McCain is currently running ads touting his call for increased drilling in the U.S., sometimes following T. Boone ads which include the line: "I've been an oil man all my life, and this is one crisis we can't drill our way out of."
Now, Sen. Obama is saying he would agree to some offshore drilling as well.
Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels.Gee T. Boone ... it seemed like a reasonable idea.
At the same time, Senate Republicans appear to have dropped their insistence on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
Mr. Obama has until now opposed any offshore drilling. But in a news conference here, he noted that there had been “very constructive” talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats on this issue in recent days, applauding a plan unveiled by a group of Republican and Democratic senators to permit drilling while supporting an effort to convert most vehicles to using alternative fuels in 20 years.
“If we come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, where I have to accept some things that I don’t like in order to get energy independence,” Mr. Obama said, “that’s something I will have to consider.” [...]
The candidate, who has been campaigning hard in Florida the past two days, faces a delicate calculus. State legislators are angry that the bill would take the decision on drilling out of their hands. And both of Florida’s senators have vowed to fight the proposed bill, saying it would erode protections the state negotiated two years ago when it agreed to allow more drilling.
Responding to Mr. Obama’s shift, the campaign of Senator John McCain, which favors an aggressive expansion of offshore drilling, put out releases accusing the Democrat of flip-flopping.
.
9 comments:
Oh, he just continues to live up to our expectations, doesn't he?
I really wish he would grow a pair!
Me, too!
BAC
When you only have at best 50 votes out of a needed 60 (67 with Bush still in office) compromise is necessary. From dictionary.com: "A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." On this issue, both sides gave up something - the right is giving up millions, if not billions in tax cuts for big oil, they gave up ANWR, but they are getting an opening on drilling offshore (which still needs to go through the states themselves). The left got tax credits for alternative energy projects.
I know it would be great if the Democrats could just dictate what the left insists, but to get anything in the real world, compromise is necessary. The key is to not give up too much to get too little.
It's a messy compromise measure that one sees all the time in Congress but makes absolutely no one happy in reality.
John - always the Obama apologist.
BAC
BAC, this country isn't a dictatorship. You and I are part of about 25-33% of the population. GWB and cronies are part of another 25-33% and there is another 33-50% of the country that just wants to be left alone (aka, aren't paying attention -- none of whom are in Congress). To get anything done, you either need to convince that middle third+ to care (good luck) or you need to come to a compromise with the opposite side. Like the definition says, you have to give up some things you want to get other things you want. I find getting more than we gave a winning compromise and that is what happened here.
As an example of my opinion of a failed compromise, I put forth FISA (as I outlined recently on my blog). We gave up far more (timely information on the illegal actions of Bush over the past 8 years via court trials of the telecoms) than we got (more openness of the program going forward and clearer protections for Americans overseas).
John - you are I are not in the same part. You are willing to cave at the drop of a hat ... and that is why this country is in such trouble.
I'm not willing to cave. I ask for what I want. Do I always get it? Obviously the answer is "no" ... but if you ask for less than what you are willing to accept, you will get EVEN LESS THAN THAT.
So just keep apologizing ... you wear it well.
BAC
BAC, I ask for the same things (at least on this issue) that you do. We should be able to be using 80-100% renewable energy in the next 10 to 20 years. However, unlike you, I am willing to take smaller steps toward achieving that. If we went your route on the CAFE standards bill last year, those standards would still be set at 24 mpg for the next decade instead being improved to 35 for all commercial vehicles.
I will never stop fighting for the final goal, but I will celebrate each step in that direction as the victory it is. Legislation is always a couple steps forward, a couple steps back. Our duty is to make sure legislators make more steps forward than back.
John,
While I don't think Obama supporting a bipartisan solution, even if it calls for more oil drilling offshore is that big of a deal (I don't believe the oil companies and their political toadies are really that interested in exploration they just want an excuse) I do side more with BACs approach to this than yours as I read these comments.
In fact the results of what happened with that bipartisan legislation is a perfect example of why we need to take a harder tone with Republicans. Democrats offer a compromise - Republicans slap the compromise away and then pull a stunt like they did yesterday in the house.
The only thing bullies understand is a punch in the nose. That's what Pelosi and Reid better start dishing out to those punks or they'll have to go themselves.
Post a Comment