Obama’s Lying Ad  |   Home  |   Obama Supporters Dine and Ditch

Democrats to Let Offshore Drilling Ban Expire

This is huge. 

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Politically, the Dems screwed this up.  If they had taken positive action to repeal the ban, then the voters could rightfully give them some credit for it.  Instead, they took the wimpy way out and just let the ban expire.  For that, it makes this a pure Republican victory.

Posted by Owen at 1905 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. We’ll see.  I’m not convinced there aren’t some strings.

   Posted by Steve on September 23, 2008 at 1946 hrs
   
   
   

2. Unfortunately for the GOP, most of us will be preoccupied next month with how crappy our 401k investments have been performing.

   Posted by Michael Mathias on September 23, 2008 at 2011 hrs
   
   
   

3. More Democrat votes going over to Ralph Nader, aka, Mr. Green. A bonus to be sure.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 2123 hrs
   
   
   

4. This is only the first step. Remember, there is nothing to stop the enviro-nitwits from filing suit to block the drilling when and wherever such drilling is proposed.

   The dems truly want us to pay $10 a gallon for gas -

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 2207 hrs
   
   
   

5. Finish you thought Michael…

   “Unfortunately for the GOP, most of us will be preoccupied next month with how crappy our 401k investments have been performing.  My guy would prefer the government take that money you would otherwise be putting into that 401k and give it to your ‘neighbor.’  That’s Socialism boys and girls, and it AOK with me.

   Posted by Roland Melnick on September 24, 2008 at 0738 hrs
   
   
   

6. Won’t we actually have to see some effect on gas prices for this to be a Republican victory, rather than just a Republican stunt and a huge coup for the oil companies?

   I think it was a smart move.  Let them drill, they were going to get that prize eventually anyway.  Now when it happens and people don’t see an immediate impact on gas prices, but continue to see oil companies making money hand over fist, the whole charade will be revealed and the voters will know who to blame.  Or maybe gas will be 2 bucks a gallon next year, and they’ll know who to thank.  But I know which of those options I’d bet on.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1324 hrs
   
   
   

7. Nothing will be immediate…this is a stunt that Dems think will give them the appearance of softening on the issue.  A few months from now, the environmentalists/conservationists will have a sudden awakening…probably some time around the 2nd week of November.  They will come alive with a barrage of law suits to keep this thing mired in the courts.

   If the Dems win the White House, Barry-O and Joey-B will shut it right back down, as will the Gang Who Can’t Think Straight (Democrat-Controlled-With-Approval-Ratings-Lower-Than-GWB Congress).

   If the GOP wins…the result will be the same, just without the White House.  No way libs will just let this country do a 180 degree turn on energy.  They know that the only way to get Americans off of fossil-fuels is to artificially make them so expensive that people look to alternatives.

   This may be a minor political victory, but it’s not a real one for Americans.

   Posted by Roland Melnick on September 24, 2008 at 1600 hrs
   
   
   

8. No way libs will just let this country do a 180 degree turn on energy.

   Which 180 degree turn would that be?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1613 hrs
   
   
   

9. The Dems are going to wait until they have a bigger majority in Congress and then they will shove another ban up our asses next year. It won’t matter that a vast majority of US citizens support lifting the ban, the Dems know what’s best for us.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 25, 2008 at 1254 hrs
   
   
   

10. This might be helpful for soothsayers who think this is just about political parties.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/26334704

    Get a clue

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 25, 2008 at 1552 hrs
    
    
    

11. Unfortunately, CNBC is, to a rather large degree, incorrect.  First, there is somewhere in the vicinity of 1 trillion barrels (depends on who you talk to) of oil locked up in shale out west.  Second, there is enough coal to supply all our energy needs for about 600 years, and, in spite of what Algore wants you to believe, there is reasonable technology to keep it clean.  Third, nuclear fission can provide energy for thousands of years at current energy consumption.  A very small proportion of fissile mateerial is used in a cycle.  It can be reprocessed and reused, reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of (BTW, that’s a political problem, not a technological one).  Fourth, it is a physical impossibility for wind and solar sand biofuel to supply all our energy needs without significant environmental impact.  Since the sun only shines at about 1 kW/sq meter…at the equator….at noon…at the solstice, the math doesn’t work.  Wind is terribly unreliable as s source of energy.  Biofuels take food out of the supply, raising prices and starving people.

    I suggest CNBC and pjr get a clue.

    Posted by Steve on September 25, 2008 at 1658 hrs
    
    
    

12. Since the sun only shines at about 1 kW/sq meter…at the equator….at noon…at the solstice, the math doesn’t work.

    That’s interesting, care to explain the math?  I don’t see how one could convert sunlight to a kilowatt in an area, without some very detailed math.  Is that 1kW using current solar panel technology, or technology from 10 years ago, or what?  And wouldn’t you need a time factor in there?  Is that per second, per hour, per day?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 25, 2008 at 1858 hrs
    
    
    

13. Unfortunately, CNBC is, to a rather large degree, incorrect.

    Seems like you have it all figured out, I am surprised they did not interview you for the show.

    Maybe you would like to provide some references that substantiate your cases for oil shale and clean burning coal as viable economic options.

    No argument on nuclear.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 25, 2008 at 1941 hrs
    
    
    

14. Seems like you have it all figured out, I am surprised they did not interview you for the show.

    Well I answered my own question by watching the show again.

    The disconnect I see between your evaluation/comment and the show lies in the fact that the main subject of the show was oil, not the bigger picture of energy production or meeting our energy needs with alternatives.

    The alternative energy source aspect was featured several times during the show but the main theme was oil production, by drilling, and its future as an energy source.

    The data presented was predominantly from oil industry participants, as well as a cameo by Gov. Palin.

    I am puzzled by your thinking it “incorrect”?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 25, 2008 at 2206 hrs
    
    
    

15. The 1 kw/square meter is a physical constant, although I said at the solstice when it is actually at the equinox.  Any college physics book or other reference on physical constants will have it.  Conversion of solar to electric generally runs 10-15%.

    For energy issues, http://www.eia.gov.

    For oil shale information, http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

    Good enough?

    Posted by Steve on September 26, 2008 at 1718 hrs
    
    
    

16. The Dems are going to wait until they have a bigger majority in Congress and then they will shove another ban up our asses next year. It won’t matter that a vast majority of US citizens support lifting the ban, the Dems know what’s best for us.
    siki?, s?cak

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 28, 2008 at 1626 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.