And Obama Caves on Drilling

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 21:30


Obama said he might support more drilling if it were paired with comprehensive energy conservation measures and alternative energy development.  So what's the headline?

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

I'm sure the Republicans are going to praise Obama for his flexible stance now that he's decided to push a compromise with their oh so practical agenda.  There's no way they will use this to push the idea that he's unprincipled.  They wouldn't dare set up a web site called http://www.bothwaysbarack.com/

Awesome.  And awesome position that he's put Pelosi in, who has refused to allow a vote on driling in the House.

Matt Stoller :: And Obama Caves on Drilling

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

And Obama Caves on Drilling | 60 comments
Pathetic (4.00 / 2)

Wrong (4.00 / 5)
He's taken exactly the right stance. More drilling, but only in conjunction with increased fuel efficiency and more money for renewables.  It also steals the issue away from McCain -- and this is the one pocketbook issue where McCain could inflict damage.

Chris Bowers pointed this out a few weeks ago:

Maybe I am just too tired right now, but I am suddenly of the opinion that Democrats should just completely capitulate on the offshore oil drilling question. In fact, they should also capitulate on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. While we are at it, let's institute a gas tax holiday, and release the strategic petroleum reserve.

We should cave on all of these issues, but do so with an important, public caveat. We should state, as loudly as possible, that none of this will actually lower gas prices, but that they only way to prove to the American people that it won't lower gas prices is to let Republicans have their way. Say that Republicans are good at selling things, but their ideas such don't' work.

Let's face it: the best political strategy Democrats have had over the past eight years is to make sure that there were always enough Democrats to capitulate with the governing conservative and (typically) Republican coalition, but not enough to make it a majority of the Democratic Party. This way, heinous Republican policies that benefit large corporations and cronies, but hurt most people, are passed into law, while most of the Democratic Party can claim they opposed such policies. The end result is that people stop believing Republicans, and start believing that Democrats were right all along when they said Republicans would be terrible if they were ever given control of the federal government.

Democrats are only moving toward power nationwide because Republicans were finally given sweeping trifecta control of D.C. this past decade, and quite predictably made things a lot worse for the country. It was actually Republican competence at passing their desired legislation that finally did Republicans in as a political force for the next several years.

If we can only prove them wrong but letting their idiotic ideas pass, then let this one pass immediately, and prove to people that it won't work before the election. Then, once the election is over, we can revoke all of the idiotic ideas, hopefully with comparatively less damage done than in, say, Iraq.


Sounds similar to the new Obama plan to me!  Smart politics.
[ Parent ]
Oh yes! (4.00 / 5)
because "stealing" issues from the Republicans worked so well in the last Presidential election.

We can get better fuel efficiency and more money for renewables without this BS. I'm tired of running scared from the minority.

[ Parent ]
More drilling would only make sense in conjunction (0.00 / 0)
with requiring the oil companies to first drill on the oil reserves that they already have.  In addition, there should be a rider requiring them to seel the drilled oil to the United states (with no equivalent drawdown in other sales to the US).  If this passes, no actual drilling will happen.  They will stake oil claims, and sit on them until the price goes up.
[ Parent ]
The awesome part (4.00 / 2)
Heh... now given this was, of course, exactly what this site was suggesting he do. :P

But the awesome thing about this is the lesson it teaches the McCain campaign-- "Whine for three weeks and you'll get your way"

McCain (4.00 / 2)
Or, you could look at it this way...

The ONLY issue McCain had any traction with was offshore drilling. Nothing else the old shithead could do even elicited a glance from the media. Offshore drilling was becoming the central issue of the McCain campaign, and it was working.

Barack Obama just castrated John McCain. McCain has nothing else and Obama knows it. Worst case scenario, we get limited offshore drilling coupled with mediocre renewable energy provision - and we probably get a Democratic President out of the deal.

Bad policy? Probably - but we can decide when we see the details. Good politics? Absolutely.  

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

[ Parent ]
Only now they can go back to their old personality based canards (4.00 / 1)
We never actually talk about substance in presidential campaigns.  They now just get to label him a flip flopper and an élitist panderer.
[ Parent ]
Which Is Worse, The Politics or the Policy? (4.00 / 7)
Terrible as the politics of this may be, I think the policy is much, much worse.  And that's the way I think it usually is with Obama.  The whole notion of compromising on policy with a gang of sociopaths is inherently delusional in and of itself.

"Well, then, it's agreed.  We'll burn down the barn and go get the water to put it out at the same time.  That way everyone's happy."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

More like... (4.00 / 4)
"You can have one cookie if you eat all your vegetables"

He isn't caving (yet), he is using a carrot to lure a bunch of jackasses down the road he wants them to follow. That's of course a rosy outlook, and only time will tell how true it is.

And when did "compromise" become such a dirty word? It's not like he gets to choose who he compromises with. He must compromise with politicians that were elected by millions of Americans, and who support positions supported by millions of Americans. Just because those politicians are absolutely wrong about everything, doesn't mean you can ignore them. They are still in Congress, they still get (re)elected, they still get a vote.  

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

[ Parent ]
Compromising with bad faith negotiators is impossible (4.00 / 4)
The republicans have undercut the democrats on almost every negotiation through their bad faith means.  They dangle a carrot, and threaten the stick, and when the dems choose the carrot, it's always a wax carrot.  Yet they opt for the carrot over and over, when they just need to hit the bastards with their own stick.
[ Parent ]
So what is your solution? (4.00 / 1)
Congress simply never passes another bill? Again, you don't get to choose your negotiating partner. I'm sure Palestine would love to negotiate with Saudi Arabia instead of Israel, but that simply isn't an option. Democrats would love to just negotiate with other Democrats - but that isn't the situation they are in.

I don't see how we hit them with a stick. Americans vote for Republicans - reliably, consistently, repeatedly. Republicans have legitimate power and we can't just take it away. Maybe that power will continue to rapidly fade, but until such time as Republicans don't wield power on the national level, they are the only ones around with which to negotiate.


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

[ Parent ]
We beat them in elections (4.00 / 4)
by having clear contrasting ideas that earn us a clear electoral mandate.  What we don't do is cave in to their position in the midst of the campaign.  This isn't about congressional horse trading.  This is about a rhetorical cave-in during a campaign.

And also, there are things that we shouldn't compromise on at all, like the Fourth Amendment.

[ Parent ]
Also, (4.00 / 1)
The Israeli-Arab negotiations have gone nowhere exactly due to bad faith negotiation.  The only real progress was the Camp David talks in the seventies where Carter managed to create a forum where both sides felt like they could speak candidly and honestly, and have a realistic chance of having their needs met.  Modeling US negotiations on Israel is just another way of saying that we should just accept negotiations that go almost nowhere.
[ Parent ]
the Obama definition of compromise: (3.00 / 4)
  1. Promise to do the right and sensible thing in order to get the nomination.
  2. When the political pressure gets too hot, totally reverse yourself and don't even bother to fight for what you promised to fight for.
  3. Give the corrupt corporate interests and Beltway insiders more than what they're asking for. Call all it a "reasonable compromise" that will make everyone happy
  4. Soothe angered Democrats with praise and flattery. Tell them their voice maters and if it's a "deal-breaker", that's OK with you. But you're still going to do what you damn well please.
  5. Get elected president.
    6. Between this and "clean coal" and nuclear, he's getting steadily less green by the minute.

Much anger in you, Yoda senses. n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
the thin line between good and evil runs through all of us (0.00 / 0)
Obama is not perfect. Obama is not altogether corrupt. He's human, and I think limpidglass has captured a nice sampling of some of the darker impulses that are surely driving our nominee for president.
[ Parent ]
Why troll-rate this comment? (0.00 / 0)
You might not agree with it, but it's not that different a sentiment than what the proprietors of this site have expressed from time to time.
[ Parent ]
I don't get it.. (0.00 / 0)
I don't get why Obama and his surrogates didn't try harder to smack this issue down like they did with the gas tax holiday gimmick. On the other hand, this might not lose him any votes in the actual base as they seem, from the polls I've seen, to support offshore drilling for the most part.
for the most part? (4.00 / 1)
70% of the country supports more drilling, and gas prices are close to the top issue for voters. Obama would be committing political malpractice not to budge on the issue.

It's not like he can't stop additional drilling after the election. Right now he's gotta get elected, and I was hoping for him to lighten up on this issue a bit.

Even Jerome Armstrong, with whom I rarely agree, has been pushing for Obama to be more open to drilling simply for electoral purposes.

You take drilling off the table, and McCain has nothing. Absolutely nothing -- except Britney, Paris and Moses.

[ Parent ]
The more things "change" . . . . (0.00 / 0)
Who knew Obama meant his positions when he was talking about "change"?

Sadly, another promising candidate goes down the same center-line road.

Where are the True Progressives?  Kucinich and Feingold are becoming very lone voices in a huge wilderness . . . .

Did you some how miss the comming together (0.00 / 0)
part, the I'm willing to compromise to get important legislation passed.

I dont know how to break this to you but Kucinich could never get elected.

[ Parent ]
Obama made a decision (4.00 / 2)
He decided the "flip flop" theme is tired and weak and won't have a serious impact. I agree with him.

I want to see more details of his proposal before I make a rash judgment. From what I have read so far, this has a few sensible provisions. It only allows drilling off the coast of the South, it requires the state to approve it, and the state gets a share of revenue (how much is one thing I want to know). None of these provisions make this a good idea, but the 'compromise' component might. Exactly what kind of renewable energy component would this bill have?

If I were to see the proposed legislation in its entirety, and it a)contained tax increases for oil corporations, b) contained an additional windfall profit tax and c)contained SUBSTANTIAL provisions for renewable energy development, then I could get behind this move. I'm not optimistic that it will satisfy my reasonable criteria, but I'm not certain it won't, yet.

Links appreciated!

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

Am I mistaken? (0.00 / 0)
Obama is not simply endorsing the 'Gang of 10' bill, right? If so, I am very disappointed. It includes provisions to fund """"clean coal""" and nuclear energy. From what I am reading Obama is more broadly supporting an unspecific compromise, and not explicitly this bullshit giveaway to the energy industry.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 3)
I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.

But he leaves the door open to the possibility of some small amount of drilling IF the rest of the bill was stronger in other areas.

But of course we must all freak out and go insane. What else to do?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Freaking out is apropo (4.00 / 3)
When a Democrat starts talking like this, you can impugn his, or her motives and intentions and usually be vindicated. Obama sounds more and more like Bill Clinton every single day. He makes a statement, then his surrogates and acolytes try their best to distill from the encrusted shit that it is, some shining diamond, some silver lining that is usually the product of wishful thinking, like his support for the FISA bill (he's going to prosecute the telecoms!, no he's not) You do not compromise, or show quarter to a dying opponent, you let them seek terms, not vice versa, when is this common sense to be learned by Democrats? To pretend that off-shore drilling, an activity opposed by the residents of just about every seaboard state outside of Texas and Louisiana, could somehow lose the election for Obama is as laughable as saying advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq would lose the election for Obama, it's a ludicrous fantasy of the Broders and Roves of the world.

When blackouts rolled through California, Dick Cheney shamelessly used the occasion to attack tree huggers for blocking the construction of new power plants. Cheney and the GOP knew what was causing those blackouts, they didn't care, they used an opportunity created by their own failed policies to push more of the same. That is the political dynamic Republicans understand and Democrats do not. Obama could have slammed the door shut on off-shore drilling by exploiting the recent Supreme Court decision that all but let Exxon off the hook for the Exxon Valdez spill. He could have used the specter of potential oil spills off the coast of Florida and the barrier islands of the Carolinas and Georgia to scare hell out of voters in those states and maybe direct a few more into his column. He could have explained that even under the most optimistic of estimates, off-shore drilling would not alter the price, or availability of oil, as such supplies would be but a blip on the world market. He could have explained that such supplies, as abundant, or limited as they might be, wouldn't even come to market for 10-15 years. He chose triangulation instead. It's a tired, pathetic story.

And to Jerome Armstrong, or whoever advocates selling out ANWR for political expediency. ANWR isn't about politics, it's about ecology. Once the ecology is disrupted, or destroyed, it's gone. It's not negotiable. If Democrats can't make the point, which has been clear since Reagan's second-year in office, that right-wing orthodoxy doesn't work, capitulating on yet another issue to demonstrate the ineptitude of right-wing orthodoxy isn't likely to make the point either. By continually seeing the Republican side of the argument you are undermining the very reason Democrats had in opposing it to begin with. Drilling is either a good, or bad thing for narrative purposes. Politics is about creating a narrative.  

[ Parent ]
Politics is about people (0.00 / 0)
Obama's been talking like this since he entered politics. He is saying if a progressive energy plan can get passed with a small amount of drilling he won't rule it out.

Also offshore drilling has been bought by the public beacuse we have not done anything (until Obama says maybe and then freakout time!)

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

Obama isn't going to use fear politics. Sorry. And he's not selling out on ANWR. Obama's going to do what it takes to pass a progressive energy package.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
He's not going to sell out ANWR? (0.00 / 0)
You're sure? Off-shore drilling was anathema a few months ago, now all the sudden he's maybe for it. I'm sorry, he's not credible. Democrats are not credible anymore. That might sound unfair to you, but it's true, who believes anything they say? They squandered their credibility the last 25-years and it'll take a Herculean effort on their part to restore it, and it won't be restored with more triangulation. When Democrats start talking like Bill Clinton, you damn well better be frightened. When you hope to get the best price, you don't start out by saying you're flexible. It's time for Democrats to act like a majority party, they set the agenda, let the other party nibble around the edges.

Anyone remember McGovern-Hatfield? A radical plan to end the Vietnam War that scared everyone into supporting the moderate (relative to McGovern-Hatfield) Cooper-Church bill that effectively ended the war anyway. Democrats today would use Cooper-Church as a publicly announced starting point for negotiation, and would end up with something much worse. As Casey Stengel said to the expansion Mets, "can't anybody here play this game?"  

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
have fun living in that world. I prefer to try to do stuff.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (4.00 / 4)
"Drilling" is really the U.S. government donating the entire perimeter of the continent to private industry.  Like giving oil futures for free to the wealthiest ten people on the planet.  Absolutely obscene.  
Well... (0.00 / 0)
That pretty much sucks.

Obama's back peddling on this issue also puts lots of down ticket Dems who have come out strong against offshore drilling in an awkward position.

I'm sure his envio endorsers, like Friends of the Earth, are  not pleased about this.  

New politics (0.00 / 0)
And what position does this put our downticket candidates in? Do they have any cover to oppose the drilling sham now?
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
but I think down ticket dems would be happy to be able to compromise on this.  Look at the polling on it.  
[ Parent ]
Obama needs to become president (4.00 / 2)
in order to head off drilling at the pass.

To paraphrase Steve Martin, politics is not pretty.

Do you want a Republican president in charge of the EPA for 4 more years?

I know this is all cliche but it deserves repeating.

it also deserves rebutting (0.00 / 0)
1) what is the proof or even the suggestion that he will "head off drilling at the pass"?
2) What is the likelihood that a Republican President is going to get elected?  According to 538, before this change, it was about 32-33%
3) What is the likelihood that a Republican President would be able to get anything done, particularly one as spectacularly incompetent on policy as McCain facing a Democratic Congress-- without the complicity of Democratic Congress people who use exactly the kind of reasoning or worse that Obama is using here?

I don't think the point here is Obama becoming president - it's, as someone above argued - the specifics of what he's going to get in exchange for caving.  If it's one drilling site combined with $6 billion for renewable energy research and funding into wind and solar power, then it's a great deal regardless of how it gets spun.  If it's the donation of the coastline to the private sector for oil futures (as someone suggested above) in exchange for the funding of a single solar power research plant in Illinois, well then that's the opposite extreme.  In order to judge "good" and "bad" here as well as what kind of governing President Obama might be, we need to know the specifics of exactly what he's willing to substantively demand on policy in exchange for bad press, making other people look bad, and caving on discourse.  After all, there was no reason he had to say what he said out loud ;

[ Parent ]
I don't think he's going to get much bad press over this (0.00 / 0)
There are far worse things than being described as "shifting" your position.  And when you shift in the direction of something that really is popular, it's at least defensible on political grounds.  The FISA move was bad in every respect because there wasn't even any media clamor or public sentiment in favor of it; few people were voicing any real desire for retroactively legitimizing the administration's lawlessness.

But gas prices are quantitatively different: everyone's feeling the prices in a very tangible way, the press is itching to paint Democrats as in hock to DFH environmentalists, etc.  The "let's have drilling AND conservation" is what the media has decided the "moderate, sensible" position is, and I really don't think there's enough time to debate that frame between now and the election.  I'm not saying this is an ideal move by Obama, or that he's going to get awesome coverage out of it or whatever, but it does seem like a defensible tactical move to me.

[ Parent ]
makes sense (0.00 / 0)
Where i have a different perspective, I think, is that i'm more interested in the material consequences (both short and long term) of whatever deal he's cutting here.  I'd like to know what concessions Obama and whoever else is getting for drilling and what concessions they're making.  Without knowing that, I reserve judgement until I find out--this is what he's earned from  me, despite boatloads of criticism on many issues that I have for him.
[ Parent ]
good points (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, what's in the actual compromise would affect my thinking here.
[ Parent ]
Yet again (0.00 / 0)
We are being asked to trust that Obama will do the right thing once in office, even though we have been given absolutely no tangible reason to put our faith in him.

This is one reason I didn't want Obama to be the nominee from the beginning - people who should know better are inexplicably in the tank for the guy. Instead of holding his feet to the fire, too many progressives are running around apologizing for him. (I now appreciate Open Left more than ever for refusing to do the latter.)  

[ Parent ]
Pelosi can still do the right thing (0.00 / 0)
If she wants to help the Democratic ticket (and, oh yea, the environment) she will stick to her guns. McSlime loses his issue and there is no drilling.

Frankly, if she couldn't hold the caucus together when the issue was the U.S. Constitution, she had no chance on this anyway. I was reminded standing in line at the grocery store listening to two people in front of me, that a large segment of the public is too freaking stupid to realize that drilling is not going to lower the price of gas. Like pigeons in the lab experiment, they see the kernel of corn through the glass and  try to walk straight to it because they think that is the only way to get it and they aren't smart enough to go around.

They can't legitimately complain that Obama has changed position on this issue because so has McCain. And so far at least, Obama hasn't said it is a good idea, just a necessary evil to break the Republican gridlock and move the energy policy forward.

That is all the lipstick I have for this pig.


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


It's called logrolling. . . (4.00 / 7)
He's not flipflopping, he's negotiating.  He said he'd accept drilling if there was increased fuel standards and alternative energy research.  This is what a negotiation is.  We forget that because Bush's method of negotiation was take it or leave it.  Also, remember as President he's going to negotiate with the Dems, not the GOP.  

This is what Obama does.  This is who he is.  How do you think he got the police and DA's to support his bill requiring the videotaping of all interrogations in Illinois?  He negotiated with them.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
If passing a 80 percent reduction by 2050 cap and auction plan with a Apollo style investment needs a small amount of offshore drilling to pass I'll take it.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Not content (4.00 / 2)
to let republicans be the only ones attacking Obama, Matt is ready to follow up that week with a week of attacks from the left.  

How long will it take before we see a slew of personal attack by the left?

Yes, let's just put away our brains until November (4.00 / 1)
and this can be a full-on propaganda site and we can all be cheerleaders as our nominee sells us out over and over again.
[ Parent ]
This is a tough one... (0.00 / 0)
Polling shows a lot of support for it, and it's an easy issue for people to understand (at least, as far as what it means to be for it or against it).  Now, people may NOT understand that it wouldn't change the price of gas now, or the environmental impact of it...  The question is, is this a battle worth fighting right now?

Here's what I'm thinking... this is something we can "compromise" by basically making sure that there are environmental regulations, etc... as well as the "comprehensive" part that Obama is talking about, basically pushing renewable sources, etc.  As we all know, Off-shore drilling won't produce anything for years... so, it seems to me that we could possibly stop this in the future before it becomes too big a deal while we also start investing in (and realizing) much more renewable energy.  There will hopefully be a "tipping point" of sorts where renewables and alternative fuel sources become more efficient and economical than pure gasoline... at that point, Off-shore drilling becomes a moot point, and we can probably more or less safely kill it.

To be honest, this isn't nearly as maddening to me as FISA... FISA was an issue that most people weren't aware of or didn't care about, or basically just thought that our current laws were working just fine... it was simply not going to be a big political issue, but Obama thought it would be so voted to pull it off the non-existent table.  This one is different... I'm just not sure it's worth it for Obama to try arguing so forcefully against something that has a huge amount of popular support.

Want to add one more point... (4.00 / 1)
The other way we could look at this is that Obama is actually listening to what people are saying (ie, trying to represent constituents, or in his case, the country that he is intending to lead).  How many times do we complain that our President/Senator/Rep isn't representing their constituency, or the popular opinion?  We've certainly done it quite a bit for that little thing called the Iraq war...

Well, now here's something that somewhere between 60-75% of people supposedly support based on recent polling, and while we may not like it, Obama is listening to this one.  Our best hope is to roll with it and try to change the basis for which there is so much support for it (ie, lower gas prices and cheap alternatives/renewables).

[ Parent ]
I'd love to see the polling (0.00 / 0)
state by state, because I can guarantee that every state from Maine to Florida, from California to Washington is not for this, and the presidency is won state by state. Off-shore drilling causes spills and accidents, they are inevitable, they happen more frequently then most realize. Let an oil slick wash up on Daytona Beach, or at a national seashore like Hatteras, or Canaveral, or Cumberland Island, and see how popular off-shore drilling is. Democrats don't educate, so why should anyone be surprised when the public is confused? How do you expect the public to have clarity when they don't have the information? Conservatives have never accepted public opinion as is, they pull it, they coax it, they try to shape it, they propagate lies in order to sell their agenda, but they don't say, heck, national health care is as popular an idea as social security, let's support it.

What I find most peculiar about those who cite polls to justify what politicians like Obama just did is that they only cite them when the accommodation is to a right-wing position. Old habits die hard. Too many Democrats still buy into the frames, they truly believe that if you don't tact to the right you'll lose. When overwhelming poll numbers tell Democrats that trade agreements are anathema to the public, or that higher taxes on buyout tycoons is agreeable, they don't rush out and publicly agree. Republicans certainly don't, and it has done them little harm in the last 25-years.  

[ Parent ]
You asked... (0.00 / 0)
FL - 57% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

CA - 51% in favor.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...
Rasmussen's slightly older report has it basically even between favoring and not favoring if you'd prefer... and THAT'S CALIFORNIA.

WA - 48% in favor (41% opposed)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

ME - 55% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

OH - 64% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

CO - 56% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

NM - 63% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

MO - 67% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

NC - 60% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

WI - 61% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

MI - 62% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

GA - 64% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

OR - 51% in favor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

I'm sorry... but in general, the country is overwhelmingly in favor of it, particularly in battlegrounds that Obama needs, and even in coastal states.  It's weakest support is on the west coast, but even there it looks like the electorate is in slight favor of it, or split.  Extremely high gas prices snuck up on us in the past year or so and as such, the public opinion on this has flipped substantially.  It would require a lot of education to get people to where we want them on this issue.

Here's an idea... When it comes up with McCain (which it obviously will, probably tomorrow even), Obama can say that actually, he has a much better proposal for the offshore drilling... with better environmental standards and the "comprehensive" strategy to go with it... this is actually something that we can turn against McCain as having the superior position on the offshore oil, and at the same time it acts as an educational tool about the dangers and futility of offshore oil in the first place.  Then, as we transition to alternatives and potentially get fuel prices back down, we can flip the public opinion on offshore oil anyway before it's done too much damage.

[ Parent ]
Not convinced by those numbers (0.00 / 0)
Ask the following questions: Would you favor off-shore oil drilling if such drilling would not result in lower gasoline prices? Would you favor off-shore drilling if a high likelihood existed of a spill which could effect the state's tourism trade? etc. The numbers would plummet. Obama's rhetoric comes off as just more poll-driven Democratic opportunism. It's not even clear to me that the questions being asked by Rasmussen are anything but generic. Do you favor off-shore drilling? Or are you asking a resident of Naples, or Palm Beach, if they favor drilling off the coast of Florida, perhaps in sight of their beaches? Big difference. Easy for a North Carolinian to support off-shore drilling when the Outer Banks, or Cape Lookout aren't effected.

You could run commercials in Florida tomorrow that juxtaposed a picture of a polluted beach with a narration that stated the unequivocal economic fact that even if large quantities of oil were found anywhere off the coast of the United States it would not effect price, or availability one bloody cent. How quickly do you wager support for drilling would last? We're seeing opposition to off-shore wind farms simply because of the sight lines and some often unfounded concerns about birds and such.  Obama could have blown this up, he could have educated with his bully pulpit, and he didn't, in fact he reinforced a Republican canard. How long are Democrats going to allow themselves to be bullied by circumstances of the other guys making? Stop talking about off-shore drilling which will have no substantive effect on gas prices, and start going after the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which was specifically enacted so companies like Enron could speculate in energy futures, and avoid market regulation in doing so.

This is the rather profound difference between the two parties. The GOP will seize upon an exigent circumstance to push an agenda. They used 9/11 to get us into Iraq. During the blackouts in California they tried, unsuccessfully, to use it as an excuse to roll back environmental regs. If there is a mass shooting they try to push for concealed weapons laws. Every economic downturn is an excuse for a tax break, etc. Democrats on the other hand never seize opportunities that 1) put the GOP in a defensive posture 2) may actually result in good progressive legislation being enacted. Energy prices are high, we know that speculation has a lot to do with it, so the logical step would be to push for re-regulation which would have a positive effect on gasoline prices, and would push the discourse to the Democrat's advantage, and away from off-shore drilling. The Republicans have a plan, dictate the agenda, either directly, by controlling the levers of power, or indirectly by making such a mess of things that when the Democrats have power, they can do nothing but try and clean up the mess left for them.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, these are arguments that COULD be made... (0.00 / 0)
Maybe they'd have an effect... I don't know.  The numbers look bad though, and asking follow-ups like that, while could be somewhat informative as far as strategies to employ against it, isn't really useful as far as a public opinion poll goes (and would basically be another form of push-polling).

But gas prices are something people understand very simply, and when they're spending upwards of $60-$100 to fill up their tanks, they take notice... they understand the kind of direct impact that has on their lives.  Yes, we know Offshore drilling sucks, and that it won't reduce gas prices for a long time, etc, etc... but a lot of people have the impression that this is something that should be done... It could be as simple as "So what if it takes a long time... gas prices are just going to keep going up, may as well have something to help with that."

[ Parent ]
Are the Democrats just a poll-driven party? (0.00 / 0)
Your arguments would indicate that they are. We know they are. Bill Clinton was the master of this game, and where did it get us? The Republicans don't do this. They don't trim their sails according to a poll result, especially when the poll results are a factor of ignorance. They take to the airwaves with a concerted message and push the discourse. They push the issue until it gains traction in their favor, usually by lying about the issue. Democrats need not lie, the issues will always favor their policy prescriptions. Obama's comments have reduced his flank to disorder. People are irate. They're confused. Witness how well the GOP plays the game, even when losing badly. Instead of punishing McCain and the GOP on speculators in the energy futures market, something that really does drive energy prices, he's talking about off-shore drilling. Obama seems poised to make the same mistakes every Democrat since Humphrey has made. When will he learn? When he's about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
[ Parent ]
Polling (0.00 / 0)
They support it because they believe it will bring down prices.  He could have explained that it would not.
[ Parent ]
Yes, we know he COULD make that argument.. (4.00 / 1)
And he has been... and these numbers haven't really been budging.  It would take a major event, like a really well-publicized oil-spill that, say, destroys a beach community, to probably quickly reverse these numbers.  As it is, this is something that would take a very long time to move... Something that we should work on, especially if Obama becomes president.
[ Parent ]
yeah, Obama sucks (4.00 / 2)
He's a politician.

Let's keep pecking at him from the left, while McCain keeps pecking at him from the right.  That way, Obama will lose, but we'll keep our purity.  And that's what really matters, isn't it?

Where have we heard this blarney before? (4.00 / 1)
The only influence you have over politicians is to go after them on the issues. How long have you been following politics? You don't get anything without demanding it. It's not purity, it's pragmatism. You're not going to get anything out of Obama, or the Democrats without making them give it to you. Obama is pandering. He's pandering when he doesn't need to. It's about time some on the Democratic side learned this lesson--the so-called left position, is the majority position. Stop running from them and start embracing them. Obama isn't going to lose this election because he's opposed to off-shore drilling, or for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or against telecom immunity.  
[ Parent ]
Oh yes (0.00 / 0)
the dreaded "maybe" pander.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Is Obama a "Bush Dog", or is he pre-empting right-wing issues? (0.00 / 0)
I support Obama for President. Strongly.

But there are areas where I'm disappointed.

He's capitulated on FISA, he's giving way on drilling, he's giving way on giving federal money to religious charities. Capitulation on FISA qualifies many Ds in Congress as a "Bush Dog".

OTOH, after a couple of weeks of rumbling about inconsistency, it does seem like the ways that Obama has "compromised" has neutralized the opposition, at least in part.

But if Obama would just stand strong, could this be a turnout election, sort of a reverse of 2004, where liberal turnout is maximized by a leader who is standing firm?

Or has Obama's team come to the conclusion that there is no way to maximize turnout, at least in the under-30 constituency that's one of his core groups?

Or are you paying attention to the ground game? (0.00 / 0)
Most people do not franticly check blogs and cable news on the ground.

Obama's campaign is doing larger turnout operations then any other campaign in history.

But if he'd just stood firm on a few issues that 99 percent of the population could care less on hundreds of millions of people would rush to the polls the moment they started. Right?

Obama's team has come to the conclusion that they have to maximize turnout to win and that's exactly what they are doing.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Anyone still remember Vin Jones' speech? (4.00 / 1)
And his call not to "drill and burn," but to "invest and invent?"  

He didn't call for raising CAFE standards on SUVs, he called for solar panels on every house in America.

"If we drill and burn, we'll bake the planet."

I notice no mention of Gore's call to overhaul the electrical grid, that should be our federal highways program for the next decade.  This is what happens when lawyers set the agenda.

Vin Jones dared people to imagine a world where we got ourselves off our fossil fuels habit.

Obama is selling breakfast cereal.

Oh noes! (0.00 / 0)
First off his name is VAN JONES. Anyone who mildly cared or followed what Van Jones does wouldn't spell his name Vin Jones, TWICE.

Oh noes! He didn't talk about Gore and VAN Jones when asked about a energy bill pending in Congress. The horror! Sure he put out a statement praising Gore during that speech and Gore has enthusiastically endorsed and advised him. What does that matter? Sure he adopted Green for All's Green Job's plan. But what of that? I'm sure "Vin Jones" is furious that Obama isn't copying his speeches word for word.

Also, what do you have against breakfast cereal?  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Terrible (4.00 / 1)
This move by Obama is terrible.  He could have used his brilliant persuasive skills to explain to the American people that drilling will not bring down gas prices.  he could have talked about industry profits and the economics of oil.  This should be a bottom line issue for the Dems on drilling and they go from there with other compromises.  The only bright side is that we are seeing now exactly what we are going to get from Obama, so we can be ready to continue organizing rather than breathing a sigh of relief.  The polling on drilling is what it is because people don't understand the issue.  He dropped the ball big time in not explaining it, demonstrating just more of the same old same old.
And Obama Caves on Drilling | 60 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