I, too, don't consider it flip-flopping. I like a leader who is willing to change his/her mind after re-examining the issues or if circumstances change, even though his/her opponents may look at it as weak.

 

I do want to ask about the "bogus" part. Wouldn't you say that some risk exists, however small?

 

Sure I guess I'd say that, even in spite of the fantastic track record of preventing oils spills from off shore rigs, that there is some small risk present. But when someone is running around saying that new off shore rigs presents a serious environmental risk, when there have been almost no problems with the existing off shore rigs, I'd call that a bogus claim.

 

And risk/benefit analysis happens all the time. If we had plenty of energy and didn't need more oil, I'd probably say why assume the risk of off shore environmental problems, even if it was slight. But given the circumstances present, the need justifies the risk. And when there is a proven track record showing that environmental contamination is extremely slight and there is a proven need for more oil, its a no brainer for me. McCain was correct to change his policy in my opinion.

Sure I guess I'd say that, even in spite of the fantastic track record of preventing oils spills from off shore rigs, that there is some small risk present. But when someone is running around saying that new off shore rigs presents a serious environmental risk, when there have been almost no problems with the existing off shore rigs, I'd call that a bogus claim.

 

And risk/benefit analysis happens all the time. If we had plenty of energy and didn't need more oil, I'd probably say why assume the risk of off shore environmental problems, even if it was slight. But given the circumstances present, the need justifies the risk. And when there is a proven track record showing that environmental contamination is extremely slight and there is a proven need for more oil, its a no brainer for me. McCain was correct to change his policy in my opinion.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, except maybe the use of the word "bogus" again...to me that brings to mind something that is completely without merit. I'm sold on offshore drilling and I think that is where we should focus our efforts, while at the same time strongly promoting research in alternative energy. Let me throw in a plug for nuclear power plants while I am at it. :thumb:

I heard a talking head say there have been no off shore environmental accidents since something like 1969. They even survived Katrina. Can't vouch for the accuracy but no one else on the panel called her on it.

Sure I guess I'd say that, even in spite of the fantastic track record of preventing oils spills from off shore rigs, that there is some small risk present. But when someone is running around saying that new off shore rigs presents a serious environmental risk, when there have been almost no problems with the existing off shore rigs, I'd call that a bogus claim.

 

And risk/benefit analysis happens all the time. If we had plenty of energy and didn't need more oil, I'd probably say why assume the risk of off shore environmental problems, even if it was slight. But given the circumstances present, the need justifies the risk. And when there is a proven track record showing that environmental contamination is extremely slight and there is a proven need for more oil, its a no brainer for me. McCain was correct to change his policy in my opinion.

I agree but I also do not think McCain showed good judgment in opposing additional offshore drilling for so long and he is not showing good judgment in his continued opposition to ANWR drilling. The lead time to bring new oil fields on line is too great to wait on a crisis before taking action.

 

That being said, McCain's decision is better late than never. The question is whether Obama will ever show any leadership on this issue.

The environmentalists would not want off-shore drilling, even if environmental safety could be guaranteed. They aren't in favor of anything that will bring down the price of oil. If the price of oil drops back to 2005 levels, most Americans will go back to how they lived before the price of gas went up and the environmental movement loses all of it's current political power.

I don't disagree with anything you said, except maybe the use of the word "bogus" again...to me that brings to mind something that is completely without merit. I'm sold on offshore drilling and I think that is where we should focus our efforts, while at the same time strongly promoting research in alternative energy. Let me throw in a plug for nuclear power plants while I am at it. :thumb:

 

 

I love Nuke power also. I believe South Carolina gets 60% of its electricity from nuke plants and has done so for years without incident. :thumb: