Obama Shifts, Says He May Back Offshore Drilling

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Shifts, Says He May Back Offshore Drilling stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

MIKE GLOVER | August 1, 2008 10:57 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. answers an audience member's question, Friday, Aug. 1, 2008, during a town hall meeting in St. Petersburg, Fla. (AP Photo/Mike Carlson)

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"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."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"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."

Story continues below
advertisement

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators _ five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

(This version CORRECTS paragraph 10 that compromise would retain a buffer zone of 50 miles off Florida Gulf beaches, instead of allow drilling within 50 miles.)

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a compr...
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a compr...
Filed by Dan Duray  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
4616
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (62 pages total)
- rjean I'm a Fan of rjean 4 fans permalink

gee bam bam changes his mind about drilling..­.......he must have seen he's slip slidin' away......­..........­..........­..........­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 AM on 08/03/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 85 fans permalink

Holly Tolledo, there are a LOT of posts here!

I usually like to read most before posting, but at well over four THOUSAND, there's no way!

I'm posting because surely SOMEONE has to say (and who could find the needle in the hay stack?):

1) his statement of focus on bringing down prices raises the hair on the back of my neck; If this is just "I feel your pain" noise to help not lose the unthinking-vote, OK, but if he really thinks that's the focus of energy policy, we've got trouble ahead.

2) Earlier this year Nancy P claimed she'd gotten "Landmark" energy policy enacted into law - Os statement's today bare Nancy's claim for what it is: failed policy. (When my 1955 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia damned near beats the 2020 fuel efficiency goal - AVERAGE, mind you - it's time to admit it's not a very challenging goal.)

3) I want to hear more about the $1000 "windfall profits tax" deal for consumers - not enough here to judge...
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 08/03/2008

Do you guys REALLY like the way the economy is currently going? If so, hang on, cause it will get a lot worse if McBush gets in the White House.

On what he calls his "strong point," McBush doesn't seem to know much about National Security. He supports a never-ending war and mixes up not only troop levels, but whose fighting whom (Sunnis and Shias) and Geography (which middle eastern country borders which), so I can only tremble at the THOUGHT of him with his hands on our ECONOMY. Especially since he plans to have Phil Gramm handle things, and HE thinks the economy is in "good" shape, and that we're just a bunch of whiners!

Is this who you want in the White House?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 08/03/2008

sedonakaren: You said: "Is this who you want in the White House?"
To answer your question after you spouted all of the Progressive talking points against McCain, no I don't. Neither do I want an Ultra Left Wing Liberal who is determined to "Change" from Corporate Welfare to Social Welfare to keep his base in line.
I predict that McCain will move to the middle on his policies just as Obama has and the final decision will be based on who the people trust to keep them safe just like the past general elections have been. Unlike you, I am going to wait until voting day to make up my mind after careful consideration of the facts as I see them on that day. To blindly follow a candidate because he tells you what you want to hear and then changes every day displays a true "Cult of Personality" and is what got the presumptive Democratic nomination for Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 08/03/2008
photo

What an great comment...­glad to hear all americans are not the blind leading the blind, some of us can actually think for ourselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 08/03/2008
- Phil123 I'm a Fan of Phil123 4 fans permalink

You sound like a whiners. BTW, who's McBush?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 AM on 08/03/2008
- Pquilson I'm a Fan of Pquilson 9 fans permalink

I must be mistaken. I thought the article was about Mr. Obama changing his mind on OCS drilling. Apparently, I must have wandered into a different thread. My apologies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 08/03/2008
- theMightyT I'm a Fan of theMightyT 171 fans permalink

oil IS the economy. You know, the thing mccain says he's not an expert on or really understands at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 AM on 08/03/2008
- SugarMan I'm a Fan of SugarMan 4 fans permalink

The Gang of 10 -
At least they are willing to work together in a bipartisan effort. Good for them.
Also, it's a presidential candidate's prerogative to change his mind and compromise when the situation calls for it. Obama does not have that "my way or the highway" mentality the Repugs have. He has my support. This proves he is a leader : )

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 08/03/2008
- Pquilson I'm a Fan of Pquilson 9 fans permalink

If it is a presidential candidate's prerogative to change his mind, why do so many castigate Mr. McCain and others for "fli-flopping", but not so Mr. Obama?
Apparently reading polls is proof that "he is a leader".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 AM on 08/03/2008
photo

If McCain came out tomorrow and declared that he approved of abortion, because the polls showed that maintaining an anti-abortion position might very well cost him the election, he'd be roundly criticized as well. Most republicans would disown him or simply refuse to vote. He would have shed a core value.

That's what Obama just did. Pelosi shut down congress the same day to block a vote on the issue. Every one of you has railed for months against OCS drilling. Now Obama does a 180, betrays everything you say you stand for and all you have to say is "it is a presidential candidate's prerogative to change his mind".

One has to ask, do you actually have any principals? Or are you just a large flock of sheep?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 08/03/2008

I have no problem if McCain changes his mind only he should stop lying about the fact he has flip flopped. ie "I never said I knew little about the economy" or "I never said it (the war) would be easy) And please don't spin it by saying well what he really meant was defeating Saddam's Army. We knew that but stabilizing an entire country is part of the "war" and the then Joint Chief of Staff told congress and then Donald Rumsfeld it would take 400,000 troops to keep the peace. What did they do to that Joint Chief? They fired him. McCain had this information too.

I realize people will change their minds it is a fact that all leaders do in fact adjust their positions.

In simple terms Leadership is the ART of influencing people to obtain their LOYAL confidence and COOPERATIONS in order to accomplish a mission. Who do u think is the better influencer?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 08/03/2008
- noneIn2008 I'm a Fan of noneIn2008 27 fans permalink

Obama is a politician. He will sway with the prevailing wind same as McCain.
We had promises in 2004 and 2006 "vote Dem, everything will change". Then when it doesn't use the lame excuse to blame it on Republicans. After Obama becomes President, we will not get delivery of goals , but excuses of others stopping him from achieving change.
At least Obama will not be the disaster of McCain.
However, why no blogs on Obama's change on more troops to Afgahnistan. MORE TROOPS. We can not allow him slack on this issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 08/02/2008
- smoo I'm a Fan of smoo 2 fans permalink

As conditions change do should positions on issues. It only makes sense to me. IMO "Flip-Flopping" refers to moving to the other side of an issue completely. I don't believe that a concession is a flip-flop, it is a concession. Basically the oil companies has held the country up by raising prices, to get them to back down we have to give them their Off-Shore oil drilling. BIG OIL has been after this for a while. Bush and Cheney stud back and allowed BIG OIL to gain the sort of leverage they have now.

Any astute lawyer, negotiator, and legislator knows that you have to make small yet strategic concessions. Obama's concession was very strategic. I will give McCain, at least the old McCain, the benefit of the doubt. His positions are evolving as are the issues that face our time. I just believe that when it comes to the American people, McCain is woefully out of touch. Furthermore his string of deceit, lies, and complete mischaract­erizations of his opponent, shows complete disregard of the American people. If the people running his campaign don’t give a damn about trying to trick the voting public now can we really trust that he will give a damn once elected.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 08/03/2008
- thinklib I'm a Fan of thinklib 11 fans permalink

O can change positions on any number of issues and his congregation will go along willingly.

But if O sticks to his guns on his tax proposals, he will lose. His tax proposals are crippling. They are the opposite of what the country needs. Do you think the problem is we don't pay enough taxes, or that the government spends too much? The vast majority of people think the latter. So if O doesn't change his views on taxes, he'll lose.

Reagan was right about one thing: you don't tax yourself into prosperity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 08/02/2008
photo

That's right because supply side tax proposals have been sooooo beneficial for the economy.

0bama is mostly returning shifting the tax burden from the middle and lower classes to the rich.

A losing issue is McBush giving 25% of his new tax breaks to people making $3,000,000/year or more.

You are buying into right win propaganda.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 PM on 08/02/2008

Did you see that tax percentages published by the IRS that was released this week? Less than 2% of all federal taxes are paid by individuals making under 37,000. people who make over the 68,000 mark pay something close to 85 % of all taxes. The top 5 percent earners pay over 50% of all income taxes collected. Don't believe me, check the IRS figures for yourself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 AM on 08/03/2008
- theMightyT I'm a Fan of theMightyT 171 fans permalink

Really? Reagan was right?

Reagan's economics are the same as Bush's economics. Steal from the future to pay for today.

"The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[15] due to the facts that the combination of significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits,[16] the U.S. trade deficit expansion,[16] and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis,[17] as well as the stock market crash of 1987. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19­] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency­.[18]"

Apparently Reagan economics don't lead to prosperity either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 08/02/2008

Really? I was unaware of that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 AM on 08/03/2008
- theMightyT I'm a Fan of theMightyT 171 fans permalink

At least O b ama has some positions. Johnny Mac has flipped on every position he's "held."

Got another post pending that blows your R eagan nonsense out of the water as well... in a nutshell, you can't steal from the present to pay for the future. The google can help you out... do some research BEFORE you post, so that you don't make a fool of yourself.

"The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[15] due to the facts that the combination of significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits,[16] the U.S. trade deficit expansion,[16] and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis,[17] as well as the stock market crash of 1987. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19­] R eagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency­.[18]

Sounds a lot like today, doesn't it? Guess W didn't learn from Ronnie's mistakes..­.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 08/02/2008
photo

I've been trickled on enough, thank you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 AM on 08/03/2008
- craneman I'm a Fan of craneman 4 fans permalink

You can if you do as Clinton did & Levy taxes on the people who can afford it, balance the budget. Obama would do well to appoint Robert Ribin to his old post at Treasury, Reisch to Labor, and the ship will go a long way to right itself. Not only that, It will be a pleasure to watch the "R"s whine, whimper, & snivel. Besides, Reagan only regurgitated what Joe Coors told him to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 PM on 08/02/2008

craneman: You said, "You can if you do as Clinton did & Levy taxes on the people who can afford it, balance the budget."
Do you really expect Obama to adopt Clinton's policies when he told you during the Primaries that Reagan's policies were so much better than Clinton's?
Well, what do you know, now that he is the "Presumptive Nominee", maybe he has come to realize that "Peace and Prosperity" in the Clinton years wasn't so bad after all. If Obama keeps throwing you Progressives under the bus, maybe us Democrats will vote for him. He must get rid of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Kerry, James Wyburn, Jesse Jackson, Jr.,and all of the others who dissed the Clintons before we will believe he is sincere. As always, just pretty speaches won't cut it for us like it did for you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 AM on 08/03/2008

If Obama is only going to copy what the Clintons did, then why didn't we just put the Clintons back in the White House?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 AM on 08/03/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 275 fans permalink
photo

Reagan was reading a script. The script offered "trickle down" prosperity for all but the only thing that trickled down was down their legs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 08/02/2008

I support nuclear power as long as we contract with the French companies that have successfully designed, built, and operated those power plants in France for years. The main problem with the few plants now operating in the U.S. is they were built by Kellog, Brown, and Root, (KBR), a former subsidiary of Halliburton. The no-bid contracts, cost over-runs and safety issues brought on by low quality materials is what made the current U.S. power plants too expensive. Of course, we will stipulate that workers come from this country if these French Companies can find anyone that will work for a living anymore.
Then we could use our Natural Gas to power automobiles like T. Boone Pickens wants to do. Creating a network of Natural Gas fueling stations to replace the current pump-it-yourself rip-off Mini-Marts would create jobs if the current workforce could be trained in the construction trades instead of relying on Illegals to do that type of work while our public schools churn out illiterates who become dope-dealers, gang-bangers, and baby-factories. Not everyone can graduate from Ivy League Universities and become saviors of the World, someone has to do the work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 08/02/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

Natural gas doesn't sound reasonable to me, have you thought of what would happen if there is a crash . . . boom. Tell me if you still want this in your car next to your kids:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=natural+gas+explosion&search_type=&aq=0&oq=natural+gas+ex

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 08/02/2008
photo

The French model cannot work here regardless of how the waste is treated.

The French heavily subsidize the building and maintaining their nuclear power based on the much higher taxes the French pay and the 50% more they pay per killowatt hour for their electricity.

That's the foible in McBush's plan. Like usually he wants to have it all lower taxes and have no way to pay for building nuclear power plants.

The reason we use coal and natural gas to generate most of our electricity is pure economics and nuclear is economically not feasible.

If you are going to spend more it is much better to invest in wind and solar which are total clean energies. That's exactly what TX is doing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 08/02/2008

KQuarksSup­erKollider­: Do you prefer to subsidize Exxon/Mobil with your taxes, rather than nuclear power plants? Do you have facts about the French system or are you just parroting the politicians. Remember what they said about Canadian Healthcare.
You said, "If you are going to spend more it is much better to invest in wind and solar which are total clean energies. That's exactly what TX is doing."
I live in Texas, and I have seen the Wind Farms outside Abilene, Texas. Texas is subsidizing these "clean energies" by constructing a power grid at taxpayer expense for a proven non-reliable source of energy. The wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time, even in Texas. Washington D.C. is the only place on Earth that has enough hot air to power a wind generator full time and you have obviously been a victim of their propoganda.
Natural Gas is also clean burning and is a viable fuel to replace gasoline. All Texas is doing is making T. Boone Pickens richer than he already is but I agree with him about Natural Gas because I have acreage leased for drilling in the Barnett Shale. Texas is doing O.K. in this downturn while the Yankees will freeze this winter because they can't afford fuel oil for their oil fired furnaces. My vehicles use CNG and my house is heated by Natural Gas so I don't care if gasoline goes to $10.00 a gallon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 PM on 08/02/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 275 fans permalink
photo

If I might suggest: The real problem with current nuclear plants is that they are 30 years old. We have not built anything new and have been unable to take advantage of newer, safer and cleaner designs. I know a bit about the subject as it is my education and my work.

The French have been successful because they never stopped supporting nuclear while we are forced to continue breathing life into outdated technology and tired machinery. Remarkably, our plants are holding up well which is a testimony to the quality of initial construction, materials and workmanship based on designs and technology of the times.

For the record, KBR has never built a nuclear plant although Brown and Root have been subcontracted for many repairs and support construction projects in the US. Most of our plants are General Electric, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 08/02/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 275 fans permalink
photo

Here is a good look at the new designs and some of the rational behind them, including company links etc.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 PM on 08/02/2008

obama will change his views as the wind blows. he will do and say anything to gain power. fortunately, the american people will not vote him into power because he's just not very likeable, no matter how smart he may be. a war hero will beat out a harvard proffessor every time in this country...­..wait and see!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 08/02/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

The reason Democrats are against drilling is because the environmentalists have a strong grip on them therefore you see them make up other arguments on why not to drill instead of just coming out and being honest. There areguments are weak in my opinion:

Sure, the oil companies have 68 million acres but are they in a stage of devlopment? Getting a lease is just step one, it can take years to get a permit to actually drill and another permit to extract the contents. I also haven't seen them back up there claim with saying how much oil is actually on that land, just because they have a lease doesn't mean that there is a significant amount of oil there.

The other argument is it will take 10 years to get . . . so what? We will need in oil in 10, 20 and even 30 years. Hopefully not as much but there is little doubt it will be needed. Bill Clinton said it 13 years ago and looking back, sure would be nice if he wouldn't have made that weak excuse because ANWR would have been up and running.

The last argument, it won't lower prices . . . so if you blame the speculators you basically contradict yourself since they are setting the price in the FUTURES market on what they think the price will be in the FUTURE. If they think supply will be tight and we won't add to the supply, the price will

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 PM on 08/02/2008

It is hard to argue with your facts as presented.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 AM on 08/03/2008
- smoo I'm a Fan of smoo 2 fans permalink

You sound more informed than most so maybe you or someone could help me understand how giving a drug columbian drug dealer more drugs to sale changes the price of drugs in columbia. It doesn't. Giving BIG OIL more oil to sale we not change the prices of American oil; it just gives American (what ever that mean since of this companies are multinationals) oil companies more oil to make money on. America doesn't own oil. "We" don't have our own oil. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 08/03/2008

Bottom line is there needs to be compromise in any bill. Like this:

- Use existing leases or give them up
- We'll allow more offshore drilling off the coasts of CA, FL. Not ANWR, yet.
- If there is any type of environmental damage or an oil spill, then the company responsible must pay 500 billion to the government. If drilling is so safe now, then put your money where your mouth is.
- A guarantee that in 15-20 years, over 50% of our energy source won't be from any carbon source.

I think that should be amenable to both parties.

Personally, I think more offshore drilling is a waste of time and a ploy that ignores the overriding issue of a *real*, sustainable energy policy -- and won't affect our gas prices in any real way. I think we as United States citizens should take responsibility for ourselves to reduce demand (that will, in turn, lower prices), turn the ship 180 degrees and come up with a real energy policy where wind, solar, and even some nuclear are the predominant sources, suck it up short term as we move that direction (it will be hard) -- then we'll become the most powerful nation on Earth again. We won't owe any country anything.

Bottom line, this is a consumer driven problem which allowed companies to sit on their laurels and not develop more efficient technologies. We have the means to do it; we, as consumers, just haven't demanded it

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 08/02/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

- Do you have a link that says they aren't using them now? Exploration and the legal process can take a decade before getting approvals.
-Since the offshore rigs are harder to get and take longer to get up and running, ANWR is the best place to make the quickest impact since there is already an Alaskan pipeline. If people actually saw the place in ANWR where we want to drill, opinions would change quickly. BTW, the land needed is 200 acres of about 20 million or in other words . . . the size of a postage stamp on a football field.
-

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 08/02/2008

Fine. Do you agree with my fine assessment proposal then? 500 billion dollars for any environmental damage. Easy to say it is safe; a lot harder when you have to pony up big bucks for a mistake.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 08/02/2008
- vernonbc I'm a Fan of vernonbc 2 fans permalink

Here's a little stat that may explain why they're not using them now - "The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdMq36pfzhyHeyexEU51JX5sr1egD922KTHG1

It's all about the shareholders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 PM on 08/02/2008
photo

I feel as though I'm being censored. Am I not liberal enough? Conservative enough? I don't use bad words. Am I getting flagged for abuse? What's up?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 08/02/2008

You probably haven't discovered the hot words yet which automatically send you to the land of Pending. Like O for O B A M A. That works

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 08/02/2008

No, your doing fine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 AM on 08/03/2008
- JayeSF I'm a Fan of JayeSF 24 fans permalink

Although he chose his words carefully.­...this is not a very good sign. Once again, it can be exhibited as a flip-flop. Obama would have been much better to focus on the "use-it-or-lose-it" theme many in his party have been pushing. By pointing out that the big oil companies ALREADY have licenses and leases on a whole slew of domestic sites which they have not utilized, he could have killed this offshore um "debate" right there.

People can rationalize that it is a sly campaign tactic...b­ut...when a candidate packpedals on something.­..there is absolutely NO reason to believe that he won't continue such a pattern.
There comes a point when a leader needs to just buckle down and defend what he stands for. There are enough facts and projections available to support maintaining the ban as-is, and certainly the $1000 rebate idea would lessen (alleged & very overstated) public sympathy for lifting the ban.

He could have made the exact same impact with these statements by omitting the reversal on drilling. More oild drilling in environmentally protected areas is NOT a bold new progressive energy policy. It is buckling to corporations and the right wing. He has just taken a radically conservative, anti-environmental proposal and given it legitimacy.

I sadly predicted several weeks ago, when Obama wimped on FISA, that the stage was set for more flip-flops.

He apparently continues.­...

...he doesn't have to be doing this stuff, at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 08/02/2008

He is a politician first and foremost. And a Chicago politician. I have posted that. Very good at sensing directional changes in the wind. There will be more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 AM on 08/03/2008
- smoo I'm a Fan of smoo 2 fans permalink

Frankly, I believe that is exactly what Obama is doing and continues to do. Have you noticed the difference between Obama as a candidate and Obama as legislator and negotiator. He speaks about his principle beliefs on many issues, one of which happens to be that of bringing people together, not just in a social since but in a political since. He avoids grid lock and bully antics.

If it is clear that your big and porful brother is going to take your bike, you should at least convince him to trade his skate board. Let's face it, BIG OIL and TELECOMS all have incredible influence over the well being of our society.

Consider these threates from oil exects:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/business/22oil.html#

To me, to say that you are against drilling in public, but willing support or cave to the pressure in private, is typical politics and certian what most democrates will do to keep from angering the base.

Not Obama, he has the courage to take a position but more importantly, he has the courage to make his concessions (very strategic concessions might I add) publicly while explaining to the people exactly why. McCain, on the otherhand, has no real clue about the issues and he only knows the positions fed to him by his advisors.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 08/03/2008
- SugarMan I'm a Fan of SugarMan 4 fans permalink

This Shows Me That Senator Obama is Willing to Work With Both Parties To Get Something Done.
Good For Him.
He has explained his reasons for a compromise.
I think it shows good judgement and leadership on his part.
He does not have a "my way or the highway mentality.­"
When new plans and changes are introduced, they should be heard. This is what Sen. Obama has done.
He's got my vote : )

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 08/02/2008
- Roguewolf I'm a Fan of Roguewolf 36 fans permalink
photo

Today
B@r@ck 0bam@ said today he would be willing to open Florida’s coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes.

48 hours ago
Now, I want to be absolutely clear to everybody about this. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas prices by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey, I’d do it.

Is this why?
B@r@ck 0b@ma continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.
0b@ma has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.
Texas oil executive Robert L. Cavnar of Milagro Exploration and his wife, Gracie, have helped the Illinois Democr@t raise at least another $50,000 by helping host a fundraiser earlier in the campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 08/02/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 275 fans permalink
photo

So, are you pro McOil? If not, who do you think is most likely to limit unmitigated drilling? If so, why are you complaining about O's position here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 08/02/2008

He takes money from big oil. No different than the evil Republicans do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 AM on 08/03/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

The reason Democrats are against drilling is because the environmentalists have a strong grip on them therefore you see them make up other arguments on why not to drill instead of just coming out and being honest. There arguments are weak in my opinion:

Sure, the oil companies have 68 million acres but are they in a stage of devlopment? Getting a lease is just step one, it can take years to get a permit to actually drill and another permit to extract the contents. I also haven't seen them back up there claim with saying how much oil is actually on that land, just because they have a lease doesn't mean that there is a significant amount of oil there.

The other argument is it will take 10 years to get . . . so what? We will need in oil in 10, 20 and even 30 years. Hopefully not as much but there is little doubt it will be needed. Bill Clinton said it 13 years ago and looking back, sure would be nice if he wouldn't have made that weak excuse because ANWR would have been up and running.

The last argument, it won't lower prices . . . so if you blame the speculators you basically contradict yourself since they are setting the price in the FUTURES market on what they think the price will be in the FUTURE. If they think supply will be tight and we won't add to the supply, the price will

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 08/02/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (62 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect