PDA

View Full Version : Obama’s drilling gamble angers both sides



Qtec
04-05-2010, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It’s been nearly a week and Obama’s offshore drilling plans have apparently yielded <u>zero Republican support</u>. Quite the opposite actually — they’ve drawn yet more rebukes from the GOP and, in the process, angered progressives and environmentalists.

The only reason this made sense from Obama’s standpoint was if it helped pass larger energy legislation. Which is odd because he seems to have gotten nothing in return. What’s the benefit of angering your base when it doesn’t bring you closer to achieving your bigger goal?

Maybe the decision is part of a larger strategy to push cap and trade through the Senate. In which case, it’s nothing more than a gamble, given that there were apparently no strings attached and the GOP remains as opposed as they did before it was announced.

The sense I got listening to his speeches and his echoing of Republican axioms (We need an all-of-the-above energy approach/We will continue consuming oil for many years) was that this is a deliberate ideological repositioning to accommodate his right-wing opponents.

So if this is indeed a Rahm Emanuel approach — alienate the left because they’ll hop on board no matter what, and try to latch onto some on the right — all signs so far are that it’s backfiring.

Or, could it be an overture to oil companies, seeing as how Democrats want all the money they can get going into the November midterms? Who knows, the decision just doesn’t offer a clear motive.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What is clear is that the Republican Party’s strategy — such as it was on health care and (other than 2 of them) the stimulus — <u>is to extract as many concessions as possible, make the bill as weak as they can, and still ultimately vote against it.</u></span>

Did giving up single payer from the start win any conservative praise? Did dropping the public option change any minds? Did watering down the stimulus to the point where progressive economists hung their heads in despair motivate the GOP to take a closer look?

And this issue is actually more complicated than those two because when it comes to climate change — unlike health care or the economy — most Republicans don’t even admit there’s a problem.

PS — Remember the folks who once claimed Obama would be a partisan hack president afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom of his own side? Well, they can safely put that to rest because <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Obama has, for better or for worse, taken on his base in pretty much every initiative.</span> </div></div>

Obama should say, "I'm dropping the drilling plans. The Republicans are against it and I don't want it to be said I don't listen."

Q

LWW
04-05-2010, 05:32 AM
Obama had no "DRILLING PLANS" and, as I predicted, Obama has and will continue to betray his loyal base whenever he deems it needed to advance his agenda.

He owns the American left.

They are welded to his agenda.

The Obama true believers are a cult which will follow dearest leader's every order and believe his every word ... even when it directly contradicts the "TRUTH" of the day before.

LWW

pooltchr
04-05-2010, 09:22 AM
Obama didn't say we were going to drill...he said he look at the possibility of opening up for exploration.
There is a difference.

Steve

Gayle in MD
04-05-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It’s been nearly a week and Obama’s offshore drilling plans have apparently yielded <u>zero Republican support</u>. Quite the opposite actually — they’ve drawn yet more rebukes from the GOP and, in the process, angered progressives and environmentalists.

The only reason this made sense from Obama’s standpoint was if it helped pass larger energy legislation. Which is odd because he seems to have gotten nothing in return. What’s the benefit of angering your base when it doesn’t bring you closer to achieving your bigger goal?

Maybe the decision is part of a larger strategy to push cap and trade through the Senate. In which case, it’s nothing more than a gamble, given that there were apparently no strings attached and the GOP remains as opposed as they did before it was announced.

The sense I got listening to his speeches and his echoing of Republican axioms (We need an all-of-the-above energy approach/We will continue consuming oil for many years) was that this is a deliberate ideological repositioning to accommodate his right-wing opponents.

So if this is indeed a Rahm Emanuel approach — alienate the left because they’ll hop on board no matter what, and try to latch onto some on the right — all signs so far are that it’s backfiring.

Or, could it be an overture to oil companies, seeing as how Democrats want all the money they can get going into the November midterms? Who knows, the decision just doesn’t offer a clear motive.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What is clear is that the Republican Party’s strategy — such as it was on health care and (other than 2 of them) the stimulus — <u>is to extract as many concessions as possible, make the bill as weak as they can, and still ultimately vote against it.</u></span>

Did giving up single payer from the start win any conservative praise? Did dropping the public option change any minds? Did watering down the stimulus to the point where progressive economists hung their heads in despair motivate the GOP to take a closer look?

And this issue is actually more complicated than those two because when it comes to climate change — unlike health care or the economy — most Republicans don’t even admit there’s a problem.

PS — Remember the folks who once claimed Obama would be a partisan hack president afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom of his own side? Well, they can safely put that to rest because <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Obama has, for better or for worse, taken on his base in pretty much every initiative.</span> </div></div>

Obama should say, "I'm dropping the drilling plans. The Republicans are against it and I don't want it to be said I don't listen."

Q </div></div>

I agree, Q. But, he shouldn't eve bother mentioning the Republikooks, IMO. He should just stop trying to compromise at all with them, and ignore them completely. They are going to bury themselves anyway. They don't even have one single credible candidate on the horizon for the presidency. Their National Committee is a joke, with scandals surfacing every week. Michale Steele is nothing but a glorified thug with a huge ego. Palin crashed on her bit debut on Fox. Tea Partiers are showing their asses all over America.

Here we are right now waiting to see how much damage from an oil tanker spilling oil along the Great Barrier Reef!

Ocean Drilling should be out, for good! Our Oceans are stressed enough. Full of plastic, full of waste, the fish are dying, and still they speak of drilling offshore! Unbelievable!

G.

LWW
04-05-2010, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama didn't say we were going to drill...he said he look at the possibility of opening up for exploration.
There is a difference.

Steve </div></div>

And only in areas where there was likely no significant oil to be found.

LWW

Chilled
04-06-2010, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Here we are right now waiting to see how much damage from an oil tanker spilling oil along the Great Barrier Reef!

Ocean Drilling should be out, for good!

G. </div></div>

Your overall point is understood but any tanker transportation problems are a bit of a red herring as far as the specific subject of offshore oil exploration and production is concerned.

The vast majority of oil transported by tankers has either been produced from onshore fields or has been produced from offshore fields and already pumped to an onshore location before being loaded into the tankers at an onshore based loading facility.

The transportation of oil from country to country by tankers is something which will out of necessity continue whether there is offshore production of oil or not.

Your point about tankers is therefore wholly valid to an argument about reducing all use (and thereby by consequence redcuing the amount of necessary transportation) of oil wherever it is produced, but is not directly valid to offshore oil exploration or production itself.