ThinkProgress: Obama Rips Bush's Oil Policy

[AtomicKitten]

Obama Rips Bush’s Oil Policy: It’s ‘Like Admitting Alcoholism and Then Skipping The 12-Step Program'
http://www.thinkprogress.org/

Today in a speech to the Associated Press, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) tore apart President Bush’s “plan” to reduce dependence on oil. Here’s an excerpt:

"Now, after the President’s last State of the Union, when he told us that America was addicted to oil, there was a brief moment of hope that he’d finally do something on energy.

I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And his latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

This is not a serious effort. Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It’s not enough to identify the challenge – we have to meet it."

(We’ve obtained the full text of the speech and posted it here:
http://thinkprogress.org/obama-oil-speech/

To learn what a real effort to break America’s oil addiction would look like, check out this report.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1408771

[Mass]

1. Excellent - The more Democrats will say that, the more people will hear it

After Gore, Kerry, and Clark, Obama (and apologies for the other ones I have forgotten).

[BootinUp]

2. Hard hitting, loved the analogy

To an alcoholic, hits home in more ways than one.

But alas Obama is buddies with Lieberman so lets just crucify him.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Nah, I have great hopes for him.

I think some of our scorched earth types here at DU don't understand politics. Completely abandoning Lieberman will be tantamount to a shove to the dark side.

And I think a Gore/Obama ticket would kick some serious ass in 2008.

But it is pathetic that Brazil is on the brink of energy independence with Alcool fuel and we Americans continue to grovel at the feet of the oil barons.

[depakid]

4. Lest one forget

Obama voted for that incredibly bad legislation, thinking his ethanol provivions would get funded. Yeah, right. I think that just goes to show the man has bad judgment. You can't make deals with the far right and expect them to hold up their end of the bargain.

All he did was help pad the pockets of the oil and gas industry (and of course, help the corn farmers in his state make a few bucks in the process). And now he's complaining about it.

[BootinUp]

5. Lets look at that a sec

I understand your point, not sure I agree. For one, getting slammed on a high profile issue like that will cost the RW. And if it doesn't get addressed they will continue to pay a political cost. Second, we live in a democracy and compromise will always be a part of politics. The repukes have chosen their spending priorities, they should be hammered over and over again until we take back the house and anything else we can get. Extreme positions in politics can never be sustained.

[AtomicKitten]

6. he has a vision

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Impugn his strategy all you like, but at least he gets it.

[depakid]

7. He doesn't actually get it

but, I will say that unlike many others, at least he has some positive proposals. Unfortunately, that energy bill was so egregious in so many ways that it's going to do far more harm to any vision of energy "energy independence" than it will to further it.

That's why before last year, the Dems had been successful in blocking it. This time, enough of them played along- got most of their "compromises" slashed out in the conference committee- and went ahead and passed the bill anyway.

You can probably put a lot of the onus for that on Harry Reid's lack of leadership- but the bottom line is that none of Dems should have even considered voting for this travesty- especially someone with energy ideas like Obama's.

Again, to me that shows bad judgment- which seems to be a pattern of his, reflected most recently his statements about the filibuster. He seems ever too eager and willing to enable the far right and legitimize their policies- and less than willing to take principled stands- and with his undeserved high profile, that will eventually come back to haunt him.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I just don't agree with your assessment.

But that's okay. Many folks here at DU start not liking a Democrat and work backwards from there.

Perhaps you feel Obama should have consulted a crystal ball and known the f***ers would slash the Dem proposals that were agreed upon in the compromise bill.

Rather than being the party of NO as alleged by the Republicans and playing right into their 2006/2008 campaign slogans, they were trying to get something done. Not being in power makes that very difficult.

Regardless, the Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't here at DU.

[depakid]

9. It's not so much damned if you do...

damned if you don't. It's simply a reconition that if you enable the far right- you're hurting the party- and your own constituents. Obama didn't need a crystal ball to know that this is how the Republicans do business. All he had to do was review the actions of the last 6 years- actually going on 12 years now.

And if you look back at your history- you'll see that the Reopublicans- with a much smaller minority of 41, blocked all sorts of Dem legislation and nominees in 1993-95. And that party of "no" was rewarded with control of both the House and Senate in the very next year.

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen to the Dems- because too many of their high profile members can't seem to say no. Or enough is enough.

[AtomicKitten]

10. I think the Dems in Congress

are still operating under the honor and dignity thing when most of us would rather back over a Republican with our car. There's a real disconnect there.