I think I'm beginning to like Obama's position on drilling.

I agree with Obama that it won't do much for oil prices, but if Republicans are unwilling to do what we need to do otherwise, and if we can do it in a controlled and limited way, then why not just give it to them?

Then people will again understand that its not the drilling and the Democrats who are screwing things up and they will realize that Republican ideas are worthless.

And how about if we build a refinery in sight of your house and all the tar that washes up on my local beaches gets collected and dumped on your front yard.

But that's different, huh?

It's not an environmental stance, because we'll be drilling for oil as much as we can, given the fact that the world still runs on oil. The only question is where we'll be drilling.

There's a pretty good argument that it's *better* to drill in the US, because we're more environmentally friendly than most places in the world.

The Not In My Backyard argument seems pretty selfish. Certainly, there are areas where we really do need to avoid drilling.

Try peeking at my other post in this thread to see if it doesn't at least come closer to addressing your concerns than just giving in on offshore drilling.

I don't think we are going to need them ala peak oil.

Yes, we need to update refineries so they can process more sour crude, but that is about it.

Absolutely. We're the top consumers, so why shouldn't we bare the drilling burden? You want to reduce global oil consumption? Start drilling in Americans' backyards.

Then rock on. As long as rules are in place to make sure that the company who makes the mess has to completely clean it up, of course.

your logic sounds much like a freeper's logic with regard to things such as the patriot act, military commissions act, FISA, etc. In other words, lets fight to defend our constitutional way of life by attacking our constitution. Or lets protect our environment from unnecessary drilling by drilling.

:crazy:

and we won't have the next generation of energy sources in place to prevent a whole lot of suffering.

When I think of the trade off between drilling offshore in limited ways and a very very bad future, I know what I choose. Put quite simply, you can't trust Republicans to come to logical conclusions about what we need to keep this country afloat.

I was so nervous about peak oil I was thinking it wasn't a good idea to have kids. That is how seriously I take this.

Lately, I'm beginning to think we can do this, but only if we start transitioning NOW.

Lastly, I use oil and gas to get around. If I got around by biking or walking, then maybe I could convince myself I wasn't being a hypocrite. Its like if I want to stop killing cows, even though I keep eating steak.

And I think it's interesting that the media is referring to it as a "compromise". Some others are saying flip-flop, but not so much so far. Also interesting that he waited until congress went home. I'm sure that was intentional... this will surely take the debate to a new level over the next few weeks.

let's give Republicans what they want so people can see how bad their ideas are.

Let's outlaw abortion and imprison gays, too. :eyes:

This is a repost, but since the topic came up again...

Given that the oil companies already have so much area they refuse to drill, why not allow an acre-by-acre exchange for offshore leases that are within the same state, as long as they aren't critical endangered sea life areas, etc.?

That would allow Obama to keep away from giving *more* area to oil companies and still address the silly drilling issue in a way that takes leverage away from McCain. My bet is that, given the overburdened drilling schedule oil companies have in better areas, you'd see none of these areas actually used.

You might prod the companies into going along with this by putting a sunset on their current oil leases when no drilling has commenced, and giving them a longer lease sunset on areas they trade to get.

The result would be the exact same amount of offshore territory held by oil companies, the likelihood that they wouldn't drill anyway, the eventual reverting of most of that territory from the grip of the oil companies, and every one of the McCain/Bush arguments evaporating.

The way we arranged those leases is a joke anyway. I hear some companies are using their leases to shore up their balance sheets. Its a crock.

It's the second suggestion I've submitted there. The first one was to counter the Clinton/McCain gas tax pandering plan with a plan to improve and extend the coverage of traffic light sensors... We've all been stuck at intersections, watching 20 or more cars and trucks idle, waiting for a light when there's no cross-traffic.

It's intuitively obvious that providing more traffic light sensors in cities, and fixing the existing ones that don't work right, would save a whole lot of wasted gas, and improve the efficiency of every form of transportation and land shipments.

Given that almost everyone has experienced the "waiting for nobody" effect, I think that second suggestion would be received more enthusiasm than the tire inflation comparison.

That is how he keeps the GOP from choosing the wedge issues it will use. That is how he chooses the issues on which he will distinguish himself from the GOP this fall.

He correctly senses that the public mood, particularly those middle voters, is favoring drilling. He's not going to fall on his sword with a blanket condemnation of drilling. He keeps his options open without committing to anything specific.

I am entirely focused on Obama running a campaign that can win. I judge any action of his based upon one question: does it help him win?

His goal now has to be to get the majority of the middle voters who don't have a firm choice yet. He can't do that if he has to constantly worry about what every Democrat in America may have on their "perfect politician" list. It goes without saying that anyone who can win the Democratic nomination and have any chance of winning president will never please every Democrat.

He's doing what he needs to do to win the election. I favor that approach to losing like Mondale, while keeping the faith with purists.

It blows my mind how many people on a political website don't get that. :shrug:

already have leased. They can drill on it anyway. The real news would be getting a bill that includes no subsidies for big oil and assistance to get wind, solar and bio fuels off the ground. If those energy sources start creating dollars, which they will, oil drilling will be long forgotten. What's cheaper to do? Put up an oil platform in the middle of the ocean or set up solar panels in the desert?

why hasn't our government done more about that (we know the reasons why don't we?)? If we need less than we use less.

Everytime the topic of increasing MPG comes up, it gets shoved under a rock or sent before a firing squad.

:scared:

And they can drill 50 miles from the east and Gulf coasts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2438

bending over, and over, and over. Will we ever get tired of being fucked by the repukes? Well if we keep enabling our candidates i guess not.

I really respect the guy. He's got a real devious nature, but in a good way. :evilgrin:

And like all other projections of how he'll behave, this is based on nothing but opinion.

Here's the real problem: candidates run into problems when their self-characterization contradicts their actions. If Kucinich had been a nativist, family-values candidate, then it'd have been big news that he was multi-divorced and currently married to a foreigner much younger than himself; this wasn't his schtick, so it wasn't an issue. Edwards was a self-styled champion of the poor, so living in a fine mansion was an issue, even if it was a cheap shot.

Obama is running, more than anything else, on his character, and that character is defined as noble, honorable, above-the-fray, and filled with hope for a bright and fair future as he uses new politics in a fresh outsiderish kind of way. He's dismally failing on all points. His voting record is piss-poor, and the most charitable way to characterize it is as "corporatist". He's playing the most tired form of politics (as he seemingly always has) of ducking dangerous controversies and trying to be on both sides of conflicts he can't skate on. He's whatever the audience at hand wants.

It's morally sickening to listen to so many leftists and moderates who support him literally snickering at how he's lying to the reactionaries. They're reveling in his deviousness and thrill in the joy of "getting away with it". Now, since "getting away with it" is one of the most fundamental aspects of the American character, that gives him a big constituency, but at some point, he's going to be called to account. That time is now, and he's failing.

This will be much more injurious to his candidacy than it would to an admitted pol like either Clinton: he's supposed to be above all of this mealy-mouthed maneuvering.

A quick checklist of the recent past is demoralizing, even if one holds the "undeniable truth" that he'll cheat the reactionaries out of his promises. He'll have to back down on so many promises and distance himself from so many people that his word will mean nothing.

He's for expanding the crimes for which the death penalty is applied. He's for restricting abortion. He's for expanding the idiotic, unwinnable war in Afghanistan. He's for giving Israel EVERYTHING it wants with no caveats except for a wispy and ill-defined "two state solution". He's for offshore drilling and will eventually get asked about ANWAR. He's against capping credit card interest at 30%. He's for restricting employees' rights to sue their employers. He wants to shove more religion down our throats and have us not only pay for it but endorse its supernatural assumption in the name of the United States of America, and he wants to do more of this than the reactionaries do. Then there's FISA. He's for god in South Carolina and against it in San Francisco. He's for vouchers. He's everyone to everyone, but don't worry: he's going to fuck over everyone we don't like.

I was talking with an old friend/business associate recently, and he was disappointed that Clinton lost. He's gay and a life-long Democrat, and he'll vote for Obama (as I will) but he put it this way: "It's gonna be a long hard couple of moments before I pull that lever."

Mercifully, it's a season of soft support: my conservative friends can't stand McCain, but they're going to vote for him. My lefty friends are up in arms, but will choke it back and vote for Obama anyway. What this means is that they won't be canvassing, phoning, donating, fighting or putting out much heat at all. That's not good.

People are dangerous when disappointed: the deflation of the mood is palpable and injurious.

The hoopla has been built up so much that just a simple glimpse of reality will add to the damage: Obama is NOT a good public speaker. He's passable, but his delivery is end-stopped, verbally staticky, clumsy and ringing with tired repetition of groups of threes to echo some kind of religious rabble-rousing. When people see him as he is in debates and in speeches, they'll be disappointed: the bar has been set unfortunately high.

It's frightening that so few people see the danger he's in. His whole schtick was that he was a different kind of politician, but he's straight out of central casting. Hell, he's even from CHICAGO; what were we thinking?!

I don't hold with the subversive thrill of the downtrodden who glory in the deviousness of their champion "sticking it to the man". Even if he were the somewhat-moderate that people claim he is, it's still immoral; I'm a pluralist in the same way he claims to be: I want everyone's worldview (minus the extreme crazies) to be accommodated. Mommy told me lying is bad, so I don't like it.

His whole campaign is based on his character, and he's doing so many things to screw that up.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2438

Sorry, I can not agree with you.

It is inland centrist Dems doing this plan, and it is a loser.

They are the ones who have to decide whether or not they want it off of their coastlines or not. And BTW, I think this whole thing is just a bunch of hogwash because chances are they will decide they don't want it and at the end of the day we still won't be drilling.

It's so "Aikido"! Accept your opponents energy, don't just resist it - and redirect it so it's not harmful.

Compromise is what will get things done, and this seems like a good one to me.

at the acquiescence now.

Florida just got royally screwed, and you guys are cheering.

about all this pushing for more drilling. I think it's an issue that's being pushed for political leverage and nothing else. I don't believe the oil companies really want to drill. If they did they could have lobbied to push through this back when the Republicans controlled everything. If they did they would be drilling on the leases they already have. But none of that happened.

This is a manufactured issue. The oil companies want to keep their profits so they'll support whatever proposals that will help the GOP win. Actually drilling more would cost them a bundle and they would have to build more refineries.

I may be wrong but I don't think so. I think the Dems should call their bluff.