CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers

post #1 of 698
3/31/10 at 8:43am
Thread Starter 
... much to the consternation of many of us who voted for him:

Obama energy plan would open up Gulf drilling

Quote:
(CNN) -- In a move that could help win Republican support for other energy initiatives, President Obama will announce plans Wednesday to open large sections of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and an area off the Virginia coast for oil and natural gas drilling.

"To set America on a path to energy independence, the president believes we must leverage our diverse domestic resources by pursuing a comprehensive energy strategy," said a statement provided by an administration official, who did not want to comment on the record ahead of the president's announcement.

"The president will announce today additional measures that will boost domestic energy production and promote clean energy innovation," the statement said.

The GOP has long championed additional domestic drilling to lessen America's dependence on outside energy sources. And while the plan could help win Republican support for other White House initiatives, it won't find many fans among environmentalists.

Can't say I'm happy about this, yet I can't wait for the confused Palin-ites response to this.
Reply
post #2 of 698
3/31/10 at 11:24am
It takes a lot to get a rise out of me with regard to political matters. I'm livid at the moment.
Reply
post #3 of 698
3/31/10 at 12:09pm
From the article I read about it the president is going to open that area up and close off Alaska (not fully, but areas that companies have been fighting to open for years). I almost think this is a way to say to Palin "you know we can get our oil from other parts of America too"
Reply
post #4 of 698
3/31/10 at 12:36pm
Good news, but will it have a significant impact on the amount of oil we import from other parts of the world?

And, as expected the response is "not good enough!"

Quote:
"It's long past time for this administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources of the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?' "
Reply
post #5 of 698
3/31/10 at 12:49pm
And this is an issue because....?

Why not tap our resources if this can be done safely?

This always reminds me of the people that demand we switch to new
forms of renewable energy...and when we do, the environmentalists say the
wind farm kills a bat, or the nuke plant still isn't safe even when the French have dozens of them....

We can't do anything significant about global warming and energy independence with so many groups fighting the government over things like this.
Reply
post #6 of 698
3/31/10 at 12:56pm
Not happy, but I'd like to say appealing to the worst aspects of our economy will be a recurring theme whenever Obama wants to get anything done. If this is the price to getting any sort of energy reform off the ground, fine.

Doesn't mean I'll be smiling about it, though.
Reply
post #7 of 698
3/31/10 at 12:58pm
This was an idea he proposed back in August of 2008, so it hardly comes as a surprise.
Reply
post #8 of 698
3/31/10 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
Not happy, but I'd like to say appealing to the worst aspects of our economy will be a recurring theme whenever Obama wants to get anything done. If this is the price to getting any sort of energy reform off the ground, fine.

Doesn't mean I'll be smiling about it, though.
I'm afraid that's it. When I saw the headline on yahoo, all I could think was 'Time to put on my pragmatic cap.'
Reply
post #9 of 698
3/31/10 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
...and when we do, the environmentalists say the
wind farm kills a bat,
If only our wind farms could kill a strawman.
Reply
post #10 of 698
3/31/10 at 1:58pm
As someone who voted for him and lives right on the fucking coast of the Gulf of Mexico (and has seen first hand what little, minute "accidents" do to the very valuable coastline): FUCK YOU, Mr. President.
Reply
post #11 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD View Post
If only our wind farms could kill a strawman.
ahaha
Reply
post #12 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:00pm
Also, why shut down Alaska? If we're going to possibly fuck up one beautiful environment for the sake of more oil, why not just play fair and do it everywhere possible?
Reply
post #13 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
This was an idea he proposed back in August of 2008, so it hardly comes as a surprise.
He proposed it back then as something he'd be willing to compromise on in exchange from something from the other side of the aisle. Going through with this is either a direct sign that either 1) he learned absolutely fucking nothing from the first year of his term or 2) he's just as bought by the energy interests as anyone in the GOP.
Reply
post #14 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
As someone who voted for him and lives right on the fucking coast of the Gulf of Mexico (and has seen first hand what little, minute "accidents" do to the very valuable coastline): FUCK YOU, Mr. President.
Well, this is the part that I think is a bit hypocritical. We're still consuming oil, if we don't get it from these places, we import it from other countries. Importing it from other countries means there's an environmental impact still going on somewhere, it doesn't make it not happen. So while I understand the sentiment, I think if we're not lowering consumption, it's a bit hypocritical to criticize this while people are fine with polluting elsewhere while still contributing the same towards global warming in the end.
Reply
post #15 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:28pm
I'm just sick of them putting more and more bandaids on the situation. (i.e. let's work way, way harder on the consumption end of it rather than just sticking more rigs everywhere)


That said, the article CLAIMS it would stay 125 miles off the coast. That's better, if I'm not mistaken, than what they were trying to get going years ago.
Reply
post #16 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
He proposed it back then as something he'd be willing to compromise on in exchange from something from the other side of the aisle.
And that's exactly what he's doing now.
From NYT-
"The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
This is a purly political move. He's throwing the GOP a bone in the hopes that it will force them to be more cooperative with his upcoming enviromental legislation.
Reply
post #17 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:55pm
Putting on my centrist hat for a minute, I like this idea. It's about time we start tapping into our own resources to lessen the amount of foreign oil we bring into this nation. That being said, because of the possible environmental impact this might cause to our oceans, I would think this only could be done with the stringent of regulations. Our government needs to keep an eye on these oil corporations to make sure they're dotting all i's and crossing all t's. Any short sighting of work or loopholes around reg's, pull their licenses.

Then again, I also think a great idea should be the building of wind turbines in the oceans. This past week, the City of Cleveland just agreed with some companies to build a couple of wind turbines out on Lake Erie. I'll be able to see them from my apartment window and they're expected to generate a ton of energy for the city.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...roup_says.html

EDIT: They'll be built by 2020. I'll be long gone from this city by then.
Reply
post #18 of 698
3/31/10 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
And that's exactly what he's doing now.
From NYT-
"The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
This is a purly political move. He's throwing the GOP a bone in the hopes that it will force them to be more cooperative with his upcoming enviromental legislation.
So you're going with the first horn of the dilemma, then.
Reply
post #19 of 698
3/31/10 at 3:00pm
I have no idea what that means.
Reply
post #20 of 698
3/31/10 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
I have no idea what that means.
You seem to think he thinks the GOP will actually be willing to compromise and work with him after spending a year creating a monster they now cannot control via fearmongering and noncooperation. To me, that seems to be taking the first horn--or option--of the dilemma that he either learned jack shit over the last year or has no real interest in reform.
Reply
post #21 of 698
3/31/10 at 3:13pm
It's basically a public appeal. Of course he can't expect the GOP to give him an inch on anything. But everyone in the country knows that now after a year of health care "debate." If Obama publicly announces (And this is key. This is no back room deal. This is a decidely public concession.) that he is giving this thing to the GOP it will make them look bad if they don't try to cooperate. They came out of health reform looking like assholes to a lot of people. Obama is gambling that the GOP doesn't want to risk looking like the Party Of No again.
Reply
post #22 of 698
3/31/10 at 3:24pm
I'd like to believe that, Doug. Something tells me they can still act like jackasses and nobody(especially on their side of issues) will give much of a shit. They've all been flying on autopilot for some time.
Reply
post #23 of 698
3/31/10 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
I'd like to believe that, Doug. Something tells me they can still act like jackasses and nobody(especially on their side of issues) will give much of a shit. They've all been flying on autopilot for some time.
I think the not-give-a-shitters are a very vocal minority by now.
Reply
post #24 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
I'd like to believe that, Doug. Something tells me they can still act like jackasses and nobody(especially on their side of issues) will give much of a shit. They've all been flying on autopilot for some time.
That may be, but when was the last time this resulted in a major political victory for them? From a purely partisan standpoint, it doesn't seem like the GOP on autopilot is anything for the opposition to fear too much.
Reply
post #25 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
That may be, but when was the last time this resulted in a major political victory for them? From a purely partisan standpoint, it doesn't seem like the GOP on autopilot is anything for the opposition to fear too much.
So far, they've yet to engage in a major policy fight in the Senate after Scott Brown's election. They passed HCR with a 60 member party line vote and then used the reconciliation process to hurdle through the few minor tweaks that the House insisted on so they didn't start puking in the aisles over how bad the bill they just passed was.

If anyone thinks the GOP is going to stop being the "Party of No" at the exact moment that that strategy will actually work for them, that person is a fucking moron. Unfortunately, it looks like President Obama is a fucking moron.
Reply
post #26 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Unfortunately, it looks like President Obama is a fucking moron.
Yeah, because nothing is working his way. Right.
Reply
post #27 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post

If anyone thinks the GOP is going to stop being the "Party of No" at the exact moment that that strategy will actually work for them, that person is a fucking moron. Unfortunately, it looks like President Obama is a fucking moron.
How is that strategy going to work for them? It just failed them on healthcare.
Reply
post #28 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Yeah, because nothing is working his way. Right.
If, by"working his way," you mean working the way he actually said he'd govern rather than making the most politically expedient deals possible and spinning it like he's takin' the fight to 'em to his woefully cult-like band of groupies in OFA, then, yes.
Reply
post #29 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:26pm
I think he meant "getting the job done" even if it meant changing some of his strategies.

And I wouldn't call a vicious year long high-profile fight "politically expedient."
Reply
post #30 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
How is that strategy going to work for them? It just failed them on healthcare.
It failed because the Democrats specifically wrote the budget to allow them a backdoor on healthcare and education via the reconciliation process. They don't have that card up their sleeve this time. Or on most of the other major bills coming up, for that matter.
Reply
post #31 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:29pm
You're just kind of making shit up as you go along, aren't you?
Reply
post #32 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:31pm
There are seriously people walking around who still believe anything about Obama's Change and Hope campaign was gonna be quick, in any way? Really?
Reply
post #33 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
You're just kind of making shit up as you go along, aren't you?
No, they actually wrote the bill so that those things would fall well within the guidelines for the reconciliation process with the Senate parliamentarian. It's the entire reason that the whole "will it pass, won't it pass" thing was fucking bullshit.

It was always going to pass. The Administration has just been trying for a year to figure out how to pass a bill that was never going to have the public option the Party actually ran on--because they traded it away behind closed doors in exchange for tons of campaign contributions--without alienating the base. Losing the Kennedy seat and not having the magic number of 60 provided that pretext for them.

There are no such options for these bills.
Reply
post #34 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:44pm
Wait, wait wait. Did Obama not entertain a broad energy policy, including drilling during the election? Did he admit that some drilling may be justified, but decried the "Drill, baby, drill" mantra because it was too narrow and over-simplified of an approach?

Assuming I'm not mistaken (and I may be, I need to google), what the fuck is wrong with you assholes?
Reply
post #35 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:45pm
I mean, you do remember when the Administration and the entire Beltway was calling progressives fucking morons and lunatics for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass a public option a year ago, right? It wasn't because they were actually morons and lunatics--as the way the current bill passes attests--it was because reconciliation was the Ace in the hole for the Administration.

They only wanted to use that as an absolute last resort and they never had any intention of using it for a public option. It's the reason Rahm Emanuel was dispatched to twist the arms of progressives whenever one of the Conservadems was close to killing one of the half dozen versions of the public option that were floated this year. This entire health care bill fight was never about passing the bill, it was always about killing the public option.
Reply
post #36 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
There are seriously people walking around who still believe anything about Obama's Change and Hope campaign was gonna be quick, in any way? Really?
Not quick, no, just taken seriously. He's made it very clear over the last year that he was just kidding about all that shit about challenging the status quo. Staffing Treasury with Goldman alums was just the first hint of that.
Reply
post #37 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Not quick, no, just taken seriously. He's made it very clear over the last year that he was just kidding about all that shit about challenging the status quo. Staffing Treasury with Goldman alums was just the first hint of that.
I don't think you understand how reality works.
Reply
post #38 of 698
3/31/10 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
I don't think you understand how reality works.
I understand that saying one thing and doing another over and over again is a sign of habitual hypocrisy. Most politicians get away with that by just saying that's how the system and most of the people in it are. This guy ran on changing the system. You shouldn't be able to do that and then do things as they've always been done from jump street and take umbrage that people are being unfair. If you don't want that criticism, don't run as a fucking agent of change.
Reply
post #39 of 698
3/31/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
I understand that saying one thing and doing another over and over again is a sign of habitual hypocrisy. Most politicians get away with that by just saying that's how the system and most of the people in it are. This guy ran on changing the system. You shouldn't be able to do that and then do things as they've always been done from jump street and take umbrage that people are being unfair. If you don't want that criticism, don't run as a fucking agent of change.
lol dude, he is changing things. He's been in office 1 year. Change has to come slowly, and piecemeal. Do you not see how the majority of the country has reacted to his modest agenda thus far. Are you really that dense? And not just you, Cuchulain, all of you who are complaining... I think it's good to complain in order to keep the President honest, but have some fucking perspective.
Reply
post #40 of 698
3/31/10 at 6:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
lol dude, he is changing things. He's been in office 1 year. Change has to come slowly, and piecemeal. Do you not see how the majority of the country has reacted to his modest agenda thus far. Are you really that dense? And not just you, Cuchulain, all of you who are complaining... I think it's good to complain in order to keep the President honest, but have some fucking perspective.
I'm complaining because the fucker is framing it like change is happening now. When, if you have a reasonable idea of what "change" actually consists in, it's not. It's just fucking not. He's not saying, "Well, we improved health care access but there's still a fight on cost control and industry regulation." No, he's fucking saying, "The insurance industry is no longer in the driver's seat." That's not an inaccurate way of phrasing it, it's a consciously made and fucking deliberate lie.

He trades away the store every single fucking time. Every fucking time. He literally traded away all forms of competition for the industry at the beginning of the fucking health care debate. Pertaining to the topic of this thread, he just traded away his biggest chip in this debate. He's either a completely hollow fucking corporate shill or the worst negotiator of all motherfucking time. I really don't think the latter is likely.
Reply
post #41 of 698
3/31/10 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
I'm complaining because the fucker is framing it like change is happening now. When, if you have a reasonable idea of what "change" actually consists in, it's not. It's just fucking not. He's not saying, "Well, we improved health care access but there's still a fight on cost control and industry regulation." No, he's fucking saying, "The insurance industry is no longer in the driver's seat." That's not an inaccurate way of phrasing it, it's a consciously made and fucking deliberate lie.

He trades away the store every single fucking time. Every fucking time. He literally traded away all forms of competition for the industry at the beginning of the fucking health care debate. Pertaining to the topic of this thread, he just traded away his biggest chip in this debate. He's either a completely hollow fucking corporate shill or the worst negotiator of all motherfucking time. I really don't think the latter is likely.
Of course he's saying that change is happening now. It's the beginning of a larger process. A huge number of Americans have deemed him the "antichrist" for a pretty moderate progressive agenda. Do you really think that there's any chance that the dude could be doing anymore without seriously jeopardizing his popularity rating and the chances of fellow democrats being re-elected in November? Which whether you like it or not, are two things that he HAS to pay attention to as they directly interfere with his ability to EXECUTE his agenda.

He's gotta SELL this shit to the people. CHANGE is happening NOW!

It's Obama's first year, Washington wasn't going to turn into Liberal/Reform/Progressive/Moral LA LA happy land that fast. Obama is PART of this system, there's only so much fighting he can do without the system destroying him.
Reply
post #42 of 698
3/31/10 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
Of course he's saying that change is happening now. It's the beginning of a larger process. A huge number of Americans have deemed him the "antichrist" for a pretty moderate progressive agenda. Do you really think that there's any chance that the dude could be doing anymore without seriously jeopardizing his popularity rating and the chances of fellow democrats being re-elected in November? Which whether you like it or not, are two things that he HAS to pay attention to as they directly interfere with his ability to EXECUTE his agenda.

He's gotta SELL this shit to the people. CHANGE is happening NOW!

It's Obama's first year, Washington wasn't going to turn into Liberal/Reform/Progressive/Moral LA LA happy land that fast. Obama is PART of this system, there's only so much fighting he can do without the system destroying him.
I wish I still had this optimism, I really do, but I just can't shake the feeling the guy never had any intention of doing anything he ran on. Ever.

The moment that the opinion that the guy is just a fucking lying corporate sophist settled in my head was the Nobel Peace Prize lecture. To me, that was the clearest cut example of how he usually argues for something. He presents a caricature of a "leftist" position, then a caricature of a "conservative" position and then declares that a choice between them is a false choice--no fucking shit--and offers a reasonably stated corporatist position as his "middle way." The Noble Prize lecture was the first time I realized what he usually sells as the "third way" is fucking bullshit.

If we are any closer to the kind of platform he ran on in year 8 than we are now, I'll be surprised. Very, very pleasantly surprised. I hope I'm wrong, but I just see this guy as Bill Clinton, Mark II: Browner and Less Sleazy!
Reply
post #43 of 698
3/31/10 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
Wait, wait wait. Did Obama not entertain a broad energy policy, including drilling during the election? Did he admit that some drilling may be justified, but decried the "Drill, baby, drill" mantra because it was too narrow and over-simplified of an approach?

Assuming I'm not mistaken (and I may be, I need to google), what the fuck is wrong with you assholes?
For my part, I cursed him for saying it back then too. But... lesser of two evils and all that. And I actually naively hoped it wouldn't come to this.

Now it has, so here's one of the instances where I say, "fuck you, Mr. President."
Reply
post #44 of 698
3/31/10 at 7:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
For my part, I cursed him for saying it back then too. But... lesser of two evils and all that. And I actually naively hoped it wouldn't come to this.

Now it has, so here's one of the instances where I say, "fuck you, Mr. President."
Ok, fair enough. I just don't understand the people who are calling him a sellout, to them, take it easy. The system may defeat Barack, and Barack may not be up to task, but if you think he isn't trying I think you're out of touch. People are being really shortsighted.
Reply
post #45 of 698
3/31/10 at 7:27pm
I'm coming around to seeing this as essentially a political move to pry open a crack for climate legislation and also as a stealth jobs effort.

I hate it, and it grossly appeases those who believe that even though we sit on only 2% of the world's oil and use, what, 40% of it (something like that), that it will make any kind of a dent, but it feels like a chess move.
Reply
post #46 of 698
3/31/10 at 7:29pm
I will admit that I am not pleased with this. I also don't get why he's just announcing it for the heck of it. If he's willing to ruin America's Original Coast(tm), and still arguably the nations finest, he should agree to it as a bargaining chip on the jobs package or something. Use it to negotiate more republican support.

I don't see how the way this was handled nets any gains for the Dems...

Oh well


Polar Bear Facepalm for this climate calamity
Reply
post #47 of 698
3/31/10 at 7:43pm
Quote:
updated 2:49 p.m. EDT, Mon July 14, 2008

Bush lifts executive ban on offshore oil drilling
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit.

If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.
Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil drilling is "one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce that burden.

However, the move is largely symbolic as there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.

"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said.

...

The issue has gained prominence in the presidential race. Sen. John McCain recently announced he supported offshore oil drilling, reversing his previous stance.

Sen. Barack Obama wants to keep the ban in place.
[source]

Highlights are mine.
Reply
post #48 of 698
3/31/10 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
[source]

Highlights are mine.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the point.
Reply
post #49 of 698
3/31/10 at 10:22pm
I think he's trying to say that Obama's announcement is meaningless posturing because it's still going to take a congressional vote to open up offshore drilling.
Reply
post #50 of 698
3/31/10 at 10:49pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35265.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers