Webb Wants Offshore Oil Drilling, Breaks With Obama

By pushing a bill that distances himself from the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate on offshore drilling, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is picking a curious time to exercise his well-known independence.

Webb wants his home state to have the right to explore for energy off Virginia's coast. His staff insists his proposal pertains only to natural gas, and not oil, and that it is completely in line with the state's other two leading Democrats -- Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner, who is running for Senate.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[cabbile]

It figures, on this issue former military Webb would side with former military McCain. Luckily for all of us Obama worshippers out there, Webb showed his true colors early. Don't even think of putting him on the ticket with Barry.

[3Gs]

This is almost enough to disqualify Webb in my mind. The offshore drilling fenzy is a simply a ploy for the ultra rich and powerful oil industry to grap more, cheap land. That's it. Webb should and probably dowes know that. If he truly fails to realize this obvious ploy, he does not have the insight to help Obama lead our country.

[heal57]

I disagree with Jim Webb on this one. No more offshore drilling! I still like him a lot though but no more pollution in the environment, please.

[YR]

Enough with pushing more drilling. Oil use is the biggest contributor to global warming. Plus "a federal report says the drilling wouldn't budge oil prices until 2030, and then insignificantly." We need some moral leadership and not to promote corporate greed. People are waiting 3 months to get a Prius, What could this government do to promote the mass production of cheap fuel efficiient cars? We need to get off of oil as soon as possible.

[joeyp404]

Sounds like there'll be no nookie for Jimmy.

[Freesia2]

Something I've been wondering about, and if any one felt like chiming in I'd like to hear your thoughts if you felt like writing:

How well does it work, in your opinion, or historically, for a president to be joined with a vp who has opposing views or is just simply different, by party background or philosophy?

I've been chewing on this because much has been made of Obama's Team Of Rivals plans and I do think it's a great idea. On paper anyway. His temperament would facilitate it if any could.

But I wonder if it could and be more than just a marriage of convenience. With vp, I know that it has been done before, but not always.....comfortably. JFK and Bobby seemed to work hardest at just avoiding LBJ. FDR had so little contact with Harry Truman that I imagine Give 'Em Hell Harry wondered why he didn't just go back to Missouri and to hell with it.

I like Jim Webb, but he's got ideas not in harness with Obama's. I was fascinated to read about Hagel as a consideration. That R in his title may be bucked by his anti-war stance but still beyond that, though they're both good men, they would have to work together with their other respective Democratic or Republican views that could merge but always with the risk of diluting each other's stance.

Just pondering on this. Boring my husband. Thought I'd type and bore some strangers. :-)

[disgusted48]

All this angst over oil. Face it folks, the good times are over. Apparently we, the people and our government have no control over the oil industry, so we better start looking for alternative sources of energy, as well as embarking on a serious campaign of conservation and recycling, planned communities where you don't have to get in your car all the time to get from your house to the grocery store, smaller more efficient cars, telecommuting, etc. etc. etc., and somebody had better figure out how to turn all that coal that we are sitting on top of into clean energy, also we better start growing more trees for heat. It's back to the future for us.

[Erdgeist]

The issue is not off-shore drilling it is off-shore leases which, right now, the oil companies don't have. The oil companies don't plan on drilling for anything, not at these beautiful prices. Keep grabbing your ankles America.

[1will]

Where'd Obama get the sweaty little Chucky doll?

[leftoflennon]

Smart. Really.

[joeyp404]

Are they on the down low?

[1will]

Not anymore.

[lizr]

Are you hom o pho bic- or what!

Rep Tr o ll..

[oldwiseone]

Natural gas isn't as clean as it would seem. In Wyoming, a rancher rented certain parcels of his land to the oil companies who did not create a problem but also found no oil. Then the oil companies sold the renta to the gas companies whi came in, drilled holes and pumped out millions of gallons of water to get the gas. The water however was toxic to the plants all of which died and it created a cement like coating on the soil impervious to water and plant life. And this water flowed all over the land and into the beighboring property as well.

It isn't drilling for fuel that is the problem, it is the mess they create while doing it. They remove the tops of mountains to get to the coal and dump the crap into the valleys where the people live. Remember the mining in the Rockies? All the streams were poisoned.

[metogamekun]

Thanks for the reality check, oldwiseone - any mining or drilling for fuel can be destructive.

[doctorwang]

THere is a major difference between drilling for oil and drilling for natural gas. When was the last time you saw people in haz-mat suits cleaning up a natural gas spill? Webb isn't pushing for oil exploration off the Virginia coast.

[crossoverwriter]

I'm not for oil & gas drilling, it's stop-gap measure when really we should be working like crazy for hybrid cars, geothermal housing and the like. (Hey, I am already off the grid and it feels like pure joy).
Gas-driilling, hmmm, maybe less polluting than oil??
BUT I AM for Webb as veep.
He is the perfect VP for Obama. Besides, Obama always says that he will fill his posts with smart folks with varying viewpoints.
Let them have a healthy debate over this.
Obama & Webb in 08

[dhinds]

You are saying (or assuming) that oil and gas are each located in their own separate locations?

[shelobo]

OIL ,Weekly Inputs, Utilization & Production (PER Thousand Barrels per Day, Except Where Noted)http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm

[waarpe]

It'll do squat for gasoline prices but Webb's on the most popular side of the issue with the electorate:
(See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_061608.html)

[shelobo]

Its the shortage of REFINERIES !! In 2003, 149 refineries were operating in the United States, a drop from 336 in 1949 and 324 in 1981. Refinery capacity in 2003 was about 16.8 million barrels per day, below the 1981 peak of 18.6 million barrels. As of 2003 U.S. refineries were operating near full capacity to make sure there was enough gas to run several thousand MORE vehicles than we had on our highways in the previous years! We just can not refine it fast enough to keep up with the higher demands ,simple math shows that.The arguements over off shore drilling are nothing but a political ploy to distract AMERICANS from the more important issues !! Bush says he will lift the ban his father placed if Congress lifts theirs first,a bit fishy on that one,as then data will be released that shows different and the Republicans will say"It's the dems who want to pollute our shores ,after all the Democratic congress lifted the bans FIRST"The refinery crisis should also be blamed on one of this countries favorite allies,the Saudis!! Because OPEC countries have begun to refine their own oil products to maximize their profits. This strategy, employed particularly by Saudi Arabia, led to a drop in demand for U.S. refineries.Read information at http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1495/Oil-REFINERY-NUMBERS-CAPACITY.html , and then do a little MORE reliable researching at the EIA ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/ )