Obama Wants to Drill Off the East Coast

[Symmetry]

Hah- perhaps. I appreciated Bush's engagement with alternative energy sources, but I don't think it was serious enough. Alternative energy would require far higher subsidies and investment than either Bush or Obama are willing to give to become credible anytime soon. So I'll certainly give you that point, although I still feel that Obama is more inclined towards it as potential policy. Feeling that he's inclined, of course, being miles away from actual policy.

Reduction in oil usage, likewise.

I think the big issue for me may well be the way that these policies interact on a world stage. Put simply, if Western countries are the business model for India and China then current Western energy policy is unsustainable. We need some degree of credibility in the way that we develop our energy policies with the rest of the world.

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, I'm not sure if my beef is not clear or if it is being ignored (not by you necessarily). I just find it extremely hypocritical for someone to be in support of this while, just 2 years ago, that same person is not in support of this... the only difference being the president.

I understand your view on some people being hypocrtical. Take me for example.

I vividly recall this stand on drilling oil in the east coast from McCain's platform, and at that time I didn't like the idea. It doesn't make enough sense, just keep the reserves, focus on alternative energies, and now (as Phatscotty mentioned) balance the budget to control inflation and make the dollar worth more. The few jobs this will provide I don't think outweigh the cons.

However, I do think Obama's move on drilling for east coast oil to be a good one--not because I haven't changed my previous views. But, as you and pimpdave mentioned, this is a compromise to get the Republican axles greased a bit, which then outweighs the previously mentioned cons.

It may seem hypocritical, but due to changing circumstances, I have to be flexible in my opinions to factor previously unforeseen problems.

[spurgistan]

Just to make sure I'm on the board as not being a hypocrite (at least in this case) I wholeheartedly oppose this, particularly given that Obama doesn't seem to have gotten any concessions (political or otherwise) for basically supporting a Republican initiative.

[AAFitz]

Actually, that's not true about President Bush. I would assume you've been attacked the propaganda master, but I'm not sure that's accurate. President Bush (and Senator McCain by the way) had clear policies with respect to domestic drilling. They were both roundly criticized by Democrats for those policies.

I find the lack of criticism for President Obama hypocritical, though obviously I'm not surprised. If one is against domestic drilling under President Bush (and I use "one" to refer to a non-politician), then one should be against domestic drilling under President Obama. For our conservative friends, if you're for domestic drilling under President Bush, then you should be for domestic drilling under President Obama. I like my support for issues to be consistent, at the very least.

I agree but there is a major difference between Obama drilling for oil and bush drilling for oil. Considering the desperate situation the economy is in now, while many do not like the idea of drilling off the east coast, I think its understandable that they may accept it as more necessary now than under Bush. No doubt there is still some hypocracy there, but quite frankly, we live in a different country now than we did 4 years ago.

I think it would be expected for many people to switch their views on some policies in wake of the economic situation. Its hardly at the panic stage, but I dont think anyone can rule out that it cant get to the panic stage right now, and while Im not supporting nor criticizing the idea of drilling, it is a valuable resource, and if its needed in an emergency, its better to have access to it, than not, as long as the many environmental concerns can be addressed...though clearly, that is a debate in and of itself.

[Knight of Orient]

I still believe we need to wait before we use our own resources. As said earlier he is deflecting heat off his own arse because he pushed like hell for the healthcare reform. Obama needs to stop trying to make his 'moments in history' and focus on getting jobs that the common person without special training and whatnot can get.

Take care of the lower and middle class at home Barak, worry about your own fame and wallet later!

[AAFitz]

I still believe we need to wait before we use our own resources. As said earlier he is deflecting heat off his own arse because he pushed like hell for the healthcare reform. Obama needs to stop trying to make his 'moments in history' and focus on getting jobs that the common person without special training and whatnot can get.

Take care of the lower and middle class at home Barak, worry about your own fame and wallet later!

Better would be to provide better education and special training. Im not sure we actually want to just set up dead end jobs to try to build america. the reason america got to be a world leader in the first place is because of its ingenuity as well as its hard work. Unfortunately, everyone has been too focused on their tax bill and simply dont want to fund the one resource above all others that provides the future of america. Instead, somewhere along they way, we all just wanted a little more for ourselves, got selfish, and bought SUV's instead of text books. The teabags are out there pretending to be revolutionaries trying to save our country and are simply trying to kick in less to help rebuild america after it was fleeced very deliberately, and very effectively.

[thegreekdog]

I have to disagree a little on the first comment Fitzy. I'm fairly sure no jobs will be created from this until President Obama is well into his second term. I only disagree a little because I think that is how the "compromise" will be spun - creates jobs, concessions from Republicans (I don't know what those are yet).

Also, spurgistan, thanks. Honestly.

[pimpdave]

Yeah, by the way, I'm not happy about this either, same as I wasn't happy about Bush's proposal, but it's not something that motivates me to want to get someone out of office the way that gross malfeasance in the argument for and prosecution of a major war does.

I have to see what we get out of it in terms of climate change legislation and real movement towards alternative energy. If that doesn't happen, I'll be really disappointed, but (just speaking for myself and not all progressives everywhere) what I've always liked most about Obama is his ability to work out compromises.

It's what I admired most about Bush when he was governor of Texas. He changed when he got to Washington. If Obama continues to work out compromises that are advantageous to the country on the whole, not necessarily my particular desires or vision of how things ought to be, then he's delivering on the promise I bought into when I voted for him as well as delivering on the promise of the Constitution and our great experiment of a Republic.

Compromise truly is what we Americans do best, and it's when we fail to do so that we stumble into our greatest and worst national tragedies.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, that's not true about President Bush. I would assume you've been attacked the propaganda master, but I'm not sure that's accurate. President Bush (and Senator McCain by the way) had clear policies with respect to domestic drilling. They were both roundly criticized by Democrats for those policies.

I find the lack of criticism for President Obama hypocritical, though obviously I'm not surprised. If one is against domestic drilling under President Bush (and I use "one" to refer to a non-politician), then one should be against domestic drilling under President Obama. For our conservative friends, if you're for domestic drilling under President Bush, then you should be for domestic drilling under President Obama. I like my support for issues to be consistent, at the very least.

I agree folks are being somewhat hypocritical here. Part of it is simply that thing (economically, etc) have changed. Part of it is that this time it really does seem to be a part of a far broader reach to truly try and convert us over to alternative energy sources, instead of just giving lip service. He is not saying "we have plenty of oil", he is saying "we don't have enough alternative energy sources available for the near future". That might be a subtle difference, but it is a big one. It is also paired with a stepping up of general environmental enforcement. Bush actually flat out told his administration to ignore certain laws, particularly ones concerning waterways. (those are the ones with which I am more familiar, but also that have the most profound impact on us). I believe right now, we need more oil and not acknowledging that is like trying to stop a moving freight train, as much as I wish it were otherwise.

Finally, I am not naive enough to thing "exploration" means anything but a "precursor to development". However, it will be 10 years before this oil will be pumped. Part of conservation is to plan ahead. It might well be that these resources will have less of an impact that other sites already considered -- additional north pacific sites, increase Alaskan output, etc.

The bottom line is that I don't think anybody really wants more oil development, but it is better to go ahead now, with an administration who will do something to protect the environment. Better to drill under and administraton who we believe will take steps to make sure its done in a reasonably ecologically sound manner AND who sees it as only a "stop-gap" to conversion to alternative energies, rather than a solution onto itself.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, by the way, I'm not happy about this either, same as I wasn't happy about Bush's proposal, but it's not something that motivates me to want to get someone out of office the way that gross malfeasance in the argument for and prosecution of a major war does.

I have to see what we get out of it in terms of climate change legislation and real movement towards alternative energy. If that doesn't happen, I'll be really disappointed, but (just speaking for myself and not all progressives everywhere) what I've always liked most about Obama is his ability to work out compromises.

It's what I admired most about Bush when he was governor of Texas. He changed when he got to Washington. If Obama continues to work out compromises that are advantageous to the country on the whole, not necessarily my particular desires or vision of how things ought to be, then he's delivering on the promise I bought into when I voted for him as well as delivering on the promise of the Constitution and our great experiment of a Republic.

Compromise truly is what we Americans do best, and it's when we fail to do so that we stumble into our greatest and worst national tragedies.

What compromises has President Obama worked out exactly?

Other than the idea that President Obama is some sort of great compromiser, I agree with you.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, that's not true about President Bush. I would assume you've been attacked the propaganda master, but I'm not sure that's accurate. President Bush (and Senator McCain by the way) had clear policies with respect to domestic drilling. They were both roundly criticized by Democrats for those policies.

I find the lack of criticism for President Obama hypocritical, though obviously I'm not surprised. If one is against domestic drilling under President Bush (and I use "one" to refer to a non-politician), then one should be against domestic drilling under President Obama. For our conservative friends, if you're for domestic drilling under President Bush, then you should be for domestic drilling under President Obama. I like my support for issues to be consistent, at the very least.

I agree folks are being somewhat hypocritical here. Part of it is simply that thing (economically, etc) have changed. Part of it is that this time it really does seem to be a part of a far broader reach to truly try and convert us over to alternative energy sources, instead of just giving lip service. He is not saying "we have plenty of oil", he is saying "we don't have enough alternative energy sources available for the near future". That might be a subtle difference, but it is a big one. It is also paired with a stepping up of general environmental enforcement. Bush actually flat out told his administration to ignore certain laws, particularly ones concerning waterways. (those are the ones with which I am more familiar, but also that have the most profound impact on us). I believe right now, we need more oil and not acknowledging that is like trying to stop a moving freight train, as much as I wish it were otherwise.

Finally, I am not naive enough to thing "exploration" means anything but a "precursor to development". However, it will be 10 years before this oil will be pumped. Part of conservation is to plan ahead. It might well be that these resources will have less of an impact that other sites already considered -- additional north pacific sites, increase Alaskan output, etc.

The bottom line is that I don't think anybody really wants more oil development, but it is better to go ahead now, with an administration who will do something to protect the environment. Better to drill under and administraton who we believe will take steps to make sure its done in a reasonably ecologically sound manner AND who sees it as only a "stop-gap" to conversion to alternative energies, rather than a solution onto itself.

Okay, I agree, except for a few things. First, we probably won't do any drilling at all under this administration (although there may be restrictions in place now, I haven't read the bill, I'm sure an evil Republican could change the whole thing). Second, I think the "economy is bad so we need to do something" doesn't really work in this case because, as you said, it will be 10 years before anything is pumped. I'm cynical, so I think this was done purely for political reasons and to appease oil companies, who likely provided President Obama was financial incentives. I certainly hope there are some environmental-type riders to this bill, but like I said I haven't read it.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, it definitely was politics. However, when I am talking economy, I am talking 10 years down the line. Just because the benefit is in the future, the concern is in the futre doesn't maek it false. That is part of my point. A big problem in the recent past is paying way too much attention to the immediate and not enough to the future. As a result, we don't, now have enough alternative energy ready to go, and are going to have to use some oil or be in even worse shape.

As pimpdave said, if Obama really does push heavily for alternative energy, then this won't be so bad. If he doesn't... well , then we will definitely need this oil, but will probably be in bad shape regardless.

[pimpdave]

What compromises has President Obama worked out exactly?

Other than the idea that President Obama is some sort of great compromiser, I agree with you.

Well, since this is just an internet argument



and not something for credit, or money or anything, I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing research, but I do know that when Obama was in Illinois he developed a reputation as deserved as Bush's when Bush was in Texas. As I recall, Obama's biggest thing was working on a compromise with regards to abortion legislation, and he found that the issue was irreconcilable because the right just will not compromise. (Reminds me of a famous C. Everett Koop statement about how if the right would just compromise on the abortion issue, they could have saved millions of lives already. And that statement was when Reagen was in office. And yes, he got in big trouble with the Falwells of the world, etc.)

And surely as you recall, his stimulus package was a huge compromise in terms of giving the Republicans what they demanded in terms of tax cuts, which they have turned around and used only to criticize Obama in their politicking like the snakes in the grass they are.

[thegreekdog]

What? Based on President Obama's State of the Union address I was under the impression that the tax cuts under the economic stimulus were his ideas, not the Republicans.

Look, President Obama may be a great compromiser, but he hasn't been one while he's been president. He may get a chance to be a great compromiser as early as 2011, depending on the elections this year.

President Clinton was a great compromiser. President Reagan was a great compromiser. Right now, President Obama looks a lot more like FDR pre-WWII.

[pimpdave]

Also with the stimulus package, all of the corporate welfare and bailouts for the rich. Those were demanded by the Republicans, and Obama tried to reach across the aisle.

[thegreekdog]

Also with the stimulus package, all of the corporate welfare and bailouts for the rich. Those were demanded by the Republicans, and Obama tried to reach across the aisle.

Um... no way dude. President Obama was for all those stimulus packages; so were Republicans but it wasn't like Barack said, "Fine, I'll give AIG $50 billion." C'mon, you know I'm right.