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
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