"Left Wing" President: Drill, baby, drill!

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the GOP will be fervently against Obama's new plan to lift a 20 year ban on drilling into the Gulf of Mexico.

I didn't like it when McCain and Palin shrieked about this, and I don't like it now.

Additionally, the interior department would be authorized to conduct seismic surveys off the south- and mid-Atlantic coasts to "determine the quantity and location of potential oil and gas resources to support energy planning."

Between this, forcing the private sector to bear the majority of the risk for failed banks through TARP, and the surge in Afghanistan, Obama's shaping up to be quite the poster child for a Republican President indeed.

The movie we're watching is Clinton 2: Obama Boogaloo. All about business-friendly triangulation. According to the White House, opening up these areas for drilling will be traded for republican support on his climate change bill. He's going to kick a few hippies to make middle America happy.

He does seem determined to be remembered as Bush III, doesn't he?

While I'm not crazy about the idea of our coastline being littered with oil platforms I get the demand and need to tap into all sources.

I would like to see a quid pro quo though. If we're going to open up the shorelines for exploration and drilling then those that will profit the most should also be giving something back. Perhaps a capitated price on oil? I'm just uncomfortable with allowing the oil companies to loot the shorelines for another $700 billion in profit while I'm paying $3.00 a gallon.

Aetius wrote:

He does seem determined to be remembered as Bush III, doesn't he?

The Republicans shriek about how he's a socialist and not really an American and is probably a secret Muslim, but he's starting to look more like Bush Sr. than did Bush Jr.

So that's where we're at now. We have a two party system, the Republicans and the Neocons.

The upside to more oil platforms is that it eventually means more cheap, dry, derelict oil platforms. When I'm a billionaire I'm going to tether a couple together, maybe add some ships Raft-style, and found my own nation. Seems to be the only way to get away from this nonsense.

I thought the Dems fought this idea tooth & nail saying it wouldn't impact oil/gas prices at all, it wouldn't decrease our dependence on foreign oil by any noticeable amount, and that it would cause far, far more damage to the environment and fishing industries in that area than it would be worth. I uh... guess that's changed. Not what I was expecting. Of course a lot of things have happened recently that I wasn't expecting when ol' Barry took office.

From what little I've read about it it would seem Obama's using it as an olive branch rather than a solution. He's basically saying, "hey Republicans, I want you to work with me on the climate bill so go ahead and obliterate the coast."

He doesn't seem to get that the Republicans are never going to work with him.

LobsterMobster wrote:

From what little I've read about it it would seem Obama's using it as an olive branch rather than a solution. He's basically saying, "hey Republicans, I want you to work with me on the climate bill so go ahead and obliterate the coast."

He doesn't seem to get that the Republicans are never going to work with him.

...Unless he's already struck some kind of back-room deal. I'm not saying he has, but if he's doing this on pure speculation, he's dumber than the last president.

Kehama wrote:

I thought the Dems fought this idea tooth & nail saying it wouldn't impact oil/gas prices at all, it wouldn't decrease our dependence on foreign oil by any noticeable amount, and that it would cause far, far more damage to the environment and fishing industries in that area than it would be worth. I uh... guess that's changed.

That's one of the problems with triangulation as pioneered by Clinton. Democratic policies, which often are a tougher sell to middle America than republican policies because they're restrictive rather than permissive, need years of consistent pushing to turn into reality. So when you suddenly turn on a dime and announce that, no, it wasn't all THAT serious a environmental problem you were trying to solve- you end up gutting a lot of your own work for a short-term political advantage.

I can see this sort of thing being done as part of a last-ditch political compromise to pass a climate-change bill, but to publicly announce it like it's a good thing? Jeebus, it's the knife in the back. Environmentalists must be furious.

baggachipz wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

From what little I've read about it it would seem Obama's using it as an olive branch rather than a solution. He's basically saying, "hey Republicans, I want you to work with me on the climate bill so go ahead and obliterate the coast."

He doesn't seem to get that the Republicans are never going to work with him.

...Unless he's already struck some kind of back-room deal. I'm not saying he has, but if he's doing this on pure speculation, he's dumber than the last president.

I think the passage of the healthcare bill almost to the perfect specifications of the white house (including removing a TON of earmarks like the cornhuskers') proves Obama might be the most politically intelligent President we've had in half a century.

More accurately, I'm betting that Obama really and truly doesn't give a crap about what the GOP does -- he's only interested in the voter capital he's earning by painting the GOP, once again, as the party that refuses blatant compromise in favor of screaming "no" over and over.

That it has to be done over the Gulf Coast makes me more than a little sad.

While I'm not crazy about the idea of our coastline being littered with oil platforms I get the demand and need to tap into all sources

It's pure stupidity. There's not enough oil there to make much of an economic difference, but there's more than enough to wreck a good chunk of the Gulf Coast if something goes wrong.

Plus, oil will only get more valuable over time, and the longer we wait to tap into it, the more use we will get out of it. There will come a time when people are horrified at the thought of burning oil instead of making things with it. That would be when to drill for it.

It's pure stupidity. There's not enough oil there to make much of an economic difference, but there's more than enough to wreck a good chunk of the Gulf Coast if something goes wrong.

You mean the Florida Coast. Nobody gives a sh*t about the part of the Gulf Coast turned brown by river basin effluent. (That would be everything west of Mobile Bay, where there are already plenty of platforms).

You guys are rich. This guy just gets insurance reform passed, and you act like he's a bad guy because he won't resort to scorched earth politics on other measures.

You guys are rich. This guy just gets insurance reform passed,

It's a package to 'fix the healthcare system' that doesn't fix anything! It's just doing more of what we were doing already and transferring a bunch of it to the government dime. It was sold 'because we're spending too much money on healthcare', but the actual solution will involve spending a HELL of a lot more on healthcare. We got a couple of cosmetic fixes in exchange for an arterial bleed.

and you act like he's a bad guy because he won't resort to scorched earth politics on other measures.

Stupid ideas are stupid no matter who pushes them.

buzzvang wrote:

You guys are rich. This guy just gets insurance reform passed, and you act like he's a bad guy because he won't resort to scorched earth politics on other measures.

Alternate phrasing: Obama just bent over backwards getting a watered down, heavily GOP influenced healthcare bill passed that doens't go nearly far enough, and despite the huge concessions the left made there, he goes ahead and waffles on environmental policy.

Also -- bad guy isn't a correct term. I still like Obama and I'll vote for him again in 2012; that doesn't mean I have to like *all* of his ideas. Obama remains too right-leaning for me on a lot of topics (gay marriage and healthcare are two). To defend his policies simply because they're team blue is a Karl Rovian strategy, and I've no interest in that type of politics.

buzzvang wrote:

You guys are rich. This guy just gets insurance reform passed, and you act like he's a bad guy because he won't resort to scorched earth politics on other measures.

I don't know if "bad guy" is fair. If you believe X is a good policy, and a president proposes Y, are you supposed to switch your view and say Y is good policy because the president proposed it?

What bothered me about Clinton, and now Obama, is that we've gone into cycles where republicans gain control of government and pass radical right wing policies, and when voters grow sick of those, democrats come in and pass centrist right-wing policies because they worry that everyone will consider them dirty hippies if they propose something that's even mildly left-wing. There's no balance anymore.

What bothered me about Clinton, and now Obama, is that we've gone into cycles where republicans gain control of government and pass radical right wing policies, and when voters grow sick of those, democrats come in and pass centrist right-wing policies because they worry that everyone will consider them dirty hippies if they propose something that's even mildly left-wing. There's no balance anymore.

We are a centre-right nation. If President Bush would have governed like President Bush Sr., he would have been a lot more popular and not have doomed the Republican party (or if the Republican party was centre-right we wouldn't have doomed President Bush Jr.)

I do not have a problem with opening up the gulf coast for more exploration. However, I don't think we can rely on oil to solve our future needs so we need to research the alternatives and start more capital investment getting those up to speed to meet the future needs. Also, after researching the oil industry for my work we really don't KNOW what is there until we actually drill. All the studies in the world don't mean anything other than to give an estimate of what we expect.

Ulairi wrote:

We are a centre-right nation.

When was this determined? I see a nation filled with different voting blocs and interest groups that come together to elect leaders. Most a market of competing ideas, and if people don't push for the ideas then they'll never see them enacted as policy.

The democrats changed the ideas they pushed in the 1960s by embracing minority rights legislation. This led to a major shift in the south to the republican party, who then took up the cause of opposing minority rights legislation. Religious-based social conservatism didn't exist as a political force until the past few decades. Blocs and coalitions rise and fall in American politics, depending on circumstance and demographics.

I mean, you can go through the history of the U.S. and see that we've never had monolithic consensus on political ideas.

The democrats changed the ideas they pushed in the 1960s by embracing minority rights legislation. This led to a major shift in the south to the republican party, who then took up the cause of opposing minority rights legislation. Religious-based social conservatism didn't exist as a political force until the past few decades. Blocs and coalitions rise and fall in American politics, depending on circumstance and demographics.

It wasn't the Democrats who pushed that through congress. It wasn't until AFTER that legislation that the Republicans decided they could pick up those voters and win. But, it was the Republican party that got that stuff done.

If you want to find out more info check out the book "Right Nation" that was put out by two brits that write for the economist.

I mean, you can go through the history of the U.S. and see that we've never had monolithic consensus on political ideas.

[

We're not a monolithic but we are a block and it's centre-right. President Obama didn't run as a left wing President. We may sway a little bit one way or the other for a time but our fulcrum is centre-right.

I think Ulairi has a point, Funken; look at all of our social policies. They're decades behind all but the most totalitarian or religiously oppressed nations. Our laws on gay rights, racial equality, church in government, and abortion lag the rest of the civilized world by 20-30 years at least.

and a whole lot of people like it that way.

If we *weren't* a center-right nation, passing social reform wouldn't be such a pain in the ass. A left-center nation sure wouldn't feel like it was dragging its backwoods compatriots, kicking and screaming, into a better era every time it wanted to let two dudes marry; it would've done so ages ago.

buzzvang wrote:

You guys are rich. This guy just gets insurance reform passed, and you act like he's a bad guy because he won't resort to scorched earth politics on other measures.

The reform that "us guys" just got passed was the same as the Republican alternative to Clinton's version in the 90s. I would hope that one of "you guys" would notice that. It may be true that "you guys" didn't get to hack it apart as much as you may have liked but did it ever occur to you that maybe it came pre-hacked? Maybe it's not exactly what every single Democrat ever might want and more? Glad you're getting a kick out of it, though.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't know if "bad guy" is fair. If you believe X is a good policy, and a president proposes Y, are you supposed to switch your view and say Y is good policy because the president proposed it?

No, but it seems if you believe X is a good policy and a president you didn't vote for proposes X, you are supposed to switch your view and say Y is good policy because the president didn't propose it.

I think Ulairi has a point, Funken; look at all of our social policies. They're decades behind all but the most totalitarian or religiously oppressed nations. Our laws on gay rights, racial equality, church in government, and abortion lag the rest of the civilized world by 20-30 years at least.

Is this helpful? Really you want to say the United States lags behin the world in racial equality? Have you been outside the United States? The United States is not a racist country. I say we lag a little on gay rights but that's a generational issue that will correct itself in due time and I'm glad we aren't progressive on abortion. But, I wonder where you've actually been if you have this belief.

Ulairi wrote:

The United States is not a racist country.

lol

I mean really, can you say that with a straight face and expect to continue an intelligent discourse?

btw, Funken, this is what I meant about us being Center-right.

Go visit some prisons, Ulairi, and see if you still think that.

Malor wrote:

Go visit some prisons, Ulairi, and see if you still think that.

I have. Asia, Europe, and South America. If you think we're a racist nation head to France and Spain or anywhere in Asia.

Well, they're more racist, no doubt, but it's not a competition. You either treat people differently based on their skin color, or you don't. And we clearly do.

Ulairi wrote:

We're not a monolithic but we are a block and it's centre-right. President Obama didn't run as a left wing President. We may sway a little bit one way or the other for a time but our fulcrum is centre-right.

That's self-justifying revisionism. If you'd listened to the "center-right" folks during most periods of American history we wouldn't have many freedoms and protections that are no considered centrist. FDR passed social legislation and other laws that at the time were considered radical by right wingers but are now considered normal. Yes, we did not embrace the full package of European social legislation in the 20th century, but calling stuff like medicare, social security, medicaid, environmental regulation, etc. as "center right" just isn't realistic. Even radical civil rights legislation like fair housing laws are now considered to be normal. The difference is that people didn't used to believe this story about how the country is too conservative to put through any kind of change. It's a convenient fiction put forward by the right wing to justify policies that support their own goals.

I don't see us as monolithic by any means. What we have is political coalitions and competing ideas.

Edit: Also, the Civil Rights Act was introduced by Kennedy and pushed in the house by Emmanuael Celler. Yes, the democratic party was split on the issue, but Johnson, a democrat, was instrumental in getting the bill passed, as was Mike Mansfield, a democratic senator. And afterwords, what did the centrist-right republican party do, but embrace the dixiecrats that opposed the bill for electoral gain? As I said, we're not talking about a monolithic political outlook here but competing ideas and coalitions that result in political decisions.

I thought the big argument against offshore drilling was that we wouldn't see any benefit from it for 7 years.

I don't like it because look at all the progress we've made in the last couple of years with big oil taking out dozens of ads on how they are leading the alternative energy development. Now, all of that will get scrapped to spend billions on off shore drilling. And even if that is fruitful in time, its better on a horse that will never finish the race.

The reform that "us guys" just got passed was the same as the Republican alternative to Clinton's version in the 90s. I would hope that one of "you guys" would notice that. It may be true that "you guys" didn't get to hack it apart as much as you may have liked but did it ever occur to you that maybe it came pre-hacked? Maybe it's not exactly what every single Democrat ever might want and more? Glad you're getting a kick out of it, though.

What are you talking about? By "you guys", I meant the previous posters in this thread who are acting like the entire "Change Train" is derailed because Obama seems to be honestly interested in building consensus. Do I think he'll succeed? Probably not. But that principle more than anything else made me vote for him. I, for one, am happy to see him continue to try. The state of our political discourse is toxic, and many of the threads in this forum, while generally civil in tone, only serve to illustrate that point. The fact that he's willing to listen to opposing arguments and weigh them on their merits, regardless of his own stance, and make conclusions that keep them in mind is a leadership quality that we should celebrate. But what the hell do I know? I'm apparently a neocon bad guy for even pointing that out.

No, you're not...

1. Politically, this is a great approach by Obama. He either gets Republican buy-in to his policy, or the 2010 Democratic campaigns get to showcase Republicans not caring about working families and playing politics for politics' sake.

2. Scientifically, it is something of a wash AFAICT. With or without these wells, we are still going to be chugging oil like there is no tomorrow for a while. There is some environmental cost to new wells, but it is trivial in the grander picture of the oil economy. The only real upside is that every dollar paid for oil from the new wells stays in the US, rather than going to Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Canada.

3. Re: center-right country: not so much. We have a center-right government for a variety of reasons, the biggest being a more focused and (forcibly) unified right-wing party. Republicans have been voting in a single block for the past few decades, while Democrats tend to cross party lines and have a lot of public in-fighting.

Kraint wrote:

1. Politically, this is a great approach by Obama. He either gets Republican buy-in to his policy, or the 2010 Democratic campaigns get to showcase Republicans not caring about working families and playing politics for politics' sake.

That's triangulation, and long term it doesn't buy his party much of anything other than giving the public the message that the republicans were right on the issue and hippy environmentalists are just a bunch of non-serious tree huggers. It's good for the president himself, I admit.