Dems: we object to off-shore drilling, even if gas is $10/gallon

We simply can not have a leader that wilts when public opinion goes against his positions. That's not leading, that's following. And that's exactly what Obama did on this issue. Again, that's not leadership.

It's one thing to flip flop. It's another to do so in a matter of weeks. It says that A) His initial position wasn't well thought out or B) He folded under the pressure from opinion polls. Either way, he's losing in a big way.

 

The definition of leadership:

"What I don't want to do is for the best to be the enemy of the good," he said. "And if we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to."

 

not this year

we know

 

drilling will only put more cash into an industry that is making record profits and being subsidized.

not drilling might raise the price where people may decide that mpg is a bit more important than they previously thought. Or that a car properly maintained is a bit more important. Or it might create more of a demand and usage of public transportation.

When I was an undergrad I took the bus to work because even though gas was 2 or so per gallon, it cut so much into what I was making that it almost was not worth it to work. The bus gave me time to study and rest/relax.

5 years of $4+ gas will do wonders for public transport and people long term.

 

It's sad how misguided our politics and the perception of Congress has become, especially in the eyes of partisans such as T_J. Significant legislation has always been passed with both sides agreeing to disagree, so to speak. However, in the past eight years we've come to see any ceding of personal or party interest as "flip-flopping" or "weakness," on the part of politicians.

I'd be interested in knowing if people whom the so called "Gang of Ten" legislation offends would say that those who are engineering it are just as guilty as Barack Obama supposedly is by coming together to find common ground to find a solution to a highly partisan debate. From what I've heard, the Democrats have agreed to let states such as the Carolinas and Florida decide whether or not to open their coasts for drilling and the Republicans have agreed to heavily reduce tax breaks for oil companies and put that revenue into Detroit in the hopes that they can finally come ahead of the technology curve and produce new energy vehicles.

We've had eight years of leadership that fails to listen to the other side and carries itself with absurd bravado. And here we are with a candidate who is willing to admit that legislation may not be perfect, but that the compromise agreed to was the smartest decision with both sides interests in mind. I know that, unfortunately, some posters here would rue the day such leadership took over our politics. However, I think most rational people would see the ability to compromise as being just as, if not more, valuable as the tendency to stand one's ground. I don't really know why I wrote this, I'm sure it will just fall on deaf ears.

 

OK...when Obama does it, it's compromise. When McCain does it, it is a flip flop. Mmmmmmmk.

 

Yeah...the single mother of 2 who moved to the suburbs, where she could afford a house in a safe neighborhood, and can no longer afford to feed her family and get to work... to hell with her, right?

I love it when people who have never had to make these deicisions tell us how people who have should behave.

 

yeah thats right **** her and her $30K suburban and her sub-prime loan.

I love how when looking for sympathy the first weapons of choice are either

1. single mothers (**** fathers, they shouldn;t have had sex)

2. kids

 

lol, true
hey the government aint here to resolve all your screw-ups...

 

And here I thought that was an extreme right wing position. Radapharoah, you must have joined the John Birch Society in my absence?

I'm still not feeling up to hit and run debate, but this thread topic IMO will be the key in the presidential campaign. Carry on, but "drill, drill, drill" as a patch to switching to greener energy.

 

SEE this is my problem with the theory that we need to drill more as we attempt to switch to greener energy....
The drilling will not lower prices, the best you can hope is that it keeps prices stable at their current levels (3-4 dollars), Because demand will continue to grow both inside the USA and outside(china, india, etc..) at a higher pace than we can offset by drilling.

The other problem I have is that we are further commiting ourselves to an old technology/solution. This creates a barrier to exit. The more oil companies invest the more they will resist change. Instead focus that capital on research/new tech.

 

My position is let's make it all work. The markets working as they are will have an immediate impact when we get onboard with a policy of being more supply independent for the time being...IN CONJUNCTION with conserving...The result: A little relief at the pump (that is needed for those in a bind - relief to some extent)

In the long term of 10 years or so, the actual effect will be in effect...

What truly happens is that there will be a short-term effect because of market conditions, and production of supply is increased...Both a positive for now and in 10 years...

Now we know oil dependence (especially foreign oil dependence) is NOT the future...But a majority of Americans need help NOW when the economy is the way it is (food prices, jobs)...

Does that mean we are distracted from energy alternative goals? NO...It means we do something to add to supply for the time being...Let's face it. The world runs on oil, and it likely will no matter "green" efforts for the next 10 years...In the meantime, let's make it easier for those in need during a bad economy...

After 10 years, I have to believe we will be in better position for the development of alternative energy analysis....

It's a win-win situation for politics and responsibility. It's not a permanent patch, thumbs,...but right now; In this economy, a patch is needed according to a majority of Americans...

 

Man, we are butting heads on this...You don't seem to grasp the way markets work...The Harvard professor has stated the "why" on this...

Most Americans want the relief. Let's do it...and the barrier won't be there when we are in a better position to transition...10 years,...yes...Right now...No. We are not there.

 

brother I understand the way the market works, its you that believes that seems to not grasp the market.
You seem to believe that speculation is the culprit, because that is the only way your theory will work. Its not only speculation, its supply and demand. You do realize that in china everyday half of their fuel consumption has been cut off until after the olympics? The problem is that demand is outgrowing supply and drilling offshore will not make a significant difference in the WORLD'S supply

 

Because all single mothers who live in the suburbs drive a Suburban and have a sub-prime mortgage. If you really think this, you are a fool.

How about the single parent who bought their modest house 8 years ago with a fixed rate loan and drive a $20,000 sedan? I happen to personally know one of those.

At $4 a gallon, it hurts. It befuddles me how that concept escapes you. It further befuddles me that you cannot seem to understand that a good many people cannot afford to live inside the loop. What a nice world you must live in, liberated from the realities of everyday people.

This statement alone evidences your ignorance. There is a divorce rate of 50% in this country. There are a great deal of single parents out there. In fact, they are a large segment of the economy.

That is because they are real...I pray not in your household.

I'm sure they'd be toilet trained at gunpoint.

 

AWWWHHH the poowr wittle single mothers, how will they pay for there facials living in the house that their ex-husbands are paying for.


Any policy change will screw someone. You have to do what will help the greater number of people. These sympathy senarios are a emotional plea to keep us from facing cold hard facts on the tough policy.

 

Joseph Stalin could not have stated your opinion better.

 

I think it would have an effect. Speculative trading on oil would obviously take a downturn.

 

thus in your logic we should make policy based on helping those who have the saddest story?

 

I'm not so sure. I mean the amount of oil we could get from those offshore drills is limited. The amount of facilities we have for refining the oil isn't changed by that, and the amount of time it would take to introduce whatever oil that could be gotten into our economy would mean that speculation could go on close to the levels it's at now, I would think.