I know we are all hopeless Obots here who never criticize our cult leader, but someone is going to have to explain this strategery to me before the communal bath (we do have those, no?):
The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.
That is quite an opener there, Doyle! All in before the flop works for me!
Seriously- what is the point in offering up something that is going to INFURIATE the left wing of the party without even seeing if the Republicans will play ball (PRO TIP- THEY WON’T). And surprise, surprise, it isn’t good enough for the Republicans:
President Barack Obama’s plan to allow expanded offshore oil and gas exploration won rebuke from the top House Republican on Wednesday.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) dismissed the president’s plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration.
Obama’s decision “continues to defy the will of the American people,” Boehner said in a statement, pointing to the president’s decision to open Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, while leaving Pacific and many Alaskan waters largely closed to exploration.
“It’s long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs,” the House GOP leader added. “Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution – the American Energy Act – which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation.”
Well, that was certainly a surprise. Hoocoodanode it wouldn’t be good enough for the Republicans and they would not treat it as an act of good faith in the negotiating process?
I can’t be alone wondering just wtf the White House is doing on this one.
robertdsc
Maybe they can pull it if things get sticky. Otherwise, I don’t know and I’m not going the HCR freakout route again.
sherifffruitfly
Yah it is shitty, but it’s not a surprise, since Candidate Obama said he was open to that possibility.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-shifts-on-oil-drilling/?fbid=0jgVlh3Seuq
“ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) – Barack Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
“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,” Obama said.”
J.W. Hamner
You are not alone. The only plausible explanation I’ve seen is that they’re trying to get out in front of what they expect to be $3+ a gallon gas prices this summer… so it’s for November to show they’re “doing something” (something stupid, but still).
As much of an Obot as I am, preemptive capitulation does seem to be Obama’s major weakness.
El Cid
I want to see more detailed analysis of the actual proposal, particularly since I don’t see right now the market incentive for oil companies to spend more money to increase production while overall fuel consumption in the U.S. has been lessening due to a weakening economy, though Bowers argues it’s partly about conservaDem politics.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
Infuriating the left wing is easy. Since the Republicans do it more and better than any Democrat could ever do it, the left wing is stuck with Democrats. Where else are they going to go? Ralph Nader?
Seriously, if the left can’t do better than to be pissed off about some offshore drilling, it needs to disband. There are bigger fish to fry. Let them drill.
Good idea, I support it. It makes a statement. I just hope that it fits into a larger and more comprehensive energy policy that will be developed in the next year or two. And I am guessing that it will.
geg6
Besides the fact that Obama stated during the presidential race that he wasn’t opposed to domestic off shore drilling, this is the best explanation I’ve seen for this decision:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023133.php
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Relax dude. It’s just triangulation, Obama style. The fine print will contain much less area opened with low potential for oil that oil companies won’t likely want to explore, and puts the wingers on the defensive on the proposal which also includes climate change provisions. Why do you think Boener is having none of it? It will give cover to the one or two wingers needed to break a winger filibuster that is certain with cap and trade (which I don’t much like) or other plans to reduce CO2 emissions.
Kavar
Steve Benen’s got a suggestion from an anonymous Hill staffer that this is all part of a plan to make the Republicans look crazier again. Make of that what you will.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The consensus I’m reading is that (beyond a play for Lindsey Graham), this is meant to appeal to the Broder/Brooks/Friedman axis, per a letter Steve Benen got from a Dem congressional staffer. To shift the proverbial (buzzwordial?) narrative. They will now turn on Republicans for not accepting the outreached hand. Even as far as that goes, I’m skeptical, Friedman’s a given. Brooks will write that such proposals like this are why he admires Obama, but BHO is only almost right, and anyway Dems are still wrong. And Broder will wander off in search of a Republican state legislator who has said something Broder thinks Obama should say.
I don’t like it on substance, but I’d be (just) willing to swallow it if I saw some large concrete concession from the other side.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@sherifffruitfly:
Yes, good recall. I remember that from the campaign season, and I thought it was a good idea at the time, and still do.
slackjawedgawker
Email from a Hill staffer, courtesy of Benen:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023133.php
Personally, I don’t see why he needs to give them anything right now. This must be what Obama really wants.
ETA: looks like geg beat me to it
Sentient Puddle
Best I can guess, he believes that this is about as minimal a bone he can throw to Republicans in order to actually get 60 votes in the Senate. Yeah, Boehner being a dick wasn’t a shock, but apparently, others are reacting somewhat more positively (see for instance Graham).
But even if this is his intent, it’s still bloody difficult seeing it actually play out. So…yeah, I got nothing.
TR
Marc Ambinder has an interesting take on it all:
I do think it’s largely about anticipating the summer gas price hike and preventing Palin from shouting “drill baby drill” but the part about stealing the Republicans’ thunder on energy complaints and winning over moderates is intriguing. We’ll see soon enough.
gex
The point is to find a way to incorporate their ideas with reasonable controls (similar to allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, you want to line up the rules with policy goals in mind rather than create a free for all). This will be done in such a way that 1) the GOP can’t claim victory for getting these provisions in the bill and 2) will be forced, due to their obstinate nature, to denounce conservative policies in the plan and call for some even crazier stuff. Meanwhile everyone else will be wondering wtf? I mean, we’re going to drill just like conservatives called for, but we’re also going to plan for what’s after that, and that seems sensible to even people who are all about the drilling.
He’s going to marginalize them, again, and make them look crazy, again. I’m okay with that.
Guster
Hasn’t Obama said for two years that he was gonna do this? I think he’s doing it because he wants to, and is playing politics by pretending it’s some kinda offer he’s extending to the Rs.
Edit: sherifffruitfly got there faster, with more.
David in NY
@geg6:
I’m not sure whether I buy the rationale that the staffer gave Steve Benen, but at least it was coherent.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023133.php
Dollared
It’s all about disarming your enemies and taking the “center” before they can.
Pure triangulation – now you add either cap n trade or carbon tax, and you get Comprehensive Energy Reform. Anyone who opposes the combination is an “extremist” and only gets limited Broder Love, and a reluctant, regretful “tsk tsk” from Bobo.
Never mind that once again, another breakthrough move that could really improve the economic model in this country is taken off the table – and 25 MILLION PEOPLE NEED WORK.
They can wait, figures President Steady as She Goes. Maybe after I get reelected….
meh
I actually don’t think he gives a shit about the GOP or the Dems on this one. I get the feeling he thinks this is the best short term/intermediate solution for a problem facing us and fuck em if they don’t like it. I get the distinct feeling he is getting tired of tolerating the WATB on both sides…
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Sentient Puddle:
Boehner is irrelevant. It is the senate where the game is, and providing cover for dems and a few repubs to go along with some sort of climate change leg.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I remain dubious, but this appears to be the logic.
Kerry’s Office: Offshore Drilling Could Help Get 60 Votes For Climate Legislation
Butch
By the time the lease bids are offered, advertised, and in place, the companies have done enough exploration to decide where they want to bid, the protests (usually from other oil companies) are filed and resolved, and platforms actually get designed and built, you’re talking at least a 15 to 20 year schedule (or much longer) before anything actually comes out of the ground. (My description of the timeline is also way abbreviated; there are a zillion steps in it.) I don’t know what the administration thinks it’s gaining with this proposal.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
And his proposal offers a local opt out for states who don’t want to drill off their coasts.
LarsThorwald
I know one thing for absolutely certain. No, wait, two things, I just thought of another one. The first is that I have doubted Obama on the advice and counsel of know-better bloggers before, and have been found wanting along with a lot of people who were wrong to guess what Obama is doing. Put another way, i’m going to wait and see what happens before I start calling for impeachment and primaries like other nancies. Because if I don’t I’m a fool.
The second thing I know for certain is that Liz Cheney is a complete dick.
Lisa
Sometimes he is like he is out of some Philip K. Dick story. But instead of Pre-Crime, it is Pre-Capitulation-to-Wingnuts. In the future, wingnuts will oppose you, thus, propose this shitty policy to appease them.
Though, in fairness, as others have pointed out, he was always open to the possibility of drilling offshore as part of a larger energy plan. I guess I will wait to see the larger energy plan.
sherifffruitfly
@Guster:
That’s what she said.
(sorry, my 15 year old sense of humor will never die. :D )
El Cid
FWIW, actual “triangulation” under Clinton was taking Republican generated policies and passing them with a majority of Republicans over and against a majority of Democrats. That, at least, was Dick Morris’ theory. It wasn’t about policies landing in the political middle.
Buchu44
In the total scheme this is a fairly limited drilling proposal that will cause the the Republicans to “lose their collective mind” and the “Left” will hammer away at how little Obama understands about playing the political game.
In the long run he will say I stand up to my own people for the good of the country and even when I do what “my Republican Friends propose” they refuse to participate. This guy plays a longer game than we are used to seeing.
JGabriel
Right. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t oil form where there used to be plants and animals? And thus, largely where land is, or used to be?
Now, I know the anti-creationists in the GOP probably have problems with plate tectonics too, but, if you look at map, there’s not a lot of submerged continental shelf on the west coast (the flooded plains of Beringia excepted).
That’s because the continent is moving in an east to west direction. We’ve got a fair amount of continental shelf trailing us on the east coast, which might plausibly have some significant oil deposits, but whatever shelf may have been off the west coast has long since sub-ducted under the Sierras, the Rockies, and the Cascades.
Which means, as you already knew anyway, that Boehner is full of shit. There’s probably little to no fucking oil to drill for off of the lower 48’s west coast.
(Edited to add: BTW, nothing here should be read as my supporting Obama’s decision. I think it kind of sucks, but I can the see reasoning. My main point, though, is that Boehner’s complaints about the Pacific coast aren’t supported by any reasoning whatsoever.)
.
SB Jules
The President is usurping Republican policy to infuriate them and be able to say, see there is no pleasing them, so…
He isn’t advocating drilling off California, his base, you’ll notice. I wouldn’t be surprised if no drilling is done, but there will be much gnashing of Republican teeth!
Shygetz
I’m with Hamner @3; Obama is trying to get ahead of the predictable-yet-surprising $3 a gallon gas this summer. This is cover for the public, not the Republicans, so Obama can look like he’s “doing something”. On the other hand, drilling won’t start for years, so there’s plenty of time to head it off later. If Obama could have gotten anything from the Republicans for this, then yeah, it’s premature capitulation. But I’m betting he could privatize Social Security and outlaw abortion and not get anything from the Republicans. So, he’s pandering to the center ahead of rising gas prices while baiting Republicans to be against a policy that was one of their most memorable campaign issues.
geg6
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Yup. In addition, it leaves out the entire CA coast, the east coast of FL, and the most vulnerable of the Alaska fields. If this must be done, for whatever reason, it’s as responsible a plan as can be made for something I really don’t like under any circumstances.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@El Cid: Clinton a wingnut congress majority.
Dollared
If he is triangulating, OK here. But on financial reform, he’s got to come up with something that kicks ass. Or we’re looking at another disaster in 3-5 years.
Bad enough that every American will pay 15% too much for their health care, and live with 2-3% higher unemployment, from now to at least 2024 – I kid you not, look at the likely presidential election rotation – because he didn’t do the hard thing for the public option.
We really aren’t rich enough any more to play these “games. Really. For the middle class, it’s like the Wall Street aphorism – the president can remain “centrist” longer than you can remain solvent and unemployed.
FormerSwingVoter
NEVER DOUBT DEAR LEADER! ITS OBAMA-FU 11-DIMENSIONAL CHESS!!!1
…or maybe it really is as dumb as it looks. Can we have our communal bath/orgy now?
Lisa
I am still an Obot, though. But I want to channel my Uncle Alvin and ask “n***a, is you trippin’?” sometimes.
ET
I think this is a bad idea.
Saying that I just don’t think there is any or much of anything to find – course I don’t know if this is right or not. There are a lot of people with a lot riding on this monitarily and politically, so give them what they want and if nothing is found how looks more stupid.
Soul On Ice
Trial balloon, coming through!
clone12
Maybe he’s doing this because he thinks this the right thing to do even if he gets no political payoffs.
I know I’m an Obot, you may proceed to toss me into the dunk tank.
TR
No, that’s not it at all. He’s not going all in, he’s calling the Republicans’ bluff.
They keep saying the only energy policy we need is drilling, and he’s saying, fine, go ahead. That’s their bet and he’s calling them on it. Doing so robs them of a political issue in the immediate sense and when, lo and behold, drilling doesn’t prove to be the magic bullet they keep insisting it is, it settles the question and allows for better ideas to proceed.
And in the meantime, this clear show of good faith means that it’s more likely that he keeps the conservative Dems in his tent and plucks off one of the few sane Republicans in the Senate. This isn’t an executive order; he’s making a proposal as part of the bill — one that will likely need liberal proposals to go along with it now.
rdalin
I don’t understand the big uproar over this. We all know Obama wouldn’t get republican votes under any situation imaginable – just like everything else he’s tried to do. That goes for if he had waited and used off-shore drilling as a bargaining chip or not. By putting this out there in the beginning, he’s cementing the optics for the big battle: he’s showing he’s willing to compromise and use republican ideas, and he’s anticipating that they will respond the same way again with just “hell no!” Like health care, most of the public will be on the side of the guy who compromises to get things done, and eventually he’ll win the argument. Right? No?
mai naem
Well, dontcha know it’s 3-D sixteen dimension chess with flying bishops and trampolining knights using languages, previously thought to be extinct.
Redshirt
I am for responsible drilling, so I see no problem. If this can also be used as a leverage point over stupid Repugs, all the better.
JGabriel
@J.W. Hamner:
Agreed. If Obama’s going to capitulate, he could at least wait until it’s emptive.
.
LM
I don’t know how much he’s really giving up:
I read this to mean he’s taking the West Coast, Bristol Bay, and the Arctic off the table, and promising only to “consider potential new areas for development” along the Atlantic. But since the press doesn’t understand or report nuance, it’ll be reported that he’s offering generous concessions to Republicans. If he isn’t (as the language above suggests), then he makes them look like whiners who can never be satisfied. That may be the bargaining chip he wants.
R. Johnston
Maybe Obama’s just a right-wing politician who honestly believes in “drill baby drill!” but has learned the lesson that there’s no point in negotiating with Republicans.
There’s nothing confusing about Obama if you allow yourself to draw the inference that he’s fundamentally conservative. He’s just pragmatic and not quite a religious zealot. When it comes down to it, he’s a Rockefeller Republican and if we had a sane right wing party in this country, that’s the party he’d belong to.
Sue
Didn’t have time to check comments for this, but Wonkette claims it’s a red state thing:
http://wonkette.com/414557/obama-will-only-ruin-the-coasts-of-red-states
colby
Maybe he’s just wrong?
I mean, maybe he thinks this IS a decent idea (and if done a certain way, may not be a horrible), and it’s not part of some 11-dimensional chess thing.
Like I said, wrong. But certainly a more Occum-friendly explanation than all of this other crap.
JGabriel
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Because Boehner is having none of anything (except crow). He doesn’t need a reason.
.
BTD
It is political triangulation, very good for Obama’s political fortunes.
I have no opinion on the policy itself.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@R. Johnston:
Some of you all crack me up.
rootless-e
Is there a reason why we are against it? No drilling in Alaska. Nothing within 250 miles of shore – I think, is that right? What’s the problem? Better to have oil burned in tankers being transported from far away?
The core of a decent energy policy is (a) strong pollution enforcement and (b) investment in alternative energy. I don’t care about drilling. But then again, maybe I’ve just come to enjoy the sound of the bus driving over “progressives”.
cleek
seems obvious to me that:
a) Obama now knows GOP opposition is simply reflexive, and this will make that obvious to the rest of the country
b) he’s trying to scoop-up some moderates by taking a fairly non-controversial issue away from the GOP in an election year. (yes, yes, i know libs are supposed to hate it, but it’s actually a pretty popular idea)
the GOP would love to run on “Drill, baby, Drill!” again. but Obama just stole that issue from them, leaving them in a position to run against themselves or give him a victory.
El Cid
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Yes. I had actually once heard of the 1995 Congress.
In fairness, after 1996, until Dick Morris became the FOXNOOZ ultra-weirdo, Morris described it in terms of trying to achieve good policies by combining the best of both party’s approaches. Everyone should make up their own minds about how that worked out for each particular policy.
Bob L
Well, you got to admit is good politics; he gives the Right one of their cherished dreams (and some cost to himself with his base) only to have them oppose it. Pretty much reinforces the lessons the wingnuts are nuts and undercuts the mem they have been pushing that Obama has turned his back on bipartisanship.
Still,..
robertdsc
Perhaps you can tell us where the votes exist in either house in this Congress for a new federal program that offers health insurance. Show your work, please.
JGabriel
@Redshirt:
Because corporations have spent the last decade proving how responsible they are.
.
bobbob
Memorial Day is right around the corner along with a rise in gas prices. Also, if the economy does actually heat up fuel prices will also move in that direction. Getting ahead of this is very smart.
liberal
@rdalin:
Most of the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that, even if the Wash Post editorial writers do.
IIRC recent polling evidence suggests, unsurprisingly, that people want leaders who get things done, and don’t care about bipartisanship or cross-party compromise.
Bob
@sherifffruitfly:
This is what I was about to say. Over at FDL they are having the usual freakout over things Obama campaigned on and now is doing, but they clearly ignored prior to the election.
That said, it should have been a point of negotiation, not a preemptive cave in.
Anyway – who f*cking cares? Its not like the rest of the rigs all over the gulf of Mexico are killing the view.
BrighidG
I’m assuming jobs and the idea that it would create jobs was behind this. :(
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@El Cid: My point is this is Obama’s brand of triangulation, which is largely afforded him from having big congress majorities. But still a vote short in the senate, and with vulnerable red state dems to give cover to. He doesn’t have to give up much, and maybe nothing of value at all. It is just politics and not that complicated and certainly not 11 dim. chess level.
Sentient Puddle
@Dollared:
I wouldn’t worry here. The public perception is still that Republicans are the party of Wall Street. He has the leverage to get something good, as long as Dodd doesn’t fuck it all up.
mak
Sounds like at least a couple R Senators know they’re whupped:
Either that, or they just aren’t dumb enough to take the bait (a la Boner).
Redshirt
@JGabriel: Oil and gas are a fact of our lives. I’m not going to buy into any program that says we in America can never drill for new oil or gas.
Technology and standards, and regulations, have improved, and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, many things in this modern world require us to rip the raw materials out of the earth. There’s no getting around this, so let’s make the process as environmentally friendly as possible, WHILE working on even better alternatives.
I’m not against actual drilling at all, AND I think this is great politics by O.
And for you doubting Obots, just give in, let go your doubt. Trust in The One!
Leelee for Obama
@sherifffruitfly: Thank you for the text of that . I know the screaming will be loud and long, but it will be several years before even one well is drilled and IF we are putting time and ducats into other alternatives, while buying a few Republicans votes in the Senate with this sop, I’m OK with it. It is even vaguely possible that alternatives will be so successful, no one will want to drill in the future. I’ve lived too many years to be absolute on most anything. I will not post my list of absolutes, in the interests of peace among my compatriots.
I’m still looking for someone to make alternative fuel out of frickin kudzu. That would be a Nobel Prize winner fur sure!
Chad S
I’m not a huge fan of this move, but its probably better political trigonometry to do this now and use paperwork issues to limit the leases to the eastern Gulf(where there actually is a significant amount of oil) and deny the GOP a major talking point during the summer. Let The Great Pumpkin and Governor Fuck-me-boots whine about not doing enough oil drilling off the coast, it rings hollow since he’s technically opened it up already.
liberal
@rootless-e:
Because under current arrangements, most of the scarcity rent inherent in oil reserves in the US is captured by the energy companies that extract it, instead of being captured by the government on behalf of the citizenry.
Ming
I think O prioritizes ruthlessly. He said to himself; I can get HCR done this year, or I can prosecute former W admin officials for torture, push on DADT, etc., etc. On climate change, he said to himself: if I take the hard-left stance, not only will Congress not play along, but neither will the public. If I find a few things I’m willing to give in on that have large symbolic value but actually make little difference (c.f. the completely wimpified public option that he was willing to sacrifice), that can grease the wheels for the crucial, big ticket items. Look at the specifics — what has he actually given away here, with the state opt-out, and the specific locations he’s protected? Boehner’s right — O actually hasn’t given away much of anything here. But B still looks like a dick, because O’s made a huge move symbolically, and B is left complaining that it’s enough. And O has just neatly ripped away one of Big OIl’s, and Palin’s, favorite talking points — “here we are in an energy crisis, and O isn’t willing to take the obvious, common sense step of drilling.”
No doubt the Jane Hamshers of the Left will pitch fits over this. Okay then.
David in NY
@JGabriel:
The Pacific floor is subducting, but isn’t the Atlantic floor pretty new, geologically speaking? I don’t think much of it has ever been above water, but as usual, I could be very wrong. Actually, now that you point it out, what areas are under water that were once dry land? Not many, I think. The continents are quite old, and they float on heavier rock. Oh, well, suppose I could look it up.
JGabriel
Some of us still value the environment — both the areas people live near (east coast), and the still semi-pristine remote areas like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Further, more drilling is a short term solution. We need more research and investment in consistently available, low-impact, forms of energy like solar, wind, and geothermal.
That takes time of course, and if off-shore exploration and drilling buys us needed time, then I can understand the policy reasoning behind permitting it. But I’m not happy about it, nor am I convinced it’s currently needed. Or useful.
.
liberal
@meh:
If that were the case, he’d be entirely wrong, given how small the reserves are and the fact that oil is a fungible commodity.
Bob
Maybe he did it just to make Jane Hamsher’s head explode, which, (even if there is a giant environmental disaster) would be totally worth it.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@colby:
It’s Occam.
rootless-e
@liberal: So you are for drilling if we don’t get too badly screwed by the oil companies?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566872495184681.html
Joseph Nobles
Maybe he’s pushing the Republicans into more and more extreme positions by taking theirs. Like here — he advocates off-shore drilling, the Republicans decide we should start whaling again.
Davebo
Oil companies don’t want to explore in ANWR either (without tax credits and royalty forgiveness).
rootless-e
@JGabriel:
Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.
The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.
Mike Kay
I don’t mind people criticizing Obama. (sans he’s like Hitler and Bush)
What I find hilarious is when BilBot-PUMAs attack Obama for not be left. It’s like they constructed a Bill Clinton Potemkin village in their heads.
Redshirt
@JGabriel: I really, really want a clean and healthy environment too. It’s one of my top issues, in fact.
I’m just trying to be pragmatic, AND counter some of the more extreme viewpoint from some Environmentalists.
For example, these types of environmentalists will battle solar plants in the desert, for fear they will hurt a desert shrub; they will fight against wind turbines because they can kill birds; they will be against any centralized power distribution since the lines might disrupt the habitat of a mouse; etc.
I suspect these types of environmentalists would only be satisfied with two outcomes; Magical fairy energy that POOFS out of nowhere, or we all live in teepees and live off bean curd.
I appreciate some of the efforts of these folks – Overton Windows and all that – but I think like any extremist, they go way too far, in this case for a worthy cause.
Doubter4444
I posted this on another site, but all the same:
The thing with the drilling is classic Obama.
Like it or not, he plays long ball.
I’ve read griping that he could have used it to earn concessions from Rs, or “Why do it since they’ll still bitch” (which is happening).
But that’s not the point.
A) It was a campaign promise, so he can tick it off as kept
B) It takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he’s a Green whack job
C) It gives cover for Reps in the districts affected (mainly Rs and Conservative Ds) and just might create some jobs in the areas.
All this is for later, to roll out in 2012 as “Things I’ve done”.
He can now say: No arm twisting for concessions… I did it with out being forced… that it went against the far left base…
It’s very smart.
It’s politics, just not as usual.
Allan
He just got his black cooties all over “Drill Baby Drill!” thereby taking all the fun out of chanting it for racist morons.
Spoiling the fun of racist morons is its own reward.
Rommie
Maybe the Big O also knows Something Bad is going to happen with Iran sooner than later, with the resultant spike in oil prices. Getting a lead before the feces arrives at the fan, and getting your opponents to say “Hell No you can’t do what we wanted you to do!” is delicious gravy.
JGabriel
@David in NY:
My understanding is that ocean levels were about a 120 m lower than today during the last glacial maximum, so quite a bit of the east coast continental shelf would have been dry land then. I don’t know how often that circumstance is true for the more ancient periods when the conditions for creating oil deposits first formed.
And yes, the Atlantic floor is pretty new, because that’s a result of magma welling up to fill it in as the Americas pull apart from Europe and Africa. The east coast continental shelf is much older. Keep in mind that, for instance, the Appalachians and the mountains in Wales used to be part of the same mountain chain, if I’m remembering my basic geology and paleontology correctly.
.
Mike Kay
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: weren’t all rockefeller republicans community organizers?
geg6
@Bob:
If any policy will make JH’s head explode, I think I may just be for it at this point. After seeing her and her minions take credit for SAFRA when I and my professional organization have been lobbying for this exact thing for the last dozen years, I am reflexively against anything she is for.
Malron aka eclecticbrotha
Obama isn’t negotiating with the Republicans anymore, John. He’s negotiating with the conservatives in his own party: the Lincolns, McCaskills, Nelsons etc that continue to represent the interests of the Blue Dogs and have increased power to derail legislation now that the Republican Party has become a100% obstructionist Doomsday Cult. Maybe we can call it the NOverton Window or something.
El Cid
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: I never suggested this policy was Obama’s or anyone else’s attempt at triangulation.
I was pretty clear that I didn’t know particularly what were the ramifications of this policy, and I linked to one particular argument about possible political motivations of this policy.
That said, I think it would be a broadening the term ‘triangulation’ beyond what utility it might have ever had if it’s used to describe the eternal scenario of changing policies to lure in one or two or a few votes of the opposition.
Little Dreamer
@J.W. Hamner:
__
Umm, I’ve seen gas prices rise from $2.51 to $2.81 in the last two weeks. I’ll be surprised if we don’t see $3.00 before tax day.
liberal
@JGabriel:
There might be some merit to that argument if the oil were stockpiled for an emergency, to be used only domestically.
But of course that won’t happen—it will be sold on the market.
Much better to leave it in the ground, so it’ll be there when we need it. Sure, it takes awhile to get it out, but if we let the oil industry have at it, it’s just going to go to their stockholders, which are not identical to the citizenry who should be owners.
Martin
@Little Dreamer: Already $3.20 here in SoCal. Far cry from the just-pennies-shy-of $5 from a few years ago, thankfully.
gwangung
I think this is a sentiment shared by a larger portion of the country than a lot of liberals and progressives think. And, therefore, shared by a lot of Congress critters.
Some political maneuvering that’s necessary, I think, but isn’t popular with progressives.
taylormattd
Obama’s being fucking dumb on this. That’s my 2 cents. A terrible decision, even if there is little chance the exploration will lead to drilling, it’s just awful.
scav
maybe he just figures he gets super-duper 14th dimensional chess style points or even a merit badge if he can freak every single person in the nation out at the same time. Sorta like some of the threads we’ve been having.
rootless-e
Also there is a persistent misunderstanding of the negotiation dynamic. The Republicans don’t want to make a deal. They are not bargaining the price down, they just want to stop the sale entirely. O’s positions are not intended to get allow a reasonable split, they are intended to break the ability of the other side to block the deal.
Martin
@liberal: Actually, Congress required that the SPR be expanded by an additional 300 million barrels back in 2005. They’re selecting sites for that expansion now, so most of it would actually get stockpiled.
tobias
He’s always said that he’s open to offshore drilling. He’s also pro-“clean coal,” which most progressives think is a fantasy. This is pretty straightforward; I don’t know why people are immediately assuming that this is 11-dimensional Jedi-mind-trick stuff.
You’ve got that right. I live in an area where wind turbines are springing up like dandelions all over the place. Are people happy about all that clean, green energy? Fuck, no. People bitch about them constantly: they kill birds, they make whooshing noises, they make the sunset flicker annoyingly, they look ugly, etc. I’ve even heard one claim that they are contributing to climate change by slowing down the wind. Really.
Alex S.
I think it’s also about jobs. Everything to get the unemployment rate down (and a few things/votes in exchange). Climate change legislation has been hit hard by the cold winter and the lack of political capital after HCR. Cap-and-trade is dead. I don’t think that this will lead to an energy bill before 2011 – although this might be a consideration of the White House.
demo woman
John, Thanks for the post and I appreciate all the interesting comments. I would never want to play chess with the President but, imo, this will help create jobs and force the republicans to act on energy independence. This is not an issue that they want to be the party of no. Energy independence is a national security issue.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Redshirt:
Sometimes I think we over-interpret the political aspects of what are really policy choices. This feels like one of those. Let’s have a show of hands – how many folks here think that:
(a) Peak Oil is real and likely to be reached in our lifetimes.
(b) the lead time for getting alternative energy scaled up to replace oil and natural gas (to the degree need to blunt the impact of Peak Oil) is going to be longer than the time frame for (a).
(c) when Peak Oil pricing hits the market, there will be no stopping the demand for drilling.
Put a + b + c together and I think you can make a good argument that it makes sense to work on putting the best possible framework in place now for environmentally sensitive drilling, rather than waiting until (c) arrives and we FUBAR it out a sense of ZOMG do something right the fuck now! Eleventy-one!.
Is there anybody here who agrees with all three of my postulates above and still thinks this is a bad idea from a policy standpoint, never mind the short term politics of it?
Little Dreamer
My personal take on this:
It’s a centristic Republican idea, and he’s still trying to slough off some of the more moderate Repubs from the crazy fringe and showing that the fringe will not accept ANYTHING he does because they’re all racists.
It’s not great environmental policy, but, it may be necessary for some reasons that may or may not be available to the general public (gas is going up, Israel may be pressuring for some action against Iran) AND it has the added benefit of separating the reasonable Repubs from those who will never give him their vote.
Eggbeater
Not sure if this game is worth playing if the net result yields even more Republican policies being enacted by our guy in the name of progress…
What I do know is it would be a huge mistake for Obama to try to marginalize conservation as an extreme POV.
Environmentalists/Ecologists are the people on the front lines actually preserving nature and protecting life while politicians are forever busy getting their trifle on.
Oil. Coal. Nuclear. There’s your triangulation.
maus
All these maneuvers would be successful if the media reported them as bipartisan moves, instead of quoting responses from “take an inch, give us a mile” froth-mouthed republicans.
Martin
@Little Dreamer: Obama only needs to get *one* Republican to break from the filibuster and then keep the Dem caucus in place. It may not take that much now after the HCR debacle to get one to come over. But we’ll see…
David in NY
@JGabriel:
Turns out that oil is formed by deposition of algae or zooplankton in shallow, stagnant lakes or seas. I’m not sure whether that limits the shoreline areas where it’s likely to be found (somehow seems unlikely to me to be under the Atlantic, but who am I to say).
Eric S.
@JGabriel:
Pulling a bit Geology 101 out of the back of my brain I believe petroleum is mostly formed from sea animals. The wiki concurs. Coal is more ground based.
R. Johnston
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Well, it’s indisputable really that this means that bipartisanship is out the door, which is a good thing.
As for your idea that this is triangulation and not indicative of seriously held beliefs on Obama’s part, that’s nonsense. Obama’s not stupid. He knows that triangulation is about getting votes, not about getting a mild temporary bump in approval polls. This isn’t going to change more than a vanishingly small number of votes in 2010 or 2012, certainly not enough to make up for pissing off the base. The people to whom this appeals are overwhelmingly either already voting Democratic despite differences with the party on drilling or are people whose votes are ungettable by Obama. Will this end with the Republicans making themselves look ridiculous? Perhaps, but that’s just par for the course and doesn’t require any policy concessions.
The only reason for Obama to support offshore drilling is because he supports offshore drilling. If you have to invent conspiracy theories about 11 dimensional chess triangulation in order to fit Obama’s actions into your understanding of him, then your understanding is wrong. Eleven dimensional chess is every bit as ridiculous as teabagging.
JGabriel
Redshirt:
Technology & standards, maybe, Redshirt, but I’m a bit confused by this assertion. What in the world makes you think oil regulations improved during the 8 years of the Bush administration, which had a reputation for deregulation.
Or that Obama/The Democrats could have fixed much of it in a single year?
.
cleek
this part of “the base” isn’t too pissed off.
and yes, i do live near a coast which could be affected by this.
Little Dreamer
@Martin:
I’m thinking more of voters for 2012, but, you got that angle there too.
Comrade Kevin
“Triangulating”. There’s something else that needs to be banned, along with “11 dimensional chess”, “throw X under the bus”, “Overton Window”, and “slap in the face”.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@JGabriel:
IIRC the offshore oil deposits along the US Atlantic seaboard were created in sedimentary basins which were created during the early stages of the opening of the Atlantic and then continued to fill up with passive margin sediments as the rift widened into a full fledged ocean basin.
The same process applied on a much larger scale along the margins of the Tethys Seaway, which is why so many large reserves are located in the Middle East and along the US Gulf Coast today – if you look at a paleo-map of the continental configuration from that era you’ll see that many of the areas known for large oil and gas reserves today were located along the margins of the Tethys and were also at low latitudes (i.e., where warmer water temperatures and high rates of biomass production were likely to be found).
Little Dreamer
@R. Johnston:
I think when we see the campaign that the tea party sympathizers seem to be putting together for the next two elections, Obama may not be worried about our own Dem fringe that might choose to stay home.
Tom65
It’s a brilliant move. He’s opening up offshore exploration, which costs a shitload of money and makes no fiscal sense for the oil companies unless and until oil gets back over $90/bl. He’s leaving drilling permits up to the states, which of course will fight it tooth and nail when/if the oil companies want to drill.
Mean time, Boehner and the rest of the twatwaffles foam at the mouth and get pushed further to the right, because they can’t let Obama have anything, ever.
JGabriel
@Eric S.: Interesting. Thanks for the info/correction, Eric.
.
tavella
You would be wrong. There’s oil rigs all over Los Angeles and the most destructive oil spill in the lower 48 was from an platform offshore of Santa Barbara.
danimal
Simplest explanation: The GOP has scored points with “D,B,D” and Obama is implementing a popular righty energy idea with the expectation that he can then move forward with popular lefty ideas (wind, solar, etc) in a comprehensive energy package.
BTW, I expect regional considerations will trump partisan ones when the energy bill emerges. Beating a filibuster will still be a challenge, but it’s not likely to be party line. There are several Dems that are guaranteed No’s and likely to be some Reps that will vote Yes. If no Reps are willing to support energy legislation, the bill will never go up for a vote.
joe from Lowell
This is bipartisan outreach; this is co-opting their position. Offshore drilling was the only energy issue the Republicans had, and the lack of drilling was their biggest club against Democratic policies. Now, it’s all gone. They’re left with no energy issues to run on, and nothing to use against Democrats who run on energy issues.
joe from Lowell
er, this isn’t bipartisan outreach, I mean.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@R. Johnston: Pissing off the base? The dem base approves of Obama at around 90 percent. Internet pumas are a drop in the bucket and not worth considering imo, other than to spank when they deliver obama is a republican nonsense, like you have. Don’t be an idiot dude, you sound smarter than that.
JGabriel
socialist. edited to delete.
media browski
I’m sorry you don’t get the strategy JC, but it’s spelled out right there in your clips: Obama staked out the reasonable middle position, giving his rightwing opponents the choice between joining him or going Palin. And they choose Palin every time.
It’s a beautiful strategy if you’re trying to marginalize the opposition. And it’s working.
Montysano
@Tom65:
This.
Unless something has changed drastically since my days of hanging around The Oil Drum, there’s not much oil out there, and what’s there is/was thought to be in widely separated small pools. IOW, not worth exploration. So I agree: it’s a savvy move on Obama’s part. I only wish he would have an honest, adult conversation with the nation about the realities of our energy future, but the level of dementia being what it is, it would be a foolish, fruitless move.
JGabriel
@tavella:
Yes, Eric S. kind of made that point already.
Anyway, I asked to be corrected if I was wrong, and I have been. Thanks, all. Better to lose a point/argument and learn, than to say nothing and continue being wrong without knowing it.
Albeit, the point about oil rigs in LA does nothing to discredit my original argument (which is wrong for other reasons). I argued that there wasn’t much shelf oil off the west coast, not that there wasn’t any on land / under ground.
.
jomo
Benen says that this is a deliberate strategy to take away a key talking point from the right wing and drive them deeper into the crazy. The right wing energy policy of “Drill Baby Drill” became a huge rallying cry. He has effectively blunted it with this act.
RinaX
@Ming: That’s my take on it as well. A few of the commentors over on Kos pointed out that even under Shrub’s rule, exactly one new oil refinery was actually built. Again, I’m just a nutty Obot, but reading the details doesn’t cause any major outrage in me.
Montysano
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Based on what I’m reading, we’re there. We’re on the bumpy Peak Plateau. Saudi appears to have peaked. Mexico’s Cantarell field has gone into a steep decline. This reality has been masked by the worldwide economic downturn, which has sharply reduced demand.
WereBear
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Yes, that’s about my take on it.
While I wouldn’t mind a ginormous mass transit rampup, with solar panels on every roof and cutting way down on our plastics use, I am a) far more cognizant than average of Peak Oil and its ramifications, and b) crazy that way.
The vast mass of citizens would scream like scalded wolverines at such a drastic series of steps, and any possible progress would go down in flames.
I think this kind of maneuver is the best way to get where we have to go.
RinaX
@Joseph Nobles: Please don’t give Sarah Palin new ideas. I can just see her endorsing something like this.
sparky
alsome. i didn’t use to believe in the power of positive thinking but now i see just how well it works: Obama-folks have built a completely alternate universe where opening up the ocean for drilling for oil as Bush wanted to do is cast as a good thing. i can’t wait till y’all explain how up is down!
Tomlinson
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I totally buy this thesis. And I also buy that this is a long term political move, not a short term one.
Yeah, so that’s 12-dimensional chess. Sue me.
Tomlinson
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I totally buy this thesis. And I also buy that this is a long term political move, not a short term one.
Yeah, so that’s 12-dimensional chess. Sue me.
gwangung
@sparky: Not much of an oil geologist, I take it?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Montysano:
That’s my take too. For all the heat over contemporary politics, it seems to me that Peak Oil, AGW, and the next global economic expansion are in a three way race condition with each other, and a great deal of the quality of life of our kids and grandkids will depend on which way that race comes out, something which we have only limited control over at best, and zero capacity to predict the outcome of at the present time.
@WereBear:
Agreed.
matoko_chan
well…at the risk of having Cornerstone stroke out, I’d have to say this is classic game theory, right out of Dr. Axelrods Evolution of Cooperation.
The republican refusal to cooperate became fixed, calcinated during the HCR process. Obama taunted them with a “bring it” on repeal to shake them up, break the deadlock.
Sure enough, repubs are backpedalling on repeal like mad, but some may get schiavo’d by the teabaggers in the runup to midterms.
Obama is offering now, another compromise, a “cooperation.”
The repubs may evaluate the payoff of part of a loaf on the climate change bill as better than the no loaf they got for opposing HCR.
Or they may be forced by their base to go back to pure obstructionism.
In evo theory of cooperation gamers learned that cooperation maximizes payoff for both sides….and in tit-for-tat, fair play by both sides maximizes payoff.
The repubs are not terribly bright, and they are certainly slow-learners….but perhaps they CAN learn.
Afterall, Cro-Magnon man did.
Ann B. Nonymous
My energy paranoia–well-earned from dealing with the oil industry–is whispering, “Obama gets to see the short-term forecasts ahead of time.”
Peak oil as it’s popularly understood is mainly bogus–Arkon DougJ will tell you that of course a resource curve is going to have a maximum–but expensive oil isn’t. Perhaps his economic advisers see signs that Asia’s demand will increase as the recession starts to unwind, or there’s been some communication from Saudi Arabia about the fields or (more likely) internal security problems. It would be unhappy for the midterms if gasoline and heating oil prices spiked. Imagine how Carter might have done if oil prices dropped back down. Most voters are pocketbook voters.
(It takes the wind out of Sarah plain and tall, too, though when her crowds chant “Drill, baby, drill!” they aren’t really talking about oil.)
SteveinSC
@cleek:
Don’t be an idiot dude, you sound smarter than that.
This part of the base is pissed off. Obama better be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. His strategy pre-HCR was nearly catastrophic (vide Massachusetts) until kicked in the ass by the base. Democrats will be hoist on their own petard if anyone believes Obama’s move is anticipating that gas prices at $3+ is pre-emptive. We already ran that off the playground with the “it will take years for the first drop to flow” counter argument. It is true the base has nowhere to go except Obama—and on their hands. Let’s try to refrain from calling idiots people who are issuing the same warnings we had before Obama woke up on HCR.
matoko_chan
And pardon, all.
It is 11D chess, named for the 11D variant of String theory.
And speaking of q-physics….the LHSC is up and runnin’ again at CERN, and if they find higgs bosons then big parts of 11D ST will be proven.
We shall have to wait a bit longer for the results of Obama’s game.
But I’m very pleased so far.
Tomlinson
@Tom65:
This.
By the time this oil actually becomes economically viable, a vast majority will be foaming at the mouth to get at it.
In the meanwhile, the republicans – who probably could have got this as a concession for cap and trade – lost the option to be the saviors on this issue. Hell, they may have lost the whole damn issue. Remember “Drill, baby, drill”? Ummm. Yeah. You guys just came out against drilling. Way to go, guys.
And also in the meanwhile, you’ve opened up drilling and (presumably) will lay down ground rules which put some controls over how it happens, which is a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Tomlinson
@Tom65:
This.
By the time this oil actually becomes economically viable, a vast majority will be foaming at the mouth to get at it.
In the meanwhile, the republicans – who probably could have got this as a concession for cap and trade – lost the option to be the saviors on this issue. Hell, they may have lost the whole damn issue. Remember “Drill, baby, drill”? Ummm. Yeah. You guys just came out against drilling. Way to go, guys.
And also in the meanwhile, you’ve opened up drilling and (presumably) will lay down ground rules which put some controls over how it happens, which is a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
tomvox1
I reckon it is pure, Machiavellian politics:
Take one of the big arrows out of the noisiest Republicans’ quiver ahead of the inevitable summer gas spike: Offshore Drilling.
Less imported oil is, after all, not a bad thing.
Might sting the Green Left and it’s not a paragon of idealism but nobody ever said Machiavelli was always good to his friends in the course of achieving good things for them in toto.
Taken together with the new nuclear plant construction policy, I’d say this is part of a holistic co-option strategy, not to mention another piece in Obama’s energy independence strategy (along with renewables, cap & trade and conservation).
At this rate, the GOP will have nothing to run on. Infuriating for them, I’d imagine, and yet another nail in their long-term coffin as a viable party as currently constructed.
But then, I’m just another Obot with a Dear Leader complex…
Mike Kay
@Comrade Kevin: I love this. The Firebaggers have no problem mocking the 11th dimensional chess crap, unless it suits them to frame obama as an evil schemer.
hg
Bah, I just checked out Sullivan’s place… At this point, I dont think theres anything Obama can do that wouldnt be covered by “11 dimensional chess”. Obama could declare Sullivan a terrorist and Sully would be going “Meep Meep” from his cage in Gitmo.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@SteveinSC: You quoted me, not Cleek. And anyone who tells me that Obama is really a republican, I will call an idiot. No brainer. (pun not intended)@R. Johnston:
LOL, wut? You mean the kill the bill idiots, and assorted other wanker pumas burning down the dem house over the PO pony. I give them credit for nothing, other than providing headaches from suffering their drek. Obama made mistakes, but he never gave up, then recalibrating and learning from those mistakes.
Ripley
Ohmyfuckinggod, now I’ll have to put gas in my car. Wait, what?
Jon M
Did not read all 120 plus comments and if it is bad etiquette to post without doing so then I apologize in advance. Here is one possible take. This is a piece he has always been willing to negotiate. If he negotiates with Republicans and then gives this chip away it looks like he has folded to Republican wishes and they can claim victory. On the other hand, if Obama has realized that Republicans will never compromise, then he has given away something he was prepared to give away anyway, and done so on his own terms without looking like he gave in to Republicans while taking away a talking point. In addition, the blue dogs can vote on an energy bill and say that they got some drilling for it. I am not sure what the down side here is. To get the necessary democratic votes he was going to probably throw this in. Is this the strategy? I have no idea. But, I would not discount the possibility either.
JGabriel
Ann B. Nonymous:
Obama has lately been pushing for sanctions against Iran. Perhaps he sees a drop in oil production as a result.
.
Mike Kay
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: I just saw Katrina vanden Heuvel (long time editor of The Nation) on The Ed Show, 15 minutes ago, say HCR was a major positive accomplishment.
I guess the Firebaggers will have to start smearing her as a corporatist.
Dean Wormer
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat:
It’s Occam to you and me, but given the orthography of the day, it could very well have been Ockham, Okkum, or any other damn thing for all we know…
Dean Wormer
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I’m of a contrarian mind; drill now to bring Peak Oil upon us sooner, rather than later.
Otherwise, the delusion that we can avoid it will sustain itself all the longer.
No?
Dr. Morpheus
@R. Johnston:
This, of course.
I really don’t understand why fellow leftists completely ignored Obama’s campaign platform, which was (to coin a phrase) center – right.
Shit, I’m an honest to FSM, Soc ialist and I understand that something like what I believe in isn’t feasible, not now, not probably for a century.
And the PO and Green energy might seem to be all simple and the right thing to do, but we’ve got 27% of the population who think the ACA is commieislamofascism.
And they’ve got a pant load of members of Congress to make sure that even the most modestly progressive legislation is blocked, weakened, and watered down at every step.
Is it really mindless Obot-ism to realize that tinkering at the corners may be all that’s possible for the next four to eight years?
It took the Republicans thirty years to bring us to this grand disaster, what makes anyone think that it won’t take AT LEAST thirty years to fix things?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I think it’s hilarious that the right wing is rock certain that Obama is a soshulist, and the left wing that he is a crypto republican. It makes me smile with satisfaction.
Tom Hilton
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat: Actually, it’s Ockham. As in, William of Ockham.
That said, spelling wasn’t exactly standardized in the 14th century.
Edit: and I see that Dean Wormer beat me to it.
El Cid
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Strangely enough, I can balance inside my head both the realization that the U.S. political leadership is mostly amenable to the U.S.’ uppermost classes (including its billionaire and corporate executive class) while understanding how different approaches within that tendency can really, really improve ordinary peoples’ lives.
Then again, even Karl Marx urged labor and soshullist leaders to use every tool of bourgeois democracy available to work for the betterment of the lives of working people, even if the broader goal was to move beyond a bourgeois capitalist system.
TR
The more I think about this, the more there seems to be another possibility:
Obama has embraced offshore drilling so the Republicans will abandon it, just like they did with all their other ideas once Obama welcomed them — individual insurance mandates, cap-and-trade, etc.
As someone said earlier, once his scary Islamofascist blackity black cooties are on a policy, they run away from it at top speed.
FlipYrWhig
Can’t a policy with which people disagree be just, you know, _bad_, rather than an act of cowardice, capitulation, or skulduggery?
SteveinSC
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Jesus, that is an understatement. (Sorry for the botched reference.)
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@El Cid:
So can I. And this is spot on imo. And is pretty close to where Obama is also, at least in my perception of him. He is not a revolutionary regarding our system, just someone who believes all boats should rise with the tide. With some grand gestures toward righting some long term wrongs for peeps left out of the boats altogether. see HCR, and now near universal coverage.
He is a technocrat at heart, but one with a sense of social justice and the smarts to shape the politics toward that justice. And I don’t think he fits easily into any of our political camps, and that drives the reactionaries at both ends of the pol spectrum up the wall.
He will not make everything right in this unbalance country, but will and already has put his mark on it. And still some time left.
Peter J
I think this headline from Wonkette explains his plans.
DarrenG
Most of this thread is very Politico-esque — evaluating the proposed policy solely on the basis of whether it counts as a point for the Red Team or the Blue Team.
After a year of campaigning and a year as President, isn’t the simpler explanation what only a couple above have touched on? Namely, that the policy wonks that Obama brought in think this is in the country’s best interests right now, rather than assuming the motivation is mainly (or wholly) political?
I certainly don’t have enough background in energy or environmental policy to evaluate it in any meaningful way. Just surprised that the immediate reaction here was to jump straight to the “Obama is appeasing Republicans and punching hippies again” frame.
pattonbt
@matoko_chan:
OT to the topic at hand but to your point on game theory. We recently had some team building sessions at work and they did one session based on this premise – where pure obstructionism (self preservation / loss avoidance) is quickly learned to not achieve any positive outcomes and everyone will eventually compromise (take the risk) to make fake money.
Of course, the moderator of the game made the mistake of putting the two biggest troublemakers in the group (myself being one of them) on one team and so we went pure obstructionist all the way. We ended up winning, but we “won” because we lost the least. The moderator said she never had a group where no one earned positive cash. She was kind of shocked.
Now that I look at it, we played the part the R’s are playing now, and part of me sees that from an individual R standpoint, making sure everyone loses may be good enough for them individually. Sucks for the community at large, but for them its “I got mine, fuck you”.
Brien Jackson
I don’t understand why people are having a hard time understanding this. Republicans wouldn’t trade anything in exchange for drilling, they don’t do that, and the politics of drilling works in their favor when they can complain that we aren’t doing enough of it. The White House is proposing this for their own reasons; either because they want to get in front of it politically before gas prices go up this summer, or because they think it’s the right thing to do.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@Dean Wormer:
Ah, ok. Sorry. I didn’t catch the cheeked tongue.
grumpy realist
…coming late to the thread: I read that the decline in Mexican oil hasn’t been due to depletion, but that the infrastructure is on its last legs and they’re having to use different technology to get what’s left out of the ground.
Mexico basically has a nationalized oil industry written into their laws which is what has been putting the kibosh on new development. The companies that *could* develop the fields because of having the technological expertise happen to be foreign. Unfortunately, there’s no mechanism under present Mexican law by which a foreign company can assist in the development of Mexican oil fields. Which is why everyone is going bonkers.
Mike in NC
@TR:
Exactly. Coming out in favor of both offshore exploration and getting back into the nuclear power plant business (after 30 years of sitting on our hands) is a double bitch-slap to the GOP. Throws them off message. Obama should rub it in their faces, along with how the RNC loves to spend money for strip clubs. Joe Sixpack will approve.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
As you have read in the comments, the most popular explanation is that this is a political triangulation by Obama. The logical extension of this is that Obama doesn’t care whether drilling is the right policy or not, only how it plays politically. Not sure if any of the usual suspects will perform this logical extension, though.
Wilson Heath
Here’s the acceptable horsetrading scenario:
Areas available to offshore drilling are expanded if, and only if:
1) Every single industry-favorable and non-economic tax break the oil & gas industry benefit from disappear. The election to expense intangible drilling costs, the enhanced oil recovery credit, depreciation and depreciation on schedules picked by lobbyists, AMT relief, and whatever else isn’t coming right to me. Gone. No more government constraint, boys — go nuts. Bonus points: no need to fuss with a carbon tax and oil & gas and alternative/green energy will be on something closer to a level playing field.
2) My understanding is that all of the territory in question is owned and leased by the feds to the operators. The law is that the operators must be U.S. persons or companies. Let’s get serious about that. If the ultimate head of the corporate group is not a U.S. company and more than 1/2 the stock is not demonstrably owned by U.S. citizens (and maybe residents), then the company can’t get the lease.
and 3) Use-it-or-lose-it leases. Plenty of leases of this sort that are being held with no drilling. Why not? Because it’s not about meeting capacity demands, it’s about being in a position to produce when the market is high and it’s most profitable. The push for opening drilling may be “drill here, drill now” to the mouth-breathing foot soldiers, but it’s not about upping current capacity for industry. It’s about industry’s future outlook.
Still not necessarily a great trade. We’ve got reserves of what will be an increasingly scarce and valuable commodity. What barrel does that put us over in terms of energy independence if we choose independence now instead of later? Or is the plan to go all Mad Max on the Saudis when it comes to that?
gerry
Yay! Rise and shine John.
tballou
“I can’t be alone wondering just wtf the White House is doing on this one.”
C’mon Johnny – he’s doing the exact same thing he did with health care, only this time in full view of the public. You know – concede all your issues to the other side first, and then step back and watch it turn into a big mess that only benefits the moneyed interests. It’s easy and profitable, too!
WereBear
You know, for a guy who accomplished a one hundred year old humanitarian task for the country, you’d think he could get a little more respect.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Republicans live in a black and white world where everything is one way or the other. Why? Simple messaging for their simpleminded base that helps to push their agenda. This decision will drive the Repub pols nuts because they have to come out with a reason they are against more drilling while they say they want even more drilling. Obama is just putting the repub idiots in a round room and telling them to go piss in a corner. At the same time this decision will piss off the ‘more left’ parts of the Dem base which will make the rabid Repub base very happy.
Meanwhile if the oil companies raise prices when they ‘got what they wanted’ (public impression-wise) then they will piss off the consumers who will then demand Congress do something about oil company abuses.
Who knows? The above works for me but I will wait and see what actually develops. Obama has until 2012 to show me what he has done and I am patient enough to wait until then to make an assessment of his performance.
Mike Kay
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
Ironically for being flower children or the children of flower children, the Hippie-internet-left sees thinks in orange and white.
Dannie22
I haven’t read all the comments but I see some concern trolling. All I can say is – didn’t you learn anything from the healthcare debate?
I mean, hasn’t Obama earned our trust? He pulled off hcr when noone thought he could and got the student loans bill on top of it. It’s a little too early for trolling. But I guess some folks like to worry. Carry on.
SteveinSC
In a related news item, it was reported today by an administration source that President Obama will make an important announcement tomorrow. In a gesture to republicans, the President will pre-emptively confess to having forged his own birth certificate and that he really is a Moslem from Kenya. President Obama will make this announcement, sources said, while sitting on his favorite unicorn “Bipartisan” in the White House rose garden.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@WereBear: @Dannie22:
It is utterly baffling to me, the compulsive need by too many liberals to always find a turd in the unicorn barn. They don’t stop till they find one, even after this president accomplishes what none other has with HCR, though many have tried.
I will never understand it. And lord help us when Obama royally screws something up, which will likely happen at some point, him being human and all. Scratches head.
West of the Cascades
Did not read any of the comments (traveling today), and I disagree with the Administration about opening offshore drilling, BUT I do see what they’re doing, and it has not the first fucking thing to do with the Republicans: this is just part of this Administration’s “balanced energy program” which involves a little of a lot of different energy sources with a wave of the hand towards environmental protection (meaning they closed the worst areas off Alaska to drilling but opened others and opened the coastal zones off useless States like SC, NC, GA).
I see similar “balanced development” in the West where I live and fight against energy development on public lands. On energy development, this Administration (and Ken Salazar in particular) are committed to expanding production (but, at least so far, keeping the very, very worst projects away – different from Bush, but not too much).
I actually am impressed they did this and don’t give a shit what the Republicans think. It underscores how irrelevant Boehner and his crowd are to public policy today.
But I still hate the proposal.
Cacti
I just wanted to say that I am very, deeply, truly concerned about this.
I think it marks the point where the Obama administration became a failed presidency.
Also, I like pie.
frostys
Check out some of the commenters on TheOilDrum.com. The big flaw in “Drill Baby Drill” is that even with all the bank loans in the world, a profitable price for oil, and the best offshore leases you can get, it’s still 10-15 years before a drop of gasoline hits the pump.
This is Obama cutting the Palinites off at the pass. He took their best argument and owned it, without, IMHO, a lot of downside to the environment or to his base.
This dude is a helluva playa (did I say that right?)
/Obot
frosty +3
Mike Kay
@frostys: you should see the frothing in the HippieSphere.
Dials set to stupid
Anyone else notice that the areas open for drilling are off the coasts of states with Republican governors? As a resident of VA and formerlly of FL, my sense is, despite national polling and GOP talking points about more drilling, most coastal residents don’t actually want oil derricks on thier beaches. I think Obama is
putting those governors in a position where they will have to be the ones to limit or kill off drilling plans or risk
getting thrown out of
office.
And yes, all that will make Republicans look crazy.
Fred Fnordf
The General sez: Clinton a wingnut congress majority
I can’t let that go without completing the meme, so: “Clinton WHAT a wingnut Congress majority?”
As for what Obama is doing, it seems obvious to me: if he didn’t pre-compromise a bunch of stuff, how would he end up with a result in this case that’s the same as the result in HCR: a bill that is dramatically worse than the absolute minimum that we all swore we would ever support, but which is still supported by the majority of the left? He’s dragging OUR Overton window to the right, as far as he can.
Maybe he thinks he needs to in order to get this passed. In any case, I fully expect the vast majority of the eventual money allocated by this bill to end up in the hands of oil companies and coal companies. (They do own an enormous number of clean-energy patents, bought so they can sit on them. If they simply take federal money and fritter it, while not investing any of their own money in the project, they win.) Further, by that time I fully expect most lefties to be supporting the bill wholeheartedly.
The current HCR law will save lives, though not those who would be unprofitable for the insurance companies. (There are at least two other ways insurance companies get rid of unwanted customers besides recission, and they are both more commonly used, at least in California, than recission. And they’re absolutely not illegal under the HCR law.) In return, we have effectively traded away Roe v Wade for around 1/8 of the US population, once the exchanges are ramped up for bigger-business plans as well as small-business and individual. By all accounts the president would have Bern okay with Stupak, which would have increased that number to around a third. (Depending on how the ‘separate-payments-but-equal’ thing works out, that might well still be the end result. I am not sure anyone will buy the abortion rider — people don’t expect it to happen to them — and if no one buys it, no one will offer it. And that’s not even counting the fact that at least one of California’s top five insurers is based in a very red area in the Midwest. Think they will offer abortion coverage?)
Is that a compromise you would have said you felt comfortable with, a year ago?
-fred
sparky
@gwangung: um, actually if the oil companies DO want to drill there, which apparently they do, i’ll take evidence of their interest in doing so over a bunch of comments on a blog asserting that they don’t care to do so. but yeah you all can continue to argue that EVERY SINGLE THING Obama does is the BEST POSSIBLE THING EVAH.
and is anyone here really going to say that this is sound energy policy? if so you should absolutely apply for jobs on K street if you can do it with a straight face.
don’t forget y’all should also be advocating for continued mountain destruction in the applachians–another sound energy policy favored by our dear LEADER.
here’s another way Obama can steal the R’s thunder: why, he can just bomb Iran before the election! that’ll show those Rs–they will not have anything to run on then! and it kills brown people too so Obama can look TOUGH. right? isn’t that the most important thing in the world? stealing the Rs thunder?