Candidate Obama on Off-Shore Drilling: "It would have long-term consequences for our coastlines ..

[sabrina 1]

During the campaign, Republican John McCain was for off-shore drilling, which is no surprise. Democratic candidate Barack Obama was against it:

Candidates Clash On Impact Of Offshore Drilling

The candidates were on record about new drilling a month before President Bush lifted the drilling moratorium. In mid-June, in the oil-friendly city of Houston, McCain said that he would call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that "choose to permit exploration."

"I think that this — and perhaps providing additional incentives to permit exploration off their coasts — would be very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis," he said.

Days later, Obama fired back in Jacksonville, Fla., where drilling isn't such a popular idea. "It would have long-term consequences for our coastlines, but no short-term benefits, since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil," he said.

And that's not soon enough, he added: "Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today."

Almost everyone agreed, even people in the oil industry, that off-shore drilling would do nothing to relieve the oil crisis.

Even people in the oil industry say drilling won't ease the oil pinch. Matthew Simmons is head of Simmons and Company, among the largest banks investing in energy. "We basically wasted away 20 years," he said. "Now, basically, it's a terrific idea, but we ran out the clock. It's really misleading to hold that out as a panacea. It won't work. It might work for our grandchildren."

Geologists have identified reservoirs or undersea "structures" that might contain oil. But Simmons says that's guesswork. "We don't have any idea whether any of it is there," he said.

But first, the government has to lease the offshore sites to oil companies. The companies then have to probe the seabed to find out what's there. Then there are years of exploratory drilling, says Simmons — if anyone can find rigs to do the drilling.

Back then, President Obama was in agreement with Environmentalists that the risk to the environment was too great a risk to take for so small and uncertain a reward:

Candidates On Fuel Efficiency

McCain says there's the psychological lift from knowing the country is trying to replace foreign oil. But Obama counters that the environmental price is too high.

Environmental groups agree. They argue that while there have been few serious spills from rigs, the payoff doesn't justify the risk to beaches and wildlife.

Ultimately, Congress will have to take a stand.

Did any of these facts change over the past year and a half?

[Captain Hilts]

1. He was for it. Then he was against it. Then he was for it. ...nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. This is not a short term solution to an immediate oil crisis -

it is a short term solution to an EXTENDED oil crisis.

You don't see the difference?

[sabrina 1]

7. Can you explain that? Because during the campaign

isn't that what John McCain's point was? Were Republicans right all along them? I am serious, if we were wrong, and if there is a looming longterm crisis that would make it worth while to allow the damage to the coastline that almost everyone agrees is likely, I would like to know.

I depended on Democrats for information on this issue and on Environmentalists. But if Republicans were right all along, I would like to know that for certain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. What I'm meaning is, there is no 'fix' to peak oil.

We are not going to find enough to make any significant difference to our oil reserves, and the environmental damage is not worth it now any more than it was worth it then.

Instead of stop-gaps like this we need to institute an "Apollo project" for renewable energy, and get ourselves OUT of the oil business.

[walldude]

13. +1 but dude you need to re-word your other post

it reads like you are for drilling... at least in response to the OP. :toast:

[sabrina 1]

14. Thank you, I wasn't sure if I understood your initial post

correctly.

Well stated and I agree completely as I always have. This flip flop leaves me cold and wondering whether or not we could have been wrong, although I doubt it considering the number of disparate groups who agreed.

Shocked to see people actually saying that it's better that Dem does it than a Rep. As if there were no other way, such as your suggestion.

[FarLeftFist]

3. Also:

In the summer of 2008, then-candidate Obama explained that he saw allowing offshore oil drilling as a compromise necessary to “get something done“:

“The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” Obama said in the Post interview. “And so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.” The freshman Illinois senator and presidential nominee-to-be added: “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

[sabrina 1]

4. So, that's the reason for him changing his mind?

What is it that he wants to 'get done' that might be worth this, and that we are to believe would get Republicans to help 'get done'?

And how many principles are we expected to trade away for Republican cooperation, none of which anyone has seen so far?

[texastoast]

12. Line. Sand.

I will fight this with my dollars instead of contributing to anyone who will offshore drill.

I don't wish tarballs, dead fish and the stink of oil on any coastline.

[sabrina 1]

17. Absent some development

that has occurred since the campaign regarding this issue that we are not aware of, I am going to be right there with you as will millions of others. I do not believe how little he cares about those who elected him. It is truly a shock to me.

[truedelphi]

5. You know something - It is enough to make one believe

That Kucinich really saw UFO's.

And the space people were carrying off candidate Obama, and having him replaced with the guy we have now.

[BlooInBloo]

6. After that, Candidate Obama softened on it

"ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) – Barack Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

“My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-shifts-on-oil-drilling/?fbid=0jgVlh3Seuq

It's is neither a surprise nor a betrayal. Still shitty, though.

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, he has a habit of changing his mind even during the

campaign. Remember the FISA Bill? The incredibly moving speech he made about that only to turn around and vote for it?

There is a disturbing pattern emerging where anything he initially took a stand on that was a Democratic value, first gets 'softened' and then completely morphs into the opposite of his original position.

I know politicians do this, but I'm not familiar with a Democrat who has done so to this extent. I has me really concerned about what he plans to do with SS 'reform'.

[BlooInBloo]

15. You gave an earlier candidate Obama....

If you can find him re-strengthing his position after the link I gave, that would be interesting.

Otherwise, the only thing of small-ish interest is people's selective memories.

[sabrina 1]

21. It's probably me today. But I'm not sure

what you mean by 'restrengthening his position'. Do you mean on his opposition to off-shore drilling or on his later position, the one you posted? If it is the latter, I think what he said today definitely strengthens the 'softer' position of being willing to trade what he himself stated as a fact, the damage to our coastline, for Republican cooperation on energy issues.

Is there anything to make anyone believe that he will ever get that cooperation? Already, Boehner is attacking this new position just as they did with the health care compromises.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Nevermind.

[sabrina 1]

24. Okay ~ but regardless of a particular

democratic candidate's positions, the Democratic Party has never supported off-shore drilling, so when someone runs on their ticket, people who joined the party, expect them to represent the positions that drew them to the party in the first place.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Trim $500B off Defense...

Not only problem solved....World leader in alternative energy.

Nah.

[sabrina 1]

26. But the war machine would not be happy. I wonder how much

of our energy usage is attributable to the wars we keep starting. It's certinaly never mentioned when the topic comes up for discussion in the media. Not to mention the damage to the environment.

There doesn't seem to be much hope of anything changing, except the minds of our elected officials as soon as they get to DC.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. #1 user of oil...

...US military...


:think:

[sabrina 1]

35. Then that seems like a good place to start

making some 'changes'. Not to mention the pollution they are spreading around the globe. But that too is never mentioned by the media.

[FLAprogressive]

9. If Obama waffled to the left on something (ha! ha!) the media would be all over it

[LynneSin]

16. I think there's more to it then what it seems - I think he's calling out republicans on this one

Because I highly doubt this one will get past democrats in congress. And this is the rallying cry of republicans for ages - "DRILL BABY DRILL". Outside a few republicans on the Atlantic Coast - all the republicans want to open up drilling.

Now Obama is giving it to them. Either the Republicans are gonna have to suck up to Obama or show themselves to be the hypocrite obstructionists that they are.

[BunkerHill24]

18. We elect presidents to make the right choices, whilst we vote for the right candidate

I trust the President will make the right call.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, it isn't up to the President.

According to the article in the OP, even though George Bush, that is who was in the WH at the time, lifted the ban on off-shore drilling:

Although the White House has lifted its ban on new drilling, Congress enacted a moratorium beginning in 1982 that only Congress can remove.

So it will be Congress who decides. Even back then, Congress did not lift the moratorium. Why would they, with a Democratic majority, do so now? Presidents are infallible. That is why we have three branches of government.

[kath]

19. Drill, Baby, Drill!!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Javaman]

20. "Did any of these facts change"(?) Yes, he got elected.

rhetoric aimed at the left was useful to him at the time. Now, not so much.

"the presidency is like dancing with the devil". Anonymous.

[sabrina 1]

32. More and more it seems that way. The question I have is

was he just lying in order to win, or was he hi-jacked as soon as he won the primary and given a rude awakening about how things really are? Or was he a stealth Republican all along?

[Javaman]

33. All of the above.

Politics is the ultimate gray area.

I believe there are politicians that are good and then are corrupted by the system.

I believe there are politicians that are bad and than enlightened by the system.

I believe there are politicians that are neither bad nor good and aren't the least bit affected by the system.

I believe there are politicians that are only out for themselves and want to cash in on the system.

I believe there are politicians that are completely self sacrificing to the point of making themselves irrelevant via telling the truth in an other-wised gamed system.

I believe there are politicians that enjoy playing the game at the expense of the people all in a pursuit to "get things done" but in the end, get nothing done and the people they are supposed to serve still suffer.

I believe there are politicians that had no idea how the game is played, didn't know the rules, found out too late, tried to make up for lost time, were beaten down and feel guilty for failing the people.

And finally, I believe there are politicians, who knew all along it was a game, didn't have quite the tools necessary to play it correctly, but enough to fake their way by, do what they believe is correct, but realizing that doing what is correct and doing what is necessary to get anything done are two very different things. They are reflective on the process, amused by the jaded reality of it all, sad at it's entropy, and down right pissed at how out of touch it all is with the American people. They give over to the reality of the belt way insanity, take their money, leave a legacy of trying, then retire to write their memoirs.

You pick the one that fits.

[eleny]

25. Thank you

[WVRICK13]

27. Unfortunately

Obama is slightly right of center and I never expected radical change. The problem is the bar has been reset and anything even on total dead center is seen as left wing by a lot of the country. During the last election we voted in the candidate who was the most left of the choices. He is just a lot too far right for me, but hey I didn't have a better choice. I would rather support Obama than someone further right. But then I live in WV where Goldwater would be considered a left wing liberal.

[sabrina 1]

28. That may be so. But there are issues that were

top issues for people in the last election, such HCR and SS, the War in Iraq, everything environmental that Republicans are always a threat to, education and hopefully ridding the system of the failed NCLB Bush corporate written program that has destroyed our educational system.

There were other issues, like Faith Based initiatives, Human Rights issues, the ending of torture as a policy etc.

In the campaign, Hillary Clinton did not hide her support for mandated insurance eg. Nor did McCain hide his intentions regarding off-shore drilling. As a result, many people went with Obama who came out and argued with both McCain and Clinton. Was he lying?

HE has done a complete about face now on at least two very important issues, and yes, we knew he was not a liberal or even left of center. But no one expected the rightwing swing he has taken or the catering to Republicans to the extent that is almost ludicrous.

[sabrina 1]

29. Unrecs for facts?

Are people so dedicated to an individual politician that they cannot even stand the truth?

This president has changed his mind on so many important issues now, that it simply cannot be explained away by 'well no one should be surprised, he never was a liberal' or whatever lame defense of every rightwing, Republican decision he makes is.

This is serious with long term consequences, just as his flip flop on Health Care is. And now we have to fear that he has the SS fund in his sights and that there will be people here attempting to excuse that also.

Where is the line that he cannot cross? Starting another war somewhere? Would that do it? I'm thinking that there is none for those who try so hard to suppress the facts about this administration.

[freddie mertz]

30. More sleazy triangulation.

I wish candidate Obama had won the election.

[sabrina 1]

31. That would have been nice ~

Maybe when they arrive at the WH they really are shown a clip of the Kennedy assassination as was portrayed in the movie about the U.S. presidency. Because I cannot think of any other excuse for the complete abandonment of so many principles this president claimed to hold during the campaign.