Skip to content
Categories:

Obama opens the door to drilling ‘compromise’

Post date:
Author:

Up until a couple of months ago, John McCain was strongly opposed to expansive coastal drilling, arguing that it was a bad idea that would do nothing to help consumers. Then, as the political winds shifted, McCain shifted with them, and exploited public frustration for all its worth. He effectively told voters, “Wait, did I say coastal drilling wouldn’t help? I meant coastal drilling is great!”

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has stood firmly behind a reality-based policy, trying to explain to the public that drilling won’t help. To date, his efforts haven’t exactly paid off — polls show Americans endorsing this dumb idea in huge numbers, and Obama’s policy has become the McCain campaign’s biggest and most frequent target.

With that in mind, yesterday, Obama shifted a bit. It’s probably not quite fair to characterize this as a complete reversal — Obama thought coastal drilling was a bad policy before, and he thinks it’s a bad policy now — but just yesterday, I praised Obama for sticking to his guns on this. A few hours later, he became considerably more flexible.

Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package.

Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” he said.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.

“The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” Obama added. “And so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.”

McCain’s reversal on this was more of a shameless, cynical ploy — he thought coastal drilling wouldn’t work, and then he said it would. Obama’s reversal is more nuanced — he’s effectively saying, “If some expanded drilling is the price of getting an otherwise good bill through Congress, it’s still a bad idea, but so be it.”

I would have much preferred to see Obama continue to reject this obvious and transparent nonsense out of hand. He’s been treating voters like grown-ups, telling them the truth.

But it hasn’t been working.

I looked at this week’s CNN poll with some amazement. A combined 83% of Americans believe “federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas” are contributing to high gas prices. A combined 69% support “increased offshore drilling,” which is similar to the numbers in other polls.

Republicans have been screaming about drilling at the top of their lungs, the media has been treating the GOP position has a legitimate policy, and voters are so filled with anxiety, the desperation has clouded their judgment. It’s a difficult environment for a presidential candidate to say, “You’re all completely wrong.”

I was talking to a friend this week who does focus-group work, and he told me that even Dems and self-described environmentalists have been hedging on this issue — saying things like, “Maybe we should invest in more alternative energies and expand drilling. You know, best of both worlds.”

Obama’s line, while disappointing, concedes the political point, but it also reflects a pragmatic characteristic we’ve seen before with him. He has a vision and wants to advance his policy, but Obama is also willing to give a little, just so long as he moves the ball forward. Whether one finds that trait endearing or disappointing is a matter of personal perspective.

That said, there’s a small part of me that wonders if Obama is playing a little game with Republicans here. Obama surely knows that it takes at least two years to process new drilling leases, and three to five years for new drilling ships and other equipment become available. Is it at least possible that Obama is offering Republicans a sucker’s bet? Obama endorses a “comprehensive” energy policy in the short term, knowing full well that coastal drilling, even if approved tomorrow, wouldn’t even begin until the end of what would be his first term? Possibly even giving him time to fix the policy later and/or educate the public better?

Just a thought.

Comments

  • rege

    says:

    That said, there’s a small part of me that wonders if Obama is playing a little game with Republicans here. Obama surely knows that it takes at least two years to process new drilling leases, and three to five years for new drilling ships and other equipment become available. Is it at least possible that Obama is offering Republicans a sucker’s bet? Obama endorses a “comprehensive” energy policy in the short term, knowing full well that coastal drilling, even if approved tomorrow, wouldn’t even begin until the end of what would be his first term? Possibly even giving him time to fix the policy later and/or educate the public better?

    It is possible that he is, but let’s not give him too much credit just yet. Let’s wait to see how this plays out. In the meantime, I think we should all get use to Obama pulling the rug out from under us as he tries to find middle ground. That is who he is.

  • SteveT

    says:

    Supporters of offshore drilling should be required to personally guarantee its safety.

    Drilling supporters should be required to sign a legally binding contract to personally forfeit their entire fortune, included wealth they’ve put in the names of their spouses or children, in the event of an environmental accident. The money they forfeit would cover any costs that taxpayers would have to bear for cleanup of spills from drilling on new sites or transporting the oil coming from those new sites.

    Each new lease would not go into effect until members of Congress voting for more offshore drilling, along with Bush, Cheney and the Cabinet heads, and the Directors and top three levels of executives of the oil company signing the lease, sign their personal guarantee contract. This should be an easy thing for them to do because these people have been telling the American people that new technology will make new drilling completely environmentally safe.

    So come on, you advocate of “personal responsibility”, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Further proof that Mencken was right: nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    The booboisie want to know they can continue their hundred mile commutes to their prairie dog town McJobs in their SUVs.

  • Goldilocks

    says:

    I’m shocked at how short-sighted most Americans appear to be on this issue. How can they imagine that oil will last for ever? Clearly it is a depleting resource. No way can it be replenished once it’s gone. Not only are so many Americans short-sighted, they are actively buying their heads in the sand. So many bums in the air just look ridiculous.

    As Steve has said on many occasions: If you’re in a hole the first thing is to stop digging. Crawl out of the hole and look around to see if there is a better option. That option should be staring everyone in the face, and that option is indisputably alternative energy — a cornerstone of Mr Obama’s energy strategy.

    Even though 83% of Americans are so attached to their oil, it must be certain that this will drop as they eventually waken up, let go and come to their senses. Like Steve, “I would have much preferred to see Obama continue to reject this obvious and transparent nonsense out of hand.” Time, as well as logic, is totally on Mr Obama’s side. I can’t help feeling that if he had held his ground people would have come round to support his policy.

    Let’s just hope that Steve is right that Mr Obama is just playing a little game here with the Republicans.

  • zoe from pittsburgh

    says:

    I just watched him talk about it in his very interesting presser this morning.

    I think that Obama’s being really smart about this– he realizes that it’s a symbolic issue that is hurting him. Obama had a 12% lead in PA last month, now it’s 7%. Polling shows it might be due to his anti-drilling energy policy– but is this really about drilling? No, this is about people believing that Obama understands that high gas prices are really hurting them and that he’s willing to do something about it.

    Obama had a choice between trying to get the public to understand how more drilling will not lower their gas prices (which doesn’t seem to be working) OR he could say he is open to the Group of 10 compromise if it means some of his other energy policy goals will be met. If played well this takes an attack the GOP is using against him away from the GOP.

    After 8 years of having a president that refuses to compromise on anything it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone say they’re open to some compromise. McCain pretends he’s some kind of aisle-crossing maverick so it’ll be interesting to see if he tries to turn this into an accusation of Obama “flip-flopping.”

  • Tom in Ma

    says:

    People are very pragmatic, which includes a “if you are in a jam, then you do everything possible to get out of it.” In this case, if we are running out of oil, why not drill for it everywhere that is possible and safe? They don’t like to rule out options, on the grounds of ideology and abstraction. But signalling willingness to compromise, Obama takes this issue away from the GOP.

    What I would really like is for him to link off-shore drilling to the windfall profits tax — where the GOP would be stuck saying “no, no, a thousand times no.”

  • joepa

    says:

    Yes Obama is playing someone for a sucker. It is you.
    He abandons his supposed progressive principles here and with FISA for his true interests- furthering corporate interests- and watches you go through ludicrous gymnastics to keep your false hopes alive. Once the principle is abandoned and the legislation passes, inertia sets in making it difficult if not impossible to get anyone interested in fixing it – let alone get it fixed.
    But keep making up excuses for Obama as he plays you for a fool. It is what he is depending on.
    By the tiime you realize your mistake he figures he will be president and won’t need you suckers anyway.

  • mr.ed

    says:

    I’d have proposed a revival of the personal energy tax credits for home insulation and high mileage vehicles. Anything that gets better than, say 40mpg city would be eligible. While that means mostly hybrids, it would now include electric cars. There are plenty of folks who take public transportation who wouldn’t qualify. This would mollify the conservatives who would otherwise call this irresponsible welfare.

  • Rich

    says:

    Obama’s pragmatism aside for the moment, what is really disturbing is the gullibility of the American public, who once again prefer their illusions to reality. If the margins of supposed supporters of off-shore drilling are real, what we are witnessing is an adolescent temper tantrum:. Americans want to drive huge SUVs anywhere, anytime, and not have their polluting habits cost very much. Sacrifice and compromise have been stricken from our vocabulary. Americans are not interested in reality or bad news of any sort. It is inherent selfishness that cynical politicians and their oil-company masters understand all too well.

    Initially I was angry at Obama for this move, but as I read his words I see that he’s really defusing one of McCain’s hot-button issues, even though it is a thoroughly misleading and deceitful one. (Actually all of McSame’s issues are in that category now that the Roverians have taken over his campaign.) I still don’t understand Obama’s FISA behavior (that is a constitutional issue), but I do understand this policy move, and it’s probably a smart one if he doesn’t give any more ground.

  • locanicole

    says:

    No, joepa, this is what rational grownups do…compromise. I get the arguments against drilling, but unfortunately there are a lot of “butts in the air” and self-involved individuals who dont want to sacrafice anything to get what they want…we are a nation of children…it’s very frustrating, but if Obama can distract that percentage of the electorate with the “bright, shiny, object” of offshore drilling and in the meantime get the real job done, then go for it…

  • NHCt

    says:

    We get infuriated when Cheney says “so what” to news that the vast majority of Americans want out of Iraq, then blow-up at Obama for recognizing that Americans badly want drilling. As president, he can use his power to temper the will of the people. But if you buck it completely, especially during a campaign, it’s going to bite you on the ass. Hell, even I find myself thinking SOME drilling might not be a bad idea and I understand fully that it’s a bad idea. He needed to neutralize the only domestic issue McCain has going for him. Whether it will work is something we’ll have to wait and see.

  • ejfitz

    says:

    If you look at what Obama’s actually saying, this is a reasonable position. He’s saying, “No drilling just for the sake of drilling.” Only if it’s part of a comprehensive energy plan that would presumably (actually that must) include signficant investment in alternative energy sources and increased fuel efficiency. And, it’s drilling only on existing leases. Which is to say, you can drill in areas you already have the rights to drill. If that gets us a real comprehensive energy plan, it’s a small price to pay. And it’s debatable how much it’s really giving up while taking away a potentially potent Republican talking point.

    I agree with the other posters who say the FISA position is way more difficult to defend.

  • Kropotkin

    says:

    Maybe there is a little of Lyndon Johnson in Obama. Johnson was revered for his ability turn Kennedy’s and his own visions into passed legislation. As ugly as politics can be, it is important to look at the outcome of the negotiations and have we made America a better place to live? The energy crisis is real and Obama and the democrats could just run out the clock on Bush and wait for a more friendly environment to pass legislation. Instead, it appears that Obama is meeting the challenge head on and doing what is necessary to get the country pointed in the right direction.

  • CJ

    says:

    83% of Americans believe “federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas” are contributing to high gas prices

    With these overwhelming statistics, Obama had no choice.

    I’m pissed, as usual, at the media. But I’m also pissed at 83% of the American people. Most of the same people who claim to support efforts to reduce global warming also are screaming for more drilling—the same Americans who cry for tax cuts while demanding two wars and functional government services at home.

    How my fellow Americans simultaneously hold contradictory thoughts in their collective head is beyond me. The only thing that I can come up with is that we’re pretty fucking selfish.

  • SteveT

    says:

    CJ said:
    83% of Americans believe “federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas” are contributing to high gas prices….
    I’m pissed, as usual, at the media. But I’m also pissed at 83% of the American people. Most of the same people who claim to support efforts to reduce global warming also are screaming for more drilling….

    Most of those 83% want other people to make efforts to reduce global warming.

    But I can sympathize with them. I can’t afford to replace my van with a $40,000 Hybrid.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    10. On August 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am, locanicole said:
    No, joepa, this is what rational grownups do…compromise.

    No. You don’t compromise with people who are lying outright. Offshore drilling will accomplish nothing in the next decade. You can’t meet someone halfway when their position is a fantasy.

    You also don’t compromise with Republicans to get them to stop attacking you, ever, because it will never happen. Obama should know this by now. I’m watching the morning cable news networks (currently MSNBC) and the Republican mouthpieces aren’t congratulating Obama for being “reasonable”, they’re eviscerating him for being a flip-flopper.

    You can’t win with these people, all they know how to do is attack, and Obama has thrown away a prime issue where he could have attacked back. Offshore drilling will do nothing to help gas prices over the next 2 presidential terms, Republicans are lying to us about that. Now we’re not going to hear that message for the rest of the campaign and the public is going to be convinced that the lying bastards were right.

  • Helena Montana

    says:

    “[Obama’s] been treating voters like grown-ups, telling them the truth. But it hasn’t been working.”

    Then clearly he needs to change strategy a bit. Funnily enough, considering how outraged I still am over Obama’s FISA vote, I’m not very upset about this. It’s just words, after all. It’s a form of defanging the McCain attack machine.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    And I’ll go further. Maybe what Obama is doing is understandable on some level, but his unwillingness to fight is disturbing. If he can’t win a debate on an issue where the other side’s position is completely dishonest and all the facts are on his side, then how does he expect to win the election? Yes, he would be a hundred times better President, but you still have to win the fight to get there. Obama isn’t fighting right now and shows no sign of being willing to fight in the future. He should have been more active in educating the public, gas prices could have been the critical issue in this campaign and he just gave it away.

  • Rabi

    says:

    This is pretty disappointing news. I didn’t care about Obama’s shift on Iraq – in fact, I was happy about it. I didn’t care about Obama’s FISA vote, because he FISA controversy was a ridiculous non issue. I care about this though, offshore drilling is pure pandering.

    This is so counterproductive. Sometimes I feel like there are people running Obama’s campaign who want him to lose. I could run a better campaign that he has been.

  • MsJoanne

    says:

    No matter your thought on drilling, Obama is listening to the will of (83% of) the people. When is the last time THAT happened? Obama will never make everyone happy – but at least he listens to us.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    First, this should surprise no one. Obama has always been and always will be a moderate who favors consensus — he has been running to end gridlock and party-line politics, remember?

    Second, this is what governing really is, for most of history was, and should be about. No one gets the bill exactly how they want it – you make trade-offs and bargains and seek the best result that can get the necessary votes. A pure position that loses the election or can’t get passed as law is a pointless position.

    I have no problem with Obama’s move on this one. It makes the best of a bad situation.

  • Dale

    says:

    Inspiring-Obama took a hit on this, but Competent-Obama probably did the right thing in defusing this issue. The Republicans only work in on-off mode. They portrayed Obama as totally against off-shore drilling for their own purposes. Now they say he is totally for off-shore drilling. Neither of those things are the case.

    And MsJoanne is right, at least he listened.

  • Dale

    says:

    He’s been treating voters like grown-ups, telling them the truth. But it hasn’t been working.

    I think it’s been working in general but not on this issue (and maybe not on the FISA issue). Only a certain percentage of adults can be grownups at any one time or on any one issue.

    My question is will he be a smart compromiser as president or will he be a 2006 DemCong type compromiser. (I know that’s not a word, but remember it’s a living language. 🙂

  • jhm

    says:

    I don’t think that this little game is even a complicated as you suggest. The plain fact is that this whole off-shore drilling nonsense is important to the GOP strictly so that they can have something to say that is energy related. They would much rather have this “issue” than make any concessions on an intelligent energy policy (which might as well be an admission that there is not now and hasn’t been one for over a decade of mostly Republican governance).

    On the larger issue of popular support for this “solution,” I place the blame squarely at the door of the MSM. Treating the idea that increasing the number of unused leases on Federal lands will somehow matter allows people to go on believing it. They repeat claims of billions of barrels of oil, which is almost pure speculation, as a known quantity. They do nothing to put these quantities—even if they turn out to represent actual recoverable reserves—into perspective. Americans consume twenty thousand (that’s 20,000) barrels per day. That’s over 7.5 billion (with a ‘b’) barrels per year.

  • hark

    says:

    The oil companies do not have the capacity, the equipment, the infrastructure to fully exploit the leases they currently have. Adding more leases won’t produce another drop of oil. How hard is that to explain to the American people? How hard is it to explain that the oil companies are already sitting on billions of barrels and doing nothing with it? The American people don’t know that. I’m beginning to think most of the Democrats don’t know that, because they almost never make this point.

    Compromise is fine, when both sides have a legitimate argument. But this is not such a case. This is simply more Democratic spinelessness in action.

    I don’t think Obama is being “cute” here – he’s caving in. And that’s going to cost him politically. Not just from the liberals. He’s going to be ridiculed for this, and the Republicans will rightfully gloat that they got him over the barrel on this one. He’s come home to the frenzied drilling crowd with his tail between his legs.

    Did he have to cave in? That’s another question. But I don’t think we should praise him for being a skillful politician on this issue. I think it shows that he didn’t know how to fight, how to win this. And if you can’t win an issue when the facts are all on your side, and all you have to do is overcome the hysterical shouting on the other side, then what can you win?

    Meanwhile, global warming, environmentalism and alternative energy have all taken one hell of a beating. And that is going to cost us big time. It’s not just a political defeat. It’s a defeat for the planet.

  • inthewoods

    says:

    Man, the right is going to eat this up. Paint him as the flip-flopper. I hate watching this.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    and when they do, and when the press covers it, all good Carpetbaggers should have their e-mail open and their link to The Official John McCain Flip-Flop List at the ready to send friends, editors, and fellow countrymen for context, comparison, and rebuttal! 🙂

  • lou

    says:

    Obama should lay it out there with some big time straight talk if he does compromise on the drilling — this is not going to reduce the price of oil or gasoline! By continuing our profligate consumption of gasoline in the US coupled with rising demand worldwide and world oil production peaking, oil and gasoline prices will continue to rise and they will become much more expensive. Increased drilling may help briefly to keep production from falling precipitously as oil depletion occurs in current production fields, but this will only help for a few more years. And then, if we do not use this brief period wisely to significantly reduce our consumption in the US and around the world then we can kiss our sweet asses good by. Obama should let it be known that burning our remaining oil reserves in such a wasteful manner with no end in sight is truly a crime again ourselves, our children and the planet. Keeping the wheels on our failing ways is not the brightest road to the future. In fact it is the road to collapse.

    And for Obama, the very real threat of this compromise is that the media will portray only the “flip-flop” aspect of it and not connect it with a more holistic policy including the key segments of conservation, alternative energy, etc. The republicans will frame it as a win for them and that is how the media will transmit the message and how the electorate will receive it.

  • munchkinpup

    says:

    I agree with everything Joepa said. Obama is not so very different from McSame. Obama should NOT be flip-flopping on this issue. The public needs to be educated concerning offshore drilling, not listening to scare tactics and propaganda from the oil CEO’s and the GOP. It is OBVIOUS who Obama is beholden to.

    From the NRDC- Issues: Oil & Energy
    http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drillingtf.asp?gclid=COfKpJ3y6pQCFRwvagodkhuFRA

    The True and False of Oil Drilling
    President Bush and the oil companies would have you believe that we can drill our way to lower gas prices. Is it fact or damaging fiction?

    With gas prices soaring, oil companies and their allies in the Bush administration are pushing to exploit America’s wildlands and protected coastal regions — all in the name of short-term relief at the pump. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that was put in place by his father 18 years ago, claiming it would bring down gas prices. But the president and his buddies aren’t playing straight with the American people. Sinking oil rigs into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Outer Continental Shelf and the American West won’t alleviate the pain we’re feeling right now, or help solve the nation’s energy problems in the future.

    Still, a lot of arguments are floating around, and sometimes it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. Here’s a guide to what’s real, and what’s fantasy.

    Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf could help lower gas prices quickly.
    FALSE
    It would take almost a decade before significant oil production could occur in either place, and even then it would have a marginal impact. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, would only shave 4 cents off a gallon of gas by 2026, or $23 per year for the average driver, assuming that other conditions affecting gas prices remain the same. And that’s at maximum benefit! Likewise, it would take many years for the oil from new offshore wells to go into production, and even at peak, the additional supply wouldn’t reduce energy prices significantly. These numbers are all according to the U.S. government’s own estimates. A June 2008 Congressional report makes it clear: “The argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices … there is simply no correlation between the two.”

    America could have plenty of oil and stop importing so much fuel from foreign countries if we were allowed to drill for it in our own backyards.
    FALSE
    Americans burn through 20 million barrels of oil a day — accounting for 25 percent of the world’s total consumption — but government estimates show that we only have 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. As an example of how little difference drilling would make, say that we did open the Arctic Refuge for exploitation. It would take an estimated 50 years to drain the whole thing dry. During that time, the oil fields would likely produce less fuel than what our country now consumes in just six months. With so little of the world’s oil supply and such high demand, even if we allowed drilling everywhere that the oil companies want to — from the Arctic refuge to the American West to protected offshore areas — there’s still no way we could quench America’s thirst for oil. We must embrace other solutions.

    If we can’t get the oil we need out of the Arctic Refuge, there’s no good reason not to look for it offshore, as President Bush is urging.
    FALSE
    Congress first banned drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf in 1982, and for good reason: Offshore drilling is an enormously wasteful and dangerous means of energy production. Between 1981 and 2005, 187 large oil spills on the continental shelf dumped more than 2,100 gallons each into the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina alone resulted in 125 spills, totaling 685,000 gallons. Offshore drilling is also associated with air pollution and land degradation, and with seismic activity that has been shown to have profound, even fatal, effects on marine mammals. The ban was affirmed by executive orders signed by the first President Bush in 1990 and extended by President Clinton in 1998. Even the current President Bush supported the ban until the summer of 2008, when soaring gas prices exposed the failure of his oil-centric energy policy.

    Billions of barrels of oil are just waiting to be tapped from oil shale in the American West and would help reduce prices at the pump right away.
    FALSE
    Along with efforts to drill offshore and in the Arctic Refuge, Big Oil is pushing federal agencies to turn over publicly owned wildlands in the American West for oil shale development. Oil shale is a rock found in precious wildlife habitat and undeveloped open spaces running through Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. It produces liquid petroleum when heated to extreme temperatures. Industry allies in Congress and the Bush administration propose rushing development of commercial oil shale production in the Western states, but this won’t provide relief for consumers. It will take almost a decade or more before essential research on potential technologies is completed and we know what their impact would be. But it would be even longer before significant production of oil shale could occur, assuming that a viable technology is developed. What’s more, because oil shale will be far more costly to produce than conventional fuel, commercial oil shale development is not likely to reduce gas prices. But most significantly, the environmental impact of oil shale production would further deplete the West’s scarce water resources, threaten precious wildlife habitat, increase air pollution and generate toxic waste from the conversion process. The costs to Western communities would be enormous.

    The oil companies already have plenty of places where they could be drilling for oil other than the Arctic Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf.
    TRUE
    It might be hard to believe, considering how much they’re clamoring to drill on public lands, but oil companies already have plenty of resources available to them that they’re not using. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by 361 percent, according to a June 2008 Congressional report called “The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits.” In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 10,000 more permits than have been used. That means the oil and gas companies are actually stockpiling extra permits, and that these companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres that are not in production. Oil companies haven’t run out of land, as they’re claiming — they just want unfettered access to protected natural areas, and they’re using the current crisis to try to get it.

    We’ve heard all of these arguments for increased drilling before.
    TRUE
    In 2001, after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, some members of Congress called for immediate action to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. But even in that time of crisis and fear, cooler heads prevailed and Americans rejected the idea. They realized that the problem isn’t just how much oil we import from foreign sources, it’s how much we use overall. The first Bush administration acknowledged this fact in 1991 with a National Energy Strategy that said: “Popular opinion aside, our vulnerability to price shocks is not determined by how much oil we import.” The No. 1 factor in our vulnerability, according to the Bush administration itself: “How oil dependent our economy is.”

    We could have solved this problem a long time ago if we had just taken action.
    TRUE
    Not, however, in the way that the oil companies and their cronies would like you to think. For many years, national security and energy experts, including NRDC, have urged the president and Congress to adopt a farsighted national energy policy that would move the United States away from our reliance on fossil fuels. In 2001, for example, an NRDC report on overcoming U.S. oil dependence urged “reducing demand for gasoline with better gas mileage, cleaner fuels from America’s farms, and faster deployment of hybrid and fuel cell technologies.” Those are the same arguments that NRDC and many other experts had been making for years — and are still making today. It’s time for the president and Congress to listen.

    Sadly, there really is no short-term solution to high gas prices.
    FALSE
    Thank goodness, this one’s not true. Yes, we need to make major changes in America’s energy policy, but there are ways that you can make up for the government’s neglect by taking matters into your own hands. In fact, studies show that energy efficiency measures are a lot more effective, over both the short and long term, than increased drilling, and they’re good for both the environment and your wallet. Simple steps such as keeping your car engine in top shape and your tires properly inflated will yield significant savings over the long term and help you begin saving money right now. A new NRDC analysis of cars currently on the road shows that by driving smarter, keeping vehicles properly maintained, and using transportation alternatives one day per week, the average driver could save about $800 on gas per year.

  • bubba the troll you all love to hate

    says:

    With that in mind, yesterday, Obama shifted a bit. It’s probably not quite fair to characterize this as a complete reversal …..A few hours later, he became considerably more flexible….Stevie…..listen to yourself.. this guy flip flops more times than a cheap hamburger patty at White Castle… Like ive been telling you folks all along, your boy’s policy is dictated by the wind.. whatever he thinks people want to hear that is what he will say.. time after time after time…. at first he sided with his antijew college buddies, now he loves Israel…… He defended his American hating pastor.. now he thinks he was wrong…. He sided with a known terror supprting organization..now he dont like terrorist… last week he said drilling was terrible.. now its ok if… THe if is if he thinks he can buy a vote with a lie he will lie….. when are you all gonna see this clown for what he is…
    Bubba said that….

  • Guy Blaise

    says:

    Senator Obama’s change of position about offshore drilling is what a true politician should do. A true politician put the people first. A true politician is not afraid to change his mind based on people’s needs. As the Fulani of Guinee say,”If the river changes its direction,the crocodile is obligated to follow it.”
    Guy Blaise

  • bubba the troll you all love to hate

    says:

    Put the people first.. oh come on Guy… when anyone on the right changes their stance on something you people here start screaming flip flop.. if your guy does it its a good political tactic.. the problem is when he changes like this he alienates more and more voters that believed his garbage from the start… he is changing his tactics in accordance of what the “wright” is saying is wrong with him. he is doing this because he dont believe in himself or his ideals. he is just politicing and that is all it is… Y’all can believe what you read on bumper stickers you buy from moveon.org but the truth is your guy is pretty weak and it shows up more and more the closer we get to election…the only thing I heard which is the truth here Guy is that you said he is a true politician.. and ya know the definition of a true politician.. well I will tell ya…. A true politician is one who does what he says he is going to do after you pay him to do it….Bubba Said That

  • Bruno

    says:

    I’m glad that Obama is coming around and is willing to have drilling on the table.

    I agree with Obama that is is a bad idea, and I agree with the liberals posting here that we shouldn’t do it at all. Does that sound like gibberish? Is it really?

    Obama can bring it to the table, and when it is on the table he will have the media’s ear, on why he’s flip-flopping. Obama will have enough ammunition to show that he is not flip-flopping at all.

    He can require that the Republicans and their oil company backers present a proposal and the reasons why:

    1) They have not drilled on any of the 68 million acres of leases they currently have in their possession.
    2) They have not done any offshore drilling in the millions of acres they already have under lease.

    Then Obama can also ask for the following to be explained:

    1) How long will it take before you can start your first drilling rigs, on the new leases, since you haven’t started in the offshore drilling leases you already have?
    2) Once the drilling rigs are in place, how long do you think it will take before oil is produced?
    3) How many barrels of oil, do you think those offshore drilling rigs will be able to produce?
    4) What do you think the impact of offshore drilling will be on gas prices at the pump?
    5) How do you explain the government figures (state the numbers) that claim that the benefit will be minimal, if any, and that it would take at least 10 years before real oil is produced?

    Obama can also take a jab that we want realistic assessments, not like the ones leading up to the war in Iraq where everything was going to be a cakewalk.

    I know that I want to hear those answers myself, and I know that a lot of other people would like those answers too.

    Obama has tried to be reasonable, but as several commenters have quoted Mencken…. those dumb ignorant people need to hear it as well. Now it is time for Obama to switch strategy: let them think he’s flip flopping and then hit them over the head with serious questions that needs serious answers.

  • mccainridge

    says:

    I don’t think that Obama is changing his position should be suprising. In fact, I think Obama got a bit out-smarted on this one.

    You see, McCain staked out aposition that he supported oil drilling, if the STATES supported oil drilling.

    If Obama opposes, then he is (as the potential head of the federal government) telling the states they can’t do something, even when the states themselves are supportive. No president wants to be in a position of opposing the will of the states, and McCain crafted his position to say “Let the states decide”.

    Obama’s stance was a losing position to take, and so McCain ended up forcing Obama to change.

    What’s surprising is the issue played out this way, and makes me wonder if Obama has the political experience to know when he’s fighting a losing battle. By not carefully defining his position before hand, he wound up looking weak.

  • Guy Blaise

    says:

    I wonder why American people love the word “Flip-Flop”. What you call flip-flop is called common sense. But you can’t blame Senator Obama for everything in the world. As the Berbere of Algeria say, “To criticize for criticizing other people is a proof of idlenees.”I wonder why American people love the word “Flip-Flop”. What you call flip-flop is called common sense. But you can’t blame Senator Obama for everything in the world. As the Berebere of Algeria say, “To criticize for criticizing other people is a proof of idlenees.”
    Guy Blaise

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    If Johnny Six Pack swallows the wiggle room left over in “If, in order to get that passed,…”, I will once again be blown away by Obama’s political acumen.

    What are the chances a Democratic majority in both houses and the White House will need to compromise this way to get comprehensive energy policy implemented? It rhymes with “hero”.

    It’s weaselly, but dopey Americans so easily hoodwinked by McCain’s smoke and mirrors can hardly expect sympathy at this point if they feel “tricked” by Obama’s conditional compromise.

    My countrymen make me so mad.