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

Ulairi wrote:
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.

America does have race problems but acting upon racism is illegal. Even if we - as a culture - are racist, we don't want to be. It's a step in the right direction.

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.

I disagree. People think republicans have been unified but they are just as messy as the Demorats. If you look at the Neocons, social cons, libertarian, western cons and the old fashioned pro-business/social moderate republicans it's just as messy as the democrats. the only difference was the Republicans were in power.

A party out of power features a lot of fighting.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
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.

America does have race problems but acting upon racism is illegal. Even if we - as a culture - are racist, we don't want to be. It's a step in the right direction.

I don't think we even as a culture is racist. There are racists within the country no doubt but generally 90% of the people you're going to talk with, work with and meet are just regular good people.

Ulairi wrote:

I don't think we even as a culture is racist. There are racists within the country no doubt but generally 90% of the people you're going to talk with, work with and meet are just regular good people.

10% of the US population is 30 million people.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I don't think we even as a culture is racist. There are racists within the country no doubt but generally 90% of the people you're going to talk with, work with and meet are just regular good people.

10% of the US population is 30 million people.

People are flawed. Systemic or institutional racism is what I care about and I think the government has done as much as it can based on "that person is X and I don't like X".

Ulairi wrote:

People are flawed. Systemic or institutional racism is what I care about and I think the government has done as much as it can based on "that person is X and I don't like X".

Well now you just changed the parameters of the discussion. Are you now saying "America is not racist," or "America is racist but the system of government is not institutionally racist?"

Those two statements are a world apart. I disagree with both, but at least you can make some form of logical argument in support of the latter.

Funkenpants wrote:
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.

It's not triangulation, it's simply political judo. The right campaigned on drilling and Obama just used that against them. Drilling can no longer be the bugaboo issue for energy policy that tort reform was for health care. Now he can point to the what he did (which won't result in any actual, production-level drilling for years and years) and use that to push the rest of the energy policy debate. At the same time, he just locked up 3.6 million acres in Alaska, upholding a ban on oil and mineral exploration that was set to expire.

Seth wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

People are flawed. Systemic or institutional racism is what I care about and I think the government has done as much as it can based on "that person is X and I don't like X".

Well now you just changed the parameters of the discussion. Are you now saying "America is not racist," or "America is racist but the system of government is not institutionally racist?"

Those two statements are a world apart. I disagree with both, but at least you can make some form of logical argument in support of the latter.

I agree with both. The fact that there are racists Americans doesn't mean that America is a racist country or people. When the vast majority of people are not racist, to tar the majorty for what a small minority behave isn't correct. The country is so big we have to have an abstract view of it.

OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
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.

It's not triangulation, it's simply political judo. The right campaigned on drilling and Obama just used that against them. Drilling can no longer be the bugaboo issue for energy policy that tort reform was for health care. Now he can point to the what he did (which won't result in any actual, production-level drilling for years and years) and use that to push the rest of the energy policy debate. At the same time, he just locked up 3.6 million acres in Alaska, upholding a ban on oil and mineral exploration that was set to expire.

Hmmmm ... I was all set to condemn this as it goes completely opposite of what he has stated in the past but that Alaska bit you mentioned has given me pause. I don't have an issue with him continuing to try to build consensus even when it seems pointless but to stick your thumb in the eye of the environmentally conscious seems a little risky to me. Especially when it is an easy thing to go back and look at the quotes from the campaign trail where he was adamantly against such a move. Will have to keep an eye on this to see if it is indeed judo.

Ulairi wrote:

I agree with both. The fact that there are racists Americans doesn't mean that America is a racist country or people. When the vast majority of people are not racist, to tar the majorty for what a small minority behave isn't correct. The country is so big we have to have an abstract view of it.

I'm not going to argue further since off topic race discussions tend to get locked, but that's a pretty right wing view, so that along with your stance on abortion does strengthen your claim that America is center-right.

Hmmmm ... I was all set to condemn this as it goes completely opposite of what he has stated in the past but that Alaska bit you mentioned has given me pause. I don't have an issue with him continuing to try to build consensus even when it seems pointless but to stick your thumb in the eye of the environmentally conscious seems a little risky to me. Especially when it is an easy thing to go back and look at the quotes from the campaign trail where he was adamantly against such a move. Will have to keep an eye on this to see if it is indeed judo.

I did a tiny amount of digging regarding Obama's stance on drilling in 2008. It doesn't look like he was *that* strongly against it -- although I could be wrong.

That he's preserving a WHOLE lot of land that the GOP wanted to destroy is also of note. And, as you point out, this is largely to get Sen. Graham's go ahead on the energy bill.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's not triangulation, it's simply political judo. The right campaigned on drilling and Obama just used that against them.

I don't see the "judo" reference. Judo implies that you win something for your side by using the other side's strength against them. Implying that the right wingers were right in their stupid "drill, baby,drill" protests and giving them what they want doesn't result in a victory for environmentalists, and he could have done what he did in Alaska whether he opened Florida or not.

Seth wrote:

That he's preserving a WHOLE lot of land that the GOP wanted to destroy is also of note. And, as you point out, this is largely to get Sen. Graham's go ahead on the energy bill.

Just like he did some horsetrading with republicans to get support for his healthcare bill. All they did was wait for the offer, then pulled the ball away when the time came to vote.

Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's not triangulation, it's simply political judo. The right campaigned on drilling and Obama just used that against them.

I don't see the "judo" reference. Judo implies that you win something for your side by using the other side's strength against them. Implying that the right wingers were right in their stupid "drill, baby,drill" protests and giving them what they want doesn't result in a victory for environmentalists, and he could have done what he did in Alaska whether he opened Florida or not.

He wins moving an actual discussion about our nation's energy policy forward, which is why he said this:

“Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place,” he said. “Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.”

Any reasonable discussion about our energy policy is going to have to involve talking about how we get from where were at today (oil and coal) to where we want to get (all or mostly green energy sources). That means that we're going to have to use fossil fuels until we can develop a greener energy infrastructure. His concession disarms the right (quick, what's their energy policy beyond 'drill, baby, drill'?) and also lets the environmentalists know that it's going to be a practical discussion, not one based on some Utopian vision.

Ulairi wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
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.

America does have race problems but acting upon racism is illegal. Even if we - as a culture - are racist, we don't want to be. It's a step in the right direction.

I don't think we even as a culture is racist. There are racists within the country no doubt but generally 90% of the people you're going to talk with, work with and meet are just regular good people.

Far more than 10% of the white people you meet in St. Louis is going to be racist. I's probably closer to one half, and could be more. I thought st. Louis had issues just from living and working in the city. But once I started working in the suburbs, I got a huge dose of reality. Racism is so pervasive, that I had to make a point that I was not racist more than few times a week. This was from both customers and employees. I saw other assistant mangers clearly being discriminated against, even after Walgreens was forced to pay out a settlement to black managers in the St. Louis area.

I could show up in a store and be told not to trust a black man with a basket and have MLK's birthday referred to as DN Day. There was an assumption that I was racist by other whites, because that is just how comfortable they are in their views.

Is St. Louis really that much worse than the rest of the country? And if you get into the rural areas of Missouri, it's far, far worse.

OG_slinger wrote:

He wins moving an actual discussion about our nation's energy policy forward...

How? The discussion was going to be the same whether he opened up the area for drilling or not. Republicans aren't worried about him as a tough negotiator. He's just admitted that the republicans were right to favor more drilling, and we can already hear the echos of the health care process where the administration makes a deal with industry interests and then hands it to environmentalists with a "take it or leave it" attitude.

Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

He wins moving an actual discussion about our nation's energy policy forward...

How? The discussion was going to be the same whether he opened up the area for drilling or not. Republicans aren't worried about him as a tough negotiator. He's just admitted that the republicans were right to favor more drilling, and we can already hear the echos of the health care process where the administration makes a deal with industry interests and then hands it to environmentalists with a "take it or leave it" attitude.

How? Now the right doesn't have any issue to hide behind. They can either ask for something even more crazy (which will paint them as even more extreme) or they can begin to talk about what's good for the country vs. what makes for good political drama.

The Republicans are hurt from health care debate. The impression is that they lost on the issue they claimed they were going to break Obama on. Instead, he's letting himself be carried by the momentum of the health care victory and just smashed through the only barrier the right put up against any further discussion on energy. And at the end of the day, the entire debate over whether or not we open a couple of more offshore wells is moot. They will never provide enough energy to meet our demands. Ever. Instead, we can move the discussion forward.

Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

He wins moving an actual discussion about our nation's energy policy forward...

How? The discussion was going to be the same whether he opened up the area for drilling or not. Republicans aren't worried about him as a tough negotiator. He's just admitted that the republicans were right to favor more drilling, and we can already hear the echos of the health care process where the administration makes a deal with industry interests and then hands it to environmentalists with a "take it or leave it" attitude.

Is drilling for oil really a solution? Obama may have been against drilling for oil in the gulf, but my impression was that it was more because it was a silly idea to act like it was a solution to any problem.

So now he gives in on the drilling as a way eliminate another one of their silly campaign promises. In the mean time, I don't believe that Obama is going to back off on his push for green solutions to our energy needs. But Republicans can't use drilling in the gulf as a distraction from the issue.

OG I really like your read on the tactics here. I'm still not thrilled that drilling is being used as a pawn on the chessboard, but I see the usefulness of it.

This thread got me thinking. You know what would be really awesome. If Obama came out and announced a new policy that increased the drilling for oil in Alaska tenfold. He should demand that they punch a hole in the earth every acre starting in downtown Wasilla to suck out every last drop of crude that exists there.

I'd love to see Palin react to that.

Funkenpants wrote:

As for the perception that the right wing was hurt by healthcare, I'm not seeing it. They got a bill they can live with without having to support it in public. That's bad for them...how?

I waffle on this. The media is certainly painting the GOP as losing the fight, and their declarations of Waterloos doesn't help at all. Even though the bill passed is a bipartisan bill, the GOP's constiuency doesn't realize that, thanks to millions spent on goth strip clubs and limos advertising by the RNC.

So, they refused to vote on a bill that, ten years ago, the GOP would've been pushing for, AND they wasted political capital getting people to hate it.

OG_slinger wrote:

How? Now the right doesn't have any issue to hide behind.

I don't see it this way. They didn't need drilling as tinder-box issue, since the other aspects of climate change legislation are likely to be contentious and politically difficult. That battle hasn't even started.

As for the perception that the right wing was hurt by healthcare, I'm not seeing it. They got a bill they can live with without having to support it in public, all while whipping up a base that was pretty demoralized after the last election. That's not everything they want, but it ain't bad for a loss.

Jayhawker wrote:

In the mean time, I don't believe that Obama is going to back off on his push for green solutions to our energy needs. But Republicans can't use drilling in the gulf as a distraction from the issue.

Nope. They'll just invent more distractions.

I went looking for more details.

For the whole 'drill, baby, drill' crowd, it looks like Obama's announcement will really only kick in in 2012. Again, he get's two years of room to move before anything really is done. Unfortunately, the Department of Interior's web site looks like it's down, so I don't know the exact details of the plan.

It also looks like he just got a deal signed to boost the CAFE standards on trucks and SUVs, closing the loophole that let them get sh*t poor mileage.

Ulairi wrote:

We are a centre-right nation.

And yet, you spell 'centre' in the Canadian manner... clearly Ulairi is a Canadian spy!! =)

Kraint wrote:

.
every dollar paid for oil from the new wells stays in the US, rather than going to Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Canada.

I dunno... as much as we like your money, the Chinese are making us some veeery tempting offers...

fangblackbone wrote:

...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.

Is this necessarily true? Companies that spend large amounts of money on 'alternative energy' research are just going to drop it as much of it comes to fruition and demand for it is increasing?

Afaik, most 'Big Oil' companies are selling themselves as Energy companies, not just oil. That could be just marketing, certainly. But a lot of these companies have been around for a long time (BP is just over 100 years old), and the oil business does require at least decade long planning at the best of times. Those running these companies must be anticipating the idea that oil may not be the most widely used fuel in another ten or twenty years. Or may not even be available, if the Peak Oil crowd are correct. Why would they sell themselves short from being involved in the next wave of energy production? Except for short term stock value, of course, but I find it unlikely that all of the companies' operators are that stupid.

Well, they could be, but lets be realistic.

OG_slinger wrote:

I went looking for more details.

For the whole 'drill, baby, drill' crowd, it looks like Obama's announcement will really only kick in in 2012. Again, he get's two years of room to move before anything really is done. Unfortunately, the Department of Interior's web site looks like it's down, so I don't know the exact details of the plan.

It also looks like he just got a deal signed to boost the CAFE standards on trucks and SUVs, closing the loophole that let them get sh*t poor mileage.

And if he loses the election the drilling will start during a Republican administration.

He is a politician after all.

Seth wrote:

So, they refused to vote on a bill that, ten years ago, the GOP would've been pushing for, AND they wasted political capital getting people to hate it.

The GOP wasted political capital? I haven't heard of any republican being in danger of losing a seat over his or her position on healthcare. In fact, the GOP won a seat in the senate on healthcare politics. So they got an industry-friendly vote in a Congress that was stacked in the democrats' favor with a democratic president in office, and an extra senate seat they never expected to win. I'm not calling this a republican win, but it's not bad under the circumstances.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't see it this way. They didn't need drilling as tinder-box issue, since the other aspects of climate change legislation are likely to be contentious and politically difficult. That battle hasn't even started.

As for the perception that the right wing was hurt by healthcare, I'm not seeing it. They got a bill they can live with without having to support it in public, all while whipping up a base that was pretty demoralized after the last election. That's not everything they want, but it ain't bad for a loss.

Again, you're confusing things. It's an energy policy discussion, not climate change legislation. The facts are that we could sink an oil well everywhere and still not come close to meeting our needs. So what do we do to address that? That involves a deeper policy concept than 'drill, baby, drill'. Besides, you can run the entire debate in terms of we don't want to give anymore money to countries in the Middle East and huge chunks of America would line up behind that policy: alternative energy to fight terrorism.

The right crippled themselves over health care, especially now that the Tea Party is morphing from a movement to a political party. All those pissed off and angry conservative voters can now support Tea Party candidates, stripping away votes from Republican candidates. And that splitting of the vote is on top of the damage the Republican party has already wrecked on itself in the search of doctrinal purity. The Tea Party just pushes things further to the right, which means Republican candidates will have to move to the right to prove their conservative chops, and further alienate independent voters.

Yeah, at the moment I don't think anyone could say the Pubs lost political capital in regards to healthcare. We can definitely say they may end up losing capital should public opinion turn but right now I'm still watching people buy cases of Spam and ammo to prepare for the coming apocalypse brought on by Obama so I certainly don't see them as being in any immediate danger.

There was a thread on here about the Tea Party being not Christian fundamentalists or modern day Dixiecrats: they're old hippies who miss the good old days of anti-government protest. Only these days they're not college kids looking to do drugs and get laid, they're middle management going through a mid-life crisis.

One of the most insightful things I've read in P&C. Well done, Cheeze.

Is St. Louis really that much worse than the rest of the country? And if you get into the rural areas of Missouri, it's far, far worse.

It must be. I hear what you guys talk about on this forum but I've never had that experience. I was in an interracial marriage and we had a couple of instances but even then it was usually a loud fat black women who would get in our face when we were out, or just asian people but that was much less public and more on my wife having to deal with it. Maybe I'm niave and I am willing to admit I may be but I just don't think that most people can be that horrible.

Ulairi wrote:
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.

I think we have to remember that America differs from the other western liberal democracies in that we are as much like one of the colonies as we are like the colonizers. Countries in Europe were able to leave their colonial past behind them by setting those countries free. I know we had foreign colonies like the Philippines, but a lot of our racial problems stem from slavery, and Europeans have been able to walk away from their slave histories because they were overseas: no on blames the issues Jamaica has on the English or the Congo has on the Belgians the way we blame the racial issues in the American South on America. When you look at how, say, the French of dealt with North Africans or the English have dealt with immigrants from their colonies, how America has dealt with its internal migration doesn't look as atypical.

Not saying racism is ever excusable, but if we're comparing countries, America should be graded on a curve considering we're a hybrid of colony and colonizer.

+++++

OG_slinger wrote:

It's not triangulation, it's simply political judo. The right campaigned on drilling and Obama just used that against them. Drilling can no longer be the bugaboo issue for energy policy that tort reform was for health care.

Or abortion was until that Stupak executive order--I see what you're saying. It doesn't really do much, but it provides political cover come November. Do something meaningless to take the sting out of an issue your opponent can make political hay out of.

+++++

And thanks Seth!

OG_slinger wrote:

Again, you're confusing things. It's an energy policy discussion, not climate change legislation.

How can you separate out energy policy from climate policy? Absent climate change or pollution concerns, there's no reason to favor electricity produced by green sources over that produced by combustion. And we have plenty of stuff to burn.

As for the right being crippled, Obama's job approval ratings on healthcare aren't breaking 50%. That's hardly a ringing endorsement or a sign that the republicans are spent as a political force.