Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack Obama Reverses Campaign Promise and Approves Offshore Drilling
President allows oil and gas exploration off several coastal areas to horsetrade with Republicans over climate change bills
Barack Obama took the Republican slogan "drill, baby, drill" as his own today, opening up over 500,000 square miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years.
Barack Obama announces offshore drilling plans at a naval base in, Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) The move, a reversal of Obama's early campaign promise
to retain a ban on offshore exploration, appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans in
Congress for new laws to tackle global warming. Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill" slogan was a prominent
battle cry in the 2008 elections.
The areas opened up are off the Atlantic coast, the northern coast of Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, in a concession to his environmentalist base, Obama did retain protection for Alaska's Bristol Bay, the single largest source of seafood in America and home to endangered species of whale. The Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada is also off-limits.
Obama said the decision to allow oil rigs off the Atlantic coast was a painful one, but that it would help reduce US dependence on imported oil.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," the president said. "But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
He said the administration would take steps to protect the environment and areas important to tourism off the Atlantic, as well as sensitive areas in the Arctic, and added: "Drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs, and for the sake of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now."
Interior department officials said the areas opened up today are thought to contain the equivalent of three years' annual US useage of recoverable oil and two years' worth of natural gas.
Under the proposals, a vast swath of Atlantic coast from northern Delaware to central Florida, including about 167m acres of ocean, would be open to drilling. An additional 130m acres of ocean in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska could also open up for drilling following environmental assessment studies. About two-thirds of the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be open for exploration though the plan would bar rigs within 125 miles of the Florida coast.
The state of Virginia could see drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and could issue its first licences as early as next year. However, actual drilling would probably not get underway for years. Drilling would be off-limits throughout the US Pacific coast. Bristol Bay in south-western Alaska would also be off the table until 2017.
Today's speech was widely seen as an attempt by Obama to use last week's epic victory on health reform as a springboard for other items on his agenda. He combined the announcement with a renewed appeal to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass climate change legislation. The laws would be a huge step forward towards a global deal but has encountered fierce domestic opposition.
A small group of Democrats and Republicans are expected to produce proposals to cut the US's mammoth greenhouse gas emissions, in the coming weeks. But the proposals are unlikely to go as far as environmentalists would like.
The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, made a significant declaration today, saying the administration had renounced the concept of carbon cap and trade. This system, seen by many as efficient and effective, sets a gradually reducing limit to emissions and then allows polluters to buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, but opponents argue it would damage the economy. "The term cap and trade is not in the lexicon anymore," Salazar told CNBC television.
The go-ahead for drilling is also a bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats. That could make it even more difficult to stitch together a compromise proposal on climate change in the Senate. Last week, 10 Senators from coastal states, including those now opened up for drilling, issued a letter expressing concern that offshore exploration would hurt fishing and tourism industries.
Maryland's Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a supporter of Obama's climate agenda, said: "We know spills happen with offshore drilling. It happens even with the most responsible drilling." Greenpeace saw the announcement as a betrayal of Obama's campaign promise, with director Phil Radford saying: "This act furthers America's addiction to oil." Oceana called it a "wholesale assault" on the seas.
Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "Today's announcement is unfortunately all too typical of what we have seen so far from President Obama - promises of change, a year of 'deliberation,' and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own."
The disappointment could lift on Thursday, as Obama said his administration would then finalise more rigorous fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The White House will also buy 5,000 new hybrid vehicles for the federal fleet.
Today's drilling decision further consolidates Obama's position in the middle ground between industry and environmentalists. Environmentalists have been disappointed with the president's decisions to restrict - but not ban outright - the highly destructive practice of blowing up mountaintops to mine thin seams of coal.
Obama indicated in his state of the union address that he was ready to offer two key concessions to Republicans - lifting the ban on offshore drilling and supporting new nuclear power plants - to try to gain support for climate change and energy legislation in Congress.
He took the first step last month, spurring the first construction of new nuclear plants since the Three Mile Island leak 30 years ago, by announcing $18bn in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had repeatedly attacked his opponent, John McCain, for suggesting drilling would lower gas prices, arguing that it would take several years and billions in investment before those areas became productive. But as the summer of 2008 wore on with prices spiking at the pump, Obama along with other Democrats began moderating their opposition to offshore drilling.
Democrats in Congress did not renew an annual ban on offshore drilling, and Obama began reversing his opposition.
222 Comments so far
Show AllIt is payback time for the oil companies who backed Obama. Yes, I know, they backed McCain, too.
The USA uses 8-12 billion barrels of oil per year. China is at 7 billion per year. 2010 numbers.
Drilling in the gulf of Mexico near the coast of Florida for a possible 45-55 billion barrels at the risk of 1000 years of damage to our fishery's and beaches so we can run Americas oil addiction for an extra 6 years is not worth it.
Florida has the most beautiful beaches in the world , I know , I have lived here for over 30 years and been up and down both coasts.
If they were going to find 1 trillion barrels , I dont know what I would say, but 45 bilion ,
No baby , no drilling in the gulf of Mexico near Floridas coasts,
We are retired , old and flat broke down here, most of us, but we know that our beaches are our lively hood.
We need to invest in solar and wind power technology's and manufacturing down here.Put Americans to work making energy saving products and a new industry.
Thats one mans opinion
Obama didn't ask any of us living down here in Florida that I know of.
I wonder how many windmills could be built for the cost of exploration and drilling AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION. Oh, wait. Environmental restoration is one of those pesky EXTERNAL COSTS that are ALWAYS foisted off onto the taxpayers. You say you have been up and down both coasts. Then you know that Florida's beaches are destined to become the same tar pits that are some of California's nicest beaches. Walk on the beach and then scrape of a quarter inch of tar from your feet. Get ready, Florida. Bend over and take it like a man.
Don't worry, you Floridians won't have any money to buy any oil after Obamacare fleeces you.
raydelcamino
I believe Florida has to come up with a little over 1 billion dollars for Medicaid when this bill kicks in. You don't call that fleecing do you? Or that increase in the retirees drug costs starting next year, possibly before the end of this year?
Obamacare is loaded with unfunded mandates that were not included in the Congressional Budget Office's analysis. As you pointed out, Florida (and the other states) will be forced to pony up billions to feed the Obamacare monster.
Yea I agree with what you are saying. To keep this whole oil Ponzi scheme going we would need to find 2 or 3 more Saudi Arabia's. None have been found to date so it is pretty doubtful that anything that big even exists. I guess the up side of the world powering down because of the demise of the worlds oil supplies is that it may be the one thing that makes fighting big wars obsolete.
Cool.
Back to walled cities and siege engines.
We dodged a huge bullet, didn't we, when we didn't elect those Drill, baby, drill fanatics McCain and Palin? Wait a minute, we're still getting drill, baby, drill. Well, maybe the Dems will drill a little more gently or...(I'm getting confused, time to wake up from this nightmare and realize the New Day has begun in America.)
As the tee shirt says it's okay if Obama does it. Let's see, Obama is pushing coal, pushing nuclear energy, pushing oil. Green energy?
Again, I simply can not understand why the republicans hate Obama so much. He is giving them everything they have ever wanted.
Agreed it is all theater which makes use of millions of useful idiots who really can't tell theatre from reality.
Not sure what you mean by "protests," but...
The "theater" is in Congress where corporatist Republicans pretend to disagree with corporatist Democrats, even when their agendas coincide. Mandatory health insurance purchasing—a Republican idea first talked about by Richard Nixon and the Heritage Foundation—is just one example.
On the other hand, the right-wing populists who animate the tea party are genuine in their rejection of corporatism and corporate socialism (which they unfortunately call "socialism"). These same populists (and like-minded Republicans in Congress) defeated the corporatist Bush/McCain/Kennedy slavery normalization bill (comprehensive immigration reform) in 2007, and rejected corporatists Bush I and Bill Clinton for Ross Perot (who warned that NAFTA would create a "giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs going to Mexico) in 1992.
Of course, the tea parties also attract religious fundamentalists, gun-fetish militia men and assorted other nuts; and there are ongoing attempts by the corporatists to co-opt the whole lot of them. There are factions and complications on the Right, just as on the Left.
It's nice to agree with someone. Ironically, just today I longed for the good old days of Bush I and Bill Clinton. (See my 1:03 pm post.)
Peace
Couldn't quite finish reading the article as my tears were turning black and sticky.
Obama reversed his position on offshore oil drilling a long time ago when he ran for president. I don't see any shocker here other than this article omitting that fact.
'Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his State of the Union address in January that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”'
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
it's in there:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/text-of-obamas-first-state-of-the-union-address.php
this article is bogus, but it has a youtube campaign video link - search for stuff yourself, it's not hard...
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0331/obama-offshore-drilling-middle/
Oh boy, another gray area.
From what I have heard, these oil fields will not result in a lot of oil - at least, where US consumption is concerned. What they may do, for the near term future, is take some pressure off our need for foreign oil. And where does our foreign oil come from, and where is our military, and where are we fighting?
Obama has said that he sees this as a stop-gap measure (my words). I hope he's right. These fields may never be drilled, especially if they don't pay out enough. Oil companies aren't going to sink billions into drilling if they won't see a profit. This is the direction of peak oil. The fact that we're considering drilling in the Atlantic and dredging for oil shale and fracking the hell out of places for gas signals that cheap oil is gone. While the price of oil and gasoline will fluctuate, there will be a trend upward, from now to forever. The age of Cheap Oil is no more.
So, what do we do in the mean time - between now and when we can no longer afford to extract oil? Do we stop heating our homes and driving our cars? Do we stop all transportation, refrigeration, and production? If so, then we stop eating. See how well that goes over when your neighbors are hungry enough to do desperate things.
The government has been running scenarios of what would happen should there be a stoppage in various sectors of the economy. First, we can count on Martial Law. Think New Orleans after Katrina.
I hate the situation humankind has put itself in. This truly is the Age of Stupid. Lovelock knows. However, wishing it away will do nothing. We need to start moving towards a saner, more sustainable way. If we just do things all at once, there will be massive chaos and death, and the government knows this - we know this!
I'm torn over this Atlantic oil drilling. The United States has had its thumb up it's ass for too long in regards to energy and now we find ourselves in an ugly situation. However, without some steps to wend our way out of this nightmare, our nightmare will get worse. We need to do MANY things simultaneously. First, I would hope, we would retrofit buildings and homes to be more energy efficient. That is the lowest hanging fruit. The government must help with this in the form of tax credits and other means. But we also need to create an environment that will allow us to implement a soft landing. We should not only retrofit buildings, but start depending on local solutions more. We are going to land sooner or later, friends. I hope we do it as softly and humanely as possible.
Finally, most posters here on CD want our troops home now! Well, they are "over there" for the oil. If we are going to use oil, lets use our own and decrease the need to be "over there."
My 2 cents, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.
Ditto, Ted - well said - and, True
Ditto Head - no - and, False.
That added significantly to the discussion. Thanks.
Mr. Obamageddon has stated that the new off shore oil will not be available for ten years, minimum.
It would be a much better use of resources to have a Manhattan Project for alternative energy, i.e. solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
But, I see the obvious.
Watch the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/obama-oil-drilling-plan-e_n_519553.html
Yes, DCH!
Ted -- with all due respect, this is not even close to a "gray area". A plan that may get results in 10 years is, by definition, NOT a stop-gap plan. Just like the nuclear power - as - stop-gap "plan", it is nothing more than another massive giveaway to Obama's true constituents, the corporatist elite.
The solution is simple and clearly understood by anyone without a vested and monied interest in resource extraction. As DCH said, we need a "Manhattan Project" for alternative energy. I would add energy conservation and efficiency programs to this project, as well.
The brilliance of this true energy independance and environmental process is that it not only solves the near-term problem, it creates 100's of 1000's of new jobs (likely millions) and puts us immediately on the path to a sustainable energy future.
But it makes money for all of the wrong people, so Obama will not support it and will depend on his flock of misguided millions to paint this new round of thievery as "progress".
Wake up, please.
You're right, we do need a Manhattan Project, but the problems we face are more immediate and severe than a Manhattan Project will provide in time.
You've given yourself away as soon as you said that the solution is simple and clearly understood (and how did you ever guess that I'm an oil tycoon with a vested interest in resource extraction?) There are many problems here and there are many solutions, but we aren't going to feed the system that feeds the people with alternative energy, at least, not yet. And it surely isn't that simple.
I'm all for alternative energy and the jobs it will create. But I'm also for eating and I'm not partial to chaos. If we don't provide an interim solution to our energy problem (and I'm not an advocate of nuclear), then we will most likely face catastrophe when the price of oil goes sky-high.
A Manhattan Project is absolutely called for, but even that won't provide us with the energy we need fast enough. We've waited too long. Read some Richard Heinberg (for one) and you'll get a small sense of just how dire the energy situation is. Oh, and by the way, agriculture uses a massive amount of oil for growing (even for organic produce) and transportation which is how the vast majority of Americans feed themselves. Is alternative energy going to keep agriculture going in the near term?
"But it makes money for all of the wrong people, so Obama will not support it and will depend on his flock of misguided millions to paint this new round of thievery as "progress"."
You can make all the best arguments in the world, and some I agree with, but when you spout shit like this it makes you sound like a moron. Not that you are, just that in this case, you sound like one.
I'm awake now!
Re: "these oil fields will not result in a lot of oil"--agreed.
This is a long-range political maneuver. What does it mean? By many independent accounts, world oil (crude not all liquids) production peaked in 2005. Where are we headed? Demand dropped slightly in the US with the contraction from deflation, but not in China or India where growth in demand continues. Meanwhile, net exports from oil-exporting countries are declining as OPEC countries continue to use more of their own oil. In the long run, the price of oil is set to rise again. Demand, it should be clear, is fairly inelastic save the complete collapse of the world economy. Assuming BAU, holding the current patterns of oil production and consumption constant, the price of oil must rise. Obama is just doing what his mafia bosses tell him to do. So he opens up these ecosystems to destruction of pursuit of the 'American Way of Life.' He would not do this if the situation wasn't, indeed, quite bleak. Drill baby drill. Obama is the biggest con artist we've ever seen. He talked a different talk on the campaign trail. He's the classic politician: An outrageous liar.
It's too late. We should have been investing in renewable energy 30 years ago. At this point, it demands all funds from the military be shifted to developing renewable energy, weatherization, and preparing for a net reduction in energy consumption. We blew a trillion on wars to control dwindling oil resources--an utterly illegal, stupid, and criminal project.
The next trillion should go to renewable energy. Obama's lack of leadership, following the mafia bosses' orders, is criminal--he's worthless.
We need a political, peaceful, revolution to throw out these crooks.
Ted, I don't think it's that hard. If the urban and suburban areas of the country would get those railroads brought back up online and expanded, we could take more cars off the road. Obama did give a little funding to improve metro rails but he's giving less to funding that while keeping up high subsidization to the oil companies. If he changed subsidizing the oil companies to subsidizing public transportation in highly populated areas, more cars would be off the road and troops wouldn't be in Iraq for oil. I say shame on Obama for getting his spending all wrong!
Ever see the movie, Dave, with Kevin Klein? Fun movie.
Dave is the spittin' image of the current president of the United States and does TV commercials on the side dressed up as the Pres. I mean, they could be twins!
Well, the President is having a little sumpin-sumpin on the side (as presidents are wont to do) and has a stroke while humpin his sumpin and is left a vegetable. Of course, this would be unseemly having a vegetable for a president (forgetting about Bush), so the White House recruits Dave to fill in for the president while they figure a way out of the little jam.
Well, it seems Dave is a much better president than the President and he even has a friend who's a whiz at accounting. So, Dave, as the president, brings in his friend and together they straighten out the whole budget mess and get the country back on the squeaky track that God set it on from its inception.
End of movie.
Oh, I forgot, Dave and the First Lady fall in love and...
So, there you go, Stanley. We need Dave! Dave will come in and make things easy and we won't have to be ashamed of our president because he will do everything right. I mean, it works in Hollywood, why shouldn't it work in the world?
Stanley, c'mon man.
I didn't expect miracles from Obama but I guess he could have campaigned for Congress to pass the stimulus bill with more funding to help the states. The stimulus package I had approved of but thought that it could have been improved. Take $50 billion of those war spending and handouts to Wall Street and divert it to funding improvements on public transportation. Wall Street gets its money quick and easy while the states get their money slow and top of the lousy state politicians who won't get the spending right either. That's a mystery.
"Dave" for president? I thought Bill Clinton was close enough.
To solve these problems, it takes leadership, and we don't have it. The money would be far better off being spent elsewhere. The solution to bringing our troops home is not drilling for more oil. It's recognizing fundamental rights and wrongs.
It is interesting that in the last week the DOE, perennially peak oil deniers,
essentially admitted that we are at peak oil though they preferred to call it
"an undulating plateau"!! lol!
See Le Monde article:
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/
Meanwhile despite the usual lip-service paid to mass transit in fact public transit systems which could save 10-15% of our oil usage in a year are suffering massive cuts all over the country. New Jersey Transit, the NYC MTC, Atlanta, over 100 cities
have already suffered public transit cuts since 2009.
For an example of how cheap public transit is to run, it only costs $300 Million
for NJ's share of the operating costs of all NJ Transit which provides 328 Million
trips - i.e. less than $1 per trip, generally of 10 miles or more!
Yet our newly elected Grover Nordquist disciple, Governor Cristie, is proposing to cut every
last cent of the operating subsidy for NJ Transit while investing $411 million on
more highways to "reduce highway congestion"!!
Every one of those proposed oil derricks should be windmill platforms which would
provide sustainable energy for decades not just until the oil runs out.
And by first running our trains, buses and vans and then restoring tracks all over
this country we could cut the 70% of oil usage for cars and trucks in half in a
few years.
What I also love is the Wimpocrats buying this baloney- "what a brilliant strategy by Obama to coop Republicans!" You kidding me??
No sooner is the ink dry on the Private Health Insurers Enrichment Act than the
Insurance Companies are already queueing up their lawyers to deny coverage to those
with existing conditions and jack up their rates.
Remember NAFTA which Clinton rammed through Congress with promises of labor rights
and Environmental protections while Ross Perot was warning of a "giant sucking sound removing jobs"??
Was that EVER corrected?
The manufacturing jobs are still being moved overseas for Corporate profits...
It is truly frightening to consider the parallels with the Weimar Republic as
pusillanamous Wimpocrats surrender to Corporate powers while the right wing
crazies with their guns and racism are about to convene a "guns right" celebration
on April 19th, the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing...
If there's oil under Yosemite or Yellowstone, sooner or later we'll drill there also. Nothing is sacred when it comes to energy and our cars.
But you and I own those cars, Greg.
We're all part of the problem...and the solution.
I totally agree.
NO!!
Individuals are not to blame!
The US transportation system for the most part does not allow people to live
without cars with exceptions for major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia. I do everything I can to avoid driving my car - taking
the commuter train between 2 suburban towns and then walking, riding my bike or taking
the Company shuttle, using a folding bike which I can take on the trains to ride
my bike from train stops to within a few miles, walking or riding my bike to local stores whenever possible.
But when there is train service only 2-3 hours, or one of my Company's offices is
3 1/2 miles with no sidewalk or shoulder from a train station it is impossible
to avoid using the car.
This is the fallacy of saying "the individual is to blame".
I do not set the train and bus schedules, determine sidewalks and bike paths, or
control Zoning laws which promote exurbia strip malls and insane car addicted development.
I cajole my local, County, State and Federal governments to promote public transit...
If enough of us change Govt do instead of the copout I have heard from so many people
"but people want to drive their cars everywhere" that is the only route to change.
But it is not individuals just waking and deciding that they are going to put
their own individual train on the tracks!!
It takes collective action and lobbying for change...
Yeah, yeah, it's never you or me, is it? Always them. That way, all we have to do is vote and bitch. The American way. Or is that the Progressive way?
I believe Salazar has allowed gas leases in Yellowstone already, so, you were saying?
One thing about Salazsar, he's turned out to be as discusting as I anticipated.
When Obama appointed him as Interior Secretary, that was a major signal he was not going to be pro environment. But again, all of Obama's cabinet picks were not his decisions. They were the choices of Wall St.
"Nothing is sacred when it comes to energy and our cars."
That is not necessarily true. Up until Eisenhower, this country had a nationwide railroad system in place and there would have been improvements if it hadn't been for the auto industries killing the process of improvement. It's time to support local efforts to improve metro transportation in both the urban and suburban areas of the country and leave those sacred lands alone.
Well, Maine has an active rail transportation group that has managed to get passenger trains to come back to areas where they haven't been in a while. It's been a slog, but they are doing it. And apparently, they didn't wait for Obama to change the whole transportation infrastructure of the country, or the world, or the universe (I mean, he IS the president!).
So, what's going on in your neck of the woods?
Maine and Missouri are different politically speaking. In MO, people are just hooked to their gas guzzlers and along with that, the state legislatures and the governor do everything in the power to limit the funding. The Republicans usually have the power but some of the rural Democrats go along with their plans to limit funding for improving the rails let alone expanding them. To add insult to the injury, the Tea Party crooks are busy actively opposing metro and trying to tie fixing the metro system to corruption. Thank God I only have to drive 10 minutes to my office while JB has to go about 50 miles to work every day and there is no access to public transportation in her area ! I have coworkers who travel as long as 70 miles from their home to my office ! I asked one of them about what the thought of going metro and he liked the idea but said it takes years to build and that it would cost more money and time than would driving to work. I asked another and she foamed and said that she loves her pickup truck so much and rambled about metro being too socialist and a lot of rightwing nonsense. I can't speak for all auto drivers but I think that more people would gladly team up and strive for metro improvements and expansion if only politicians on all levels of government wouldn't take away their hope of ever funding such great social programs. I'm glad to hear that Maine has improved and I would like to see some strategies to pass along so I can get some people motivated into improving and expanding metro and help spread the word. Thanks.
P.S.: I just read maxpayne's ideas on hemp and algae. I'm not sure hemp will fly with the anti-pot folks in my state but algae could be grown in the rural heartlands for all that depopulation that's been happening for years.
http://www.maineeasternrailroad.com/
http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/
I read maxpayne's comments too. I like the ideas, but he seemed to present them as THE solution. And that is entirely my point - there is no THE solution. There are many solutions and we need to take advantage of every one, as imperfect as they may be. They are all stepping stones and we need to stop poo-pooing the ones that don't look perfect to us. Maine has a saying: You can't get thayah from heah. Translated, that means: You need take the steps.
I don't think ME and MO are that far off geographically speaking. Maine has practically no mass transportation out of the two major cities (Portland and Bangor). We also don't have very many people relative to our size (I probably shouldn't advertise this. Maine is a terrible state - stay away! 17 months of winter, mosquitoes the size of seagulls [tourists often mistake the two], and black flies that carry switchblades! Not to mention mud season and tourists!). Politically speaking, we are not the most liberal of states, but not the most conservative either.
Oh, you might want to suggest to Jennifer that she either commute with others or move closer to her job. She won't have the money to afford the gas for a 50 mile commute in the not too distant future.
I would assume that the winter whether in your state is much worse. It looks like both of our states lack public transportation in the exurbs and rural areas.
As for Jennifer, I don't know what went through her mind when she chose to torture herself like that. She used to live closer to work but her apartment landlords gave everyone a hard time and did nothing to correct security after several breakins into the apartment or at least that's what she told me. She once told me that she went through a lot of tough decisions and planning before finally making the decision to live a little too far out. Maybe she is in a similar situation as some of my coworkers who chose to live far away. The cost of owning a home is much less than even renting in the city. I will have to ask her the details and see how I might be able to help her out.
P.S.: She finally arrived back in the states last night and I'm looking forward to visiting her this easter's weekend as there will be a family reunion to welcome her back. I can hardly wait to see what she says from her long trip. Take care.
"P.S.: She finally arrived back in the states last night and I'm looking forward to visiting her this easter's weekend as there will be a family reunion to welcome her back. I can hardly wait to see what she says from her long trip. Take care."
Say hi to her for me. And, when she replies, "Ted who?," just say "the Obamabot." She'll remember.
I'll see if she remembers your name but I will avoid the word Obamabot. Looking at the archives on here and on Alternet where she met far worse, I would be surprised to see her still think that you were one. I will have to see what Europe, Russia, and South Africa have done to her first. :)
Once again Obama takes the baton from Bush and runs with it.
And the right-wing hates Obama because??
Not because he's black, I beg to differ with this simple analysis.
The right hates Obama because he's black AND more right-wing than Reagan and Bush combined.
Indeed.
They hate the fact that a black man is the best Republican President ever.
"The right hates Obama because he's black AND more right-wing than Reagan and Bush combined."
Shit, who needs to listen to Glenn Beck when we have Common Dreams?
This is just hormonal ranting. Get a grip.
Well, well. Another CD poster and SPUSA member once wrote: "Obomba is the best Republican president since Bill Clinton." If the shoe fits, wear it.
I would encourage CD readers to look at the similarity between this oil drilling issue and the health care issue. Namely, yet again the Democratic Party, always shifting right, to "stake out the middle ground" and tries to get Republican/Big Business backing for its agenda. They did the same thing with "health care" reform. They brought in the people who caused the problem and gave them a seat at the table in deciding how the reform should be done. In the meantime, the people who were advocating for a real solution, the single payer advocates, were shut out of the debate. See how well that worked? Obomba didn't get any Republican votes (why would any sensible person seek Republican support for any decent policy change, anyway?) Now, the Republicans and the corporate class will try to obstruct even this insipid health insurance "reform". I think we can expect the same Washington drama to be played out with the drilling issue.
Nevermind of course, that developing more fossil fuel sources is going backward with regard to resolving the global warming issue. Such a strategy only fosters our dependence on traditional, carbon based energy sources. Obomba is just kowtowing (yet again) to his constituency -- the corporate capitalist class.
Also, to all Obomba-bots: Obomba said he back drilling during the campaign, and you voted for him anyway. Obomba policies with regard to energy are similar to McCain's (and Bush's), just as his foreign policy and national security policies are. So, what did you really gain by voting for Obomba? You were either suckered, or you just wanted to have a "feel good" candidate to vote for without looking too closely at his corporate capitialist agenda.
"Obomba is the best Republican president since Bill Clinton."
Barack Obama is not fit to lick Bill Clinton’s boots.