President Backs Offshore Drilling

[1979Shocker]

President Obama sure is making it tough for Republicans.

Obama backs drilling in Atlantic, Gulf

WASHINGTON - Shaking up years of energy policy and his own environmental backers, President Barack Obama threw open a huge swath of East Coast waters and other protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to drilling Wednesday, widening the politically explosive hunt for more homegrown oil and gas.

Obama's move allows drilling from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska, and exploration could begin 50 miles off the coast of Virginia by 2012. He also wants Congress to lift a drilling ban in the oil-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico, 125 miles from Florida beaches.

Still off limits: the entire Pacific seaboard. And in a nod to conservation, Obama canceled oil exploration in Alaska's Bristol Bay, deeming the area a national treasure.

[WuDrWu]

I don't understand.....how is he making it tough for the GOP?


This is a good idea, and I for one applaud him for it, BUT it makes no sense to allow this and NOT allow Pacific and Alaska exploration.

Unless of course he knows where all the oil is and isn't, or the decision was made strictly for political benefit, which given his tremendous success record, is the most likely reason.

[BenWSU]

How can he present himself as a green minded president that wants everyone driving electric cars and recycling while he wants to drill for oil ???

[RoyalShock]

How can he present himself as a green minded president that wants everyone driving electric cars and recycling while he wants to drill for oil ???

He halts exploration in other areas to even things out.

[1979Shocker]

I don't understand.....how is he making it tough for the GOP?


This is a good idea, and I for one applaud him for it, BUT it makes no sense to allow this and NOT allow Pacific and Alaska exploration.

Unless of course he knows where all the oil is and isn't, or the decision was made strictly for political benefit, which given his tremendous success record, is the most likely reason.

It's simple. What President Obama is for, the Republicans seem to be against and what President Obama is against, the Republicans seem to be for.

For example, the Republicans actually started the insurance mandate back in the 1990s. Now, when President Obama is for mandates, Republicans are now against it.

Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate

Then there is the Bipartisan Deficit Commission that Republicans supported. But then after President Obama adopted it, some Republicans backed out.

Obama Accuses Republicans of Flip-Flopping on Stimulus, Deficit Panel

Obama also criticized Republicans for opposing a bill to create a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit, saying that seven GOP senators who once co-sponsored the bill then voted against it.

Another one is the Pay-As-You-Go which Republicans were for. But now that President Obama endorsed it, more Republicans were against it.

There are probably others, but that's all a quick Google turned up.

So that's basically why I said it would be tough for Republicans. Do they continue to support offshore drilling? Or are they now against it because President Obama is for it?

Remember what some Republicans were saying about the Healthcare bill. If they can keep the bill from passing, "this will break him" and "this will be his Waterloo".

[Maggie]

1979Shocker – a couple comments because it is not as black and white as you make out:

To begin with President Obama did announce plans to lift the moratorium on oil exploration and development in Atlantic coastal waters as well as further activity off Florida’s Gulf Coast. He, apparently, changed his mind on this issue. Good for him and as a person who has been highly critical of his pie-in-the-sky energy policy – I’ll cautiously give him his due. But if he thinks this move is going to help him acquire more support (from the GPO at least) for his cap and trade bill – he is crazy.

With regard to the individual mandate: A few commentators have noted that some Republicans (and more recently, Mitt Romney) have supported mandatory health coverage in the past. My response to that is: So what. Allegations of hypocrisy are not arguments. Stay focused on the merits of the policy. If someone wants to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they should simply make their case. Just because some members of the GOP supported a version or versions of the individual mandate in the past does not mean it automatically passes constitutional muster.

With regard to the deficit panel: Skeptical congressional Republicans are right to dismiss the credibility of this effort from the get-go. In my judgment, this looks like a partisan set-up, and certainly not a genuine bipartisan exercise. Moreover, it’s designed mainly to protect the President, not to solve a pressing national problem that the administration has made worse with the policies it is pursuing. A primary reason for long-term budgetary imbalance is out-of-control spending on health-care entitlements. And so what do the Democrats do? Pass another runaway health-care entitlement, of course.

If any further evidence is needed that the deficit panel is a farce and should not be taken seriously by Republicans, it can be found in the laughable timeline the White House is pushing for the commission’s recommendations and follow-on congressional action. The plan is to have the commission spend most of this year behind closed doors coming up with the most far-reaching tax hikes and spending cuts seen in a generation. Then, after voters have already cast their ballots in the mid-term congressional elections in November, the commission would make its recommendations known and the lame-duck Congress would take them up and pass them in a matter of weeks, with almost no time for public debate. And politicians wonder why the electorate is cynical.

The fundamental problem here is lack of presidential leadership. If the President thinks the long-term budget outlook is a serious threat to economic prosperity, he needs to do more than talk about it and punt the solution to a commission.

[SubGod22]

As far as the oil thing goes, I believe he just closed off more areas of exploration than he opened. He's hoping people don't pay attention to more than just the headline.

[1979Shocker]

On the offshore drilling, I read or heard that when his presidential campaign first got started, he was completely against it. Then later on in his campaign, he said he would look into it. Now it looks like he's accepting it with a few restrictions.