TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 48 hours of political expediency

48 hours of political expediency

I eagerly await the Obama apologists to make excuses for him again on this.

"Barack Obama has proven himself slippery on oil for the second time in his campaign. In April, he accused his opponents of taking money from oil lobbies, when in fact Obama himself not only did the same thing but had oil executives as major bundlers to his campaign. Now he�s reversed himself on drilling, and he did it in a remarkable place � Florida":

quote:

�My interest is in making sure we�ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,� Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. �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,� Obama said.

Of course, this comes shortly after Obama called off-shore drilling �the latest scheme�, telling his supporters that drilling wouldn�t solve anything (but inflating tires and getting tune ups would). How shortly? 48 hours! Here�s Obama in Springfield, Missouri, insisting that drilling wouldn�t work:



"So what happened in the following 48 hours to convince Obama to drill? He probably looked at the polls, especially in Florida. The Sunshine State had fiercely opposed off-shore drilling for decades, and would normally be a safe place to rail against Big Oil and talk about alternative energy sources. Not any longer, though; 60% of Floridians now support off-shore drilling, ten percent of whom acknowledge that their position has changed with the rise in gas prices.
The 48-hour flip-flop also arrives with a rebellion in the Senate Democratic caucus on drilling. The Gang of 10 threatens to undermine not only the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but also the policy stand of Obama in the presidential election.
Their compromise proposal to open certain areas of the Atlantic seaboard and the eastern Gulf of Mexico threatened to put Obama on the fringe of his own party on drilling. He had little choice but to eat his words from Springfield on the stage in St Petersburg.

Obama once again reveals himself as a traditional politician, one that will swing like a weathervane in order to get elected. The only quality remarkable about Obama is his shamelessness in policy reversals, expecting everyone to ignore his obvious change in stance as Obama pretends that he has always supported what he used to oppose. It�s more than vaguely Orwellian, and without any real track record, it should make voters across the spectrum wonder what Obama would do once in power.

To be fair, he said he would only support it as part of a comprehensive plan that included conservation and research into alternative fuels...stuff important to the democratic base, but there's no question he changed his position on drilling.

It's all about polls... Both candidates are flip-flopping like crazy to try and get on the side of the voters. Polls were just released showing 75% of the public supports off-shore drilling, so it would be political suicide for Obama to continue opposing it. Mccain has done the same thing on many issues..It's nothing new.

No doubt... and I defintely don't defend McCain. It's just that the Obama supporters follow that mo fo like the rats followed the Pied Piper no matter which way the wind blows with him. I'm hoping after all the blatant flipity flopping maddness, people will start to admit he isn't a new type of politician and doesn't shit rainbows. But I'm yet to see that

We vote for POLITICIANS in each election. I don't recall anyone claiming Obama to not be a politician. We have a choice of policy. We can continue Bush's policies or we can take a different road. I personally, don't want to drill because in my opinion, we're just adding yet more carbon to the atmosphere. But what I like is that Obama is at least willing to compromise, UNLIKE the current administration. I'de like it if Obama hopped on board the "Gang of 10" compromise...

quote:

Bipartisan group unveils energy compromise bill By Ayesha Rascoe Fri Aug 1, 2:08 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Friday aimed at forging a compromise between Democrats and Republicans deadlocked in the Senate over energy issues. The legislation focuses on moving Americans to alternative energy, conservation, and increasing domestic oil production. Opening up more areas for oil production has been a major stumbling block in negotiations to pass energy legislation in Congress. Republicans support lifting bans on drilling in restricted areas, while Democrats want oil companies to use land already available and favor selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Calling themselves the "Gang of 10," the Senators are trying to bridge that divide. Their bill would require the government to open some additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico for development and would allow drilling off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia if those states give permission. A commission would be created to recommend areas to be opened for leasing in the future. Offshore production would still only be allowed 50 miles from the shore, and all the new oil produced would have to be used domestically.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801...s_bipartisan_dc

EDIT: I also want to say that the oil companies are using only 10-20% of the land leased to them for drilling. Which would mean to me that they value the oil more in the ground than drilled. They just want more land leases to secure future production at higher future prices. So much for drilling our way to lower prices!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't recall anyone claiming Obama to not be a politician. We have a choice of policy. We can continue Bush's policies or we can take a different road. I personally, don't want to drill because in my opinion, we're just adding yet more carbon to the atmosphere. But what I like is that Obama is at least willing to compromise, UNLIKE the current administration. I'de like it if Obama hopped on board the "Gang of 10" compromise... EDIT: I also want to say that the oil companies are using only 10-20% of the land leased to them for drilling. Which would mean to me that they value the oil more in the ground than drilled. They just want more land leases to secure future production at higher future prices. So much for drilling our way to lower prices!

You're missing 2 points, K-dawg. Obama himself specifically labled himself as a new kind of politician, outside from the beltway influence. He is only willing to compromise because he sees the polls... he said just a few weeks ago that he isn't alarmed at the gas prices, just that they got to where they are too quickly, i.e., it didn't happen slowly and gradually enough to keep the public from having a fire lit under them to rebel against the democtrat policies. You are too quickly looking at the fact that he's "comprimising" and not that the vast majority of americans now want it and that he made the flop in a 48 hour span.

Secondly, you're one to talk about conspiricay theories This notion that the evil oil companies are just trying to secure more land so they can control higher prices in the future is getting out there; why can't liberals admit that the simple law of supply and demand works? If we get more supply, prices will go down. They have already gone down over $20 a barrel on the idea alone that drilling is around the corner.

quote:

It's unfortunate that, at least until this Friday, Barack Obama opposed off-shore drilling. Still, this is a policy issue on which reasonable people probably can differ and certainly could before gasoline prices skyrocketed. But, as I set forth below, Obama has also led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what's at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling. This, it seems to me, is almost criminal. For it implies that there is no set of facts under which we should ever consider drilling off-shore. The absurdity of that position, always apparent, is confirmed by Obama's willingness to flip on the issue. Here's the background. In 2005, Congress considered energy legislation that included an off-shore inventory. The inventory would provide an estimate of our off-shore reserves. Taking it wouldn't mean drilling; it would just tell us what's out there. Yet Obama voted to kill the off-shore inventory provision. So, unfortunately, did John McCain. However, the effort to kill the inventory failed, and the first inventory report was issued in February 2006. Obama, though, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama's bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that "Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)" is "repealed as of the date of enactment of this act." It's my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation. Ironically, Obama called his legislation "The Oil SENSE Act." How audacious a label for an act that would deprive the public of key information relevant to deciding whether off-shore drilling makes sense. As far as I know, Obama's legislation is still pending. It's wonderful that Obama now thinks it might be ok to drill off-shore, provided that such drilling is part of an "overarching really thoughtful" energy package. Perhaps now, as part of the package, Obama will stop opposing an inventory of our off-shore energy assets. After all, if Obama is prepared to support drilling, he no longer needs to keep voters in the dark about what we are losing by not drilling.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You're missing 2 points, K-dawg. Obama himself specifically labled himself as a new kind of politician, outside from the beltway influence. He is only willing to compromise because he sees the polls... he said just a few weeks ago that he isn't alarmed at the gas prices, just that they got to where they are too quickly, i.e., it didn't happen slowly and gradually enough to keep the public from having a fire lit under them to rebel against the democtrat policies. You are too quickly looking at the fact that he's "comprimising" and not that the vast majority of americans now want it and that he made the flop in a 48 hour span. Secondly, you're one to talk about conspiricay theories This notion that the evil oil companies are just trying to secure more land so they can control higher prices in the future is getting out there; why can't liberals admit that the simple law of supply and demand works? If we get more supply, prices will go down. They have already gone down over $20 a barrel on the idea alone that drilling is around the corner.

Conspiracy theories?? Why do the oil companies need more land anyways? They haven't even drilled 80-90% of the land leased to them with known oil deposits. Why don't they drill there first before crying to the government they need more land leases? Hence, my assertion, they want more land to secure future production at higher prices. Why else would they purposefully not drill in 80-90% of the land ALREADY LEASED TO THEM?

Also, if a politician isn't receptive to polls, then who is he representing? Himself? Polls give an impression of the people want, and politicians are bound to the will of the people. If the people's attitudes change, is Obama supposed to continue towing the ideological line, and stubbornly resist the people's will? I support a comprimise, but really, I'de rather no new land leases for the oil companies. They need to drill the land they have now, before they go on trying to acquire yet more land.

And if we want to talk about flip flopping, how about McCain's flip flop of the Bush tax cuts? Even in the face of a two front war, he has the balls to ask for MORE tax cuts? The Repubs seem hell-bent on draining our coffers dry...

regardless of, well, just anything...i cant believe people are considering returning the republican party to the presidency.

honestly. is america really that stupid? it boggles my mind. you punish the current administration by sending them to at least 8 years in the wilderness, for being one of the greatest fuckups in american history.

as for obama, he's running for president. such is life. just goes to show the power of business and business interests in modern political 'thought'. hardly a revelation im sure.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN regardless of, well, just anything...i cant believe people are considering returning the republican party to the presidency. honestly. is america really that stupid? it boggles my mind. you punish the current administration by sending them to at least 8 years in the wilderness, for being one of the greatest fuckups in american history. as for obama, he's running for president. such is life. just goes to show the power of business and business interests in modern political 'thought'. hardly a revelation im sure.

Seriously, these guys want to reward 8 years of horrid Republican mismanagement of the government with 4 more years of executive leadership. Really dumb if you ask me..

Compared to this administration, a dog would seem like a better pick for president than a Republican.. I say let the Republicans reform their increasingly far right agenda, before we let them touch the presidency again. 4 years of (formerly opposition) leadership should give them plenty of time. I say purge the Christian Right and return the neoconservatives to the fringes where they belong with their fascist brethren.

Re: 48 hours of political expediency

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Of course, this comes shortly after Obama called off-shore drilling �the latest scheme�, telling his supporters that drilling wouldn�t solve anything (but inflating tires and getting tune ups would).

Did you even watch that video? He said that it wouldn't provide any immediate relief. Which is correct. Off-shore drilling will have a really small effect and in a quite distant future. Hopefully by that time we will have better fuels.

Although I think Obama misses the point with high gas prices. In that video he talks about the teacher who can't commute rather far everyday because of the high gas prices. Well, that's exactly what's so good about it, now she will get a job closer to home, which is much more efficient energy wise (and will reduce American dependents on foreign oil, provide incentives for alternative fuels and/or better cars).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.