Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOffshore Drilling Is Coming to a Vote
Democrats to Offer a Mix of Proposals
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats, balancing political reality against a policy they have long opposed, are on the cusp of approving legislation that would open the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to oil drilling as close as 50 miles offshore.
![[Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., left, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., center, look on as House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., right, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/democrats.jpg "democrats.jpg")
With votes scheduled this week in the House and Senate, Democrats have essentially given up defending the current ban on drilling within 200 miles offshore along both coasts. Instead, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they are offering a mix of proposals that would allow drilling, with the waters off Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia most likely to be the first affected.
Environmentalists and industry analysts disagree over the impact the various legislative proposals would have on oil production, with industry experts contending that the most precious reserves still would be off-limits. But both sides agree that -- because of the politics of $4-a-gallon gasoline this summer and a pending legislative deadline -- the nearly 40-year drilling ban is in jeopardy.
"It's in deep, deep trouble. I won't pronounce it dead, but it's in deep trouble," said Warner Chabot, a vice president of the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group opposed to drilling.
House and Senate Democrats have been assembling different proposals for the past few weeks after absorbing months of Republican criticism as gas prices soared. Under pressure from moderate Democrats fearful of November election losses, Pelosi took the first formal step Wednesday by unveiling a proposal that would open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling at least 100 miles offshore. If governors and state legislatures agree, drilling off each state's coast would be allowed 50 miles from shore.
Pelosi had previously suggested opening only portions of the southeastern Atlantic coast and some of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, but ultimately offered to allow drilling off both coastlines. The eastern gulf off Florida's west coast would remain off-limits.
Under the Pelosi bill, scheduled for a vote Tuesday, the federal government would not share royalties with the states, devoting the money instead toward federal funding for renewable energy resources. Taxes on oil companies would be increased, with that revenue also going to alternative energy sources.
A separate proposal, developed by about 20 Senate Democrats and Republicans, also would move the drilling boundary to 100 miles offshore, with states given the option to set it at 50 miles. But under that plan, new Atlantic drilling would be limited to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Senate plan would allow no drilling in the Pacific.
In a key difference with Pelosi's bill, the Senate legislation would allow new drilling off Florida's west coast.
Some industry experts question the effect of the proposals, citing federal studies that show that more than 80 percent of known oil reserves are inside the 50-mile limit and therefore unavailable. Very little is known about oil reserves beyond 100 miles. Waters off almost the entire Pacific coast -- where all three governors oppose drilling at the 50-mile barrier -- is considered too deep for drilling 100 miles offshore.
"You would just open a door to an empty room at the end of a very long hallway," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, an organization funded by the oil industry. Kennedy also said that, without some sort of revenue sharing for state governments, there would be little incentive for states to approve additional drilling.
With revenue sharing, Virginia and Georgia would quickly approve offshore drilling at the 50-mile mark, Kennedy and some environmental experts predicted. The biggest target for new drilling at the 100-mile mark would be in the Georges Bank, off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, where cod fishing was once the dominant industry. Oil and natural gas already are extracted not far away, in Canadian waters.
The most sought-after area, however, is the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida's western coast. Drilling rigs already operate in the gulf off Houston, New Orleans and Mississippi, giving oil producers a near-certain guarantee of finding oil near Florida. It also would be less costly for producers to move their production and delivery systems to the other side of the gulf than to place new rigs in previously unexplored regions of the Atlantic or Pacific.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has vowed to filibuster any legislation that would open the waters off Florida's western beach resorts, to protect his state's tourism industry and the military testing areas for Navy and Air Force bases in the region. "If they want to get something done, they have to deal with me," Nelson said in an interview Friday.
Republicans have been skeptical about Pelosi's proposal, because environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have endorsed it as "a chance for clean energy gains that would represent a giant step in solving our energy crisis."
Many lawmakers privately predict the energy legislation will stall in parliamentary gridlock, but Congress has its own statutory deadline to deal with by Sept. 30. At that point, the annual congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires. President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling early this summer.
That means Pelosi has barely two weeks to forge a compromise or face the end of the moratorium. That would allow drilling within three miles off all coasts. Faced with such a predicament, Democrats are increasingly likely to add their new drilling legislation to a catchall spending bill that will fund most of the government into next year.
Such a decision would dare Bush to veto the legislation and shut down the federal government over the GOP's preferred drilling plan. But if Republicans accepted the compromise, it would lead to increased offshore oil drilling under the watch of a Democratic Congress, a concept that was unfathomable just six weeks ago.
98 Comments so far
Show AllOil is now down to a price which makes exploration in marginal areas uneconomic. The result will be a shortfall in supply from established fields, leading again to accelerating energy costs, even with demand destruction. The result will be economic and social collapse. This will happen within the next two years, and will be nightmarish, and irreversible. We have had some great times; they are over.
Neither Obama nor McCain have the skills necessary to make the slightest difference.
Voting for a Republican or Democrat is like signing your own death warrant. Their words are empty and their deeds dark. Corruption is now consuming itself.
Stay away from it and prepare yourself for rough times. This country must go through a cleansing.
Look at that first sentence:
"Congressional Democrats, balancing political reality against a policy they have long opposed, are on the cusp of approving legislation that would open the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to oil drilling as close as 50 miles offshore."
This political reality is one that they've had an active role in creating.
The Republican party may be vicious, anti-science, corporate theocrats whose social consciousness is modeled on a tank of sharks in feeding frenzy, but one thing they do understand is that eventually the Democrats will give them everything they want. And so we arrive at the present day.
Also, Samson (September 15th, 2008 9:27 pm) has got it exactly right. Let a Green get any attention, and you'll see the Dems fight like enraged bobcats.
The oil companies should pay us up front for the privilege to wreck our coastlines.
Under pressure from moderate Democrats fearful of November election losses...
-that's BULL, they approve because it's good for Big Oil who is a major player in our oligarchy. Whether Dems win or lose will not have that big an effect on policy because the policy has already been set.
The pressure is not from the people, most of who realize it will be 10 years before it hits the market and even then it may not relieve prices because of the way Big Oil can game the system.
Don't you just love how the Democrats sell us out time and time again with no shortage of bloggers crying out for you to vote for them. They sold us out on:
1. The war/occupation
2. Impeachment
3. FISA
4 Getting ready to sell us on off shore drilling
When will the people wake up and understand that the Dems and Pugs alike are run by the same powers that be and it doesn't matter that much which of the two mainstream parties controls the government. The policies have already been basically set and it's their job to carry them out.
You are absolutely right. They just think we have "nowhere else to go". It's not true. Where we have to go is hell, following along the duopoly that the Dems/Repub have become.
You were too nice. That's the short version of the short list.
For instance, you left out the pet project of the Senator from Mastercard (Biden-Delaware) --- the Bankruptcy reform bill that is hurting so many Americans today.
You also left out the Dems refusal to block any far conservative judges from the Supreme Court.
Of course, the problem is that I'd better quit writing this because otherwise I'll be here all night, tomorrow, into the next day, into next week .....
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Sorry Samson, but I was in a hurry. You're 100% correct that short list doesn't do the Dem betrayal justice. So I'll add a few more. It still omits many important backstabbings:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction.
11)Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (offshore drilling?)
This paltry list is really just a fraction of the things we need to hold the Democrats accountable for.
p.s. Your samsonsworld.blogspot.com rocks! I like the way you deconstructed Obama's speech. Well done. KUDOS!
"Guile" is the wrong word.
It's "Cowardice" - once again failing to counter Republican propaganda that drilling is the answer. And once again, making the Republicans seem correct when in fact they are wrong. Pelosi needs to go. She is so spineless.
Website on the environmental impact of offshore drilling:
http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html
From the offshore oil industry:
http://www.offshore-technology.com
Group opposed to more offshore drilling:
http://www.culturechange.org/caoe.html
I would argue they are not cowards! They succumb because they are in agreement with the Republican agenda.
Amen ... you beat me to it.
The Democrats are not cowards. Take a look at them as they fight Nader and the Greens. They sure don't pull any punches when fighting those to their left. Its only when they constantly give the Republicans everything they want that we hear this bull about them being 'cowards'.
To me, calling them 'cowards' is a part of the cover story. The Dems want to convince their base to stick with them, to keep voting for them, despite the fact that every action they take always screws these same people. So, they concoct this line of bull about them being 'cowards' to try to convince these voters that the Dems really mean well, and if you just keep electing them then someday they might do the right thing.
The problem is, they'll never do the right thing because they are subservient to the same big money that runs the Republicans. The bit about being 'cowards' is just to hide this inconvenient truth.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Guileful Democrats? What an oxymoron.
Actually, I'd disagree. I think they have great guile. The words scheming and manipulative also come to mind.
To me, this 'we are too stupid to oppose' myth the Democrats try to spread is just a cover story. The big issue is that the Democrats represent big money and rake in big contributions to their party and campaigns by doing so. But this of course puts a very different set of demands on their party than what their base still expects.
In trying to deal with this, 'guileful' comes to mind as a description of the Democrats. Along with scheming, manipulative, liars, and some other words I won't type where children might read them.
The Democrats pretend to be political idiots as a cover.
In fact, this is one very excellent case. The Democrats have done nothing to oppose this. They've completely let the Republicans control the political argument and have done nothing in opposition. For instance, you haven't seen say the Democratic leaders of Congress holding a news conference on a beautiful gulf coast beach, and using that setting to point out the damage that offshore drilling will do. Or, you haven't seen political ads that compare the pictures of a beach like that to the mess that's left behind by an oil spill.
There are some very powerful arguments that could be made against this. There are some great visuals they could use to make their point. The key thing to notice about the Democrats is that they do none of this. They deliberately let the Republicans control the political argument in favor of drilling. Then they "bow to political reality" and give the Republicans what they wanted. And, to really know what's going on, they also give their big money contributors what they wanted all along.
The Dems these days will do what big money wants. The rest is just a charade to fool everyone into thinking they are an alternative to the Republicans.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
This is very well said, and entirely accurate. I might add that for the Dems to claim they have to pass this bill, because they fear losing seats in November if they don't, only reveals whose votes they really care about--the wishy-washy moderates who still aren't sure if they want to vote for Obama, or stay on the "safe" side with McCain. The Pelosi-Reid-Hoyer contingent don't give a flying fuck about progressives' votes. They don't even want our vote, believing like the morons they are that they can win without us. Pelosi hates progressives and liberals and it's time we returned the sentiment. Don't vote for these pricks. Vote third party or don't vote at all.
Democrat is an oxymoron all by itself.
lol!
So, what else is new with the Democrats?
Pelosi has been one big disappointment for the Democrats, but a bonanza for her Republican friends.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress!
"Cindy Sheehan for Congress!"
NOT LIKELY that's going to happen. Please see my comment below about Cindy's pathetic campaign here in San Francisco.
Sam: You made some points about Cindy's campaign style which may have merit in them. You might be a Pelosi supporter and are trying to discredit Sheehan and her staff, but if you are fed up with Pelosi's support for her friend, George W. Bush, and are dissatisfied with the way Cindy's office has run the campaign, I suggest you contact them, offer constructive advice and volunteer some of your time and money in doing the things you say her campaign hasn't done.
In my opinion, this is the most important Congressional race in the country, because Nancy Pelosi has thumbed her nose at Democrats across America by defending a war criminal, war crimes, the theft of the nation's treasury, and illegal and unlawful violations of the US Constitution.
Time to quit complaining unless you are disingenuous and trying to discourage Cindy's San Francisco supporters.
Hear hear
"Sam: You made some points about Cindy's campaign style which may have merit in them. You might be a Pelosi supporter and are trying to discredit Sheehan and her staff, but if you are fed up with Pelosi's support for her friend, George W. Bush, and are dissatisfied with the way Cindy's office has run the campaign, I suggest you contact them, offer constructive advice and volunteer some of your time and money in doing the things you say her campaign hasn't done. In my opinion, this is the most important Congressional race in the country, because Nancy Pelosi has thumbed her nose at Democrats across America by defending a war criminal, war crimes, the theft of the nation's treasury, and illegal and unlawful violations of the US Constitution. Time to quit complaining unless you are disingenuous and trying to discourage Cindy's San Francisco supporters."
ALL of my points about Cindy's pathetic style of campaigning have merit. Everyone of them. I made up none of it. It's just that YOU don't want to hear it. DENIAL.
I can't stand Bush-enabler Pelosi. She's a Traitor to the US Constitution.
So I'm supposed to "quit complaining" (according to you) about Cindy's dismal pathetic campaign? Sigh. It's interesting how the "left" will do their very best to defend a dismal, pathetic campaign by those candidates on the "left" and attack those who are critical of such campaigns.
Your thinking is no different than that of a fundamentalist christian who wants to hear no criticism of their church, minister etc. You apparently want no criticism of Cindy regardless of her miserable campaign style.
You folks deserve what you'll get: Pelosi. So don't be the least bit surprised when that useless Bush-enabler wins in November. I can see I'm wasting my time here.
If "we" can't all say something together as a GROUP, one person (Sam) cannot do it all. "We" would have far more power than the single person. In other words, what you call "complaining" was an attempt on my part to get people as a ***GROUP*** to contact Cindy and say "hello, time for some serious campaigning now." But instead, from what I understand, Cindy is not even in San Francisco. If someone wants to win a San Francisco election, the candidate MUST physically get out and meet people in THIS CITY, in the different neighborhoods. Rally the people in each neighborhood and walk the district and have a speech at the end. The candidate must do this every day until election day.
And yes, they must announce every one of these. That's how campaigning is done in this City. If one relies on knocking on doors, a candidate will only talk with a few people. Because very few people in this City ever answer their door unless they are expecting someone.
But I see I'm wasting my time by even raising this. (And then after the "election" people will be asking on websites: "What happened with San Francisco and Cindy? I guess the residents didn't want her and wanted Pelosi instead." DUH.
No, it's because the San Francisco residents---many of them---didn't even know Cindy was running against Pelosi.
SIGH.
I have experience working on underfunded outsider campaigns and the real issue is always money. The reason major party candidates campaigns are run more effectively has to do with the corporate bribes they are given so they CAN run more effective campaigns.
Locally where I live, I'm very critical of the disorganization - as Ralph Nader has rightly pointed out - of the Green party. Yet, I still support them anyway. It's important to do so. ALL of the problems really relate to a lack of funds.
I ran a non-profit organization for nearly 8 years and we always had to do the best we could but we were underfunded and couldn't do so much of what we wanted (and needed) to do.
I understand your frustration and concern. We are on the same side, against the traitor Pelosi. You have highlighted important points in running a campaign, and yes, "one person (Sam) cannot do it all." It does take many dedicated people. My suggestion is for you to stop by Cindy's HQ and offer to help. Make your case Sam. Hopefully they will listen and you can work together.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones" but "my thinking is no different than that of a funDUMBentalist (my word) Christian...that hurts! Didn't know I was so stunted.
Seriously, we need to help her campaign get rolling. Offer your solutions. See what happens.
So, its a volunteer effort. Go over there and help them out if you don't like it.
The most powerful thing we could do in this election is to kick Pelosi out of Congress. Stop whining and go help them out.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"So, its a volunteer effort. Go over there and help them out if you don't like it.
The most powerful thing we could do in this election is to kick Pelosi out of Congress. Stop whining and go help them out."
Oh yes, just go over there sometime between the time that you're working 2 jobs with other family responsibilities. Don't worry about sleeping or eating or exercise. You don't need to do any of that!
What flippant nonsense.
Why is it that so many people love to protect political candidates? Rather than criticize the candidate and their lack of inaction and pathetic campaign, they slam the person criticizing the candidate (me) and describe it as "whining."
All of my comments have been true about Cindy. I haven't "whined" at all about Cindy. It's just that the truth hurts some of you, doesn't it? So when the truth hurts some of you describe it as "whining" and then tell ME what I need to do, rather than make the political candidate ACCOUNTABLE and criticize the candidate.
Sam,
Settle down, okay.
I don't know what kind of campaign Cindy Sheehan is running. I know she's not a polished pol, so maybe she's running a ragged campaign. I sent her some money, which is about all I can do from 3,000 miles away, but I hope that folks in her vicinity will help.
I understand about your work and family responsibilities - we all have them. However, if you can spare any time or money, and you are in her vicinity, I would hope that you could do something to help her. IMO, after the presidential race, her campaign may be the most important. Pelosi and Harry Reid have led the Democratic Party into the dumpster and have damaged progressive movements across the country. They deserve to be turned out, now! The message that that will send to the Democratic Party will be undeniable.
"I don't know what kind of campaign Cindy Sheehan is running."
You do indeed know what kind of campaign she is running because I told you in detail what kind of campaign she is running.
A dismal one.
I think all "progressive" Democrats should put their money where their mouths are and give up their cars and stop heating and cooling their homes. Otherwise shut your pie holes about drilling.
Naw... we ditched the SUV extended cab trucks and gun racks years ago. You could've done the same and prevented your gulf coast trailer home from washing away.
Sorry I don't live in the gulf coast I'm in California waiting for the earth to shake me away. So you got rid of the truck and suv, what do you do now, ride a horse? Otherwise refer to my first post.
How extreme can you be? America did just great before the gas guzzling SUV and pickup trucks sneaked in. Sure, if I had to be carrying ladders those trucks would come in hand. A hybrid costs more and is yet more fuel efficient than an SUV. However, uncle sam is giving tax breaks to gas guzzlers while giving little to no tax breaks or owners of fuel efficient vehicles such as hybrids. I've been to CA and I don't feel one bit damn sorry about the backed up traffic. Here's why. I see more SUVs with only ONE driver in them and it's highly unlikely that he or she is carrying very much around. Trial lawyers and real estate agents don't need gas guzzling SUVs even to carry a couple of boxes of papers and folders when a regular car would do. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to tell people what to drive but if these same people are so concerned about reducing dependence on foreign oil right now, the first thing they'd do is switch to fuel efficient vehicles and demand their leaders give them huge tax breaks for fuel efficient vehicles. There are too many tax loopholes for gas guzzlers and they deserve to be shut down. You think that it's the end of the world if we the people stood up to gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. America won't die off after dumping gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. Instead, we'll end up further proving that the offshore plan is nothing but a SCAM.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
"real world": Your post demonstrates colossal ignorance about energy issues. The unpleasant truth is that drilling will not solve our problem of higher energy prices. If we still had Democrats who had the courage of Jimmy Carter, who warned us about the problem of oil depletion many years ago, they would be LEADING, instead of CAVING IN to the dictates of the oil and energy conglomerates. Why do people insist on believing in fairy tales promulgated in the corrupt, corporate media? America uses 1/4 of the world's annual oil extraction -- this is TOO MUCH!
Message to earthlings (especially Americans): Oil. Is. A. Finite. Resource. Since the planet has already passed the point of peak extraction of oil, and since demand is rapidly rising, from China and India especially, the price of oil is going to keep getting higher, regardless of the false hopes, wishful thinking, magical elixers and denial put forth by a bevy of Demopublican corporate media pundits daily as "solutions" to our problem. Offshore drilling and drilling at ANWR are just more false hopes put out by cowardly politicians posing as "leaders."
"The unpleasant truth is that drilling will not solve our problem of higher energy prices"
I'm not worried about price only the availability.
Oil is not a renewable resource. However, if you're that worried, why don't you dump your gas guzzling SUV, Hummer, or pickup truck and work towards getting a fuel efficient vehicle? That will keep the supplies available longer.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
I don't see you doing the same. Besides, drilling for oil offshore is not the answer and you know it. I don't see you Repugs doing the same. And as pointed out earlier, it will take years for the oil to come forth which means that it does nothing to solve the energy crisis and is nothing but a political move. Mind your manners, sir. Besides, please tell us how you get to work everyday. For most people, especially in the countryside, driving is the only way possible but I too am open to newer technologies that use less to no oil. Better to improve technology than be all too destructive and snobbish. If you like the way things are, mind your own business and leave. Others have a right to make a point. Do you have a problem with that, sir?
"it will take years for the oil to come forth"
That's what liberals have been saying for the last twenty years. If we would have started then we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
"I don't see you doing the same"
Why should I? I'm not the one complaining about drilling. I'm not crazy about drilling but I just see it as a necessary evil. We in the USA should make it as unobtrusive, unsightly, and environmentally sound as possible to limit our exposure to outside influences.
"That's what liberals have been saying for the last twenty years. If we would have started then we wouldn't be having this discussion now."
Instead you would have been forced to admit that this offshore drilling plan was nothing but a SCAM. You wacko conservatives can't do anything right except make excuses.
"I'm not crazy about drilling but I just see it as a necessary evil."
And how about fuel efficient replacements and some conservation? Why keep drilling when you can cut down on usage and make efficient use of what you do use? Is it somehow "unpatriotic" to conserve and be fuel efficient? Do that and you would be reducing your dependence on foreign oil by 70%.
"We in the USA should make it as unobtrusive, unsightly, and environmentally sound as possible to limit our exposure to outside influences."
You can't have it both ways and that's a fact. Even the oil industries were forced to admit it. Government has no business subsidizing big oil against the taxpayers. Besides, if you want to limit exposure to outside influences, you might be better off asking your Republican Party to stop exporting domestic oil overseas with no benefits in return. And if you're so angry about Chavez, why not get rid of your gas guzzler? Chavez is powerful only because losers such as yourself would much rather drive those big butt SUVs and Hummers and call others who drive small or midsize autos commies or something like that. Is that clear?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
"Under the Pelosi bill, scheduled for a vote Tuesday, the federal government would not share royalties with the states, devoting the money instead toward federal funding for renewable energy resources. Taxes on oil companies would be increased, with that revenue also going to alternative energy sources."
This is the only positive note in this whole discussion. Yet it is so weak as to barely make mention.
That's interesting...How about this, "Nationalize the oil companies and use all the profit for the support of developing renewables. For if we don't do it now, this charade will continue, and this party will not continue to support that charade."
How's that.
That's interesting...How about this, "Nationalize the oil companies and use all the profit for the support of developing renewables. For if we don't do it now, this charade will continue, and this party will not continue to support that charade."
I wish.
"Under the Pelosi bill, scheduled for a vote Tuesday, the federal government would not share royalties with the states, devoting the money instead toward federal funding for renewable energy resources. Taxes on oil companies would be increased, with that revenue also going to alternative energy sources."
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to keep even that. They have no business bringing up this scam of a bill in the first place.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
I know this is off topic but, your name is my name and my brother's name combined. Your middle name isn't Justin is it?
Hehe. Sorry.
Hi,
I don't have a middle name. Thanks for asking though. :)
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Watch as all the clever Democratz in leadership go busily rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Titanic that has been this Congress past. What imagination, what flair, what a load of rubbish.
Please everybody in her district vote for Cindy Shehan instead of Nancy Pill-osi.
Poet
"Please everybody in her district vote for Cindy Shehan instead of Nancy Pill-osi."
I live in San Francisco and Cindy is running a dismal campaign. It's as if she doesn't have a clue how a campaign should be run. As for her campaign: I've not seen any Cindy campaign signs in anyone's windows anywhere. No Cindy campaign buttons on people shirts or jackets. No Cindy campaign bumper stickers on vehicles. Not even a Cindy campaign sign for her at Rainbow Grocery! That's where I would expect one. That's the first place I would put one up. Nader/Gonzalez have a sign there. Cindy is CHARGING (yes charging) for buttons ($3) and bumper stickers ($5). CHARGING! They should be FREE. That's the same nonsense John Kerry did in 2004. I have to PAY Cindy to put her name on my bumper (if I owned a vehicle?) I went to her website and there is no "Events" section listing any schedule of where she will be campaigning or speaking or having a rally. None. She also has a very short list of endorsements. She has a few videos on YouTube but as of this writing Cindy hasn't signed in to YouTube for 2 weeks. I get the sense that Cindy thinks that all she has to do is to send out occasional e-mails to the people on her e-mail list and have her name on the ballot and that her name recognition will do the rest for her here in San Francisco to unseat Pelosi. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It takes a lot more than that to win an election. I would think that Cindy would be giving speeches throughout San Francisco every day, walking the streets of The City every day, giving speeches frequently in The Castro (at the corner of Castro/Market), the Haight, the Mission. But no. I've seen her no where other than she had one rally within the past 2-3 weeks at City Hall that I saw on one of the Spanish language networks. But other than that, that's all I've seen of Cindy. (By comparison, I've seen the Obama people with a table setup in The Castro 2-3 times in the past month). But none from Cindy. Who knows that she’s even running because she doesn't make herself visible? Therefore, how does she expect to unseat Pelosi!? I don't understand her campaign strategy (or lack thereof) whatsoever. Unfortunately, Bush-enabler Pelosi isn't likely to go anywhere. At the rate things are going with Cindy's campaign, Pelosi will likely be overwhelmingly re-elected in November. UGH.
Sam writes: "Cindy is CHARGING (yes charging) for buttons ($3) and bumper stickers ($5). CHARGING! They should be FREE.
Bumper stickers are never free. It is just a question as to who is paying for them, corporations or individuals. Make up your own sign if you support her. Go man an information table. For Cindy to make a showing, it will take people getting off their butt, and putting up signs and talking to people.
I will be buying a bumper sticker and a button, and making my own to stick on my car. What is more of a concern is how few people support Cindy, even though we see how Pelosi is selling out this country with almost every decision she makes.
Vote Third Party, vote Green Party. Don't support the corporate elite parties.
I bought Kucinich stickers for $2 because by buying 5 I got a price break. I have also made my own by printing it on my computer and them using packaging packaging tape to "laminate" it and place it on my rear window. It looked pretty good and only lacked color.
"Make up your own sign if you support her. Go man an information table. For Cindy to make a showing, it will take people getting off their butt, and putting up signs and talking to people."
I knew someone was going to respond like this which is why I was hesitant to say anything about her campaign to begin with. I knew someone would tell me what **I** need to do (instead of telling Cindy what SHE needs to do) while the person doesn't speak a word of criticism of Cindy and her inactions and her pathetic campaign in the process.
I'm well aware of what I could do. But that was not the point of my comments. I'm a very enterprising person. I can come up with all kinds of ideas too. But that wasn't the point. And I'm already working 2 jobs so I have very little time to do anything else. Furthermore, it's not MY job to be Cindy's campaign manager. My point was that it should be basic sense to Cindy or her campaign manager (if she has one) what needs to be done to run a successful campaign, IF she is serious about unseating Pelosi. I don't think she's a serious candidate. If she were she would not be behaving as she is.
There are campaigns that are backed by corporate money. They can afford to print bumper stickers and yard signs and hand them out for free.
Of course, the problem is, what gets elected by such a campaign is a representative that serves corporate money's interests and not the interests of the citizens.
Then there are campaigns that aren't backed by corporate money. They have to charge a small fee for things like bumper stickers to cover the printing costs.
So, gee, you have to pay a couple of bucks for a bumper sticker. But, in the end you get a representative that represents you, not their rich contributors.
Likewise, campaigns backed by corporate money can afford to pay campaign managers and paid staff. Because of this they can look more efficient. But, again the price you pay is that you get a representative that doesn't represent you.
Or, there are campaigns that don't have piles of corporate money. They usually have little or no paid staff. Since they rely on volunteers instead of paid political professionals, these campaigns can seem more chaotic. Again, the advantage is that at the end you get a representative that represents you instead of representing the people who gave the campaign millions.
The point is, if you want a decent representative that represents the people instead of corporate money, you have to get off your rear and go help out.
If you are happy with no choice other than between two corporate candidates running their campaigns on corporate money, then you can sit back and whine that they don't give you a free yard sale. And you can complain that the volunteers who are working on the campaign despite having two jobs themselves don't meet your standards.
But, if you want a real representative that represents you, then get off your rear and start doing something. Make your own sign. Get some bumper stickers printed yourself. Talk to your own neighbors. Lots of stuff you can do. Just the one thing you should stop doing is whinging about how their campaign doesn't look like the one with all the corporate money.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
You're right sort of. However, you have to understand that Nader/Gonzalas too required donations to get anywhere. Cindy Sheehan, I hear, has gone out of the country when she should be campaigning and putting Pelosi on the defensive. I think that Cindy doesn't ask for regular donations but instead relies on sales if she's putting any up for sale. You should be grateful that at least she can run as an Independent. There are plenty of states where it is even more difficult and even impossible to run as an Independent. Can you imagine an Independent getting a chance to run in Nebraska? Extremely difficult and it's very rare in these past 50 years.
The buttons and bumper stickers are up for sale in Cindy's "Store" on her website. I'm well aware of non-corporate candidates needing donations. I paid $1 for a Gonzalez button when Matt ran for mayor of San Francisco against Mayor Newsom. Personally, I think button and bumper stickers should be free. And neither guarantee anyone's vote but getting a button or bumper sticker for free certainly might more likely encourage someone's vote.
I would be grateful if Cindy were running a competent campaign. Period. She isn't.
Cindy was also among the protesters at the Dem 2008 convention. WHAT WAS SHE DOING THERE when she should have been here in San Francisco campaigning? Screw the damn Dems and their useless convention. I don't understand her thinking at all. How many of the people there in Denver could even vote for her? Very few. So why waste your time, energy AND YOUR PRECIOUS CAMPAIGN MONEY THERE?! Duh. Sigh.
And the most recent campaign videos she has put on YouTube are from 7 and 8 months ago.
I get the sense that Cindy is not at all serious about unseating Pelosi based on what I've seen from her campaign.
Well, I'm thankful she was here in Denver. I got to hear her speak twice in that week, and both were amazing experiences. I'd strongly recommend that anyone in the Bay Area go hear her speak in person.
From where I sat in the audience, Cindy was hear helping the anti-war movement. Considering the pitiful turnout at the antiwar marches around the convention, I wish a heck of a lot MORE people had Cindy's commitment to that cause.
By the way Sam, I was at those anti-war marches. Where were you? Were you helping to try to apply any pressure at all to the Democrats to get them to convert some of their lite and vague anti-war talk into real actions? Nope, missing in action it appears.
Also, the times I saw Cindy she was with her allies in Code Pink and the peace movement. There's something to be said for anyone who comes and helps their allies and their causes out. It beats the heck out of someone who stays home and just whinges all the time.
I give Cindy BIG KUDO's for coming to Denver. Thank you very much!!!!!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"By the way Sam, I was at those anti-war marches. Where were you? Were you helping to try to apply any pressure at all to the Democrats to get them to convert some of their lite and vague anti-war talk into real actions? Nope, missing in action it appears."
Samsom, to be honest with you I am getting ready to retire from 2 jobs and I have been campaigning for the "left" leaning candidates for over 45 years now. Can you say the same? What exactly have you done?
You seem to claim to know so much about me and make erroneous assumptions about people whom you know absolutely nothing about, other than what someone writes on here. In my experience, I have seen hundreds of candidates campaigning for the "left" side. Cindy Sheehan is NOT and I say again NOT "campaigning" in the standard sense of the word. She isn't doing anything other than a few small speeches here and there. Do you remember when Newsom and Matt Gonzalez were running for mayor of San Francisco. THAT IS HOW YOU CAMPAIGN. You actually get out and DO SOMETHING. Walk streets, etc.
I came on here to try to generate some anger and frustration among the people here AT and TOWARDS CINDY SHEENAN to get her off the damn pot and get her butt in gear. How on Earth does she expect to win anything by being a typical Dem-style wet doily?
(You know the type: Do nothing and give everything to Bush.)
So, if you want Cindy Sheehan to win, CINDY needs to be the person PUSHED. NOT SAM.
Sam is NOT running.
Now would you like the list of everything I have done in the last 40 years? No one has that much time to read all that.
So get angry at Cindy. NOT Sam. I was only speaking the TRUTH, which you and others don't want to hear.
If the TRUTH hurts you, CHANGE IT.
Sam is not running.
That's the problem.
Sam is not helping with the campaign. Sam won't even spring for a freakin bumper sticker.
That's the problem.
Basically, you are complaining that Sheehan's campaign doesn't look just like one that has millions of dollars of corporate money it its accounts. That paid staff that makes everything smooth and efficient. Bumper stickers and signs cost money to print. In your typical campaign, that's paid for out of that millions of dollars of corporate money.
The key is we've got to stop electing politicians that are bought and paid for to serve other interests than the people of this country. But, its a very basic fact that those campaigns won't have millions of dollars in their campaign coffers. So they are going to look and act differently. They are going to be run by volunteers. That volunteer is someone else who's working two jobs to get by, but who also finds the time to go help the campaign. Don't complain if that means they don't look as slick and professional as the corporate campaigns. In fact, learn to recognize these campaigns and support them. Because what you are complaining about and critical about is exactly what you should be looking for as a sign of a volunteer campaign that's underfunded.
Why on earth would I want to be angry and Cindy? She's the one who's got the guts to get out there and run for this office. If I got to pick sides between her and someone who's complaining about and dissing her campaign over little tiny stuff like you are, then I know who's side I'm on.
Go Cindy Go!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Sam is not running.
That's the problem.
Sam is not helping with the campaign. Sam won't even spring for a freakin bumper sticker.
That's the problem.
Basically, you are complaining that Sheehan's campaign doesn't look just like one that has millions of dollars of corporate money it its accounts. That paid staff that makes everything smooth and efficient. Bumper stickers and signs cost money to print. In your typical campaign, that's paid for out of that millions of dollars of corporate money.
The key is we've got to stop electing politicians that are bought and paid for to serve other interests than the people of this country. But, its a very basic fact that those campaigns won't have millions of dollars in their campaign coffers. So they are going to look and act differently. They are going to be run by volunteers. That volunteer is someone else who's working two jobs to get by, but who also finds the time to go help the campaign. Don't complain if that means they don't look as slick and professional as the corporate campaigns. In fact, learn to recognize these campaigns and support them. Because what you are complaining about and critical about is exactly what you should be looking for as a sign of a volunteer campaign that's underfunded.
Why on earth would I want to be angry and Cindy? She's the one who's got the guts to get out there and run for this office. If I got to pick sides between her and someone who's complaining about and dissing her campaign over little tiny stuff like you are, then I know who's side I'm on.
Go Cindy Go!"
Again, my point was completely misunderstood. I didn't realize many of the people on CD were so unable to understand what somebody writes.
It would only cost $1.50 for Cindy to get on the Muni Metro or BART and go to one of the neigborhoods, get off the subway, walk a few blocks, say a few words, get back on the Metro with the Muni transfer and go do the same thing all over again in another neighborhood. How much would this cost? $1.50.
Geeeez, people. Some of you are a little thick on here aren't you?
When you don't get it, go back and read it until you do. Duh.
The buttons and bumper stickers are up for sale in Cindy's "Store" on her website. I'm well aware of non-corporate candidates needing donations. I paid $1 for a Gonzalez button when Matt ran for mayor of San Francisco against Mayor Newsom. Personally, I think button and bumper stickers should be free. And neither guarantee anyone's vote but getting a button or bumper sticker for free certainly might more likely encourage someone's vote.
I would be grateful if Cindy were running a competent campaign. Period. She isn't.
Cindy was also among the protesters at the Dem 2008 convention. WHAT WAS SHE DOING THERE when she should have been here in San Francisco campaigning? I don't understand her thinking. How many of the people there in Denver could even vote for her? Sigh.
And the most recent campaign videos she has put on YouTube are from 7 and 8 months ago.
I get the sense that Cindy is not at all serious about unseating Pelosi based on what I've seen from her campaign.
Here's the key point I keep thinking while reading this.
People seem to keep expecting that they don't have to do anything. Lots of people seem to just sit at home and think that corporate money and the corporate media are going to just magically supply them with a progressive candidate that is going to challenge corporate power and change this country.
Are they nuts? Do they expect the people who are getting rich off the current system to change things in our direction ... at a cost to themselves? This is one of my big areas of amazement about the Obama campaign. There you have a slick campaign backed by lots of corporate money and with lots of paid staff. They had a media message of 'hope' and 'change', but anyone with any sense knows corporate America didn't just pump hundreds of millions of dollars into that campaign to screw themselves and give us the change we really want. Not a chance.
So, if you want change, it ain't coming from a corporate financed campaign. It ain't going to be presented to you on the corporate media as the next great thing. Nope. If you really want change, you are going to have to work for it. You are going to have to fight for it. If we are really, really lucky, then maybe none of us will have to bleed and die for it. But the record in the past says that real change and real power for the people means that this is probably going to have to happen to.
We have to be smart enough politically to know that a corporate backed campaign awash with lots of corporate money is going to look very different from a grassroots campaign that is actually challenging corporate power. We have to be smart enough to recognize the difference. And when we recognize a real grassroots campaign, we have to be willing to pitch in and help it.
If you don't like the way their campaign is run, go over there and help.
Buy a bumper sticker or a button.
By the way, the way it works is that a campaign on a shoe-string scrapes together a little bit of money to get some buttons and bumper stickers and signs printed. Then you sell them at a small cost. Hopefully a bit more than what they cost you to print, because you want the money to print a bigger order next time. So, if a campaign gets the money to get 500 bumper stickers printed, and then sells them at three times the cost, then they can afford to get 1500 printed the when they go back for more.
Pitch in a little money for a sticker. Help the campaign out even in that little amount. Grab a camera and make your own video and put it on You Tube. HELP OUT IN SOMEWAY!
If we all just stay home and don't do anything, then we get what's in this article. We get Democrats who are beholden to the corporate money that got them elected doing what the money wants. That's exactly the complaint people have had time and time again with the Democrats in this Congress. When push comes to shove, they do what the money wants. They don't represent us.
Maybe when you see your California beaches all covered with oil from a leaking off-shore oil rig, you can stop and think about how you not only wouldn't buy a bumper sticker for $5, but you then decided to see if you could damage the campaign by coming out and whinging about it. Nice ... hope you enjoy your corporate owned government letting corporate oil spill on your beaches while doing everything to help corporate profits and screwing the rest of us along the way.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Sheehan gives me real hope. I wish Nebraska could have more Cindy Sheehans in the NE Democratic Party. :-(
pathetic leadership. The oil economy is morally and environmetally bankrupt... for your kids sake, leave it in the ground.
Most of the dems supported spying on us and giving telecoms immunity (including Obama) so why not drill, drill, drill?
The oil corps and congress are blackmailing US citizens. "Let us drill the last places on Earth and we'll lower your gas prices to maybe $3/gal." Maybe their profits will plunge to $30 billion/year instead of $40 billion.
If there is any hope of saving this planet, it won't come from a dem or repug. Is it too late to turn this out-of-control loco-motive around?
And if Bush threatens a veto, the Democrats can always give him more. Any reason to vote Democrat anymore?
Yes. We've seen eight years of the alternative.
Better to have the devil you know than the one you don't.
Better an enemy you can know and trust to BE the enemy than a fake friend who will betray you and sell you down the river when you least expect it.
Are you people all working out of your homes or are you together in a boiler room somewhere trying to meet a quota for anti-Obama postings?
Are you endorsing Biden?
After 8 years of Bush screwing you, you'd much rather reward his clone? Pathetic !
"Instead, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Quislingocrat-Calif.), they are offering a mix of proposals that would allow drilling, with the waters off Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia most likely to be the first affected."
"That means Pelosi has barely two weeks to forge a compromise or face the end of the moratorium. That would allow drilling within three miles off all coasts".
- yes! that's just what we need! how about also building nuclear power plants three miles from every city (just in case). how about this, instead of funding the advancement of off shore drilling and the like, we shift our focus towards the development/employment of alternative fuel sources. oh wait, that will never happen as long as big oil continues the lining of their over sized pockets with our devalued dollar.
To: SnowWolf
If you can not learn by watching the hurricans that Fu*** up the environment results in hurricans.
do not drill off shore
The only solution is to find a cleaner energy source.
Before you reply do check with your boss Karl Rove.
The history of LA is already a strong warning of what happens when too much emphasis is placed on offshore oil drilling. There are better sources of energy to meet demands and we can conserve and put efficiency first.
There once were some Demos so craven,
They never did nothin' but cave in.
When asked where they stood,
They said, "Nothing but good
For those with the bucks to buy in."
Nicely done...
This government is already a one-party state disguised as two. Most of the votes for the Democrats come from coastal cities and areas more than the interior. They really are so dumb enough to shoot their votes out. Let the Democrats lose and let the true status of this disgusting government being a one-party state be made more obvious. America has had more than enough of the bankrupted "conservative" ideology giving even moderate and reasonable conservatives a bad name.
Guileful ?? Wish it were so, but the Dems have clearly not learned their Uncle Remus.
Evil has only one tool - that is the disruption of peace - it is applied in infinite ways but it is always the same tool - JC
Another reason NOT to vote for Democrats. Do they really not understand the global warming implications? I suggest everybody watch the DVD "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crisis". Most of the interviewees are NOT progressives, yet they certainly agree with my point of view and explain WHY this drilling is the worst possible idea for us. We've got to kick the fossil fuel habit..
That's why McCain will win, this is the kind of tepid, coward, corrupt attitude that makes Democrats hated by both the right and the left.
Drill, baby, drill!
The level of discourse in our country has sunk to the point where these three words have won out over intelligent reasoning in this debate.
Dems: But, we need to fight global warming develop new energy supplies...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: We can end our dependence on foreign oil by putting into production existing technology that will increase efficiency and garish power from renewables...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Our coastlines are ecologically sensitive and the drilling for oil won't alleviate prices for at least ten years... about the time it would take to implement alternatives...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Isn't it time to develop clean energy?
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: But it's a matter of supply and demand.. even if we find oil, it's a finite resources. Eventually we'll run out of it, the price will skyrocket, and if we haven't developed alternatives we'll be screwed
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Ok, Ok, you win. We'll drill. Just please promise not to sick that lipstick wearing pitbull on us... we swear, we'll do whatever you say.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Politically, I love this made-up dialogue! I do not however like the Epicurus quote.
God doesn't make evil, people do. Trying to blame God for all the evil in the world is like living in a state of denial. We all have a lot of pride and do a lot of evil things, so we want to believe that the consequences aren't a product of our decisions. Someone drives drunk, they crash, killing someone. That's cause and effect, not some failure on the part of God or metaphysical equalizer for some past sin (see Job.) Wars are another example...can we expect God to prevent evil men from doing evil things, or decent people from making mistakes? If God were to end all evil (as before in the Garden of Good and Evil), we'd all be better off. But as long as the apple is there for people to taste--free will--, we're prideful and hence sinful and will break the rules--it's in our nature. We just don't see our collective responsibilities and instead choose to transfer our failures to others--in this case God. Just another cop-out. Address the source of evil, not God or religion. Now as for sickness, and death, you might be able to blame God somewhat. These problems are rooted in science and the imperfect human body (maybe made so by bad habits, environmental toxins, unclean air and water.) Many of those problems like hunger could be solved if we had more Godlike compassion for those suffering...
Even though this has nothing to do with the article, I'll add my two cents. I like the quote. If God created everything, that would include evil, because without evil you cannot have good and vice versa. If God is omnipotent then you could blame God for evil. If he is not omnipotent, and just set things in motion (or started the ball rolling or however you want to put it) and is not able to control the effects eminating from the divine cause, then why call It God? And furthermore, how has God showed compassion for those suffering? Correct me if I'm wrong, but God has been nothing but silent since what?) the writing of the Qur'an.
Johnny J-Rock
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but God has been nothing but silent since what?) the writing of the Qur'an."
That's there the Mormons come in :-)
First: I apologize to CD readers for yet again wasting space on a topic unrelated to the news article at hand; however, I will continue to defend this quote when attacked for displaying it.
JBPeebles: Glad you've thoroughly thought through the issue, you know, since men invented AIDs, hurricanes, famine, drought, freak accidents, tsunamis...
By your logic, if a person is born into poverty, struggles daily to escape from it, a drunk driver crashes into and kills their child, they lose their shitty job as a result of downsizing, and then are diagnosed with a terminal illness... this is all somehow their fault? Meanwhile, some rich snobby brat gets everything handed to them on a silver platter and lives a long and happy life. Praise Jesus.
Now, see, I don't believe in a God even remotely similar to that portrayed in monotheistic religion (if I believe in one at all, which is doubtful). As a result, the existance of evil and suffering does not throw a wrench in my worldview at all.
However, if I were to believe that God is a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being as portrayed (at least, when he's not ordering brutal atrocities to be carried out in his name) in supposed "holy" books, then the existence of evil and suffering would blow a gigantic hole in my worldview... (as it eventually did, hence me no longer being religious).
God can't love you, know everything you will do before you do it, control everything, and then still put you into situations that cause you to suffer without being some sort of maniacal asshole. You can't have freewill if God knows everything you are going to do before you do it without ignoring a gigantic paradox.
The Job and Adam and Eve fables are the perfect example. God knew what would happen when he created Lucifer. He knew what would happen when he stuck a tree in there and said "don't eat this." In fact, one could argue that Adam and Eve didn't even know what evil was or entailed, and were completely ignorant of right and wrong, considering they lacked the "knowledge of good and evil" that the tree endowed them with. And in the case of Job... what more do you need to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian God is a malevolent prick?
You say: "But as long as the apple is there for people to taste--free will--, we're prideful and hence sinful and will break the rules--it's in our nature."
And why is it in our nature? If you believe monotheistic religion, it's because God CREATED us that way. So still, this is God's fault.
You say: "We just don't see our collective responsibilities and instead choose to transfer our failures to others--in this case God. Just another cop-out."
EXACTLY! And what bigger cop-out can you have for your personal responsibilities than the entire bogus notion of salvation and belief in organized religion convincing you that the fate of your soul is more important than your life on earth?
And what is this "godlike compassion" you speak of anyway? Is that where you destroy entire cities and perpetrate genocides on a race that is flawed due to your own failures as a deity?
The purpose of the Epicurus quote isn't to scapegoat God, it's to demonstrate that there is no all-caring, all-knowing God. It attempts to point out that the state of the world is not compatible with a God that has the capability to intervene on behalf of man (as "He" actively does in the Bible).
The only logical religion that the existance of suffering leaves room for is Vonnegut's Church of God the Utterly Indifferent ("Sirens of Titan").
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Democrats got an earful of what would happen to their reelection chances if they did NOT drill
GOD WILL SEVERELY PUNISH AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR MORE OFFSHORE DRILLING !!!
I thought you guys didn't believe in God?
Yeah, I know. It sucks that the American public lacks the ability to critically think. Otherwise the republicans would be worried about their reelection chances for advocating drilling.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
You progressives tell me all the time how forward thinking you are...and then you tell me we aren't going to get any oil out of offshore or ANWR for 10 years...doesn't it make sense to start now so we aren't up shits creek in 10 years like we are now?
if Clinton had ok'd this in the 90's we wouldn't be in a crisis right now
[Reply to SnowWolf 1:17 pm] Bullsh*t. The amount of oil at ANWR is enough to provide America's oil needs for SIX months. It isn't going to amount to diddly squat, and to pretend otherwise is deluded or cynical. Same goes for offshore oil. Conservation is what Americans need to to, BIG time, and development of alternative (non-fossil-fuel-based) forms of energy.
By this logic if the Dems hadn't put off shore drilling off limits, it would have been used up long ago. 40 years of conservation efforts have paid off, huh.
I recall Mccain not supporting it back in the 1990s. Too bad BIG OIL stuffed his pockets this decade. There's not really much oil left unless one were to count the sour heavy type and then you'd be left with less usable oil, more expensive, and poor quality. Besides, it will be at least a few years before any oil out of it gets put to use. And by then, the price of oil will likely be around 200-300 a barrel which means very little. It's all nothing but a political stunt that has no bearing on the economy and more environmental damage. But the Republicans and Democrats are tied to Big Oil and must be dismantled.
He didn't support it at $2 a gal gas...$4 a gal and I think we ALL support it
No, just all you non-rational, issue illeterate Americans. It's fine with me if the Democrats want to pander to the vote by supporting more drilling. Everyone in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, knows it won't do any good except for election pandering to idiots like you.