home

The New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation" On Off Shore Drilling

A wise president works with what he's got and doesn't add more burden than the beast can bear. That's different from triangulation. Triangulation is passing your opponent's agenda on your terms and then taking credit for it. Obama is passing his agenda on the terms the system will bear. - New Progressives

NYTimes:

Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time

WASHINGTON The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday. The proposal a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

I personally do not have an opinion on the issue. But I am pretty sure the consensus "progressive" position opposed such a measure. What do they say now about this New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation?"

Speaking for me only

< The Latest On Erie Questions | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Because the Republican Party is the Party of Ideas (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    Now that he's outed himself as a progressive with his support of the 1993 Senate HCR bill, drilling, etc. let's remind ourselves of his wonderful line touting the Republican Party as the party of ideas.


    I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts.  Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

    So it turns out Obama's view of "solv[ing] our energy problems" is not to lower taxes (a Republican idea) but to drill baby drill (another Republican idea).  Oh, well, he said as much anyway.

    Back when he said that famous line, there was a lot of explanation of What Obama Really Meant.  After all, the argument goes, he didn't say the Republican Party was the party of good ideas - in those exacts words.  Of course, now we know he really meant.

    solving our energy problems (none / 0) (#126)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:52:54 AM EST

    "Solving our energy problems" is a concern that is beside the point.  Opening up for drilling will provide three valuable results in priority:

    1. Many new economically productive jobs.
    2. More federal and state revenue.
    3. A modest reduction in the need to import energy.


    Parent
    Well I predict that initially some of (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    the "New Progressives" might be against this but after Obama signs it into law they will declare it a great progressive victory because it will include $2.50 for wind and solar energy. :-)

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    And the "New Progressives" (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    will get a nice IPhone app to track how the $2.50 is spent.

    Parent
    I've been trying to come up with (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    an iPhone app to write to make my fortune. Maybe some sort of a 'progressive victory tracker' is in order.

    Parent
    Oh, I think it is going to be OK now. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    It is a "compromise" modifying those bad Bush ideas, and sustaining the good ones so as to reduce our dependence on imported oil, maybe by up to three years--but maybe more, maybe less, drilling does, after all, have an element of uncertainty with which we must live. Moreover, the advance gifting of this compromise is seen as a good negotiating tactic to snare Boehner and McConnell into support of really good and off-setting climate and energy legislation.  

    assdk (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    Moreover, the advance gifting of this compromise is seen as a good negotiating tactic to snare Boehner and McConnell into support of really good and off-setting climate and energy legislation.

    Cuz, you know that pre-negotiating strategy to get Republican votes worked so well with the health insurance bill....or not.

    Parent

    this is not about getting republican votes (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    in the congress.  its about getting republican votes in the fall and in 2012.
    will it work?  couldnt say.  but with the republican party in an eat-their-young tailspin plotting a strategy to get some sane voter from the middle is not a completely ridiculous idea.

    will some progressives hate it?  of course.  thats the idea.


    Parent

    Will progressives dare to hate it? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    there is absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    nothing in this for them.

    Not a bone.  At least in HCR there were scraps to feed on.  MO Blue jokes about adding $2.50 for wind and solar to placate the base.  But the fact is, there isn't even $2.50 for wind and solar here.

    Progressives got squat.

    Parent

    Well negotiations aren't over yet (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    The Dems will open up more millions of acres of coast line for drilling than current proposed, add in a lot more for clean coal and some progressive will add in $2.50 for wind and solar.

    Magically you will now have a progressive victory to cheer about.

    Parent

    Well, as I understand it, (none / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    progressives do get no new drilling off the West Coast below Alaska.  

    I suppose we should cheer in the sense that it could have been worse and that apparently it's all consistent with O's campaign and SOTU statements.

    Parent

    you can't give someone something (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    They already have.

    Parent
    it is (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    anyone surprised by this was not paying attention

    Parent
    surprised, no. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    annoyed, yes.  As you say, that might be the point.  But it does seem like a deliberate poke in the eye.

    There is a reason they give you a lollypop when you leave the dentist.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:41:40 AM EST
    they will.  like I said.  I honestly think that is to some extent the point.  

    Parent
    They got permission this time? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    they have my permission.  for all the good it will do.

    Parent
    Need OFA's permission (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    We'll See (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    If that's the point (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    that's pretty stupid.  I don't see this energizing the Dem base.

    Parent
    its not intended (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    to do that.

    Parent
    What's more important (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    chasing after the mythical middle (which I don't see supporting Dems in a midterm election) or the Dem base?

    I seriously doubt this wins any Dem during the midterms one vote from an Indie or Republican.  They care about jobs, the deficit and "massive government spending."  No one is going to walk into the ballot box thinking of how great this offshore drilling thing is.  

    Parent

    Opposing this will win Dem congressmen votes (none / 0) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    in 2010

    Parent
    that too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    so is this (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    another 11th dimensional plan?

    Progressives win votes for opposing it.
    Conservadems win votes for supporting it.

    Presuming the base is motivated enough to show.  Which they might not, considering they are getting mixed signals as to their importance.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#46)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    I have no doubt.  Bush could not get drilling in ANWR, Obama won't get it offshore the lower 48.

    Parent
    I do not like offshore drilling (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    Drilling off of Viriginia is the least of it.....They may drill in the Arctic....

    They won't ever try to drill off of California....  

    Parent

    No modern Dem prez (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    would dare suggest new drilling off of the West Coast, and particularly CA.  That would be something to get me riled up enough to go to the barricades.

    Well, I suppose this was to be expected with an admin whose Energy Sec'y is the unimaginative moderate Ken Salazar.

    I wonder if Al Gore had any input at all with the admin on this one.  Just wondering where the guy is and whether he's going to be speaking out.
     

    Parent

    Guess it is O.K. then if (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    all other coasts are effected as long as it is not the west coast.

    Parent
    Not OK with me, but (none / 0) (#112)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    didn't drilling off the east coast, or some states like VA and FL, poll a majority back in the 08 campaign?

    Parent
    Why should CA get a special exemption? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    Because even Republicans (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    oppose drilling off shore in California.  Nimby big time....All those Republican villas want an unobstructed view....

    Parent
    Too bad they're not plotting ways (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    to get votes with policy that's actually good.

    Seems to me that with (1) large numbers of individuals who are eligible to vote but are not registered, and (2) large numbers who are registered who aren't voting, there are a lot of votes to be garnered with good policy.

    And what's the net gain if Democrats are deciding not to reward their Democratic members of Congress or the Democratic president with their votes?

    I suppose it's possible that trolling for Republican votes with Republican policies may keep Democrats in office, but we're still left with the crappy Republican policy.

    Amd if the whole point of electing Democrats and gaining a majority in Congress and gaining the WH was to be able to institute better policy and put the country on a better track - how does continuing to delve into the Republican policy manual get us there?  

    That's not progress, sorry.

    What you are suggesting is another process-over-policy tactic that, it seems to me, is no substitute for leadership.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    They aren't going to get those either.  Republicans have started energizing their base.

    Parent
    their "base" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    is 25 to 30%.  
    the fact is many of those people in the middle voted for Obama.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    haven't looked at polls lately have you.  Don't let DailyKOS polls steer you. Track Gallup for a few weeks. You'll get the gist of what's happening.

    Obama's DIS-approval is at 50% right now in the latest USA Today/Gallup.

    Parent

    what does (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    that have to do with the republican base

    Parent
    who is that person? (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    some sane voter from the middle

    the mythical Independent?

    Parent

    Speaking as an indie (none / 0) (#90)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    Heck will freeze over before he gets my vote.

    Parent
    he's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    NOT getting Republican votes in 2012. The GOP has been very successful at making sure that won't happen even though they might not have been successful at other things. you could maybe argue that this works with independents.

    Parent
    I am not so sure (3.50 / 2) (#80)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    There are some moderate Repubicans who are very distressed about the turn their party has taken.  The Obama strategy is to blame Republicans for the failure of bipartisanship.  This is meant to be another example of how hard he is trying.

    Parent
    There (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    aren't enough of those people to make a difference in the election. MOderate republicans are pretty much extinct. I'm willing to be that the majority of them call themselves independents now.


    Parent
    Don't think it's about getting Congressional votes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Realleft on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    but taking away a prime rallying cry for November and feeding some of the corporate powers who really do influence a lot of DC action whether anyone likes it or not. If one or two senators are eventually peeled off of obstructionism on a cause or two, that's a bonus. A lot of people around here seem to hate the Obama approach, but it seems to be about moderate/modest action vs. big ideological debate and inaction.

    Parent
    Guess what (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    I hated this proposal when Bush put it on the table, when McCain campaigned on "Drill baby, drill" and I haven't changed my option.

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    Opening up the coast for drilling seems like a pretty big event to me and has in the past been a Republican ideological position.

    Parent
    Roll of the dice (none / 0) (#133)
    by Realleft on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    Does it open new and more drilling closer to shore (which is the strong push here in Virginia where the last administration wanted a line of platforms easily within view and possible spoiling of the coastline), or does it take the wind out of the sails by giving a little to prevent a lot.  Does it open the door or vent the steam?  Everyone can make a guess.

    It being Republican ideology is partly the issue, I'd guess.  That ideology is not known for a lot of nuance, and "Drill more baby, drill more" probably doesn't really have the same rallying power.

    Parent

    Well in that case it is even more useless (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    there will still be the rallying cry in November. No senator will be peeled off because of this - if he hoped for that he should have done this in the context of negotiation on a particular bill, like cap and trade.

    Parent
    Is there something in this new policy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    that requires the oil companies to sell what they get from these new areas into the U.S. market?

    If not, it has no impact on our dependence on foreign oil because the U.S. drillers just sell their stuff into the world market.  My understanding -- please correct me if I'm wrong because this is notnotnot an area of expertise for me -- is that the U.S. market actually gets little or none of the oil extracted in U.S. territory.

    So the whole "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" by drilling here is, I've been told, a complete and utter crock.

    Parent

    Okay, I'll correct you (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    My understanding -- please correct me if I'm wrong because this is notnotnot an area of expertise for me -- is that the U.S. market actually gets little or none of the oil extracted in U.S. territory.

    Very little oil produced domestically is shipped anywhere.  Most oil is transported in pipelines.

    Currently we export about 33 MBPD out of 5.6 MMBPD of production.  For the math challenged that is 0.59%, a negligible amount.  All of this information is gathered by the EIA.

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone believes the rumors that we ship domestically produced oil to other countries.  The US is the largest user of crude oil in the world.  The US is the largest refiner in the world.  The US has more heavy oil refining capacity that the rest of the world combined.  The little oil that we export is because it is produced in locations that are closer to "foreign" refineries.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    but it's not quite fair to call this idea a "rumor."   I believe this has been one of the arguments environmental groups have made against opening ANWR to drilling, and it most certainly is a point I heard made repeatedly (not by bloggers) during the 2008 campaign in response to Palin/McCain's "Drill baby drill" agenda.

    As I say, not at all my area of expertise, but I'll nose around the Web and see what I can find from reasonably non-political sources.  And I'd be grateful if you would do the same.

    This is not a point I care to be lied to about either by lefties or righties, so I'd like to pin down the truth of it, if I can.

    Parent

    Do you believe the US (none / 0) (#149)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    government?

    US Exports of Crude

    If you need some help with terms or usage of the various products just ask.

    Parent

    how does that (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    make economic sense?  I'm not saying your wrong, I believe you, I've just never heard of this before.

    You would think it would be a lot cheaper for them to sell closer to the source.  And the U.S. is the world's biggest consumer of all oil.  So why wouldn't they sell it here?

    Parent

    Made no sense to me either (none / 0) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    when I first heard it. But then the not-so-free "free market" can end up doing some pretty bizarre things.

    Parent
    We await details on the proposal, (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    to be presented today, apparently.  But, the question you raise is a good one, both on the destination of the oil and on who obtains the leases.  My understanding is that we are dealing in a global market, and the oil may or may not be aimed for domestic use, depending on region and shipping.  Alaskan supplies may head toward the Pacific, Arabic supplies toward Europe, US from Canada,South America and Mexico   So we may continue to use foreign imports, but it will be offset by exports--so the story goes. Also, with regard to prices, much of the oil may not be recoverable at current prices and would be even more expensive.  The real way to reduce foreign imports, in my view, is conservation--gas taxes, use of biofuels, or at least, hybrids.

    Parent
    That is also my understanding. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    As of March 2008 per MSNBC online, we were exporting approx. 1.8 million barrels per day of crude and refined fuels. The top 5 countries it went to were Mexico, Canada, The Netherlands, Chile and Singapore. Citgo has 3 refineries here-most of the fuel produced goes to gas stations here but 30,000 barrels per day goes to Venezuela.

    Parent
    What percent of that 1.8 MMBPD (none / 0) (#137)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    is crude?

    Right 3.3%

    Parent

    I'll further elaborate (none / 0) (#136)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    Since 2006 the only place we export oil to is Canada.  We import more oil from Canada than any other country.  About 35-40 times as much as we export.  This is done because of refinery locations.

    Parent
    Possible poltical ramifications (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    "Its like a kick in the face" says Jonathan Ruiz of Florida International University.  Jonathan campaigned for Obama for fourteen months, and now he's livid about today's announcement by the administration to open half the east coast to offshore drilling.
    ...
    Why are these Florida university students mad?  They are being sold out by the Obama administration in a misguided attempt to curry political favor. ...

    Youth, the millennial generation so inspired by Obama to vote in record numbers, have the most to lose from the expansion of drilling.  Even some

    coastal governors and senators will be angry about the announcement because of the small amount of oil and huge environmental risks.  If white-haired governors and senators are worried, what about young people who are thinking about protecting this coastline for us and our children, long after the tiny amounts of energy have been extracted? link

    I am just completely bereft (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    about this. And most of my colleagues and friends are incensed. It is just so shortsighted and stupid.

    The Nature Conservancy's feed is nothing but angry outrage.

    Parent

    Good (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    The Nature Conservancy's feed is nothing but angry outrage.

    Although I'm not real sure that citizen's outrage will offset the desire for corporate funds.

    Parent

    I now feel that everything that has happened (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    in the past year has been about corporate profits. This BS drilling scheme is about nothing more than short-term oil company profits. The HCR was largely about preserving pharma and insurance company profits while pretending 'reform'.

    I'm kind of stunned and disappointed. I thought that he would be better than this. And the left is completely enabling it - a dangerous and new scenario, IMO. I guess this really is the new left.

    It's highly unlikely that I will vote for another democrat again.

    Parent

    I don't get how it results (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    in short term oil company profits....There may not be much oil out in the Atlantic that can be retrieved profitably....And maybe the administration is thinking that if there is no oil, letting them drill is no big deal....But that is wrong.....Exploratory drilling is not all that good either.....

    This is a political decision--to show bonafides of being moderate.  Note, there is no plan to drill off the coast of California, which I believe would have more possible oil than Virginia....

    Parent

    What else would it be for? (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    It's unscientific. It's stupid. It's shortsighted. It has nothing to do with energy independence or clean energy. It won't solve anything. It's highly risky in terms of environmental impacts. It's capitulation to oil companies, plain and simple.

    Parent
    But, but, but (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    Obama got to stand in front of a fighter plane!  And talk to the troops! While saying security!  What could be bad about that?!  Why do you hate our troops?!

    Parent
    Oh noes... (none / 0) (#110)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    He wasn't wearing a flight suit was he?

    Parent
    it's political (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    for voters.  Oil companies certainly won't be getting any short-term gains, that's impossible.  And the long term gains are debatable due to the nature of the area.

    And yes, it's all those other things you mentioned too.  But it's not necessarily for oil companies so much I think as for his own political future.

    It's capitulation to the 66% of Americans who don't believe in climate change.

    Parent

    Agree and disagree (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    I guess you're right about the voters and the political motive.

    But I can't agree that this isn't done under pressure from the oil industry. Oil and gas interests have repeatedly tried to get Congress to remove moratoriums on offshore drilling.

    Parent

    Obama has already shown (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    his moderate bf's with HCR and the econ recovery policies, his BushLite nat'l security stance, plus most of his non-nuke FP and  Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Right now, seems to me, he needs to be doing a little more to buck up his base with some clear liberal policies.

    Though I seem to recall on offshore drilling that it actually ended up polling well during the 08 campaign, nationally and in east coast places like FL.  Not so much in CA of course, but I recall being surprised that my no new offshore drilling position actually wasn't shared by a majority.

    Parent

    Yes, when gas prices (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    shot way up in the beginning of the Summer of 2008, and all the polls show large support for offshore drilling, Obama did say something about doing some drilling.

    But prices have dropped and there is no need to give up a pre-emptive compromise on any drilling.....

    I am a PADI instructor, so I have great concern here.....The oldtimers talk of all the abalone and kelp and sea otters that used to exist right off shore here in SoCal that exist no more.....  

    Parent

    Well oil exploration stocks are up today (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    There is no new left (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:48:10 AM EST
     There is the not left. Obama has effectively disappeared the left. The not left is now the center right implementing old republican ideas and doing their damndest to keep the Bushian framework in place and extending it where they can.
       I thought the Bush party was the one discredited, and about to be replaced. They lost the election. I was told so at least a thousand times.
       Now I really want to hear the progressives admit Bush was right, and the Democratic ideas were (are) wrong because Obama has won the debate. Let's hear how Bushian policies and ideas have saved the world, are to be preferred over Democratic ideas and policies, and we should love, love, love, their implementation, because we're after all, now so bipartisan!

    Parent
    When I heard it on the radio (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    this morning, I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing. I was sure it must be something else and the reporter was exaggerating.

    I can't understand why this is happening. The news article in BTDs post talks about it being a compromise - but for what? In what context? Just because the industry was asking for it and he thought he had to give them something? Sometimes 'no' is the answer.

    Parent

    Obama mentioned off shore (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    drilling during the State of the Union address.....so this is not a surprise although disappointing....

    Salazar did cancel some oil & gas leases in Utah and New Mexico when he was first sworn in last year.

      At about the same time as the State of the Union address, the administration talked off the record about possibly designating certain federal lands as National Monuments as did Bill Clinton.....That was somewhat reassuring....and I suppose that was the point, although nothing has been designated yet.

    Offshore drilling is a bad idea....There are all kinds of problems beyond just the risk of a major oil spill.....If you love the ocean and worry about how the oceans are in peril, this is not a good development....

    Parent

    Yes, and him making claims (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    about how this is somehow related to new energy ideas is just pathetic.

    Parent
    It would be related if (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    he got something in return--such as an agreement on cap and trade.....Still a bad deal, but it would have been a "deal".....

    This is pre-emptive compromise....but shrewd enough to not try and touch the California coast, although still possibly mucking things up in the Arctic....

    Parent

    Shrewd is not the word (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    I'm sure he was promised there would be hell to pay by the west coast delegations, starting with the Speaker of the House.

    Unfortunately the southeast coast and Alaska delegations are largely of the 'drill baby drill' persuasion.

    Parent

    This Gen X/Millenial border person (none / 0) (#158)
    by AX10 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    never bought into any of Obama's talk.
    These days, I would prefer to call myself Gen X, just seeing how foolish and inept the Millenials are.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    So why do we have a Democratic Party again?

    So the people making less than $200,000 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:59:42 AM EST
    per year can buy cheaper gas (maybe), if they can afford a car.

    Parent
    So that they can implement (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    the policies that the Republicans failed to implement in the past.

    Parent
    This is how... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Republicans fight climate change.

    Oh Noes!!! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:11:54 AM EST
    Boehner doesn't like Obama's proposal!  Who could have predicted?

    President Barack Obama's plan to allow expanded offshore oil and gas exploration won rebuke from the top House Republican on Wednesday.

    House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) dismissed the president's plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration.

    Link

    Shocker! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    The optics on this (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    are just so f*cked up to me.  NYT h/t BarbinMD:

    But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters -- supporting nuclear power, for example -- the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

    The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks -- the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry's wish list -- access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling. [emphasis mine]

    So...do they want to seem like they are constantly serving industry interests?  

    And in terms of currying favor with Conservadems, I don't see how that works here either (from RLMiller):

    Note that the drilling boundary is set between Delaware and New Jersey.  Last week, ten Senators warned against a big expansion of offshore oil drilling.  Along with both Oregon Senators and six New-Jersey-and-northward Senators, the letter was signed by Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE).  Perhaps there's a blunt political calculus that Nelson and Kaufman will come around, or that the loss of their unimportant votes on a climate bill will be offset by gaining the prized votes of Murkowski, Landrieu, and other oil-slicked Senators.  If so, that's a bizarre calculation (proverbs about birds in the hand come to mind).

    Wha??

    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    So...do they want to seem like they are constantly serving industry interests?  

    But I do know that they ARE constantly serving industry interests.

    Parent

    How appropriate an announcement (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    for Al Gore's birthday.

    Progressive masochism (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    "it's necessary for us to get triangulated!  Even though we hate it!"

    Der Obama Knows Best? (none / 0) (#3)
    by robotalk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13:13 AM EST


    grrr (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    this shows that he really hasn't learned anything at all from HCR debacle.

    YOU DON'T PRE-COMPROMISE.

    It would be one thing if this proposal came out alongside something that would seriously curb carbon output.  But it doesn't.  He is throwing the other side a bone before getting anything at all concrete in return.

    PRE-COMPROMISE?? (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    Maybe, just maybe, you might consider that this is the policy that Obama really wants. One that has his full support and has nothing to do with compromise.

    Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his State of the Union address in January that weaning the country from imported oil would require "tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development." link


    Parent
    last I checked (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    that was not the entirety of his energy policy.

    This is pure red meat for republicans, and you don't just give it to them without getting something serious in return, no matter how much you support it yourself.  And I'm not just talking about free carbon credits.

    Parent

    Well I agree with this (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    This is pure red meat for republicans, and you don't just give it to them without getting something serious in return, no matter how much you support it yourself.

    House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) dismissed the president's plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration.

    Obama's decision "continues to defy the will of the American people," Boehner said in a statement, pointing to the president's decision to open Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, while leaving Pacific and many Alaskan waters largely closed to exploration.

    "It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an "all of the above" strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs," the House GOP leader added. "Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution - the American Energy Act - which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation." link

    So if past actions are any indication of what will happen here, we can expect even more of our coast line to be open for drilling with other areas of the policy watered down until they they are almost irrelevant.

    Parent

    You can also expect (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    a completely pathetic climate bill. Most credible environmental organizations already do.

    Parent
    Yes, but the question remains (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    will the organizations find some way to rationalize Obama's actions when all is said and done.


    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    It's environmentalists turn to get shoved under the bus.(already under include women, gays, labor unions)

    The women under here are partying like it's 1909, come join us.

    Parent

    Red Meat (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    here too...

    Parent
    Not for me (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    But your comment is a strange one.

    I suppose that, like me, you really do not have an opinion on the policy. But, like me, you acknowledge that the conventional progressive view is opposition.

    I offer a more telling example for you. I strongly support the President's foreign policy, in particular on Afghanistan and Iran.

    I feel confident, having read you in the past, that you do not. But I no longer expect you to express that point of view. you are too busy criticizing folks who criticize Obama.

    It is a strange thing to me.
     

    Parent

    It seems like Afghanistan is only promise kept (none / 0) (#40)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    Unfortunately, it is the one promise he should have revisited.

    Parent
    Never got hung up on the promises (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    They were always meaningless, as they always are for pols.

    Parent
    I understand the cynicism when it comes to pols (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    ... but just ignoring their campaign promises is just too easy, IMO.  If you start from the premise that campaign promises don't mean anything, where's the accountability?  More importantly, where's the incentive for any candidate to be honest about their campaign platform?

    It's like saying you shouldn't believe anything a car salesman tells you before you buy the car, because they'll all lie to make the sale.  IMO, there's a big difference between puffery and outright fraud.

    Parent

    from a policy standpoint (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    It's certainly not a good thing.  It's not necessarily the end of the world if they actually implement it the way the NYTimes article describes.  Really, it just doesn't make a ton of sense.  The oil you get out of these areas is going to be expensive.  It's going to be hard for oil companies to get, it's debatable whether there is even that much oil available.  And there are environmental risks associated with all drilling, no matter how many environmental agencies you have to placate on the way.

    The real issue becomes - if this is your jumping off point, where does it end?  In addition to that, you don't implement a policy that's beloved by your opponent's base because it's "not the end of the world" unless you get something concrete in return.  As it is, the Republican pols are already opposing this for not going far enough.  They are only doing that because they can.  If this is what you're willing to give up in order to get something in return, put your oponent in the position where they have to argue for it, not against it.

    Parent

    But it concedes drilling is an answer (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    Bad idea.....Now it becomes a matter of where you drill....

    The one clear success of environmentalists during the last 20 years, even during the height of Republican rule, was to prevent more off shore drilling....

    Parent

    Where you drill? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    Now it becomes a matter of where you drill....

    ANWAR baby!  After all, Dems need to undercut Palin's base b/c she's such a potent political threat.

    Parent

    drill (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    baby drill

    Parent
    Yes, I am Busy (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    Yet, I do tend to side with environmental groups although I really do not know enough about this project to have much of an opinion on the subject. But VA is a solid GOP state, it does please me somewhat to let them foul up their beaches, except now Obama will get the blame, lol.

    As far as red meat goes, it appears that the "progressives" you are rightfully taunting here, are as hated around here as the GOP, maybe even more so. So anything you throw out here that is critical of Obama, gets eaten up whole, no need for chewing or digestion, by this point it is a reflex action, ergo red meat.

    Unlike most here, I do not believe that Obama has decided to throw the environment under the bus GOP style, but we'll see.

    I tend to agree with this:

    The Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, said last week that his group remained opposed to offshore oil drilling, even in the context of an overall climate bill that places a price on carbon.

    "It is not a mechanism that actually fights climate change," Brune said in an interview. "You don't make the problem worse in order to solve it."

    Although, the timing of the announcement may have something to do with this:

    This week the administration will finalize the nation's first greenhouse-gas limits for emissions from cars and light trucks, regulations that will boost the fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet over several years.

    WaPo

    Parent

    Virginia is not a solid GOP state (none / 0) (#128)
    by Realleft on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    Don't know where you get that idea.  Virginia is a battleground state - both Senators are Democrats, the previous two governors were Democrats, the state legislature is divided, the state went for Obama in '08.  Within state, though, the Democratic votes largely come from the DC suburbs where coastal issues are less important, and the Repulibcan votes come from other regions of the state, which are vastly different (Shenandoah, entral region and Tidewater).  Among white voters, the costal areas vote pretty strongly Republican, as do the other regions.  

    Parent
    Good to Hear (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    What do I know, I live on an island off the coast of America,  and always thought that "Virginia" sounded very GOP.

    Thanks for the update.

    Parent

    Virginia has been very GOP. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Realleft on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    We're still not sure Lincoln was anything other than a tyrant and usurper, and still have some quite racist governmental structures in place (a key one is keeping city and county governments separate - cities are not part of their surrounding counties - effectively keeping white suburbanites from having their taxes go to supporting city redevelopment, city public  schools, etc., even though we all drive in in the daytime to work in the corporations that we attracted here by giving them tax breaks).

    Wow, getting to say "I live on an island" sounds pretty great.

    Parent

    Thought So (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    And as for living on an Island, not as romantic as it may sound, as the island is Manhattan..

    Although once, it was a paradise that sold for a bunch of beads..

    Parent

    Uh-oh...Tough decisions.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    That's code for liberals are about to get screwed.

    Parent
    Depends on when you asked him (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    Back when he was courting the votes of Democrats, he was against it.  He even called it "a scheme".  Of course, just one month later, he was already indicating a willingness to go along with such a "scheme".

    Hard to believe, huh?

    Parent

    Hard to believe? (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    Not if you were paying attention.

    I'm going to laugh when Palin shoves his "drill baby drill" right through his front teeth come next election cycle.

    Parent

    Careful now (none / 0) (#20)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    Facts will just annoy the folks in the media and left blogistan who are actively pretending that this is somehow new or different from the energy policy on which Obama campaigned.

    Parent
    Pffft (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    Let's stop it with the "what he campaigned on" nonsense.

    As I said at the time, nothing any pol campaigned on means squat.

    I doubt you were out there pointing out where Obama diverged from his campaign promises.

    If you like the policy, defend it.

    If you don't, criticize it.

    It's pretty effing simple imo.

    Parent

    It is bad policy (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    And I wish the discussion here focused on that.  

    But it is still all process, process, process.....from all sides....

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14:54 AM EST
    Pols are pols, but it does not appear that you are criticizing the policy, or defending it here either.

    You appear to be staging a preemptive attack on "progressives" aka obots, for being apologists even when it is contradicts progressive core beliefs.

    Parent

    How is it preemptive? (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    Booman is articulating an entirely new attitude, not an issue specific one:

    A wise president works with what he's got and doesn't add more burden than the beast can bear. That's different from triangulation. Triangulation is passing your opponent's agenda on your terms and then taking credit for it. Obama is passing his agenda on the terms the system will bear.

    The quote references a discussion on progressives as a whole, it's not an issue by issue post.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    Yes I read the quote too, but by preemptive I am responding to this:

    But I am pretty sure the consensus "progressive" position opposed such a measure. What do they say now about this New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation?"[emphasis mine]


    Parent
    What will they say now? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    do you know?

    Parent
    I doubt the main (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    environmental groups will like it at all....There is no upside.....

    Parent
    Good to know (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    How about the "New Progressives?"

    Parent
    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    First, not sure who that is....

    But, even so, he will get little support on this....Perhaps labor might help--they won the day on the original Alaskan pipeline....

    So, my guess is that the new progressives will say nothing (just look on a little perplexed), the environmental groups will raise h*ll, and labor may quietly support it....

    What this proposal may do is unnecessarily open the split between labor and environmentalists that had been healed.  Gore knew how to avoid this.....More jobs via the green energy route--not the old energy way....  

    Parent

    I do agree it may be fun (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    to see some apologists hoisted on their own petard

    Parent
    I single out Booman (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    because he was one of the biggest Clinton haters ever.

    He is a complete hypocrite.

    Parent

    This term "New Progressive" (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    seems to mean, people who are willing to go to the mat for Obama on anything he does..

    Seems to me this is just a way of bastardizing the term "progressive" from something that meant something substantial to a term to designate hypocritical political operatives.

    Parent

    That it is Good Politics (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    Obviously.

    Parent
    Preemptive? You must be joking (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    BTW, the person I quoted in the opening? His reaction to this?

    I think 'legislative impasse' is at the heart of this.  Energy isn't a partisan issue as much as a regional one.  In order to get any kind of bill out of Congress, you need to appease and compensate every energy-producing industry.  So, you need nuclear, you need clean-coal, and you need some off-shore drilling in there as sweeteners.

    Unless you can show me the way to 51 votes (forget 60) without those sweeteners, I have trouble denouncing this announcement.  

    This is a case where we have to do some stupid counterproductive things in order to some smart and necessary things.  It's either that, or it's nothing.

    As for the merits of the eventual bill, that is impossible to judge.  It completely depends on the balance between stupid and smart.

    Not preemptive. Predictive.
     

    Parent

    Boy, that rationalization sounds familiar. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    Exactly a repeat of the apologia for the HCR BS.

    I'm sick.

    Parent

    thank god (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    you are a doctor

    Parent
    Splitting Hairs (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    Predictive of one response, but I am sure that your preemptive attack, will be predictive of all the new progressives response, as the booman article paves the way to justify apologists defense for anything Obama does.

    Parent
    Of course it is a more generalized point (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    But so far, pretty powerful on predictions.

    Parent
    Pavlovian (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    Not to take away any credit from your ability to predict certain behavior, but at this point it is hard to get it wrong.

    Parent
    So if nothing a pol campaigns on means squat, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    then everything he/she campaigns on is what matters. Good. Glad we agree.

    Besides, by your own admission this thread isn't about his energy policy. It's about the premise that this is some sort of "non triangulation" shocker, as if this is the first anyone has heard that off-shore drilling is a part of this policy. As it's a matter of record that this isn't the first time Obama has mentioned off-shore drilling, well, there you go.

    And just out of curiosity, how do judges respond when you say "it's pretty effing simple" as a summing-up in the court room? A video of that would be priceless!

    Parent

    Disagree entirely (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    What matters are the actual policies that politicians support and pass once they are elected.

    Parent
    What they support and pass once elected (none / 0) (#86)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    is very important, I agree, because that's how I judge his/her job performance and whether or not to  give them another term.

    However, when he/she is campaigning I feel you have to listen to what the promises are, so they can be compared to the candidate's record. Disregarding it all as lies of convenience makes no sense to me - how then to make a choice come November? Height? Bowling score?

    Parent

    Magic 8 ball (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    psychic hotline (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    for me

    Parent
    We all need to get (none / 0) (#143)
    by ZtoA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    Ruffian's new phone ap - what was it? The Progressive Victory Tracker. Perfect. Then we'd all know for sure.

    Parent
    Definitely a triangulation issue (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    You know Clinton campaigned on welfare reform.

    That did not make it any less triangulation.

    Silly stuff. you sound like booman.

    Parent

    First off, I don't believe it's reasonable to look (none / 0) (#135)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    at every situation through the same lens. To employ an oldie but goodie, just because you own a hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail. Everything is not a matter of ideology. Just because a Democrat does something that a Republican agrees with doesn't make it a Republican idea.

    You raised the Clinton welfare example. Yes, Republicans wanted to reform welfare - they wanted to shut it down. Clinton managed to reform welfare in a way that benefited more people. I will say that I'm not a fan of the Obama plan, made public repeatedly before this, to fine polluters (and polluting industries) to pay for research into cleaner forms of energy. Clean coal is a bad joke, IMO, as is allowing new off shore drilling. But punishing the energy industry in any way for polluting is about as far from Republican ideology as you can get.

    I haven't read a Booman article since the primaries, but in this case I do agree with some of his points. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

    Parent

    Have (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    you considered that he really believes that the GOP is the party of ideas and that their ideas are great?

    It's time to realize that there's never been a greater group of chumps than "progressives" or "creative class" members.

    Parent

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    They couldn't have possibly been taken for a ride. After all they aren't uneducated Appalachian folk. LOL

    The creative class just got schooled on why book sense ain't everything.

    Parent

    Yes they did. (none / 0) (#157)
    by AX10 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 12:12:10 AM EST
    To be honest, I find much to be contemptious of in both extremes.  The backwood small town moralists and the creative class can have each other.
    Both are extreme and delusional, unable to see the flaws with their side.

    Parent
    I think Sarah Palin's cleverness is really getting (none / 0) (#22)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    to him.  Obama never stops thinking about tomorrows election.  Well, he's developing a new language on environmental policy for the Left, I guess.  Heh.

    Ethanol industry is going to be mad. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:52:31 AM EST
    Iowa.  Illinois.

    Why? (none / 0) (#61)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    The ethanol industry cares about its production credit, low natural prices and low diesel prices.

    And, oh yeah, the mandate for oxygenate.

    Parent

    Aren't the corn (none / 0) (#144)
    by ZtoA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    growers pretty happy already? Great corn prices - or so I've been told.

    Parent
    High corn prices (none / 0) (#150)
    by me only on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    hurt ethanol producers.

    Parent
    Ethanol from corn (none / 0) (#151)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    makes no sense scientifically or economically anyway.  One of my least favorite positions of my Iowa politicians, it just drives up feed and food prices.  But you're right, the agribusiness lobby won't be especially happy.

    Parent
    Can we get 'Beast of Burden' (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    as our song post this afternoon?

    Key word in the story (none / 0) (#91)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    The proposal -- a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations -- would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean

    If Obama is committed to anything it's the word "compromise".

    This could be a smooth move (none / 0) (#134)
    by JohnS on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    Personally, I think most of the talk about offshore oil drilling is just talk, and is just about scoring political points. The NY Times points out the obvious:

    "[i]n many of the newly opened areas, drilling would begin only after the completion of geologic studies, environmental impact statements, court challenges and public lease sales. Much of the oil and gas may not be recoverable at current prices and may be prohibitively expensive even if oil prices spike as they did in the summer of 2008."

    In the meantime, the GOP can't start screaming about why isn't O talking about offshore drilling when O wants to start the ball rolling on climate/energy legislation.

    GOP Triangulation? (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:02:03 PM EST
    Obama Proposes Opening Vast Offshore Areas to Drilling

    NYT Headline

    Obama's announcement "is a step in the right direction," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., "but a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American energy off limits."

    USA Today

    Both cannot be true...

    Then you do not understand triangulation (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    You clearly do not.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    Just being silly... it was a rather obtuse angle that I was pointing to...

    And I double checked the term, and have a firm grasp of it.

    Parent