How do you feel about President Obama's support for offshore drilling?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: How do you feel about President Obama's support for offshore drilling?

[BunkerHill24]

1. Your poll is twisted. n/t

[donco6]

2. This one doesn't make any sense at all.

Wasn't it our side making the arguments against "Drill, Baby, Drill"? Weren't we the ones saying that drilling wouldn't guarantee the US more oil, because the oil would belong to whoever pumped it out of the ground and if China paid more, they'd get it? And now that's the argument for drilling?

WTF? indeed . . .

[awoke_in_2003]

61. it's different now

:sarcasm:

[Blue Owl]

3. If Sarah Palin says "drill baby, drill"...

then it's affirmative -- more offshore drilling = BAD IDEA.

[sabrina 1]

22. So you disagreed with candidate Obama

who was firmly against it because of the damage it would do to the coastline, with no short-time gains and negligible long-term gains? I was against it for the same reasons Obama was against it. I had not even heard of Palin, and rarely if ever pay any attention to that particular distraction. If people ignored her, instead of falling into the trap of following her every move, she'd have to get a real job.

Meantime we have a president who conned people into electing him based on stated principles which, one by one, he is doing an about face on, for the sake of Republican support?

[BlooInBloo]

4. Need a new choice: A two year old unsurprised dislike.

[CBR]

5. That is where I am at. nt

[Ignis]

14. Yeah, my "WTF?!?" has become a "wtf" after the first few times.

Soon there will be nothing left but a "w" to describe these policies. :hide:

[Oregone]

6. Im fuckn pissed

I get better mileage on tarsand oil. If this floods the market with other black gold, I may not get as much of my precious

[vaberella]

24. You may be pissed, but then you usually are when it comes to Obama. But this can't be a WTF for you.

Seriously.

[Oregone]

26. You take me too seriously

This is the second lame post of mine you responded to in a single day

[Nay]

7. Why didn't we just usher in a pub prez and be done with it???

[ibegurpard]

8. Other

unsurprised.
I am enjoying watching the shrinking cheerleader brigade tie themselves into knots trying to justify every right wing issue he co-opts though.

[Dinger]

46. I've Noticed That Hey Are Shrinking Too

It gets curiouser and curiouser.

[cutlassmama]

9. We need oil in order to meet the status quo. I wish we didn't. I'd like to

see wind/solar on every house in the U.S. I'd much rather see him drill in the U.S. than invade foreign countries under the guise of made up "terrorists" in order to steal their oil. That only leads to innocents being killed.

[ProudDad]

39. You had better think about your "status quo"

Peak oil is HERE. We've already used (the easy) half of all the oil available!

There will NEVER be another energy source like it.

The heroin rush is DONE!

Get used to it, We're ALL going to have to power down or Mother Earth will do it for us!

But, think about it, how much of this SHIT do we really need?

The majority of petroleum in this country goes to the fucking war machine...

A huge amount of energy is pissed away making plastic crap in China, shipping it to USAmerica where it's trucked to and sold by Mal-Warts as excess crap with an average manufacture date to land fill date interval of 6 months!

Affluent and rich folks get to fly around wherever and whenever they want -- injecting WAY more than their share of greenhouse gasses directly into the stratosphere so it can do its damage faster.

While most USAmericans push around paper or electrons in computers, producing nothing substantial, and making a few corporate capitalist rich fucks richer...or else they're in the "service" economy; flipping burgers and cleaning the floors for those clerks who push around paper or electrons to make a few rich fucks richer.

How much of this status quo do you REALLY want to preserve????

www.transitionus.org

[Turbineguy]

10. Republicans are driven by ideology.

If you support something that they like even though it has little or no practical value, they will love you for it.

[hayu_lol]

11. Waiting for the good Republicans...

living in Santa Barbara CA to get wind of this one.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. No drilling off Santa Barbara

So no worries there, done deal.

[taught_me_patience]

12. I love the idea of tarring up our beaches to save $.02/gal in gas

Fuck Yeah... drill baby drill!

:wtf:

:sarcasm:

[harun]

15. It won't save $.01. Will make some people richer though.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

16. I love it!

:sarcasm:

[gravity]

17. It depends on how it is implemented

If they have the proper safeguards to protect the environment, then it might not be a bad thing.

[IndianaGreen]

18. The devil is in the details

I think it is a bad move for it continues to feed our addiction to fossil fuels. Where are the promised green jobs?

[gravity]

19. It's not going to change our addiction

We are going to be driving cars either way and it could be better than paying an oppressive dictatorship halfway across the world for it.

It's all relative

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. At the nuclear power plants, of course.

No seriously.... a couple members of Message Discipline LLC are actually saying that! :crazy:

[jefferson_dem]

20. Withholding judgment

If it's part of a comprehensive energy plan, fine. If not, not fine.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

21. I think it will be. He and Sarkozy both made references to Copenhagen.

I'd wager that Obama's plan will try to move to that goal.

United States of America:
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

Solid I'd say.

[ProudDad]

35. NOT ENOUGH!!!

The BEST science demands that the world cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by about 2030 or the game's over!

Check it out!

http://www.postcarbon.org/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/time_for_plan_b.php

[pundaint]

36. Do you still believe in the efficacy of giving concessions up front for nothing?

[jefferson_dem]

42. Do you still admire Ollie North as the greatest living human?

[vaberella]

23. What is this WTF?! Did no one pay attention to Obama when he spoke on this?! He supported it.

Why is it WTF?! Sometimes when I come here I have to wonder about the people on this site. Obviously a lot of people were not paying attention to Obama for a while. Obama was completely against sure, around early summer. But by August he totally flipped on it and was on the band wagon for off-shore. As for Nuclear--he's always been a bit ambivalent about it. But off shore..is not a WTF moment, it's more of a "Aw, Man. He went through with it."

[unapatriciated]

25. only after the primaries.

so it's ok to tell his supporters one thing and then change it on the slim margin he might get a few repug votes.
We were hoping he told us the truth and was just pandering to the right when he flipped.

[pundaint]

37. And the flip included the caveat that it be part of a comprehensive renewable energy package

Prepare for another historic clusterfuck of the People for Corporate benefit.

[vaberella]

43. What are you talking about?!

If his supporters, like myself, have been paying attention they would know before the general election that the President has supported this. This is my point. You're acting like this flip is new and not expected. He started his support for this about 4 months BEFORE the general elections if not sooner.

And hello, he did tell the truth. He said he would support this. You are choosing to brand him a liar which is unfair. Just say you don't agree with his policies, which I don't agree with in regards to this. But don't sit there and claim he lied and feel some sort of indignation that is ungrounded when if anyone who paid attention would already know he supported. This is not news.

[unapatriciated]

53. " But by August he totally flipped on it and was on the band wagon for off-shore. "

Hmm, I know it's been almost two years but when was that convention? Oh I remember August 25th-August 28th.

I didn't say lie but he did pander to get votes, just not sure why he chose to pander to his supporters, could it be to get the nomination?
So when did he tell the truth? Before or after he had the nomination in the bag.

Should we have believed him on August 5th when held a town hall in ohio or any of the town hall meetings he held that month?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUCviUwEZkg

or maybe during the debates in Oct. cause he made a lot of sense then. That's why I donated and campaigned for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ1kIDQlfM

Just say you have a different memory of the campaign and time line than I do.

[vaberella]

56. What you're telling me is that his entire nomination was based on nuclear energy & off shore drillin

Please.

Far from it. He change his position in early August: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/213630.html. He had several town halls where he even said he was open to all forms of alternative energy.

Video 1:
What's your point on this? He's pushing for renewable energy and alternative energy. Nothing against off shore drilling or nuclear. Unless you believe he's dumping focusing on renewable energy and solar, wind programs?! Because there's nothing to suggest that Obama is not focusing on that.

Video 2:
Okay what's your point with this video?! Did you watch this video? He didn't say he was against drilling. He just said we need to invest more in other forms of energy and not just drilling for oil, which he said was important. Where did he flip here. It's consistent with what he's said post the original flip and his letter.

If you donated to his campaign because he made a lot of sense here, well---he hasn't strayed. He clearly said he was supportive of nuclear and drilling. However, he also said he has concerns with both in past interviews. You're using a rather weak strawman here.

----------------------------------------------------

Overall both the videos you listed are of him speaking about investing into other forms of energy. And he has and he is investing in alternative energy programs. Off shore, unfortunately, is considered one of them for him and in neither video you stated (post his original flip) shows that he's against off shore drilling. He's doing everything he said he would. Some of which I find unfortunate.

[unapatriciated]

57. You seem to spin it to fit what you want to believe.

so where are the alternative green based programs on the scale that he talked about when he made this statement.
"In just ten years with these three steps we will produce enough renewable energy to replace all the oil we import from the middle east." He did not refer to oil as one of the alternatives in the first vid. Renewable energy does not include oil and it's a stretch to call it an alternative energy program. What is it an alternative to? Green Programs?

Then there is this. "We can't drill our way out of this" there are other vids out there where he states that they isn't enough oil in these places to alleviate our problems and the oil they do get wouldn't be available until 2030.
The problem is he is straying in an effort to get the R's to become a party of yes. Not ever going to happen. They are already saying this is not enough.
You do not start negotiations with your best bargaining chip. Yet he and our congress critters have done just that over and over again.

If you find some of what he is doing unfortunate than let him know, that is our job in a working democracy.
I do not want him to fail and that is why I speak out when I think he is straying too far in his effort for bipartisanship.
This is not the first in a long line of giveaways to the right and what has he gotten in return? NADA.

[vaberella]

63. I'm not spinning it. You're reading what you want into his statements.

You're choosing certain parts of his words, if he doesn't say explicitly then it's automatically removed, from what I'm reading of your statement. He never discounted drilling or said it wouldn't be included in the first video you sent. But because he focused his speech on renewable energy you are presuming that means other ways of getting energy would not be enacted. ie He didn't speak about nuclear energy specifically. But he's never been against nuclear energy.
In the second video he did the same and never discounted drilling. Because he said we can't drill our way out, he also said it's not the only way to go. However, he never said it was off his agenda. You are again assuming that it's out. This is why I wondered if you watched the video. Nothing in either video suggested that he was against off shore drilling----after the initial flip he stuck to the plan that sure we'll have drilling, but it's not the only thing and shouldn't be the one focus of our energy plan. Which is what he's said consistently since.

As for the R statement, he's been on this path since he was running for the general election---before the R's were a party of No. And probably to get a few Republicans and possibly a lot of Blue Dog Dems who might actually like the off-shore drilling. Dems in Congress are far from being 100% progressive here. If they were, Obama would never have complained about not getting the votes for a lot of things he wanted---ie Public Option.

He's always said it's not enough---doesn't mean he said he would stop, doesn't mean anyone said they would stop. Look, I can take nuclear...but I can't stomach off shore drilling, however I'm not about to sit there and take his words the way I want. I'll take it at face value. I've realized when it comes to politicians---you never read into their words---you take what they say at face value. I don't think it's so much bipartisanship---I actually don't want to read in too much what he's doing and if it means anything. Some people are saying it's a game and messing with them. Other's are saying he's doing this or that. I'll see again, how this plays out. I'm against and will always be against off-shore drilling. But then again I'm against the war and my biggest problem with Obama during the primaries was he stance on the war. However, I do take him at what he says so when people go up in arms on his decision on the war or this or that---I have to make sure he didn't say something different.

From what I can see he's not said anything different from what he's always said. Hence my responses to you.

[unapatriciated]

65. not saying it is automatically removed after he changed his position.

What I'm saying is he is doing it first instead of last. He had really great policies on renewable energy programs during his campaign and think we need to remind him of that.
Yes he has been on that path since the GE and that is what I have a problem with. I don't like to think that he only put forth policies regarding renewable energies (because I did take those words at face value) in the primaries to get my vote.
I knew his stance on Afghanistan and didn't like it then and don't like it now and I let him know how I feel . I would rather let him and my reps know what I do and do not support before it plays out. Than I have no regrets about not speaking up.
Sometimes they listen and sometimes they don't. But for a democracy to work you have to speak up.

[jeanpalmer]

33. What's there to say about someone

who pledges something major like no offshore drilling, and less than 2 months later says the opposite?

I think it's WTF.

[pundaint]

38. How about primaried within his own party?

[vaberella]

45. Yeah, and he changed his position before the general election.

Makes no difference from what I can see. If this was the deciding factor for me, I could have easily not voted for him then----but then most every Dem candidate supported the measure.

[vaberella]

44. Why wasn't it WTF almost 22 months ago?!

The point of the post is WTF is to express some sort of disbelief. This is not news to say Oh, I'm shocked. We knew about this when he was running for President and during the General election. He flipped on it then. This is not something new. It's rather expected and for it to be pimped as something new is ridiculous. Wasted indignation is what I'm seeing.

[unapatriciated]

60. there was. but what alternative did we have?

We donated and campaigned in hopes that he would listen as promised on this and Afghanistan. We knew that McCain was not an option.
We are not surprised just extremely disappointed that he valued us less than his quest for approval from the right.
He continues on the path of appeasement to those who could give a shit about him or this country.

It's like giving in to a three you olds tantrums over and over again and before you realize it you have an out of control teenager.
It's time for a little tough love in regards to the adolescent right.

[inna]

54. "on the band wagon for off-shore" - really? I don't remember that at all.

I didn't know "he totally flipped on it" during campaign, and I was following pretty closely.

[zulchzulu]

27. Other: Obama is way over some people's heads

If you've been paying attention on this issue, the oil and natural gas industries have had permits and leases for over 6 million acres of offshore land FOR DECADES and they don't want to flood the market with more product that will only lead to less profits.

Add that even if drilling began in 2012, the final product would not be online until 2030.

This makes Republicans either want to agree about drilling and also pass energy legislation or they are on the record as Do-Nothings in the 2010 election cycle.

[Kind of Blue]

28. Ah, so well said. Thanks.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I think many people's concern is the enviromental impact.

I think many people want to see those leases go away.

I think for some people, the environment trumps politics.

[inna]

55. Lame. That doesn't even make sense.

[JI7]

30. I have always disagreed with him on it

[Moochy]

31. I'm only in favor of nuclear fission reactor powered offshore drilling rigs

NUKULAR DRILL BABY DRILL!

[ProudDad]

34. Welcome to Obama's version of Mad Max

What a fucking corporate tool!

bush the lesser would NEVER have gotten away with this with a Dem Congress but Obama??? WTF???

Same old shit, different container...

Power Down! Build your lifeboats NOW -- the Empire is doomed...

www.transitionus.org

[travelingtypist]

40. By the time Obama is done, the only Republicans left

will be the ones who hate him because of his skin color.

Obama knows his base is with him, no matter what he does, a la the healthcare final vote. So why not take this opportunity to steal from the Republicans every "reasonable, rational" idea they ever had? All of the people who were motivated to spew drill, baby, drill, will have no choice but to come on over or risk political annihilation.

I think it's brilliant. They can slow-walk the actual drilling part once the vote on the energy bill is done.

:hide:

[Moochy]

51. Democratic Personality Victory

Republican Policy Victory! HOORAY TEAM!

[travelingtypist]

52. Prairie2 says it better than I did, but same thought.

http://www.prairie2.com/2010/03/knight-takes-oil-well-checkmate-in.html

Knight takes oil well, checkmate in seven months
President Obama has set up the winning gamut for the fall elections by taking the oil away from the “Drill baby, drill” express. Instead of running over the Democrats in the fall, the bearings will seize on the GOP Hummer and it will sit smoking on the dead end road of history.

Before liberals feel all betrayed to big oil, you need to consider that the oil companies have only drilled on a fraction of the leases that they got under Clinton. Most of these places aren’t likely to exploited for decades if ever. With a Democratic majority there is at least the possibility of a rational energy and trade policy. To highlight that point; British Petroleum was one of the biggest producers of solar electric panels remaining in the US. I say was, since they just announced they packing up and moving to China.

Obama continues to rack up an increasingly impressive record with break through negotiations with the Russians to control nukes without giving up that conservative pacifier of ABM’s. He can point to a much increased campaign against Al Qaeda, something that Bush ignored despite all the color coded warnings. Basically he is a “good” Republican. (Well, sigh) At least he is a “compassionate” conservative.

The Republicans have been screaming for a year that the world would end if Obama-care were passed. Now that it is law and what is happening is the swing voters are finding the reality to be completely different. Now their children can’t be dropped from insurance for any reason and that makes a campaign slogan that is hard to talk against. (we want your kids to suffer and die, vote Republican)

The millennium generation that was instrumental in getting Obama elected are getting a break on their student loans with the payments reduced and a twenty year cap on payments. This also gives a break to the Gen Xers who didn’t want their kids living in their basement.

The Republicans by contrast have been all over the news shouting “hell no!” to everything. Hell no to health insurance for the voters kids, hell no to extending their unemployment, hell no to fixing their mortgage. Republicans want more tax cuts for the rich and blaming Obama for the Wall Street bailout isn’t resonating with the public. Obama’s poll numbers are better than most President’s that have been re-elected even with a good portion of the country hating him for the color of his skin. Americans like an underdog if he stands up for what’s right and shows he can be a winner against the odds. That’s hope we can believe in. www.prairie2.com

[Retrograde]

41. he's acting like he's dealing with rational mature human beings

instead of the Republicans in Congress. I can almost see a compromise if he were dealing with rational beings - I'll give in on this if you give in on that - but as they've shown in the health care debates the current GOP doesn't work rationally. As far as they're concerned, if he's for it they're against it.

Hey, maybe that's his strategy after all! But sometimes I'm an incurable optimist.

[rvablue]

47. Not that happy about it. I have to read up on the details. But I'm also not going

to throw a fit and say "That's it!!!"

There will NEVER be a President that I will agree with 100% of the time.

In an alternate universe, if I were President, due to practicality and pragmitism, if I were President, I wouldn't agree with ME 100% of the time.

[TwilightGardener]

48. Meh. This has been in the works for a while. Not sure why everyone's panties are on fire now.

I only hope it can be done safely and with minimal impact.

[Moochy]

50. Panties are on fire now because Obama announced it

Excuse everyone with flaming panties when the president makes yet another pronouncement contrary to what the Left wants.

[optimator]

49. didn't know there were so many Sarah Palin supporters here

I think a line has been crossed with this drilling crap.

[KansasVoter]

58. The 'I Love It' crowd are as bad as the idiot GOP blind supporters

[Kaleva]

59. The poll doesn't give good options

[ZombieHorde]

62. I agree, the options are a bit silly.

I was trying to put a little humor in the poll, but I failed.

[CreekDog]

64. 20% "I love it, thank you Mr. President" ????

that seems pretty over the top to me.