What a Difference Two Days Makes (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama has flip-flopped on off-shore drilling.
Obama stood firm against offshore drilling as recently as Wednesday at an appearance in Lebanon, MO:
“Please be in favor of offshore production,” Steve Hilton, a retired federal government worker in Lebanon, Mo., implored Obama during a tour of a diner there Wednesday.
“I’m in favor of solving problems,” Obama responded. “What I don’t want to do is say something because it sounds good politically.
Obama seeks to turn the issue on its head, arguing that McCain and Bush are practicing the old politics of simply promising people something that’s symbolic without addressing the real problem. Discounting drilling, he proposes energy rebates, a crackdown on oil speculators who manipulate the market and a renewed focus on energy alternatives.”
Today in Florida, a mere two days later, Obama is willing to support offshore drilling:
“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that’s what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
“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.“
It appears Obama may be trying to support the “Gang of 10” led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., but his almost-daily changing positions make him look like jello.
How can anyone support Obama when everything he says is subject to almost daily change?
UPDATE 1: This Obama campaign statement and this energy policy statement, both of which are still posted at Obama’s website, explain why Obama is opposed to offshore drilling. Someone needs to update the website.
UPDATE 2 (8/2/2008): Hot Air has video.
Say what you want about Bill Clinton; he was an expert floating policy and platform trial balloons to find out which would work during his presidency.
Obama isn’t, which is why he flips, flops and double back flips daily.Paul (2ae585) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:21 pm
That’s true. This must be very frustrating for the Clintons.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:23 pm
When is Baracky going to throw himself under the back of the bus. That is not the energy plan that Baracky knew.JD (5f0e11) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:30 pm
DRJ: What really must be frustrating to the Clintons is that Hillary, who used to be referred to as She Who Speaks Without Notes, lost the nomination to Mr. TelePrompTer.Paul (2ae585) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:32 pm
See what happens to the “say anything to get elected” candidate when his poll results indicate a warning.G (c0157b) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:35 pm
JD: There might not be any room for him under there considering the sizable crowd already beneath it.Paul (2ae585) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:35 pm
I’m not certain that this is that bad of a change. He first says he’s opposed to drilling, and later concedes that he “would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that’s what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.”
That’s not a flip-flop. That’s compromise. You can’t rightly criticize him for being willing to offer concessions to accomplish his goals.Joe M. (150efa) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:37 pm
WTF happened? Could he not figure out how to inflate his tires?Glen Wishard (02562c) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:37 pm
Barack Obama: The Strongest Man In The World!
He must be.Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:43 pm
There is nothing in the world that he can’t throw under that bus.
Joe, read the links DRJ provided.
The AP’s Mike Glover wrote both stories.
It’s a flip-flop.Paul (2ae585) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:48 pm
Barack Obama: The Strongest Man In The World!
He must be.
There is nothing in the world that he can’t throw under that bus.
That bus must be the world’s largest.Paul (2ae585) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:50 pm
It takes a very large bus to haul around that ego.Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2008 @ 6:58 pm
Paul makes a good point that both AP stories have Mike Glover’s byline and it is Glover who describes Obama as “shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling” in the second link.
Also note that even though the first link discusses an Obama appearance in Missouri on Wednesday, the report is dated today so it makes the change in position seem that much more surreal.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:13 pm
One of the things that has always puzzled me is that from my point of view, the current Democrat party is built from coalitions that are in fact in conflict with each other and I’ve been wondering when they would fly apart.
One example is the illegal immigration problem, where the Democrats have a significant constituency in advocacy groups for illegal immigration even as Democrats purport to be representing minorities whose jobs are being taken by illegal aliens or at least find themselves with downward wage pressure from illegal aliens.
Another example is that of extremist environmentalist groups that oppose expansion of domestic energy production – their efforts are preventing any action on lowering fuel prices while the high gas price is killing the domestic auto business and costing thousands of unions jobs in Detroit.
Maybe Obama will be the candidate who screws up a national campaign enough for those groups to fly apart. There are signs of it this summer.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:31 pm
Not to mention the direct conflict between the various constituencies: Women supported Hillary while the younger voters and blacks support Obama.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 7:41 pm
Look, far be it from me to argue that Obama’s an honest guy, and he’s had his share of true flip-flops, but I really don’t think there’s anything here.
He’s clearly against offshore drilling, but recognizes that by giving up a little bit (limited offshore drilling), he might be able to get what he really wants (comprehensive energy policy). It’s the nature of the game. I’ve heard a lot of criticism (mostly true) from the Right (this blog included) that Obama, the supposed bipartisan, has an idea of compromise that everybody else give up theirs and go along with his. Isn’t it encouraging to see him even tip his hat in the direction of a real compromise? Don’t y’all want offshore drilling?
Then what’s the problem?
And really, if this makes a flip-flop, then there’s very little in political bargaining that wouldn’t be a flip-flop. Obama’s not saying he’s changed his mind and that he now thinks offshore drilling would be a great idea, he’s just willing to bargain.Joe M. (150efa) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:07 pm
So also did McCain. Only thing is that he beat Obama to it. They were both against but now they are for it.love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:08 pm
That’s a good point if Obama were President but he’s just a candidate. Is it really time for him to make concessions on policy? If so, then he shouldn’t have been so forceful in stating his policies to begin with.
An experienced, intelligent person realizes that there are two sides of complicated issues and those competing concerns need to be recognized. Apparently Obama didn’t recognize that when it comes to energy, and that makes me worry about his judgment.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:11 pm
I also worry about McCain on economic and energy issues but at least his base is pushing him to take reasonable policies, e.g., the policies both candidates are now embracing. Obama will be much less likely to stick with his current position because his base will push him to take it back.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:14 pm
#16love2008 (c7c069) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:15 pm
And Joe, save your breath. These guys here are not the type you reason with. Unless of course you want to be attacked for daring to say the truth.
Joe M., “comprehensive energy policy” is a fraud. There is no such thing as “comprehensive energy policy” – that’s the delusion Washington has that it creates economies with a wave of a finger.
And that’s one of the reasons I am not fond of McCain and despise Obama – because they both have cases of the delusion.
Washington can’t create a “comprehensive” energy policy. All it can do, is get in the way of allowing the market to coherently price energy. And they have.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:15 pm
love2008, when have you bothered to try to reason with anyone? Spare us the snark when you can’t live up to your own sneer.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:16 pm
Translation: “They actually demanded that I back up my assertions! With facts!!“Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:58 pm
“That’s a good point if Obama were President but he’s just a candidate. Is it really time for him to make concessions on policy?”
Agreed on the POTUS, but I guess all candidates have to play at the “when I’m President” game. Obama just seems to ignore the election more than most.
But he is still a Senator, so the question’s still part of his job.
And recognizing complications doesn’t often (if ever) win votes. I don’t think you could find a politician who isn’t “so forceful stating his policies.”
SPQR: yes, I realize that. And there’s always the “is he really ready to compromise or just posing to look all nice and bi-partisan?” question. I would agree with DRJ that McCain is more likely to stick with the issue because of base pressure, but I still think it’s nice that Obama recognizes the need for compromise, even if he’ll have trouble following through. (of course, if we took everything Obama said at face-value …)
Love: I tend to agree with the folks here more often than not. When I don’t agree … well, there are plenty of folks here with whom I enjoy discussing differences (DRJ being one)–I can learn a lot from their thoughtful and civil responses. But, of course, there are always the more argumentative and partisan types.Joe M. (150efa) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:08 pm
I think that’s generally true. I guess my issue is that Obama had a busload of policies on which he had a clear position but now many of the most important ones seem to have been compromised and some even thrown under the bus. It’s one thing to change on a few policies over the course of an election. It’s another to change on virtually everything you stand for in just one or two months.
I think it’s a sign he isn’t ready for a leadership role, and that’s not a surprise given his limited experience.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:19 pm
Thank you for your comments. It’s a pleasure to discuss this with you, too.DRJ (68f27b) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:28 pm
For the L3s on this blog, you know who you are. The thoughtless bootlickers of the big 0 (zero):
Executive Memo Summary
Juan McCain 22 years 26 years
Urkel Lightworker ZERO 143 DAYS
Had trouble all evening trying this blog and others; apparently problem with Explorer 7 and some connection with sitemeter.com, according to LGFmadmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:39 pm
So I just switched to Mozilla Foxfire…screw Bill Gates and all his incarnations.
DRJ, perhaps there is no point in updating his website when no doubt the wind will blow in the other direction and so too, will he.
His inability to commit to a position reminds me of a college-aged person working through their beliefs and politics, latching onto anything that their peers are pushing. Not good for someone we need to *rely* on for steadfastness and deliberate thinking.Dana (1cc5ab) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:51 pm
Flip-flop, straddle or waffle? Only Obama knows.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2008 @ 9:58 pm
“It’s one thing to change on a few policies over the course of an election. It’s another to change on virtually everything you stand for in just one or two months.”
That I agree with. It’s why I never really could trust Romney, and why I have a hard time with McCain’s new-found conformity.
But at least I’m sure that McCain does stand for something, and something for which I can vote.Joe M. (150efa) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:22 pm
SPQR: hah!Joe M. (150efa) — 8/1/2008 @ 10:23 pm
I can tell we are in general agreement so I apologize in advance for the length of this comment. Feel free to skip this but I have additional thoughts on why it’s important for Presidents and Presidential candidates to be predictable and consistent. I hope you will indulge me if I explain it with an analogy.
To me, a nice part of life is the spontaneity and freedom that comes from traveling in our car on family trips. We can choose almost any destination and stop when and where we want for gas, food, and lodging. We can even change our mind as we travel and go to New Orleans instead of Dallas, or New York instead of LA. Those unplanned changes can cause problems but because we are just a few people in one car, changes don’t cause many problems for us or other travelers.
I also enjoy traveling by commercial jet but it doesn’t offer the same flexibility. Commercial aviation is precisely scheduled and part of a national grid of airports and designated air lanes and patterns. Airlines won’t hold planes because 1 or 2 passengers want to spend more time eating dinner, and they won’t make unscheduled stops because a few passengers decide en route to go to Denver instead of Kansas City. When unscheduled changes do occur, the ripple effects are felt throughout the system.
In my opinion, the impact on government of Presidential policies is more like commercial aviation than a trip in the family car. Unexpected changes have significant, unpredictable effects on government at all levels and on American institutions, businesses and individuals. It’s not unusual for changes in policy to have so many unexpected consequences that the harm outweighs the benefits even if the changes themselves make sense. Frequent or large policy changes can have very good results and very bad results, but most have uneven and unpredictable results. In the meantime, it’s often hard for businesses and people to adjust to those changes without serious side effects.
Of course, there are exceptions – events like WWII and 9/11 force changes that can’t be avoided. But in general I think it’s a good thing when Presidents have clear, consistent, and predictable policies because that lets people and businesses make better decisions for the next 4 years.DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/1/2008 @ 11:11 pm
Shorter DRJ: Change works much better when it comes by popular demand from the ground up rather than by fiat from the top down.DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/1/2008 @ 11:36 pm
DRJ #33 – rather than by fiat from the top down. – Are you adding to your automobile analogy in #32? I usually don’t take political policy from someone in an Italian sportscar.
As for your Airlines…won’t make unscheduled stops because a few passengers decide en route to go to Denver instead of Kansas City. They will if those passengers have semtex and a gun.
Seriously though, your comment is dead-on, and I agree that stability, real and perceived, in a CIC directly translate to economic stability in the US. Only a small percentage of economic transactions are point of purchase. Most require investment of time and capital to make a return, which is why flip-flops are bad for business. Nobody lays a foundation during an earthquake.
And #3 JD – Priceless.Apogee (366e8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 12:12 am
#20 – love2008
These guys here are not the type you reason with. Unless of course you want to be attacked for daring to say the truth.
— There’s the subjective truth in regards to opinion, and the objective truth in regard to facts. That we so often disagree with you on the former is a function of being partisan to a particular political philosophy; nothing really wrong with that, as long as one isn’t too far to the extreme left or right in their views. That we so often prove you wrong on the latter is something where you need to, of your own volition, take a good look at yourself in the mirror. Radio host Dennis Prager has a succinct and straightforward motto: First tell the truth, then give your opinion. I took the time yesterday to write those long posts slamming you for your [paraphrasing] “I don’t see where Obama accused McCain directly of trying to scare people with ‘he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency’ implications,” specifically because you did not approach the subject from a “first tell the truth, then give your opinion” viewpoint. Most of your ‘opinion’ involved questioning the truth!Icy Truth (31efee) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:12 am
Joe M. –
if this makes a flip-flop, then there’s very little in political bargaining that wouldn’t be a flip-flop. Obama’s not saying he’s changed his mind and that he now thinks offshore drilling would be a great idea, he’s just willing to bargain.
— John McCain changed his mind on offshore drilling because he looked at the situation and came to the conclusion that changing circumstances (i.e. gas prices doubling, world demand increasing exponentially) demanded a change in policy to deal with them. For Obama, as you yourself noted, it’s a matter of political expediency and nothing more. McCain is doing it because it’s the right thing to do; his decision was pragmatic. Obama is doing it for the sake of appearing successful; his decision was calculated.
The other big difference is that people on McCain’s side of the aisle are applauding him for making what they feel is the correct decision. Considering that the ‘no new drilling whatsoever’ crowd is on Obama’s side of the aisle, do you think that he can make the same claim of doing what they think is the correct thing to do?Icy Truth (31efee) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:29 am
McCain is doing it because it’s the right thing to do; his decision was pragmatic. Obama is doing it for the sake of appearing successful; his decision was calculated.
The other big difference is that people on McCain’s side of the aisle are applauding him for making what they feel is the correct decision. Considering that the ‘no new drilling whatsoever’ crowd is on Obama’s side of the aisle, do you think that he can make the same claim of doing what they think is the correct thing to do?love2008 (c7c069) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:11 am
How do you read your comments and not see how partisan it is an subjective? You want to convince us that John McCain flip flopping on oil drilling is not flip flopping but doing what he thinks is the “right thing to do..” You also added that his decision was “pragmatic”.. But Obama doing the same thing is ” for the sake of appearing successful” You also added that his decision was strategic.
So if McCain does it, oh he is doing something noble and patriotic but Obama? No, he is doing it for political expediency. Just listen to your self Mr Icy TRUTH. This is the same Obama who at the risk of his political gain withstood the gas tax holiday program which Hillary Clinton and John McCAin were advocating for even when every economics said it was not a smart thing to do. But she was doing it to win votes because it was the popular thing to say. At a time Obama was just recovering from a major political upset he still spoke against it, putting his political life at risk. Judge righteous judgment.
How do you know that what Bambi says is what he’ll actually do?
You who support him are pretending that at some slice of time, Bambi’s statements will lead to actual action.
What, exactly, has he done that leads you to believe that he will do what he says on any particular day?steve miller (eba841) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:27 am
Um, yeah, Madam Kettle? There’s this message from a Senor Pot…
“Every economics”, huh? Wow, then it should be easy to provide one that says what you allege.
Judgment, indeed. Oh, and “major political upset”? At what point in the last two years has he not been in a “major political upset”? Running for President (rather than running his Senate office) and throwing anyone and everyone he can reach to toss them under the bus the instant they become any sort of embarrassment – his preacher of 20+ years (and every member of that church), his TWP grandmother, his long-held principles, you name it…..
But if “major political upset” was enough to excuse his resulting mistakes, then you should have absolutely no complaints about how Bush has handled things, since he has been under an even greater upset for the last eight years.
Since it isn’t, you won’t, and will completely ignore the partisan and subjective behavior you are displaying.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:04 am
Steve raises a good point. Why would you vote for Obama just because you hope that he is lying now?Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:05 am
Hot Air shows (I think in a Headline and not a main page story) that Obama has just flipflopped on reparations too.andycanuck (f5bd40) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:29 am
McCain flipped because he perceived the need for more oil for the American people, BO flipped because perceived the need for more votes from the American people. In other words he’s buying votes.Hazy (d671ab) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:42 am
So congress leaves without an energy policy because it can’t compromise. And now Obama signals compromises — more drilling on existing leases and more leases when these run out.
And apparently this is a problem.afall (1d0ada) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:43 am
http://www.wishtv.com/ has a video of young white chicks registering young black men to vote. They told them BO was going to give them $1,000.00 cash, and lower their gas prices. This was the day before O announced the $1000 vote buying gift. I wonder how many would spend that money on gas.Hazy (d671ab) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:52 am
True. The Republicans want to increase domestic supply, Democrats want to raise taxes on consumption.
What happened to SanFranNan’s urge to lower gas prices two years ago? How’s their majority working out?Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 8:53 am
There is nothing in the world that he can’t throw under that bus.
Getting more difficult as the wheels are currently coming off. Maybe they were removed for proper inflation. Yea, that’s the ticket.Chris (da1e70) — 8/2/2008 @ 10:26 am
Saying that drilling must be considered as part of a broader energy policy is the political equivalent of saying .. “I’d like to talk about something else” as this stance gives him the final option, most notably after the election, to simply say no.
There is no real change .. Obama just doesn’t like being beaten about the head and face by an issue that he knows will take him down. His energy policy (as outlined on his web site) has no such point that would include additional oil drilling and he has repeatedly said that it won’t help.Neo (cba5df) — 8/2/2008 @ 11:07 am
The only thing, other than Baracky’s position, that changed in the last 2 days were the polling numbers, both overall, and on drilling. Remarkably (not) that Baracky’s change is yet again the politically easy and expedient choice.JD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 1:02 pm
“Saying that drilling must be considered as part of a broader energy policy is the political equivalent of saying .. “I’d like to talk about something else” as this stance gives him the final option, most notably after the election, to simply say no.”
No matter what the effect drilling has on prices, we won’t drill our way out of dependence on oil. So drilling needs to be seen in the context of energy policy, not just in the context of doing what oil company funded PR groups want us to do.afall (3e5877) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:36 pm
No, but until a better source of portable energy comes along, drilling WILL help us pay for the ongoing need for that oil, by increasing supply, driving down speculation, and diverting money from nations that don’t like us (Venezuela is just one example) to our own economy.
But by NOT drilling, we aren’t doing anything but punishing the poor (pensioners and those on fixed incomes who need the energy to keep cool during the summer, keep warm during the winter) and giving our money to unfriendly despots.
Saying “we won’t drill our way out of dependence on oil” is like saying “we won’t grow our way out of dependence on food”.
We need energy to move our economy. Until a source providing more ergs for less money comes along, it is the source we have.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:48 pm
That’s not a flip-flop. That’s compromise. You can’t rightly criticize him for being willing to offer concessions to accomplish his goals.
Comment by Joe M. — 8/1/2008 @ 6:37 pm
Yes you can criticize him. He is flip flopping not to offer concessions, he is doing it to win the election. As he drops in the polls, don’t be surprized if he chooses Hillary for VP. He will truly do and say anything to win an election. John McCain changed on oil drilling because he saw the need. Obama changed whe he saw the polls drop. Stop making excuses for Obama the copy cat.Loretta (c45cc4) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:49 pm
Oops. My mistake on comment #37 “Economists” not “Economics”.love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 2:51 pm
As Obama’s poll numbers drop we’ll be seeing more flip-flops; I guess we should start taking bets on what the next one will be. The major “change” we’re seeing is in Obama’s positions during the course of this election – of course all of this motion will be obfuscated beneath an eloquent speech. At least Hillary didn’t pretend to be above it all. Let Obama stick to his goal of becoming President of the World and let Hillary or McCain lead the US.Art (f68008) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:23 pm
Yeah, we know. However, you still haven’t bothered to provide a single one who says that lowering the price of fuel (by suspending the prohibitively high gasoline tax) is a bad thing.
Imagine that…Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:29 pm
And you KNOW that if Obama is elected, he will immediately start running for UN Secretary-General.
(Isn’t there a Book that mentions this chain of events somewhere? Written on the Isle of Patmos?)Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 3:30 pm
#37 – love2008
Obama doing the same thing is ” for the sake of appearing successful” You also added that his decision was strategic.
— Did you read this Obama quote that DRJ put in boldface within her column? “I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
While you might think that he should be praised for being more flexible than most of his colleagues, to be honest about it you could acknowledge that he is admitting that he doesn’t want the limited drilling. If he were dead-set against drilling and not interested in making political points on this issue he wouldn’t change his position at all.
You want to convince us that John McCain flip flopping on oil drilling is not flip flopping but doing what he thinks is the “right thing to do..”
— We aren’t distressed by his change of mind because we support drilling. He new position is better than the previous one in our eyes. Hence my point that the environmentalist left may not feel the same way about their chosen candidate; his concession to limited drilling could make him appear worse in their eyes.Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:48 pm
#54love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:55 pm
Try this for size Drum.</a
#57love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 4:59 pm
Why don’t you let them be the judge of that Icy. You worry too much. Take a rest and a bottle of diet coke or something.
I think lovie misses the point that we do not believe Baracky. His record (limited to present and Leftism) does not suggest that any of his politically expedient changes of position are anything other than campaign rhetoric. His words quit having any meaning the moment after he utters them.JD (5f0e11) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:01 pm
Well well well. Its seems as though the general population of people who support tomfoolery have gained access to the internet blogs at alarming rates since Obama won the nomination. That tomfoolery which is directly linked to those who support the point guard, if I will, of the “Keating 5.” (if you dont know about it… Do your research)
But even more importantly, Most of Mr. Keating 5’s supporters seem to be mis-informed terribly. Has Obama flip flopped?… NO Has Obama shown that he’s capable of compromise?… Yes Because you must understand, that in order for Obama to compromise, then the “other side” had to have compromised, by involving certain provisions set forth for any additional off shore oil drilling. See “you” the mis-informed… See the words off shore drilling and immediately associate that with lower gas prices… But no one, nowhere has guranteed any change in gas prices would occur by expanding on off shore drilling… So, Obama is simply saying that if his interest are protected…. (safe environment, low fuel prices, better energy solutions etc…) i.e. if the other side would compromise, then he would support the expansion… Am I not telling you anything that isnt published plain as day on CNN? But our McWar supporters are blinding yourselves to the t.r.u.t.h. Mr. “Keating 5” the same guy who helped Mr. Diamond purchase that army base in Californina for 250k so he could flip it, selling it for 20 million (like he didnt get a piece of that money) He is and his supporters are only interested in what a loose connon minded “control freak” like McSurge would have at his finger tips, if elected president…
Not so fast McIgnorant… Your the lesser man of the two and you are also the dummer of the two, by FAR!!! And quite lastly… McDumbo should be thrilled Hillary Clinton wasnt a Republican because it would be an Obama vs. Clinton 2008 presidential race for sure.
Democrat 2008! We cant be denied!MrOpinionated (52a6fb) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:01 pm
DRJ wrote (in the “This Is Stunning — Kim Jong Pelosi Running House Like Hugo Chavez” thread): Obama now says he is willing to support off-shore drilling. That’s a good decision but, frankly, I’m embarrassed for him and his supporters. Is there any principle he won’t disavow to get elected?
— And you thought it was just me.Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:01 pm
Oh, and it’s Diet Pepsi, Diet Mountain Dew, or Diet Dr. Pepper.
And I’ll stand back & let the Dems judge their own as soon as you do the same for the GOP.Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:04 pm
MrOpinionated is a drive by like those other asshats earlier today.
The Baracky fanatics are kind of creepy.JD (5f0e11) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:14 pm
“Saying “we won’t drill our way out of dependence on oil” is like saying “we won’t grow our way out of dependence on food”.”
Except that we won’t replace food. But we can replace oil.afall (78b017) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:16 pm
Hey, we’re replacing oil with food!
And what has happended to the price of food as a result?Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:19 pm
MrOpinionated seems to actually be Mr.Misrepresentation. It is a flat out lie to call McCain the “point guard” of the Keating 5, as unlike the rest, McCain was not found to have actually violated any ethics rules.
Now we see that according to the bizarre thought processes of Mr.Opinionated, we have to “guarantee” price decreases before there can be any drilling offshore. But all we have to do is air up our tires?
Do these loons actually have any clue about how basic economics works? Evidently not a single clue.
What this really shows is that Democrats are so beholden to extremist environmental movements, that they will throw all of America under the bus to avoid crossing them. High gas prices hurt the lowest economic classes the most, too bad – because the Democrats worry more that they might piss off the Sierra Club than how the poor are dealing with the problem. Autoworkers thrown out of work by the loss of sales volume of Detroit’s car manufacturers? Too bad, can’t upset the Sierra Club.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:19 pm
#56love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:21 pm
Why don’t you let them be the judge of that Icy. You worry too much. Take a rest and a bottle of diet coke or something.
And BTW Icy, when you say We aren’t distressed by his change of mind because we support drilling, by “we” are you talking about the Reps as a party? Because I know some Reps who are against it.
I know. It’s embarrassing.
afall, we cannot replace oil in significant percentages over anything like decades. The Democrats think we can do it in months.
Further, there are not any “alternative” energy sources with any chance of making significant contributions to America’s total energy needs in the medium term. Our only serious alternative for power generation is nuclear energy. But loony environmentalists prevent that.
In fact, while we have twits like Obama admiring the Europeans, the Germans are actually stupidly increasing their carbon output by decommissioning nuclear power plants and replacing them with fossil fuel generation.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:22 pm
I did, and the research says that McCain was cleared of any alleged impropriety, even though he was chastised for “poor judgment”.
Sounds like someone didn’t do his research.
I can’t top this, folks…Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:23 pm
Love, I was taking license in speaking for a majority of conservatives. [I’m not a Republican; I’m an independent who supports McCain.]Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:26 pm
Oh, and Lovey, your pathetic attempt at a link above (#57) failed just as routinely as the rest of your arguments.
I even tried cut and paste but came up with nothing but an advertisement for websites.
Yet another analogy for the Democratic Party – “we’ve got nothing to offer but you can send us your money anyway!”
By that “we”, I’m quite sure that he is referring to the bipartisan 70% of the population that would gladly see the roads to those drill sites in ANWR made from caribou bones.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:33 pm
The Sierra Club is running TV commercials lauding Obama’s “plan” which is basically yet another set of market-distorting tax credits on useless “alternative” energy schemes and then stealing from the rich to give a $1000 to the poor.
That’s it. Nothing that would actually lower the price of oil by increasing supply. Because we know that in fact Obama is not unhappy about high gas prices, he thinks that they ought to be high. He just wants to suck all that money into his grubby hands to decide who ought to have it.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:35 pm
#59love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:45 pm
Hi JD. I couldn’t recognize you without those “Racist” comments. I wish you would stick to that. Leave all this serious talk alone. You’ve got a talent there. Please don’t abandon it.
Now, one more time, knock me off of my seat. (Holding my breath from exploding in uncontrollable laughter)…say it….please…
#71love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:50 pm
Drum, that is not the link I knew before.
Lovey…Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/2/2008 @ 5:56 pm
Then shall I just accept that you are making shit up (again), or do you want to try again?Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:09 pm
Right, SPQR. I had forgotten about that one. He did not have a problem with the high prices, just how quickly the prices increased.
lovie – When you start talking serious, maybe someone will take you seriously.JD (712926) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:20 pm
#75love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:34 pm
#76love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 6:58 pm
Here it is Drum.
#79love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:05 pm
I have tried posting the link but it seems to be redirecting to another place. What am I doing wrong? Anybody?
I’m already in the middle of writing one book; I don’t have the time to start another.Icy Truth (94cc06) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:12 pm
Even the Internet is tired of your bullshit…Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:17 pm
#82love2008 (1b037c) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:31 pm
Just say you don’t have a solution to it or simply keep quiet Drum.
Hey, the failure is clearly the interface between the back of your chair and your keyboard, so don’t blame me…Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/2/2008 @ 7:40 pm