Obama Offshore Drilling Follow-up

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 14:30


Quick follow-up on my post yesterday on the politics of off-shoring drilling:

  • Friday night news dump: The story is getting a decent amount of play, but it is being overshadowed by the arguments over race, celebrity, etc. Low news coverage is one value to making a move like this on Friday. Also, that the campaign made the move on a Friday should be a clear sign it isn't a shift they are happy about, but rather which they feel they have been forced into.

  • A compromise is a shift: Two of the most common forms of push back in the comments contradict each other. It simply isn't possible, in terms of pure logic, for Obama to have not shifted his position and to also be supporting a compromise. A compromise is, by its very definition, a shift. So, either Obama is shifting his position in order to support a compromise, or he is holding fast on his position and hasn't changed anything. I think it is pretty clear that the former is what happened. And if the media calls it a shift, then they are actually being accurate, for once.

  • Don't compromise during campaigns: Even leaving the specific policy aside for a moment, the reason I don't like this compromise is that the move to the center meme hurt Obama, but the overseas trip, especially the Malaki timeline endorsement and the Berlin speech, helped Obama. The key difference is that in the latter Obama looked like a leader in Berlin and on Iraq, while on the former he looked like a value-less politician who was just trying to win at all costs. Granted, there is no way to know if this move will help him until the mid-week polls come out, but my thesis, based on past experience in this and other campaigns, is that this move will not help him.

  • No reason to expect good policy: While nothing has actually passed into law yet, the track record of "compromises" during the last eighteen months has been extremely negative. The Iraq "compromise" was a series of blank checks. The FISA "compromise" was pretty much the same thing. There is no precedent for "compromises" like this actually containing provisions that upset Republicans and / or conservatives. If you haven't grown skeptical of such compromise talk at this point, well, that is just foolish.

If Obama's poll numbers don't drop next week, and if the actual legislation that passes into law does so despite significant conservative Republican opposition, then I guess this won't be a terrible move. Until that time, however, it smacks to me of a major political mistake that will result in destructive legislation while adding credence to the attacks that Obama isn't leading, and is too easily persuaded by the political winds. We get bad legislation, and Obama's chances of winning the election are damaged. That does indeed strike me as a major error.
Chris Bowers :: Obama Offshore Drilling Follow-up

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Offshore Drilling Follow-up | 26 comments
Sure he shifted (4.00 / 1)
They obviously made the calculation that being attacked for not-leading on an issue a vast majority favor was the lesser of two evils.  
Politics (0.00 / 0)
Politically, I'm less sure this will hurt Obama in the same way FISA and other shifts hurt him.  When the people change their position for a reason they shouldn't mind politicians changing their position for the same reason.

Policy-wise we know the reason for the change isn't particularly good.  Offshore drilling will only save 6¢ a gallon and not until after any Obama presidency is complete.

So while I agree with the general notion that changing a position during a campaign is a bad idea, this has the framework of the exception: conditions changed since the campaign began and people changed their minds as a result of changes in conditions.

Yes (0.00 / 0)
Otherwise, you risk looking like George Bush.  "I'm the decider and I'm right and by God history will prove me correct so I don't have to change anything."  Note, of course, Bush changed his mind on issues during and then especialy after the campaign. Just not after he had decided.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
For the record... (4.00 / 2)
I didn't contradict myself... I said that he's compromising, and if you read his statement it's very clear that he even says he's compromising, as he still doesn't think offshore drilling will work to lower gas prices.  At the same time, though, he says he doesn't want it to be a roadblock to a better energy policy... which is why the Republicans are giving in on some things as well.

And that's exactly what a good compromise is... Democrats give in on something, Republicans give in on something. What's the saying?  "A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy."  That may be what's happening here.

But sure, go ahead and flip out at this, which makes the case that Obama is a flip-flopping jerk who has no values... I don't get the sense of that at all from his statement, or the supposed proposed legislation (which is why I find this a lot different than the FISA "compromise", which wasn't much of a compromise).

I do think that you and Matt are "chicken littling" here a bit more than necessary.

why are you so obsessed with Obama's statements? (0.00 / 0)
his statements have no value whatsoever in predicting what he'll actually do.

Did FISA teach you nothing? He stated he would filibuster telecom immunity and that he would restore the rule of law.

We ended up with a bill that even Republicans, like Kit Bond, praised as giving the White House "more than they had asked for". And Obama totally reversed his position. He didn't filibuster immunity, although Feingold and Dodd did. And he voted for a bill that gutted the oversight powers of the FISA court and granted immunity to the telecoms. He committed an act that changed the

On what planet is that a "compromise"?

Now this bill. Offshore drilling wasn't an issue until McCain and Bush started hyping it up, trying to find a crack in Obama's armor. They're telling everyone this'll lower gas prices immediately, even though that's bullshit. The questions in those Rasmussen polls explicitly suggest that drilling will lower gas prices. And when put that way, of course people are going to say yes.

This is the cheapest, most transparent kind of fearmongering--drill now or gas prices will be high! Instead of calmly explaining to the American people that more drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices, Obama simply switches his position again without putting up any resistance whatsoever, or even without a word of explanation.

Something isn't a compromise just because Obama says it's a compromise.

[ Parent ]
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
Umm, I'll just quote what was originally in post, since you clearly didn't feel the need to read it:

"I don't get the sense of that at all from his statement, or the supposed proposed legislation (which is why I find this a lot different than the FISA "compromise", which wasn't much of a compromise)."

So, I found the FISA "compromise" worse because, exactly as you say, it wasn't a compromise.  This, at least at a glance, appears to be different to me.

But go ahead and bitch about maintaining a certain purity in our candidates, even if the position is only popular in something like 20-30% of the electorate, another reason why this is a lot different than FISA (which had no popular support for it at all).

[ Parent ]
it's fearmongering (0.00 / 0)
all the polls which claim that drilling is so popular assume that drilling will lower gas prices. Attack that and the issue dies. Especially since polls indicate that most people suspect that high gas prices will be a fact of life, at least in the short term.

Obama will have to start educating people sometime, if he hopes to actually fix things in this country. You can't just go along and pander to voters and continue treating them like infants who can't bear to hear even the tiniest bit of bad news. That's what's gotten us into this mess.

What Obama has to do say is very simple. Offshore drilling won't immediately lower gas prices, and we should concentrate on helping develop alternative energy sources to get off of oil. What's so hard about that?

But go ahead and bitch about maintaining a certain purity in our candidates, even if the position is only popular in something like 20-30% of the electorate

This is ridiculous. Are you going to say Kerry's vote for the AUMF was a sensible compromise just because Bush's approval ratings were so high and so many people wanted war? Look how that one turned out.

This is a bad move that will anger many more people than it pleases, and it will dampen support for Obama's candidacy.

[ Parent ]
All Obama has to say... (0.00 / 0)
What Obama has to do say is very simple. Offshore drilling won't immediately lower gas prices, and we should concentrate on helping develop alternative energy sources to get off of oil. What's so hard about that?

Obama has been saying that. He has said it before, and he said it again when he proposed this compromise.

Attack that and the issue dies.

It must be a zombie issue!

But seriously...

Obama isn't going to change everyone's mind in the next 3 months. Keep in mind a lot of those who support offshore drilling fully realize it will not lower gas prices anytime soon. There are a lot of other reasons to support it, and he would have to address all of those.
And if he was to try to simply change everyone's minds, he would have to make it a top campaign priority. And he would be starting from a point where most voters disagree with him. You really want Obama running around for three months trying to convince the majority of Americans they are wrong? I'd rather he just win the damn election and then put that executive offshore drilling ban back in place.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 2)
Instead of calmly explaining to the American people that more drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices, Obama simply switches his position again without putting up any resistance whatsoever, or even without a word of explanation.

Ok, so have you read what Obama said? He didn't simply switch his position, he has been and still is explaining that offshore drilling is not a solution and he has indeed explained his justification for putting offshore drilling on the table as part of a bipartisan compromise.

Previously, Obama said that offshore drilling was a bad idea and he would not support it. Now he says offshore drilling is a bad idea but he will go along with it assuming it is part of a compromise. He has shifted his willingness to negotiate, not his opposition to the policy.



"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
And not just "go along with it" (4.00 / 1)
Accept a limited amount of drilling subject to strong environmental safeguards in specific places that are not the Pacific or North Atlantic Coasts or Alsaka Wildlife Refuge, and then only in trade for very substantial incentives for clean fuels and energy efficiency paid for by cancelling oil company tax breaks.  

Some of you are so knee-jerk I have to wonder.

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

[ Parent ]
Gulf of Mexico (4.00 / 1)
I finally actually bothered to read the real news report and discover:

Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels.

Excuse my West Coast elitism, but I don't give a damn care quite as much about the Gulf, which already has lots of drilling and doesn't touch my beloved Oregon coast.

I know, I'm evil.  They came for the Gulf first, and I said nothing...

Or, more politely, (0.00 / 0)
If they don't care enough about their coasts to fight for them, why should I risk mine to save theirs?

In fairness, hoveever, the Florida Senators and Governor are somewhat steamed because they think it would undo  environmental protections they recently enacted.

The real issue here is the degree to which the people of a state should have a veto--they do now on inshore leasing, but not beyond the 3-mile limit, IIRC.  

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

[ Parent ]
Odd (0.00 / 0)
I found it very odd that the 'gang of 10' compromise allowed for the included states to make their own decision - except for Florida. Somehow I imagine that in Obama's head he would want to allow Florida to do as they please.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Politically maybe not so stupid (4.00 / 2)
I think this was about Florida. Florida. Florida. And controlling the news cycle down there. His economic stimulus news got absolutely zero traction, getting lost in the race/britney crap and the hecklers. He needed headline making stuff to chase the McCain attacks away and this compromise is very popular in Florida.

I perused the Florida morning papers and he got positive coverage.

Speculation (0.00 / 0)
The thing is what you are arguing is pure speculation.

Yes that stuff could come true, but it is nothing but speculation and in my opinion probably incorrect.

Much like arguing against bipartisanship when it just got Net Neutrality effectively enforced. Which makes it much tougher for the Republicans to go against it.

Theres a saying that a software engineer will be their most dangerous when designing their second product.  Because they will do all the things they wanted to do in the first one in the second one.

Thats how I view this.  You are fighting the last battle and not seeing how the situation has changed.

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

Obama didn't shift on the utility of drilling (4.00 / 1)
He stated before that offshore drilling is not a worthwhile solution, and in his proposed compromise he restates that same fact. He has not shifted on whether or not offshore drilling is a good idea, he has shifted on whether or not it is 'off the table'. In doing so he appears more reasonable to the vast majority of the electorate that supports offshore drilling.

The strategy here is solid. First and foremost he weakens the one line of attack that was working for John McCain. Obama was getting beat up on his offshore drilling position and, since it has been the one and only issue that has given McCain traction, he was going to continue getting beat up on this at least until Congress reconvenes. This brings McCain back to his attack line of last resort - Obama is a flip flopper. This is just a judgment call on my part, but I think the flip-flopper theme will have a minimal impact at best. This is not a gaffe like Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it". It's a fairly minor shift that brings Obama closer in line with the (misguided) will of the electorate.  

Secondly, he reinforces the idea that he can 'work across the isle'. I don't care if you all think that is a load of bull because swing voters eat it up. Do you really think Obama polls worse than 'generic Dem' because of his own flaws? No, McCain is polling better than 'generic Rep' because he is well-known the the electorate as a moderate and has a long-established appeal to the center. McCain is being forced to the right by his base but he won't lose the center unless Obama makes a play for it. Obama doesn't need to move to the center, he just has to appeal to it. That seems to be exactly what he is trying to do.

As for all of the Very Serious concerns that each and every move Obama makes is a indicator as to how he will govern - well I think that is obviously BS. This is an election and he is trying to get elected, not govern. His concern now does not and should not go past November. I think his VP choice will be one of the few real indicators since it has consequences far beyond election day. Otherwise, I think it is silly to interpret electoral maneuvering as anything other than electoral maneuvering.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

In fairness, I think it is some indication (0.00 / 0)
He listens and he is flexible.  He reacts to events, taking in new information and calibrating his policies.  We have been so warped by 7 1/2 years of "my way or the highway and I'll let Cheney shoot you if you won't agree" that we mistake pragmatic policy flexibility for flip-flopping.  The GOP propaganda machine has spread it's tentacles much farther than I would ever have believed.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Did he ever say that it was off the table? (0.00 / 0)
If not, then Chris is wrong: he didn't switch his position and he is compromising. After all, it's clear from the available evidence that he still thinks drilling is a bad idea.
[ Parent ]
McCain polls better than the generic Republican not because he is a moderate (0.00 / 0)
He polls better than them because he is his own brand...and a fundemental part of that is that he has "integrity". Part of that supposed "integrity" is that he supposedly listens to his own voice which is not always in line with standard Republican ideas.  McCain is so identified in this way that even when he behaves otherwise it is discounted or rationalized away by lots of the media and the moderate Republicans and independents that he has appealed to.

That is why when Obama shifts his position it could harm him.  Because Obama does not have a settled identity.  and the shifting fits in too well with his bipartisan lets all get together.  Obama was hurt by the FISA compromise, uplifted then at the time by the trip. But this once again fits into a story line that is developing. Another part of the " he is just a celebrity"  attack is he is not a serious person becasue serious people have principles they adhere to.  And when did we in the netroots decide that adhering to principles is bad?

And yes there is no doubt this tells you how he will govern.  He believes in compromise....far more than the netroots used to.  If you don't like this, sorry this is how he would govern.    

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
McCain (0.00 / 0)
Good point on McCain.  When analyzing Obama we often forget that McCain factors in as well.  The Republicans didn't want him, but the backed into the best candidate they possibly could.

Fortunately, McCain also seems to be a somewhat incompetent candidate.

[ Parent ]
if Obama shifted his position, what did he shift from? (4.00 / 2)
his "new" position is: Expanded offshore drilling is a crock, but I would support a bill that includes it only if the bill includes a lot of investment for renewables, etc.

he has shifted his position only if his old position was: Expanded offshore drilling is a crock and I wouldn't support any bill that includes it.

Did Obama say previously that he wouldn't support any bill that includes expanded offshore drilling?

It's the right move. (0.00 / 0)
I hope you are wrong about the political implications of Obama's position because I think it is the best position.  I would make only one change: defer any legislation until the new administration is in town that way you have a better chance of getting a good deal for the rights to drill.

I think the current Democratic position is just not viable.  The sooner they get rid of it the better. Why, exactly, are the Democrats concerned with protecting the pristine beauty of Florida/California/Oregon beaches when the voters can't afford to drive there?

Uh (4.00 / 1)
Why, exactly, are the Democrats concerned with protecting the pristine beauty of Florida/California/Oregon beaches when the voters can't afford to drive there?

For some of us, it isn't that far of a drive.

Personally, like many people, I'm not against off-shore drilling, exactly.  I'm against oil rigs that ruin the beauty shoreline and I'm against oil spills.  Oil rigs three miles out that never leak or spill are just fine.

But what are my guarantees that they will never leak or spill?  How strong are the regulations and protections?  What technologies are they using to prevent any environmental damage?  The answers to these questions all matter.

[ Parent ]
There is something very big you (0.00 / 0)
and Matt are missing in your analysis of this issue: McCain flipped Flopped on this issue too.  

I think you are seriously overreacting here.  

But if you want a parallel in Florida, the right one would be to Gore's position on Elian in 2000.  In Washington it was universally seen as pandering.  But there is no doubt it helped on the edges in the Cuban Community.

I will repeat: what bothers me is the inability of our side to drive the agenda.  Do you think Rush would be spends his radio show responding?  No - he tries to drive the agenda with his issues.

Liberals I think have learned the wrong lesson from 1988, 2000 and 2004.  The key is NOT to react to everything the GOP throws at us.

Is it to make THEM respond to us.

Right now that doesn't feel to me like it is happening.  

 

I think Obama's shift was necessary. (0.00 / 0)
New offshore drilling is certainly no long term solution to energy supply. The amounts there are small compared to our current usage. Certainly it will inflate oil company profits even more when it finally does come online.

But renewable replacements also will take a long time to develop. The big danger is that we would continue to depend exclusively on fossil fuels for the bulk of our energy needs. If renewables cannot make a really big contribution in 10 years, then there will be no alternative to a bleak dependence on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Demand way bigger than supply = huge oil company profits. It will also mean personal hardship for many who will not be able to afford the high prices.

The only viable outcome is to have renewables coming online as oil supply decreases. Even then, we will need lots of oil until that happens. The extra bit from drilling might help a smooth transition.

The Republicans think (or claim to "think") that we can drill our way to "energy independence". Dream on. That is a fallacy and Obama and the Democrats need to attack that fallacy. But the amount of education possible during a political campaign is quite limited in the context of Republican appeals to fear of high prices and shortages. More education will be possible if and after Obama wins.

Politically, if Obama wins and oil prices do skyrocket, how long will he survive if he can't demonstrate that he spared no effort to increase supply? How effective would be his Presidency? Rich people can afford $10 a gallon gas and higher. You and I can't. Many would blame Obama.

The key is to get an Al Gore style program started in 2009. Gore's last speech certainly pointed in the right direction. If the price of doing that is to compromise with oil companies on drilling, then that is a price to be paid. It provides political insurance, and may actually be necessary for a smooth transition. His shift is correct both politically and on the substance of the issue.

Yes, the Democrats and Obama do need to go on the attack more. Way more. Having covered his flank on oil drilling, he is in a good position to attack the Republicans on their obstructionism of renewable energy initiatives. Will he do this now? Will he do it on other issues? I sure hope so. Otherwise, his victory is quite doubtful.  

 

Hmm (0.00 / 0)
Its funny how Chris thinks this will Hurt and Jerome is gung ho saying this will help.  I guess we shall see... while I don't like it, I have to say I hope Jerome is right... I also hope that whatever legislation is passed is better than anticipated.
Obama Offshore Drilling Follow-up | 26 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox