The Price Of Triangulation: Graham Seeks Expansion Of Off Shore Dilling


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – a key architect of upcoming Senate energy legislation – said Wednesday that lawmakers should widen President Obama’s newly announced expansion of offshore oil-and-gas drilling. Graham called the White House plan a “good first step” but added, “there is more that must be done to make this proposal meaningful and the game-changer we all want it to become.”

“Among the areas we still need to address – encouraging states to allow exploration by sharing a portion of the revenue raised from oil and gas drilling, opening even more areas of the Eastern Gulf to exploration, the inclusion of viable drilling sites in the Atlantic and Pacific, and expanding the list of areas we inventory for possible reservoirs of oil and gas,” Graham said.

We are choosing between center right and the extreme right on off shore drilling. For all I know, the center right or extreme right positions are the correct ones here. But it is clear that the progressive position is no longer on the table.

Speaking for me only

< New ProgressiveSpeak: Denial On Obama's Triangulation | Thursday Early Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Has there ever been (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Coldblue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    any progressive position on the table in this administration?

    Once in a meeting Jared Bernstein (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by david mizner on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    mumbled something about a real jobs programs, but when Rahm shot him a look, he smiled and said, "Just kidding."

    Yes. Close Guantanamo. Try (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    persons detained there in federal court under federal criminal law.

    Civilian trials for 9/11 terrorists (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    Expansion of Medicaid.

    Roll back the Bush tax cuts.

    To the level it went, the stimulus spending (not the tax cuts though).

    Let's not overstate the position - this Administration has largely been Bill Clinton Centrist.


    The administration makes Bill Clinton look (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    like a leftist.  Obamacare is essentially the healthcare plan designed to counter the Clinton Administration's proposal.  Then there's the Clinton tax hikes.  And Clinton also moved almost immediately to let gays serve openly in the military.  Although there was, of course, NAFTA.

    There may be an argument that he's Clinton post-1994, but that was when Clinton had a GOP Congress, not an overwhelming advantage in the House and 59 Senators (I'm sure Clinton would've killed for 59 Senators).

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing Clinton wasn't a centrist, he was.  It's Obama that I'm not sure is a centrist (other than by rightwing beltway standards).


    If we think Obama is bad now, just wait until he (none / 0) (#57)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    has a Repub House or whole Repub Congress.

    Dog help us! Obama won't.


    Student loan reform. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    This is one that I fully agree is (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    progressive policy at its best.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    isn't largely a centrist. He's a conservative unless you think that centrists enstate a majority of conservative policy prescriptions.

    The civilian trial (none / 0) (#9)
    by david mizner on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    for KSM now seems to be off the table, due to Rahm's deal with Lindsay.

    I expect so (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    Let me confess that while I think it would be good in terms of foreign policy, I think a properly functioning military commission trial, subject to the UCMJ, with all the guarantees of due process, would not be objectionable.

    Ever been to an admin board or court martial? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    I've been both BTD. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't want my fate decided by a military court. My husband actually almost faced a kangaroo court Admin board(the CO who asked for it wanted my husband out due to a 138. The actual people who were going to originally be appointed were designated and had pretty much been told what they were going to decide(and since the guy who wrote their evals was going to be unhappy if they decided different my husband's fate would have been in his hands). It was only my intercession and my appeal to Adm. Brewer that if the Kangaroo Court were to convene we'd be pursuing it in civilian court that got a new panel of non biased members not subject to the influence of the person who asked the board to convene. The lawyer that represented him on Pendleton was escatic. My husband's board was his first win ever. Oh and yes my husband also won the subsequent Article 138 but only after withstanding over 6 months of harassment while the process played out.

    The court martial I attended was a little better but still not enough to restore my faith in a military system which is incredibly political.


    The military courts can do (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    better in less "political" climates....When there is a lot of attention and the stakes are high, they can be okay.

    I hope so (none / 0) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    for the sake of the detainees. I guess that's all I can do at this point.

    But the mil commissions are not subject to UCMJ, (none / 0) (#59)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    at least as I understand them.

    Being subject to the UCMJ (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    would pretty much be awful since they have the ever popular catch alls in there. If they can't get you on an original charge they would always be able to get you on "conduct unbecoming". The system is the opposite of what civilians enjoy. It's incredibly adversarial for the person who is being prosecuted. Lots and lots of hurdles to clear and even if you prove innocence you can still face consequences.

    Did you post your thoughts on (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    why you support U.S. military being in Afghanistan?  

    Civil trials for terrorists looks doubtful (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    Obama has chosen not to roll back Bush tax cuts saying he prefers allowing them to expire. Expiration date is January 1, 2011. I'm in the wait and see if it actually happens mode on that one.

    IMO we are starting negoiatons at (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    center right and know that if anything actually passes it will be because the president is willing to go further in the direction of extreme right center.

    Right/Left Schmight/Schmeft. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:27:18 PM EST

    This is all about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.  The more Obama opens up for drilling, the more tax paying (as opposed to tax consuming) jobs there are.  Right, Left, has nothing to do with this.

    That's one sliver (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    of it, but overall, I'd say your focus is a little too narrow..as you say, some things are bigger than politics.

    Yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 05:35:26 PM EST

    Like jobs.

    Also like being (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    so obsessed with deregulation, that one segment of the economy develops the ability to screw the entire economy.

    I'd like to second this suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    If we're going to open up more drilling, then I'd like to second this:
    My question regarding this is, if they plan to drill in the north eastern seaboard region where do they plan to refine it? If I may, I'd like to suggest anywhere within an hour or two's drive of any or all of the following: Hyannis Port, Martha's Vineyeard, Cape Cod, Kennebunkport, Westport and Montauk. New Jersey is already sufficiently blighted. Although Cape May holds some promise.

    I think that is a great idea. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    or maybe (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    we should look for oil in the great lakes...



    Drilling around the Gold Coast (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    of Chicago might be a good idea.

    I'd like to veto that suggestion (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    believe it or not, the Kennedys and Bushes are not the only people who go to these places.

    What's with the beef against New England?


    Do you seriously believe that this would (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:37:25 PM EST
    even be on the table if it required that it was placed in the backyard of the rich and politically connected?

    gee (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    I guess I never realized how rich and politically connected Maine was.

    Last I checked, Virginia is pretty much the backyard of D.C.

    And no, I don't think we should drill off the coast of Chicago, or Maine, or MA, or any other state for that matter.

    I'm sorry but I can't really experience Schadenfreude when someone is killing my sacred cow.


    I am completely opposed to expanding (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    offshore drilling at all. Always have been and always will be.

    Let's face it there are areas in states along the coast where the rich and politically connected dwell. Even in Maine. Those areas will always be exempt from having drilling or reservoirs of oil and gas. Sorry if it upsets you that I would like the people responsible for expanding offshore have to live with the short term results of their decisions, since we will all have to live with the long term results.  


    and I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:27:12 PM EST
    you are clueless about these areas if you think the people who live "an hour or two" from Kennebunkport Maine are pulling the strings in D.C.  Or for that matter Hyannis (an hour or two from Hyannis is practically Boston... or New Bedford, or Fall River, you know, where all those "blue collar" voters live).

    Plenty of other people live in these areas.  Contrary to what some people would believe, New England is not filled exclusively with rich politicians.  Maine is one of the poorest states in the country.

    And just who exactly do you think from New England is "responsible for expanding offshore"?


    Sounds like someone needs (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    to read The Beans of Egypt.

    The town in Conn I grew up in, half the guys in the town were union workers (and great people) who worked for Electric Boat.


    John Kerry and Joe Lieberman (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    are leaders of the committee and have come out in support of offshore drilling. Both live in New England as I recall.

    Actually if I were not just venting my frustration on this whole issue, I would want this whole mess to be put in the back yards of the rich communities where the political families live and not an hour or two away.  And yes, I think they can pull strings on just about anything.  

    Really though as I've stated above I'm venting. You and I share the same position on off shore drilling. IOW Don't do it.


    I get the venting (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    It's just frustrating because I think a lot of people have this view of N.E. that's really not accurate.  Do we have our share of blue bloods?  Sure.  But it's not even remotely close to the bulk of the population.  You know who else lives on the coast of N.E.?  Fishermen.  Even Martha's Vineyard has a local population that includes people of economic backgrounds that are lightyears away from the Kennedys or Kerrys.

    It's like arguing for a bioengineering plant in Boston, because that's where the money for it is.  And what do you know they put it in Roxbury, not the Back Bay.

    But yea, we're both essentially arguing the same point on drilling.  But one of those points is that this stuff travels well beyond the backyard of whomever we put it in.


    oh (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    and obviously a bit of this is a "waaaaaaah!" on my part.  Because that coast is my back yard too.  It's really quite nice...

    That's funny (none / 0) (#76)
    by me only on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    You are completely opposed, heh.

    Do you drive a car (gas), fly on airplanes (jet) or buy things that you don't grow yourself (trucked to you courtesy of diesel)?  Sorry to inform you that most of the new oil discoveries are offshore.  While you might politically oppose drilling for oil off the shore of one of the few countries that actually enforces environmental regulations on the producers, in effect by using oil you are encouraging production offshore in other parts of the world.  Like Africa.  Topeka Nigerian oil production.  Most of the co produced gas is flared.  The people there live a hellish life due to the particulate.  Visit Angola or Equitorial Guinea.  The leaders of those societies are really wonderful people.  If you go you can ask the locals.  I promise they will not have one cross thing to say about their "benevolent" government.

    So yeah, I find this part of your comment

    Sorry if it upsets you that I would like the people responsible for expanding offshore have to live with the short term results of their decisions, since we will all have to live with the long term results.

    to be an iron(y) mine.

    80 MMBPD of oil consumption isn't going away in your lifetime.  What do you think the alternative is?


    Oil consumption could be greatly reduced (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    in my lifetime if Congress had the will to do so.

    Expanding offshore drilling will not even produce much if anything until 2030. And it is estimated that the output will be minimal in comparison to even current needs.

    Wind, solar, good mass transit and vehicles that do not use gas are just a few of the possibilities. If the U.S. had seriously starting pursuing alternative energy sources one or two decades ago we would not be lagging behind other nations. This is what other nations are doing while we continue our addition to oil and gas.

    "China Huaneng Group, the nation's biggest power generator, targets a capacity to produce about 35 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2020 as the country seeks to cut pollution, President Cao Peixi said." link

    Linking to Al Gore, (none / 0) (#83)
    by me only on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    but not reading the article behind his blurb and knowing the reality.

    First up:

    The parent company of Hong Kong-listed Huaneng Power International Inc. will increase its development of alternative energy including solar, wind, hydro and nuclear

    How about a Three Gorges Dam here?  Gore believes they are going to go with wind and solar.  Really they are going with nuclear.  Then the real answer, later in the article

    The company plans to complete the construction of the country's first power plant that converts coal into cleaner-burning gas before the end of next year, Cao said.

    The pilot 250-megawatt plant will be in the northern port city of Tianjin.

    So China's real answer is clean coal and nuclear.  Meanwhile they still commission regular coal plants every 10 days (w/o particulate and sulfur emission controls).

    If the U.S. had seriously starting pursuing alternative energy sources one or two decades ago we would not be lagging behind other nations.

    We did, thirty years ago.  Topeka Altamont.  Today serious solar gets no traction.  Look at Boxer's initiative to kill solar in the Mojave desert.  Wind, the Kennedy's make certain that we don't do offshore wind.


    You seem to confirm one of my points (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    Look at Boxer's initiative to kill solar in the Mojave desert.  Wind, the Kennedy's make certain that we don't do offshore wind.

    We don't have alternative energy because there is not the political will to do so.


    Hmm, (none / 0) (#94)
    by me only on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    Would you agree that we aren't opening up Pacific coast offshore drilling because we lack the political will to do it?

    Or is it the wrong thing to do?

    (Because if you answer it is the wrong thing to do, I promise you I can find someone who says we don't do the Mojave desert solar project because it is the wrong thing to do.  So they would argue that it is not lack of political will.)


    Much of the Mojave Desert (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    is protected.  DiFi fought hard years ago for that designation.....It was her baby....

    illinois (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    Why drill Lake Michigan when you've got all that "clean coal' downstate?

    (Lake Erie's actually got exploitable uoffshore oil.)


    To be clear (none / 0) (#100)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 06:23:18 PM EST
    I'm opposed to any expanded offshore drilling.  It's damaging to the environment, hurts other industries, and doesn't do squat to solve our very real energy problems.

    But there's a reason why it's okay to drill off Newport News or build another refinery in New Jersey, but you can't drill off Martha's Vineyard or put a refinery in Hyannis Port.  If that was on the table, you can bet, drilling suddenly wouldn't look like such a good idea.

    So perhaps my real recommendation is that if they want to drill offshore, Martha's Vineyard can go first.


    Cape wind (none / 0) (#104)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    They don't even want wind power up there.  

    Hey, Dick Cheney has a home in (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    St. Michael's, MD, a beautiful town on the Chesapeake; he and Rumsfeld are neighbors, as a matter of fact.

    Bet they both love the idea.


    Not worthy of you, IMO (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:12:04 AM EST
    Silly or stupid (none / 0) (#66)
    by me only on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    I'll let you decide.

    Premcor Refining Group Delaware City 182,200 BPD
    Chevron USA Inc Perth Amboy 80,000 BPD (idle)
    ConocoPhillips Company Linden 238,000 BPD
    Sunoco Inc Westville 145,000 BPD (idle)
    Valero Refining Co New Jersey Paulsboro 160,000 BPD
    ConocoPhillips Company Trainer  185,000 BPD
    Sunoco Inc Marcus Hook 108,000 BPD
    Sunoco Inc (R&M) Philadelphia 138,500 BPD
    Western Refining Yorktown Inc Yorktown 64,500 BPD

    Slightly over 1.3 MMBPD, with 225,000 BPD idle.


    Great idea (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    And thanks for the site rec.  I'd never seen the site before.

    And as an aside I love the bokeh on the Robert Trivers  fella's pic (in the pseudo-science article).  Appreciate some fine photography ;-).

    Thanks again.


    It's a very good site (none / 0) (#99)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    I particularly recommend the book that's linked there.  Chapter 2 on the ratchet effect is very instructive as that appears to be exactly what Obama is doing and quite effectively.

    As with health reform - or as I have (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    come to think of it - "The Template" - this will end with:

    (1) not a single, Republican vote for any kind of climate change legislation;

    (2) the legislation that does get passed having been watered and dumbed down to the point where it is all but meaningless, but assurances having been made to the oil, coal and nuclear energy industries, will not hurt them one little bit; and

    (3) expansion beyond what was announced yesterday for coastal drilling.

    Going forward, feel free to substitute whatever major issue is being considered for legislation for the issue above.

    I can't wait for Obama to get to entitlements; that should just be more fun than we can handle.

    Not to worry.... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    if the voters don't like the final decision, it can be fixed later.

    Do not underestimate Lindsey's (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    negotiating prowess.  After all, on April l, 2007, during his stroll through Bab-al-Sharqi Market in Baghdad with John McCain, he was able to get "Five rugs for five bucks."  That negotiation was enabled by a security force of 100 troops on the ground and several helicopters over head. So, too, is Lindsey's new goal being facilitated by Obama's slick Goldilocks position of 'just right'.  

    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:16:22 PM EST

    YES WE CAN!!!

    World capacity for building reactor vessels (none / 0) (#91)
    by cenobite on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    Is too small for this plan.

    Japan Steel Works (the only manufacturer) can only make 4 per year. For the whole world.

    You'll be needing about 2 of them per power plant.


    Maybe valid currently (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    but these kinds of plans are pretty long term.  The article went on to say that it would take competitors more than five years to catch up, but I think its a silly assumption to say that they won't eventually.  If there's a demand for these parts, and if companies can turn a profit producing them, even if it takes five years, then more will be produced, either in Russia, South Korea or France.  Personally I don't understand the anti-nuclear crowd when it comes to energy.  In the short term, we have the choice between more coal or more nuclear, with the greener choices filling in the margins.  Going 100% wind and solar is never going to happen, and I'd prefer nuclear to coal to fill the difference.  Besides, not having built a reactor in 30 years in the states certainly puts us behind technologically, but if theres a financial incentive GE will certainly do what they can to increase production.

    I don't have a bias for or against fission power (none / 0) (#101)
    by cenobite on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    However, it's impossible to build 5 fission plants a year for 10 years, it can't be done. Reactor vessels are just one of the limiting factors, there are more.

    The easiest and cheapest way to add electrical generation capacity is still conservation, and that should get the most attention.


    I'm a recovering anti-nuker (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:24:13 AM EST
    When it looked like we had a pretty bottomless source of energy, the risks of nuclear power were too great, I thought.  I've reformed, however.  I think now we have no choice but to go there, and the sooner the better-- as long as it's the newer plant technology used in most of Europe.

    The only energy source we have that has close to zero negatives is solar, but it appears that it's too complicated to really get it going enough to make much of a difference-- solar panels on every rural building in the country and massive solar fields in the Western desert regions might do the trick, but nobody seems to want to put serious effort or funding into doing that.  Too bad.


    Triangulation (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    or more preemptive surrender from Obama? Seems more like surrender to me.

    Not surrender (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:34:22 AM EST
    This is what he wants.  Actually, I think it's to the left of what he wants.  He's built into the planning giving away some more.

    To the best of my knowledge ... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by BruceMcF on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    ... the idea that there is anything substantial to be gained except for the oil companies doing the drilling is absurd ... its based on people's inability to compare different "big numbers" in different terms over different time periods.

    The US produces about twice the world average barrels of oil per person. We consume about five times the average per person. So its not like we are a country without ongoing oil production. If the reserves in question are brought into production, that will be under 10% of our total production at most and since this is a limited expansion, probably under 5%. By the time it kicks in, our production might be closer to ~5% of world production than the present ~10% of world production.

    Adding 0.25% to 0.5% to total world oil production is not going to do much of anything to the price. Its silly to think it will. During the primary campaign, Candidate Obama mocked people who were willing to pander to the wishful thinking that it could.

    Electrifying about 10% of our rail corridors and establishing 100mph Rapid Freight Rail on those electric corridors could save 7% of our oil consumption, or 1.75% of total world consumption.

    Anything drill baby drill can do, abandoning grossly inefficient and obsolete oil burning technology for more efficient, oil-independent technology can do better and quicker.

    ok, i'm sure someone else has (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    said this already, but isn't the necessary result of Obama's pre-caving on every issue that the end result gets shoved far to the right?
    The Republicans MUST disagree with  Obama, no matter what he proposes.
    If he proposes offshore drilling, they MUST propose drilling in Alaska, to show a difference.
    If he proposes exchanges, they must propose something even more market-oriented.
    If he proposes indefinite detention, they must propose death camps.
    There's no upside to what Obama is doing, IMO.
    He should be starting by proposing a 110% tax on the salary of every oil executive, along with nationalization, with expenses to be paid by the oil execs.

    BTD, it is bad policy (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    Oil drilling is largely irrational--from the standpoint of what is best for everyone....it does benefit a very small group.....

    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    I take BTD's first lesson in politics to be that you first must "define the center." Well, here we are. Do you like your new car?

    The price of triangulation (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    Or maybe this is one of the perks of triangulation:

    Obama's trip to Portland took him to the home state of two moderate Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, whose votes for the [health care] legislation the president ardently sought but ultimately could not win. The White House said both senators were invited to attend the event, but neither did.

    Drill the White House lawn. (4.92 / 14) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    Show that drilling for oil and organic gardening are compatible.

    Kerry is a big fan of this (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    Doesn't he own ocean front property? Need to start drilling in his backyard. Locate a few of those new reservoirs for oil and gas there too.

    Obama hasn't permitted siesmic testing near MA... (none / 0) (#47)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:47:30 PM EST

    I think Obama has gone (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    beyond where Kerry is....which was some vague notion of perhaps doing some additional drilling....

    As long as it is no where near (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    him. Right.

    Just on offshore drilling? (4.90 / 10) (#3)
    by david mizner on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    "We are choosing between center right and the extreme right on off shore drilling."

    And on health care.
    And on trade.
    And of regulating Wall Street.
    And on Afghanistan.
    And on...

    Obama does his best negotiating with himself -gets (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    him in a better position to give in ever further to the right.

    Dog help us!

    He knows it makes it easier for the Repubs to pull the final solution rightward and he doesn't look as if he's caved...bcz he caved within himself first, see? That means it's his win, not theirs...or something.

    I do not pretend to understand this man or his way of thinking.

    But I love this comment from a David Dayen post over at FDL:

    2)  DanR March 31st, 2010 at 11:11 am

    The President knows we cannot drill our way to energy independence

    Reminds me of Kevin Baker's observation that Barack Obama, again and again-whether it's about war, terrorism, healthcare or the environment-tells us that the current system is broken and then proceeds to tell us that the system must be maintained.

    Graham Took Heat (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    According to this:

    One White House target in particular is Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is seeking to forge a deal on comprehensive energy legislation (and has taken some conservative heat for doing so).

    Now that the Democrats have embraced GOP agenda, they own it. Now, it seems as if the GOP does not want to be seen as triangulating by agreeing with Obama... lol

    Triangulation goes mis en abime...  

    Just part of the dog and pony show.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    or smoke and mirrors or whatever saying works.  Graham taking "heat" is just a tactic in moving the issue ever rightward.  

    Are You Saying (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    That politics is a game? Really, my faith has been shattered.

    I personally LOVE (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    my health and well being and those of the people I hold dear being used as a pawn pieces for both political parties. Yaaaaaay! (rolling eyes)

    Eh... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    Snarky asides well..aside  I'm saying that pointing out that Graham is taking "heat" for appearing to "triangulate" with Obama is kind of silly.  Especially since you appear to be aware of the game that's actually being played.

    Silly? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    Why is that, because pointing it out looks like something an Obot aka "new progressive" would do?  

    And anyway, I was riffing on triangulation, and tying it to one of my favorite notions mis en abime.  More about mirrors than smoke...

    While the word abyme is related to the word abyss, in heraldry terminology the abyme is the center of a coat of arms. The term "mise en abyme" then meant literally "put in the center" but the term was usually reserved for a smaller coat of arms put in the center of the larger one, as seen in the picture to the right, in the coat of arms of King George III.

    Is this "new progressive" jazz (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    an attack on "obots" (which in a way I can understand), or an underhanded attempt to make "progressive" a dirty word; the way "liberal" is a dirty word, and before that, "radical", and before that, "socialist"?

    Or am I reading too much into it?


    You're reading too much into it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    I think it's simply a handy way for BTD to mock and have some fun with some of the A-list progressive bloggers who, have and are, currently embarrassing themselves.

    So Im a little paranoid (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    so sue me, already..

    And dont be a big shot: wear a coat today, it's not as warm out as you think.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#65)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    Yes Ma am/Sir!

    It's a play off of (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    New Democrats.

    You of all people I thought would like it.

    Little did I know.


    Wha? (none / 0) (#45)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    You must still be riffing.  

    I'm going to ignore the Obot/new progressive bait and say it's silly because pointing out that Graham is taking heat from some conservatives is basically meaningless.  Graham is not taking any real heat and, again, the rightwing noise is simply part of the game to move the whole issue further to the right than it already is.  What's more, you know that to be the case so why would you even bring it up as a counterpoint to Graham's predictable move to push Obama right?  Your "heat" point is pointless.    


    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    Your pointing out that I am silly for linking to a comment by USA Today about Graham taking heat, is duly noted.

    Obviously not meaningless as you have already attributed lots of meaning to the quote.


    Yeah...that's it... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    You are approaching Capt. Howdy territory now....

    Really? (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    And what territory are you approaching? Considering you started off with an insult.

    Um...no (none / 0) (#74)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    My first post about this to you was the "dog and pony show".  You followed with snark.  My reply to that was when I said your point was silly which was hardly an insult.  Anyway, you've successfully dragged this side silliness out long enough to avoid the main point.  So, you win.  Congrats.  

    Main Point (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    Your main point is that you want to control the dialogue here. Going by your logic, pointing anything out about the dog and pony show aka politics, is silly.

    The post is about Lindsey Graham. It is not obvious that the GOP would be criticizing Graham, whether or not it is sincere, and by sincere I mean those who are criticizing are pandering to their own constituencies.

    Obviously, Obama believes that he is pandering too otherwise he would not be triangulating.  Not sure why Obama's political maneuvers are fine to discuss but not others.

    Oh I get it, anything that falls out of the category of trashing Obama or the "new progressives" is silly and obvious, because Pols do what pols do, dog and pony, smoke and mirrors, etc.


    I see you're a sore winner (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    As I ignored your other attempts to bait me with your previous gems, I will ignore your current ones though I will laugh at your claim that my "main point is to control the dialogue here" and your attempt to use form to avoid substance.

    This post is about Lindsey Graham's predictable rightward tact after Obama adpoted the Repub position.  Bringing up that LG is supposedly taking heat from some conservatives is pointless because a) it's not sincere b) it's part of an overall rightward push game plan c) you know a and b.  

    Also, any call for some sort of, for lack of a better term, critical evenhandedness when discussing the political game playing aspect of this, is kind of...well you know the word... Obama's has pretty much adopoted their position and the noise futher right of him is just the start of the continued slide in that direction.  Am I supposed to say "Oh, Obama is being criticized from the Left and LG is getting heat from the Right so neither side is happy with their triangulating pols" when the reality is  the actual effect of the triangulating in this case much more favors the Right than Left.  I'm supposed to just focus on the pure political manuvering and say "alls square" when, again, the reality is that LG is using political manuvering to push an advantage while Obama used it to start from behind?  Nah....  


    Bla Bla (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:47:01 PM EST
    So many words to say, the only comments worthy, at TL is  bashing Obama or his worshipers. Predictable..  

    Since the consensus around here by your crowd, is that everything Obama does is bad and requires the implicit, 'told you so', and all his fawning worshipers are morons, your comments are silly by your own definition, because everyone round here knows that Obama is an eevil GOPer in disguise and his worshipers are, well worshipers.

    Given that you find the dog and pony show, aka politics, utterly predictable and silly, you may want to look in the mirror and have a laugh.


    Total Fail from you... (none / 0) (#105)
    by ks on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    Yeah, right.  You've lost the main point and are now just bsing around with many silly and ridiculous characterizations and exaggerations to try and cover your failure.  So since I'm in control - enough! Time to move on.  

    DarkSyde seems to take a (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    wait-and-see position.

    Graham actually sounds pretty (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    reasonable now that the President advocates for drilling.  But Graham shouldn't mention California.

    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    That is why he must be getting heat from conservatives on the issue.

    So predicable (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    and counterproductive. Or maybe I just don't get the 11 dimensional chess. If the Dems were willing to cave on the drilling, why didn't they let it look like Graham got it out of them in tough negotiations? Did they think that would look more like caving then their pre-caving did? Now he'll drag them even more to the right to look good to his own guys.

    Or else maybe the idea is to stand up to him now and look tough. Pathetic.

    Tough is not part of the (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    Democratic vocabulary unless they are dealing with the left of their own party.

    Punch the tree-huggers n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    The emerging political strategy (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    as in health care, seems to be to give Republicans what they want, then point out that they got what they want and still are not happy.

    Great talking point Dems. Guess what - the Repubs get what they want and all you get is the dubious benefit of being 'bipartisan'.

    I hate hate hate this.


    False assumption (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:30:50 AM EST
    that Obama is "caving," IMO.  This is what he wants to do.  His whole deal, I'm convinced, is to start from a postion of (he thinks) obvious pragmatism and efficacy, and make compromises from there as he has to.  The slightly limited offshore drilling he announced is, my guess, slightly to the left of his core position, so he's got room to give some more to the GOPers without giving up his core principles on the thing.

    He's actually not a total fool and understands very well that you don't start negotiations with a compromise.  That's not what he's doing.

    We really, really have to get over the idea tha that he's a weak liberal.  He's not.  He's a strong center-right guy.  Slightly liberal positions are no more than his starting point for negotiations in hopes of ending up where he wants to end up.


    Or maybe they agree with him and are putting (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    on the table what they want knowing there will be negotiation.  I think Obama believes we should be drilling offshore to utilize our own resources as part of a comprehensive energy policy.  Obama has laid down where he will start the bidding and as Graham pushes for more, Obama will give him more, but with a price (i.e. carbon tax/cap).  Give up on 'Obama the Progressive' and this will get easier for you.

    Nah, Cap and Tax of Carbon is out (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:53:38 PM EST

    At the same time the White House is opening up to offshore oil and natural gas drilling, the Obama administration is backing away from "cap and trade," a market-based plan to limit the nation's carbon output -- or at least that particular language used to describe the plan.

    Meanwhile, the Times reports, opponents of the plan branded it "cap and tax," and Mr. Obama omitted it from his current budget, even though he included it in his first budget.

    Probably exactly right (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    I need to just stop expecting anything. Everytime I think I have done that, I get reminded of an issue in which I realize I was still expecting something.

    I agree, except (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:32:32 AM EST
    I'm not sure there's any "price" in there for Graham.  Also, it would take a lot more GOPers than just Graham for any reasonable carbon program to make it through the Senate.

    Again, Obama feels most comfortable negotiating (none / 0) (#63)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    with himself, which allows the Repubs to pull the issue resolution ever further to the Right.

    It's his MO. Tell everyone things are broken as they are now, hint at change, then tell people things must stay the same, but with some extra special Obama fixes which somehow almost always aid the HCR (High Corporate Returns).

    Even for the student loans change, banks still have a revenue stream for managing the loans. Now, they may not be able to game the system as effectively, but they're still in it.

    Anyone know if they will get late payment fees, other banking fees from the students?


    Center right (none / 0) (#44)
    by jb64 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    is the center. That's what 40 years of Republican Hegemony gets you.

    Oh, now I see. The President (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    is trying to bolster Barbara Boxer's chances for re-election.

    Boxer is behind Campbell (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    in the last poll--by one point.....Boxer needs attention on the economy to help pull her through....

    In some ways this may be better (none / 0) (#84)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    With Obama's position being clear, the progressives in Congress may be able to bargain more effectively.  I don't think they'll be able to pass a bill with just Republicans and ConservaDems.  This should increase the leverage for progressives.

    As an example, someone upthread suggested drilling near Cape Cod.  Well, there is an off shore wind power generation project in that area that has been stalled for a while.  Why not tie some of this off shore drilling with building an infra structure for off shore wind power generation?

    NPR this afternoon sd. the lease (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    site will be 125 miles off the coast.  Quite a variance in present leases as to percentage of revenue to feds vs. to states.  Southern Gulf coast, post Katrine, gets 50%.  

    Agree with this (none / 0) (#111)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    I think now we have no choice but to go there, and the sooner the better-- as long as it's the newer plant technology used in most of Europe.

    I've come around to that view too. Simply because attempting to get the U.S. to make serious, substantive changes in its energy policies seems impossible. Nukular would be a viable answer.