to.  I honestly don't think we should spend our time trying to get someone elected who's demonstrated that he's eminently capable of running his own campaign and isn't going to listen without pressure put on him -- and isntead focus on other things which keeping an eye on this.  I was asking a friend of mine about this who happens to be involved in this campaign, though i won't say in what capactity-- how to work in this situation if you're on the margins of electoral work and wanting to work on an issue or social framework, if you want to engage with Democrats but also with people outside the mainstream electoral system.

The main suggestions were issue based- or left power-base campaigns that have semi-involvement in the actual electoral process but are focused on something else.  And preferably building from the grassroots up rather than starting at the national level (as per the post that Chris put up a while back).

But honestly, I'd rather work for Cynthia McKinney than Obama as long as I feel comfortable he's probably going to win and to be honest, YES it still matters that he's Black even if he's willing to sell out Muslims and his pastor and YES it still matters that he has the more pratical attitude of post baby boomers.

But don't depend on him for an imagination :)  I think we need to find the people with imagination and figure out how to exert political pressure on him in the short term and whoever's going to follow him in the long term.  Think Federalist Society - but for good instead of evil and less lawyers :)

[ Parent ]
Look you have an audience (0.00 / 0)
lets see how many republican talking points you guys can make on this issue
[ Parent ]
Disagree... (4.00 / 3)
I'm just not sure how you can say the polling on this question is "irrelevant."  I don't feel like going through all my reasoning again, so feel free to read my comment on the earlier thread.

People are very clearly worried about the economy and gas prices... The last survey I saw about it had energy coming in at almost the same level as the economy as far as most important issues.  It may be stupid, but people are convinced that offshore drilling is the answer.

In any case, I feel like Obama could essentially craft this is such a way that his plan looks like "Offshore drilling Plus"... meaning, he'll have the superior energy position to McCain.  In another way, Obama can make this look like the "bipartisan compromise" that he says he's so good at forging.

I don't like Offshore drilling, but the polling is really tough on the issue.  I fear that Obama may not have the time to do all the education necessary to try and flip the public opinion on it.  Until gas prices come way down and there are better, cheap alternatives to gasoline, this issue isn't going away.

I see how it works (4.00 / 3)
When Hillary Clinton engaged in cheap pandering to win over voters concerned about rising gas prices by suggesting we lower the gas tax, people called it "cheap pandering".

When Barack Obama engages in cheap pandering to win the votes of people concerned about rising gas prices by suggesting we make a long-term investment in offshore oil drilling, people call it a "superior bipartisan compromise".

Clinton decided to pander before getting the nomination; Obama wisely waited until afterwards to do so. Guess it's all in the timing.

[ Parent ]
Strange, I don't recall offshore drilling being an issue in the primary... (4.00 / 1)
In any case, Obama has been trying to use more or less the "cheap pandering" argument against McCain, but there is a lot more support for this in the general electorate than there was for the gas tax holiday in the primary electorate.  This is an uphill battle, perhaps unwinnable in the near-term (read, in time for the election).  Now, maybe it's not an issue that people would vote on... although energy seems to be going up in polls as the "most important issue", so it seems like a lot of people may be looking at this.

Also, did anyone bother to read the article or his statement?  Or how about what the legislation he's looking over is actually doing?  I'm guessing most of you didn't, and are just freaking out at his "cave".  Well, that's what compromise is... it's "caving" on some things.  So is the GOP:

"The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted."

In addition, Obama is still calling for taxing "Windfall" profits.

We'll see what happens, but I think that Obama could potentially show this as an example of his ability to forge compromise, which is something he's been running on for a long time.

[ Parent ]
here is what the polls tell us: (0.00 / 0)
from CNN:

The CNN poll found that respondents largely place the blame of high gas prices on oil companies and not necessarily on Democrats in Congress. Sixty-eight percent pointed the finger at U.S. oil companies, and 65 percent blamed foreign oil producers, while 54 percent blamed the Bush administration and 31 percent Democrats in Congress.

So the argument that Obama's caving in to Republican demands for offshore drilling will defuse voter anger appears not to hold water, since the voters are blaming oil companies and Republicans much more than Democrats for high gas prices.

This is silly, in any case, since drilling will not lower gas prices anytime soon. If Obama--a con law prof at a major university--cannot explain that very simple point to voters in a way they can understand, then how on earth do you expect him to explain other, much more difficult issues as president?

And the sheer politics of it is all wrong. You never win voters by embracing a key point of the opposition's agenda. You do it by choosing your position, and reiterating it at every opportunity.

If you are ever forced to embrace a key point of the opposition's agenda, you absolutely do not call it a compromise, as Obama did. You make up some bullshit about how it's a great victory for your side. You concede nothing in public.

This move is just wrong from every angle.

[ Parent ]
Seriously, did you actually read his response? (0.00 / 0)
Obama actually says he still doesn't like it, but he doesn't want it to become a roadblock to a "comprehensive energy policy".

But sure, go ahead and run around with your head cut off.  Yes, this is a compromise, and we can debate the merits of that compromise... but this is exactly the point of a compromise... Democrats give something, Republicans give something.

[ Parent ]
State by State Polling on the issue... (4.00 / 1)
Link to my post in the other thread:

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

[ Parent ]
Sorry for double post, but one more point... (4.00 / 1)
And it's the same one I said earlier... How many times has the liberal blogosphere complained that Senator/Rep/President "X" has done such and such despite their constituents having the opposite belief?  I see calls that so and so should "start representing their constituents".  Well, public opinion on this looks pretty clear right now... Isn't Obama reflecting his (potential) constituents then?
Public opinion is crystal clear (0.00 / 0)
Republicans and conservatives aren't the only purveyors of hypocrisy it seems. This campaign has made that painfully clear.

Why people are surprised at this is beyond me. He as ran as a compromiser from the beginning. Now you can all stick to your hyperbolic cries of ''capitulation'' but Obama has to deal in the real world not a virtual echo chamber.
 

[ Parent ]
is there a real progressive out there? (0.00 / 0)
as obama continues to move further to the right of his initial positions on many issues it gets harder and harder to stay excited about there being real change in america.

i realize he is doing this for the general election, but in the end all he is really doing is showing all on the left that he is not to be trusted when the heat is turned up and he will cower at the feet of the rw talking points and noise machine. possibly he only looks progressive compared to the wingnuts he is compared to and is running against. if he supported liebermann how progressive can he really be or is he just an opportunist in progressive clothing, you decide.

Read the legislation, not AP (4.00 / 7)
Both you and Matt should know better than to get all pissy about AP stories without doing a little legwork. You don't have to agree with Obama voicing support for the legislation but oppose his remarks on the merits, not because AP spun you like a top.

The New Energy Reform Act of 2008 contains three main components:
. An intensive effort to transition vehicles to non-petroleum based fuels;
. a robust federal commitment to conservation and energy efficiency; and
. targeted, responsible domestic production of energy resources.

Converting Cars and Trucks to Non-Oil Fuel Sources to Regain Energy Independence
The New Era legislation funds a $20 billion "Apollo Project" like effort to support the goal of transitioning 85% of America's new motor vehicles to non- petroleum-based fuels within 20 years. To accelerate this transition, the legislation includes:
$7.5 billion for R&D focused on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries;
$7.5 billion to help U.S. automakers and parts makers re-tool and re-equip to become the world leader in making alternative fuel vehicles;
Consumer tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle to incentivize Americans to purchase advanced alternative fuel vehicles (those that run primarily on non-petroleum fuels) and up to $2,500 to retrofit existing vehicles with advanced alternative fuel engines.

The Houston Chronicle, Palm Beach Post, and St. Petersburg Times all covered this before AP and none of them had the sensational spin of AP and all of them had more detail and context. A $30 billion dollar tax increase on oil companies and $52 billion dollar tax on future leases funds $35 billion dollars in green energy R&D and aprox. $40 billion dollars in tax credits to tax payers to buy and retrofit green technology -- that's what's in the bill.

McCain has promised "no new taxes", the oil industry opposes the bill, and the White House has promised a veto, Obama reiterated that the bill will provide no immediate relief yet HE IS THE ONE who gets called a flip flopper.

It's one thing for AP to suck, it's another thing for OpenLeft to dance to AP's tune.

John McCain

I'm going to puke (4.00 / 1)
This is pork for ethanol producers, and to save our automobile culture by subsiding a move to hydrogen.

Your use more energy producing ethanol than you save from using it.

Hydrogen needs energy to be produced.  Where's that going to come from?

Obama is working hard to convince me that he's a total wanker.

[ Parent ]
Electric vehicles don't use ethanol (4.00 / 3)
There are going to be some misses (like ethanol) in any R&D investment but you have to have some confidence that doing something irrational is not sustainable over the long term.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
Let's over-react (0.00 / 0)
Sure, go puke - perpetually until the end of time if this is the kind of thing that makes you ill.
Did you just wake up today and realized that every politician everywhere panders to ethanol? It will be a cold day in hell when an renewable energy bill is passed that does not include a large component for biofuels.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Note: no immediate relief on gas prices (4.00 / 5)
Obama reiterated that US coastal drilling would provide no immediate relief on gas prices. He's never had a blanket opposal to drilling.

'No drilling ever!' is a caricature of existing energy policy and demonstrates a simple minded view of world oil markets. Drilling everywhere in the US or drilling nowhere in the US doesn't change the fact that our economy is currently reliant on oil. The Conrad bill trades a small amount of drilling in existing areas and in states that support drilling in exchange for a massive tax increase on oil companies and massive investment in green technology.

I imagine almost everybody here supports the investment in green technology and windfall taxes on oil companies. Well how to you get that passed with the current (and projected) Republican minority in the Senate? Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham are so dumb that they believe their own party bullshit about drilling. The reason the GOP was pushing drilling was to A) paint Democrats as environmental weenies and B) give a giant handout to oil companies.

The Conrad bill turns the tables on the GOP and makes defend the oil industry's record profits and oppose investment in forward thinking green technologies. After the initial bullshit spin wears off, this is a good bill for environmentalists, Democrats, and Obama.  

John McCain

[ Parent ]
On the nosey (4.00 / 2)
The Republicans are staging their DRILL NOW theater, and they will never accept a moderate plan of drilling some places but not others. Obama will come off this looking like he's willing to work together to find solutions, and the Republicans will look like chumps.
[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
This gives Obama the most advantageous position going forward. He cuts the knees out of the "Obama wants to raise the gas price" attack and puts the ball back in the drill here drill now court.

A big majority of the country is in favor of a cleaner and efficient energy policy, when the drill here drill now crowd blocks that they are exposed for greedhead manipulators who don't care about the welfare of the nation just the corporations bottom line.

Obama might look like he;s flipped in the short term but in the long range game he has a better position now.

[ Parent ]
Chris, you state: (4.00 / 3)
It isn't about moving to the left, right and center. It is about not moving away from yourself.

In what way is Obama moving away from himself on this? This is classic Obama -- a willingness to negotiate, compromise, and change positions given the circumstances. Obama doesn't give a shit about the left-right spectrum that is, as nearly as I can tell, a central piece of dogma in these parts. This is post-partisan.

He very well may be moving away from the image that some on here and elsewhere in the netroots have of him but that image has always been inaccurate. Obama is not a progressive (despite the one time he claimed to be in the aftermath of the FISA controversy.)

Not "Post-partisan." It's "post-fuukking-brain." (0.00 / 0)
Murkins, we know, do not do 'nuance.' But, WTF???
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what you mean (4.00 / 1)
Given the almost-tied status of the Senate, the current popularity of the idea of drilling with voters, and the need to not have McCain elected president, you would not trade some offshore drilling for, say, greater funding for green energy programs?

Given all of this, I would in an offshore minute.

I wouldn't make the trade on bad terms and we don't know the terms yet. But we can't assume one way or the other.

I need more date before I either rend or gnash on this one.

[ Parent ]
Especially if it is limited to the Gulf Coast (4.00 / 1)
There is no proposal around and no statement from Obama that he would ever be part of a compromise that allows drilling in areas like the Pacific Caost or New England or the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.  There is no indication whatever except in the overheated imaginations of people here that he is ready to throw environmental safeguards over the side of the sleigh.  The reaction here is really over the top and makes me wonder what the goal of the people here really is.

Do you really think that if Obama comes out and says "no, I am opposed to any alteration in off-shore drilling policy now and forever more" at a time when he is being painted as the scary terrorist-loving black guy who loves foreign oil (1) he is a sure thing to win and (2) we are going to get a bill next year that totally sticks it to the oil companies, dumps ethanol subsidies, enacts a moratorium on nuclear power and invests $1 trillion in solar and wind power?

Magic fairy dust my a**.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
Haven't you got it yet, mimi?
You give the Pukes an inch, they'll cut your nuts off (okay, tits, in your case). It doesn't matter if he's unwilling. TheyPukes will force the issue and he'll cave like Kentucky coal-mine...He's shown he WILL throw environemental concerns over the side, if there's enough political pressure. Crikey, if this and the FISA vote don't tell you that, you're gonne need new glasses!

"We are going to get a bill next year that totally sticks it to the oil companies, dumps ethanol subsidies, enacts a moratorium on nuclear power and invests $1 trillion in solar and wind power?"

From whom? Who's gonna pass it? The BlueDawgs?

"Magic fairy dust my a**."

Oh, the magic fairy's gonna bring it...kewl...

[ Parent ]
You missed my point. (0.00 / 0)
I asked whether the people now accusing Obama of a giant flip-flop themselves believe that we could get some sort of environmental wet dream bill through next year if Obama and Congress just hold firm on drilling now?

Frankly, I doubt this compromise passes, because there's too much in it for the oil companies to dislike.  So I think it is reasonable positioning for Obama that throws the GOP and McCain into the position of helping the hugely profitable oil companies at a time when they are hated.

But I also believe that whatever does get passed next year is going to be a compromise of some sort, if only because of regional concerns, and it is going to have parts I don't like.  But that's politics.  I believe that for me to want everything my way would be childish and selfish, and would most likely result in nothing passing, or something far worse than a bill woith some compromises.

Where did people ever get the idea that ideological rigidity is better than flexibilty and pragmatism around some core goals?  Isn't that what has sunk us over the past 7 1/2 years?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
you know, mimi, what galls the piss outta me? Paying tribute (0.00 / 0)
to the voracious international oil pirates like Exxon and the rest. It's ironic in an historical sorta way that defeating the Barbary pirates was such a signal (albeit notoriously propagandized) accomplishment. 1801-15-ish? Gave the new nation a jolt of confidence to go over and kick a bunch of "mussulman" ass...built the US NAVY, by god...and the Marines, on those shores of Tripoli...today we're paying the same kinds of extortionate tribute to international oil companies which hold us in a stranglehold that's been there so long you hardly notice anymore...
[ Parent ]
Obama Folds Like A Cheap Valise (0.00 / 0)
Suuu-prise, suuuu-prise...
I have ventured an opinion on the matter on my blog, Walled-in Pond, fyeieio...
There's one drilling proposal I'd defend: (4.00 / 1)
Authorized by a law, which stipulated that ALL oil recovered from US off-shore and other protected resoureces be sold only to US refiners, for US use.

I know. It wouldn't pass. The Chimp'd veto it in a Btitney Spears beaver shot, but that should EXACTLY make the necessary point: This isn't about consumers, it's about PROFITS!!!

Thats a very good point (0.00 / 0)
Drilling alaska to sell to china (or whomever) isn't exactly a winning message.

And oil supplies aren't a global market.  If they were then there would be no problem with this legislation

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
Consistent with Obama's message (0.00 / 0)
This is entirely consistent with Obama's message.

Which is that he precisely does not care for making big public stands on issues that encourage gridlock.  He can go from "I oppose this out of environmental concerns" to "I think this is ok if the environmental concerns are properly addressed".  

Some times I get the sense that he does legislation entirely on how useful he thinks it is with no political concerns to how it sounds at all.

Personally I don't agree with it as it will require Republicans to get a new message.  They really like the "Drill, Drill, Drill" message and its good for democrats as well.

I would prefer to frame it as an "emergency supply" that shouldn't be tapped like the real emergency supply.


The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Obama Caveman or Shrewed Politician (0.00 / 0)
All I can say is Obama is acting like a typical washington Democrat. Heaven knows I want BO to win desperately. As a liberal activist I am disappointed by him once again. I just don't get this Democrat mentality and lop-sided bi-partisanship the Repigs proudly describe as typical Democrat Cavemen! When will the Democratic Cavemen in congress get some courage to stand by  their convictions! This is how I feel. We can justify this move on his part as a shrewd way of defeating a repiglican election issue all you want. I just don't like this constant cave man mentality. Funding Alito, the Attorney general,Iraq war funding, FISA and on and on it goes when it stops know body knows!
This seems to be a bit contradictory... (4.00 / 2)
Didn't you suggest that "Democrats should just completely capitulate on the offshore oil drilling question" just two weeks ago?  

And didn't you just say two days ago that "one of my major pet peeves are arguments that don't go anywhere, either over issues that can't be proven or disproven, or which involve a selective use of available data" and so therefore one of your current pet peeves are "people who seem to want to panic over the state of the presidential campaign."

I say you curb your desire the panic and stick with your earlier advice; it's eminently more reasonable.

Well (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't satire, I know that. Good on ya for pointing that sage wisdom out. Just let em capitulate, right? Damn, that's a fine idea. Why even come to power, why not just resign and let the Republicans do it all for us, then?
[ Parent ]
16 month Iraq timetable (4.00 / 3)
I don't know if it matters much to everyone who's in "what won't Obama cave on?!" mode, but let's remember that he didn't change his Iraq withdrawal timetable, even when he said he might "refine" his policy and Republicans (with the help of some in the press) were all yelling that he had already changed his mind.  He went to Iraq with that timetable and came back with the same one, plus the bonus of Maliki explicitly agreeing with it.  Obama still does talk about leaving residual forces in Iraq, and say what you will about that, but it's not a flip-flop; it was his position during the primary as well.  

This doesn't have much to do with drilling, but can't we debate a Dem candidate's position shift on one issue without freaking out about how he's shifting on every issue?

What bothers me (4.00 / 7)
isn't the cave-in.  It's the failure to drive the terms of the debate.

It seems to me over the last week that we are continually on the defensive, responding to the Republicans rather than making them respond to us.

Exxon had record profits, unemployment went to 5.7%, the deficit is headed over $500 Billion, and we (and I include the blogs here) are talking about the latest ad from McCain.

In fact, I thought in 2004 liberal blogs tended to play more defense than offense, and I think the pattern is repeating.  A substantial amount of the posts on many blogs are either outrage at a GOP ad or anger at our own candidate.  We are far less successful at defining a counter narrative that will us to dominate the debate. We want McCain responding to our issues and arguments, not the other way around.

My perception could be way off here, but that's how it seems to me.  

What's Next (0.00 / 0)
What's next. A major speech on Thursday about the success of the surge and off to Kennebunkport for the weekend.
today i am hating mccain and his rovian strategists (4.00 / 2)
for being the scumbags that they are. they sure know how to run a negative campaign....but they suck at governing.

you all can nash you teeth and stamp your feet all day. my neighbors are freaked out that their $400 heating bill is going to double next year due to the price of coal and oil.

at this stage of the race --in its last 100 days -i for one think the temper tantrums on the left are extremely counter productive.

Not so sure (0.00 / 0)
The thing is that Obama's "different kind of politician" and won't "say or do whatever it takes it win" balloon has already popped.  The country at this point has realized that he's just another guy who wants to be president, so one more flipflop isn't going to do much damage, especially when he can use the cover of post-partisanship and compromise to excuse it somewhat.  The anti-drilling polling numbers are not good, and they're particularly bad in economically depressed inland states - the ones that are going to decide this election.

The larger problem is that the Obama campaign has let the McCain campaign dictate the debate on energy policy and the economy in general, putting the question of drilling at center stage when so many other issues should take precedence.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

This isn't post-partisan cover (4.00 / 1)
It is post-partisan reality. This is what post-partisanship looks like in practice.

Democrats, a political party, via a long, Byzantine process chosen by the party, have chosen a post-partisan (note the root of the word) candidate.

It makes sense that a decent number of folks on a site named 'OpenLeft' would have a problem with a post-partisan candidate since the left-right spectrum is almost, kinda sorta somewhat kinda parallel to the Dem-Rep partisan divide.

Obama's partisan edge and thus progressive potential stem entirely from the related combo of expanding the map into a mandate-like election and increasing the chances of having a Dem/non-Republican in the presidency.

[ Parent ]
Both things are true (0.00 / 0)
A) This is a post-partisan compromise.

B) This decision is first and foremost poll driven, made by a candidate whose first, second, and third priorities throughout his political career have been winning elections and climbing the ladder.

These aren't mutually exclusive and the latter is just the reality of presidential politics.  The larger point is that Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of fooling people about the latter and while that ship has basically sailed, the existence of A (which is a plus overall for sure) can help to defuse the anger and disappointment some people might feel upon waking up from whatever dreamworld they were living in and realizing B.



John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
He can't stop it (4.00 / 5)
The public wants drilling, and you can talk 24-7 about how it won't affect gas prices, and they'll still want drilling.

Even if Obama stands firm and still gets elected, drilling will pass out of congress with veto-proof majorities. He can either use it as a bargaining chip and get a more comprehensive energy policy out of the deal, or he can let Republicans beat him over the head with it for the next three months, get diddly-squat for his trouble and maybe lose the election.

It's not like FISA where there was an actual possibility of stopping it, and Democrats caved while getting nothing in return, and the public was on their side if they had chosen to stand firm.

More offshore drilling is coming, and Obama can't stop it. No sense in getting run over by that train.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Huh? (0.00 / 0)
How are you so sure? I mean, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy now because Obama is giving in, but how can you know that for sure?
[ Parent ]
Wall, writing, etc. (0.00 / 0)
Have you even looked at gas prices lately? The polls on drilling?

This is going to happen. It's political poison to even look like you're dragging your feet on doing anything (even something useless) to fix gas prices.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
It also deserves to be restated (4.00 / 2)
for the 10th time or so in this thread that this isn't a capitulation like FISA -- it's a real compromise in which we're going to get quite good things (massive investment in alternatives and reduced tax breaks for oil companies) in exchange for significantly limited drilling.

This is actually a good thing (unless the details of the compromise wind up being significantly worse than they appear from the SFGate article linked to aboveby Mimikatz.)

[ Parent ]
looks like there are two sides to this (4.00 / 4)
Obama doesn't "favor" drilling and he doesn't "say anything" to get elected.

If you had spent a minute watching C-SPAN over the last couple of weeks you'd see how gridlocked Congress is.

By supporting the Gang of 10 plan, what Democrats get are some very important advances toward a modern energy policy:

  1. NO MORE tax breaks for Big Oil

  2. ANWAR is off the table

  3. Tax incentives for investment in alternatives/renewables. This is HUGE, it gives us YEARS to develop wind and solar and biofuels before the offshore platforms get one drop of gasoline in your tank.

  4. Florida gets oil revenues from its offshore activity, Obama gets credit for being FIRST to support the new proposal, Obama WINS Florida.

Guys, this isn't a penny stock board or chat room. Due diligence is needed before you can make some contribution to important debate. Slinging ignorant statements doesn't help, and only reflects on you.

http://www.dailykos.com/commen...

My only concern (0.00 / 0)
is that it seems to me that after a few years of back and forth confusion on clean cars, that evidence is now pointing more toward the electric car as the future.

Of course electricity still has to come from somewhere but it seems to me that this bill leans a bit too heavily on non-electric alternative fuels.

Having said that, I'm down with it. It's overall a decent compromise. We'll get far more out of it than we'll lose.

[ Parent ]
He has been undercut twice by Democrats in Congress (4.00 / 1)
I don't see this as a personal problem, but as a "more and better Democrats" problem.

Drilling was going to happen just as FISA was going to happen because we have a bunch of Democrats in congress who sell progressive ideas down the river. I know that Chris thinks Obama opposing them would shut them down, but I am not so sure.

If you make a political living off of playing the moderate card and raking in donations from predatory industries that progressives would like to walk back for the public good, aren't you going to just adore the attention you get from standing up to the Democratic nominee?

I would like to think that these guys are team players but I just don't think so.

If this is the case, Obama really has no choice here. Get behind it or here "far-left" from the media for the rest of the campaign.  Maybe its cowardice, but team Obama has played it safe while ahead so far this year so why expect a change now?

Is this supposed to be the change we can believe in? (0.00 / 0)
Just caving into the same old DLC coalition we've lived with since 1988?
[ Parent ]
I'm back to wringing my hands (0.00 / 0)

  We all knew that the Republicans were going to unleash the mother of all negative torrents against Obama in this campaign. And we were concerned that Obama hadn't learned the lessons of the John Kerry campaign and was granting McCain way too much leeway in launching his attacks. But there's some room for disagreement there among serious, sincere Democrats.

 But unforced errors like these SHOULD be a thing of the past. Instead, Obama's committing them in spades.

 When Karl Rove went over to advise McCain, did Obama respond by rehiring Bob Shrum????  

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

So Obama says he (4.00 / 4)
might support limited drilling if it was shown it would lower gas prices and if it was part of a bill that was stronger then the New Energy Reform Act of 2008

The media jumps in and yells

FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP!!!! FLIP FLOP!!!!!! FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP!!!! FLIP FLOP!!!!!! FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP!!!! FLIP FLOP!!!!!!

And Matt and Chris jump right on board claiming he totally flip flopped and is now the same as Bush and McCain on this issue.

Pathetic. Isn't the netroots supposed to be better then the traditional media and fact check them?

Obama said he applauded the effort but said he still doubted some parts of the bill. He said he MIGHT support it if it included a RES and tougher fuel effectiveness standards and suddenly it's Obama who's pushing the creation of major problem? Seriously Chris, this is pathetic.

I expected more of you then buying into right-wing traditional media spin.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Really. This is tiotally knee-jerk (4.00 / 4)
I really thought this was a site for analysis and action not hissy-fits at the slightest glimpse of reality.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Spot on. n/t (0.00 / 0)


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Lobbyist or Moveon.org (0.00 / 0)
At least most lobbyists are American. Do you actually think George Soros is rooting for the good ole USA? Think again.
[ Parent ]
so the troll rating was an accident? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes. (4.00 / 1)
I just found it.  I was in a rush to leave and did it accidently.  I have corrected it.  If you check, I recommended most of your posts.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Ohio + Colorado + Virginia + Florida (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't matter how unpopular offshore drilling is in NJ or CA, Obama must win one of the four states in the subject line.

I don't know whether the hit on following McCain (partially) and the Gang of 10 that is going to win on offshore drilling in Congres is worth it or not.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Actually, favored by a 51% majority now in CA (0.00 / 0)
I was shocked, but that's what the Field Poll said this week.  I'll go find the link.  

This is why I think Obama's position was reasonable.  In a frenzy like this, people get angry.  But oil leases take a long time to put out to bid and much longer to actually drill on.  Which is why I think that this kind of copmpromiose is good because it gets the money for efficiency and clean fuels quickly and perhaps by the time they could actually drill, it won't be economically as feasible.  After all, it isn't now on the 68 million acres they already have leases on but have yet to drill.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Obama Makes Major Error On Drilling | 97 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox