April 1, 201016 yr I'm not sure what the "too good to be true" part is but I think you are right in that he's trying to throw a bone. However, IMO it gets him nowhere just like it got him nowhere with the health insurance debate when he tried to go bipartisan. In this case, the Rs are still not showing any love and many of the Progressives that support him are not happy. Add in that IMO its more symbolic than productive and its a no-win situation. You really believe that?
April 1, 201016 yr You really believe that? Absolutely. He tried to work with all sides and it got him nowhere for a long time. He could have taken the route he did many months ago but he tried to get R support and it didn't work.
April 1, 201016 yr Good decision.. One of the very few Obama has made.... Can't wait to hear the tree huggers cry...Let's see if I can drum up a video from the news last night. Oh heck, just go to tbo.com. They're having conniption fits here, protesting and signing petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide everywhere. The traffic jams going to the "Save the Planet" rallies are outrageous. Seriously, the media found handful of protesters down on the docks and made out like it was the million man march.
April 2, 201016 yr The initiation of possible drilling has been pushed back via this policy update. There were take aways with this update. It is not a sudden conversion to "Drill here, drill now". It has components of delay that make it "Drill here (maybe), drill later (after we do more exporing and studying)". The MSM spin is "Pragmatic Obama..." (LHL yesterday). Like most things you have to look at the details and fine print. This does open 'exploration' it does nothing for 'drilling'. The two are different things. This is red herring move to deflect the heat of the HC takeover. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/31/obama-energy-announcement-more-imported-oil-less-domestic-production-fewer-jobs/ What the President announced today at-a-glance: - Cancelled five lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned over the next 2 years. One of the areas is estimated to hold up to 77 billion barrels of oil, or more than 3 times US reserves. - A study of the southern Atlantic OCS, with the findings due back next year….no leasing - Delaying a planned lease sale off Virginia until at least 2012 http://timescheck.com/2010/04/01/nyt-should-report-on-iers-criticisms-of-obamas-oil-drilling-plans/
April 2, 201016 yr Well we all know it will be G. W.'s fault if the prices don't go down! Nah, it'll probably be Bill Clinton's fault.
April 2, 201016 yr I think this is a move to gain more independents too, as we all know that they are rising in numbers. But Mr. Obama is defintely looking ahead to 2012. Couples questions here: 1) How does this affect gas prices? 2)How does this play into foreign relations with those middle eastern countries that provide us with our oil. They can't be too happy about this...
April 2, 201016 yr I see this as purely symbolic step designed to win-over voters who can be misled into believing this decision will actually result in additional domestic drilling. It won't, Obama knows that, which is why he is willing to take that step. If he were truly interested in increasing docmestic production he would not have the numerous conditions before drilling can take place and he would allow drilling in areas that are more likely to yield oil. I believe it a prelude to trying to get Cap-n-Tax legislation passed. Obama will cite this decision as proof of his willingness to pursue a comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic oil production with out actually taking a meaningful step toward increased production. This is a decision designed soley to provide political cover.
April 2, 201016 yr I see this as purely symbolic step designed to win-over voters who can be misled into believing this decision will actually result in additional domestic drilling. It won't, Obama knows that, which is why he is willing to take that step. Was it different when it was mentioned time and time again as a republican talking point in the 08 election?
April 2, 201016 yr I see this as purely symbolic step designed to win-over voters who can be misled into believing this decision will actually result in additional domestic drilling. It won't, Obama knows that, which is why he is willing to take that step. If he were truly interested in increasing docmestic production he would not have the numerous conditions before drilling can take place and he would allow drilling in areas that are more likely to yield oil. I believe it a prelude to trying to get Cap-n-Tax legislation passed. Obama will cite this decision as proof of his willingness to pursue a comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic oil production with out actually taking a meaningful step toward increased production. This is a decision designed soley to provide political cover. Agreed.. Nothing but smoke and mirrors to win over some voters...
April 2, 201016 yr Was it different when it was mentioned time and time again as a republican talking point in the 08 election? Yes it was different. Sarah Palin was on record as advocating drilling in Anwar. This does not do that. Also, the "Drill-here! Drill now!" initiative did not include all the hurdles that that Obama has put on drilling in these areas. If Obama is really doing something that the Republicans mentioned time and time again in '08, something Obama did not support during the '08 campaign, them my question to you is why did he change his mind? If you stuggle to find that answer, it might dawn on you in the coming weeks as Obama begins his push for Cap-n-Tax in ernest.
April 2, 201016 yr Yes it was different. Sarah Palin was on record as advocating drilling in Anwar. This does not do that. Also, the "Drill-here! Drill now!" initiative did not include all the hurdles that that Obama has put on drilling in these areas. If Obama is really doing something that the Republicans mentioned time and time again in '08, something Obama did not support during the '08 campaign, them my question to you is why did he change his mind? If you stuggle to find that answer, it might dawn on you as Obama begins his push for Cap-n-Tax in ernest. He's not advocating opening up ANWAR, is he? I don't know why he changed his mind. However, I don't find changing one's mind necessarily to be a weakness. Instead, as we learn more and more, changing one's mind can be a strength.
April 2, 201016 yr The oil in Alaska is ready now..... What Obama is opening up the "exploration"of is years down the road... Why not go after the oil that's readily available... Smoke and mirrors..
April 2, 201016 yr Lets look at ANWR (no 'a'). http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf Note the proposed development area - 3.3 square miles. Well to the west side of the ANWR Coastal Plain, which is a subset of the ANWR Wilderness Area, which is a subset of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) which is about the size of the entire state of South Carolina. If you go to Myrtle Beach you know you could develop a 3.3 square mile area in the swamps and no one would notice. What about the sensitive Caribou? Look at this map. It seems the Caribou like the east side of the Coastal Plain. What is interesting is the source of the Caribou map is the wiki page for Alaska Refuge Drilling Controversy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy They do not show the designated development area on any map. When you overlay the maps it is clear that the proposed development area is well away from the primary caribou range. Interesting website: http://www.anwr.org/ Edited April 2, 201016 yr by Bluegrasscard Link to first photo did not work.
April 3, 201016 yr Lets look at ANWR (no 'a'). http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf Note the proposed development area - 3.3 square miles. Well to the west side of the ANWR Coastal Plain, which is a subset of the ANWR Wilderness Area, which is a subset of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) which is about the size of the entire state of South Carolina. If you go to Myrtle Beach you know you could develop a 3.3 square mile area in the swamps and no one would notice. What about the sensitive Caribou? Look at this map. It seems the Caribou like the east side of the Coastal Plain. What is interesting is the source of the Caribou map is the wiki page for Alaska Refuge Drilling Controversy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy They do not show the designated development area on any map. When you overlay the maps it is clear that the proposed development area is well away from the primary caribou range. Interesting website: http://www.anwr.org/ Try not to confuse the environmentalists with too many facts at one time. They may explode and think of the cost of cleaning up. Although there may not be too much to clean up, because they have been reading the calorie counts at the fast food joints.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.