UMD Libertarians

He better have some reasoning behind this, otherwise, I’m very upset about this. The only way I can see that this can not be seen as the gravest flip flop yet is if he just wants to get the ball rolling and have Pelosi lighten up, but that goes against the basic foundation that he made his campaign upon.

You’re a Junior Senator running for President and you have two choices.

1. Stick by your initial stance, even though it’s becoming increasingly unpopular. You know it’s the right thing to do, but some people aren’t seeing it your way.

2. Offer a compromise between your stance and the opposing stance. Make it very clear that you’re conceding some ground but there are certain points you will hold fast to.

I am a moderate / centrist, but this isn’t just a flip-flop: it goes against his entire energy policy.

#2 is what I’m praying he’s doing and not giving in to the republicans.
Sen. Barack Obama suggested he could accept an expansion of offshore oil drilling today it is in a broader package of energy measures that would free the logjam on energy bills in Congress.

That’s what it looks like right now. He’s being explicitly clear that offshore drilling is not the end of it, but rather that it’s going to be part of a broader energy initiative.
the only way this could be seen as "the gravest flip flop" from obama is if you don’t know anything about FISA.

No, I know about the FISA, but tell any American that Obama is against off-shore drilling and now he’s for it. Most people have no idea what the FISA bill is about.
Compromise on drilling to move forward with clean power. Meh … in the end, it’s somewhat better to have resources wasted into more oil drilling than to continue the stalemate and have nothing to invest into.

I find this one fairly palatable. The FISA flipflop was pretty unnecessary from what I could tell.
I agree Kar, but I’m still uneasy about this for some reason. Call it paranoia, but there’s something about this that just isn’t right.

Maybe because two flip-flops signals a trend….?
Cue the McCain charge of flip-flopping even though he himself changed his mind in 3, 2, 1….
I don’t know if a simple flip-flop ad will do much good after saying Obama is Moses
While I don’t like it, I do understand the fact that the GOP sees an opening in an otherwise dismal year for them. They are losing on basically every issue except for this drilling thing, and they are pushing it hard.

Not a bad idea to take some of the wind from their sails on this subject.
I see it as just another move to get a few more votes. Watch him continue to flop throughout his campaign in an effort to win the Presidency.

He isn’t against oil or for clean energy. What would his ethanol industry advisors think if he went for power other than that supplied by oil?

Let’s see.

FISA

funding for religious based groups

offshore drilling

NEXTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?

whereas McCain is a principled politician.

that wasn’t a flip-flop, I don’t think. It’s just seen as a continuation of bush policies that a lot of dems didn’t like.

Obama is a pretty religious dude for a democrat, so I don’t think that it should have surprised anyone.

Not to me. He’s tired from all his own flip-flopping.

I’m more cynical. I see it as an attempt to garner some Christian right voters. Probably polled it out to see how many people he’d piss off versus how many votes he’d gain.

that still doesn’t make it a flip flop

because any of the christian right could be persuaded to vote for obama

well I’m sure part of the strategy is to get more of them to stay home in disgust. the bible-beaters are really feeling left behind after 8 years of Bush, who did nothing more than talk a good fight, when it comes to the jesus camp.
I don’t see what you guys have against offshore drilling. The oil rigs are so far out nobody will ever see them, so they aren’t eyesores. Environmental issues? Spills don’t come from oil rigs, they come from tankers running aground. If tanker traffic doesn’t come from our oil rigs, it’s going to come from some other country we’re importing from that probably doesn’t have near as many environmental regs as we do.

It’s almost as if there’s… no logical reason. Almost as if… certain people just think drilling for and using oil is evil…

Because offshore drilling in the US is a huge red herring in the issue of immediate oil costs. Further than that, it’d be a waste of investments that could go into clean renewable power that seem to be projected for the same timeframe as any actual results from new offshore leasing.

As for immediate effect on prices, true.
If private (oil company) funds are being used to drill, who cares? It’s none of our fucking business.

As for "clean, renewable power"; when it becomes feasible, investments will follow.

Nuclear, wind, and solar all have their place, but there are groups (of idiots) objecting to each of them.

Hell, people are investing in Ethanol, and it is the worst possible "solution" out there.

So .. would you say that it was "none of our fucking business" when private funds were used to keep developing leaded gasoline?

If they can’t use it, and still want to back it, why protect them from themselves?

Besides, leaded gas is still used in off-road applications.

You didn’t answer the question. Was it unwise/rash/idiotic for the government to restrict leaded gasoline?

In the context of cleaner cars, no. Unleaded gas works just fine, and gives greater latitude for lower-emission cars.

However, if a company wants to continue developing leaded gas, such as for racing, that’s their dime.

I’m old enough to remember what heavy traffic smelled like when cat-equipped cars were few and far between. Shit made your eyes burn.

You don’t see any analogy here with the government being able to guide more of the private funds to investments that make better sense for the future?

Yes, like they did with the feel-good failure that is ethanol, right?

They need to stay the fuck out…everything they touch has a habit of turning to shit.

…or it could mirror the wisdom of the conversion to unleaded.

That’s a pretty strained generalization that conveniently allows people to avoid discussing this specific issue and it’s relevant facts. And in light of Enron and the subprime frauds, it doesn’t help that the same complaint might be levied against greedy corporate execs.

Unleaded didn’t drive up food prices, or put a strain on available farmland.

The private sector outperforms the government consistently, and can change direction when needed, without the bureacracy/red tape.

I see what you mean, but the government shouldn’t force people to invest "their way". If there’s profit to be had from a given line of research, it’ll gain ground.

In the case of Ethanol, a government with our best interests at heart should’ve killed it.

Well …. I would think that this point is certainly not as open-and-shut as you’re implying here.

And if there is no foreseeable profit to be made…..?
A switch to unleaded gas on their own wouldn’t exactly have made things easier/more profitable for either oil companies or car companies. There are plenty of similar examples.
This is strictly political posturing.

When you have 3/4 of the population calling for drilling, he has only 2 choices.

Stand by his guns and be in agreement with only a quarter of the people

Change your stance so you are on the side of the vast majority.

Hopefully those other measures include expanding nuclear power infrastructure.

Oh wait, Democrats are against that too.

Seems coal and oil plants are the only viable high-yield energy plants they’re willing to build Real clean, those.

The switch to unleaded was forced, but at least the technology was mature enough for mass production.

Not so in the ’70s, when the Feds forced class 8 truck makers to equip their products with not-yet-reliable ABS systems. The directive was rescinded, but not before numerous deaths and many bad crashes.

The private sector would not have produced it so quickly; because of the enormous liability involved, they would’ve worked the bugs out first. But they were ordered to produce it, period.

The fact is, the government is made up of people; these people often follow knee-jerk courses of action that sound good, but sometimes don’t pan out. These people aren’t experts at technical things, and need to stay out of shit they are unfamiliar with.
Maybe those other measures will include standardizing fuel additives, thus cutting out bureaucracy, increasing economies of scale, and lowering prices substantially?

Oh wait, Democrats oppose THAT too.

Not sure how this answered the question about the government’s involvement when there is no foreseeable profit.

Further, expecting perfection is not a reasonable argument. On the other hand, if you are trying to make a convincing case about the superiority of private companies to move towards options that make better sense for the future instead of better bottom lines, then I think you have your work cut out for you, but I’d be interested in hearing it.

This was covered in another thread, so I’ll summarize my argument and leave it at that. Offshore drilling is merely a bandaid to put on the wound of our energy crisis, while we need to be investing in sutures and dressings called alternative fuels. It’s a distraction that will only put us behind in research, because no one will research them when oil is still profitable.

It isn’t the immediate effects I am concerned about.
Any number of countries can (and, well lets face it are) holding the US’s economy ransom over oil.

If we had the ability to drill and pump our own oil we would have control over that.

Thing is, it is going to take some time to get us there - maybe as much as a decade.
Every year we sit on our hands and don’t allow drilling is another year away our decade wait is going to be.

Lets get this ball rolling.

even once it’s rolling it will just be a drop in the bucket.

no immediate effect, no important long-term effect.

And alternative fuels are untested and not even real.

Look at biofuels - just look at them.

5 years ago people where like ‘biofuels are the answer!!!’.

Looks like we have created a problem over the price of corn.
Apparently the laws of supply and demand are biting us on the ass. Who would have thunk that there was a finite supply of corn and corn that is going into gas tanks can’t be sold for fuel?
Who would have thought that farmers would have had the audacity to sell corn to the highest bidder (biofuels) rather then as food products?

It really bothers me that we are waiving our arms around these other ‘next generation fuels’ and acting like there is no possible downside and we need to run with them as fast, as far and as BLINDLY as we can.

We need to invest in our oil infrastructure because it is a proven commodity that we understand. If this other stuff doesn’t pan out we can always fall back on oil.

No it isn’t a drop in the bucket. We are sitting on some of the largest oil fields on the planet.

You know who is investing in oil feilds just 100 mile off our coast?
China.
Those communist cocksuckers are pumping oil just 100 miles off our coast and then selling it back to us.

I call bullshit on that. We need to get into the game. Our policies against oil drilling are raping us.

No, that’s exactly the fucking point, we can’t. Oil WILL run out. It is a limited, non-renewable resource, and it will run out.

No one is talking about using corn as ethanol again, try and keep up. What we need to do is invest money into making cost effective alternative fuels that can be used on a large scale without impacting the cereal market.
now that there isn’t going to be a vote on it, he’s in favor of exploration, politics as usual

So why has oil gone down some $20 a barrel in two weeks, if the only way to lower prices is significant changes in the supply? I don’t know that there have been any such changes, but there’s been a lot of talk about drilling. Oil speculation will magnify any expected supply change from drilling (which is not, despite some people saying it over and over, necessarily going to take 10 years to pay off, although it would be worth doing even in that case).

As for it being a waste of investments… I think the oil companies would know better than you where the best place to put their investments is. If offshore drilling isn’t worthwhile, then they aren’t going to do it. The thing is, it is worthwhile. You and me, aka the government, isn’t talking about subsidies here, either, just lifting a nonsensical ban.

Drilling vs. alternative energy is a false dilemma. Alternatives are being developed and will continue to be developed no matter what, because the price of oil is not going back below $50. Meanwhile, we still need oil for the forseeable future.

As opposed to what… Fannie Mae? Yeah the government does so much better than the private sector.

We can do two things at the same time.

What effect does hamstringing the economy with high oil prices have on private enterprise, research, and development? Tell me how that helps, when companies are spending money on fuel that could be going into the research budget.

"When oil is still profitable"…. uh, haven’t the leftists been complaining because oil is more profitable than ever? That’s why alternatives are coming… because oil is expensive. But as you say yourself, oil isn’t going to get that much cheaper even if we drill, so that development is not going to stop. But it will still save money.

There is no incentive to research in alternative fuels since it’s clear oil is still the way to go. If we could get some passive impetus to get companies to say hey, we could be first on the block with high sugar ethanol or something similar, that’s how this will work. Would you want to invest a shitload of money into something you know people couldn’t be bothered to purchase from you?
It’s obvious to everyone paying attention that there is big money in alternative fuel. That’s why there is so much R&D going on right now. If oil went down to $40 a barrel tomorrow, some people might decide there is no money in it, and some would realize that oil is destined to go back up and be undeterred. Either way, oil is not going to go down to $40 a barrel.

Even if it did, what is wrong with using the oil we have? Everyone knows oil is going to be too expensive to use one day. Everyone. EVERYONE KNOWS. You don’t need to teach them. THEY KNOW. Have some faith in your fellow human beings for once, please. The problem is, we do not have a replacement yet. You cannot wish or legislate one into existence. When it’s ready, it will be ready, and plenty of people will switch. But then oil will get cheaper and other people won’t switch. That’s the way it goes.

My point is, why not start the heavy R&D NOW, before investing billions into drilling for more oil? We’re sitll going to be pulling in the same amount of foreign oil for the next 10-15 years, which should be enough time to at least get some SERIOUS ideas on the table.

You mean the same Fannie Mae that assisted the mortgage markets swimmingly for 60+ years until the bank DEregulation of 1999/2000 pushed through Congress by McCain’s current economic advisor, Phill Gramm?

The guy who’s also known as the author of The Enron Loophole….?

The heavy R&D has already started. What you don’t seem to understand is that throwing money at the problem does not magically create new energy solutions. Research and experiments take time, and meanwhile, we need oil.

No, we need oil, but we do NOT need THIS oil. That’s the point. In the 10-15 years it takes to get oil out of the ground, we could be well on our way to alternative energy. That in and of itself cooter punches both anti-foreign oil and lower gas price arguments.
No, it’s not going to take 10-15 years. Some of it will be available sooner. Either way, the oil futures market has an effect on price beyond actual supply, and lifting a ban on drilling will reduce the value of futures, thus reducing the near-term cost of oil.

And we will still need oil in 10, 15, 20, and 30 years. Even if we are "well on our way" by then to using other things. Oil is used for a lot more than powering automobiles. So yes, we do still need THIS oil. We need the promise of it today to lower oil futures, and we will need it in actuality when it comes online.

and yet we have wind farms, we have solar plants, we have geothermal plants, we have companies expanding on electric technology, we have companies right now producing products that you as the homeowner can go out right this minute, buy and be completely independent of the power grid.
We have companies working on hydrogen fuel cells.

So this bullshit about "no one will research them because oil is profitable" is just that, utter bullshit.

Technology has been growing and the fields in alternatives are growing, but unlike the pipedreams and fantasyland expectations of the eco nuts, the shit isn’t going to magically manifest itself in a year or two. We are looking at decades before any real alternative is going to be feasible for wide spread use and affordable.

You aren’t going to force anything to happen faster with government mandates. Companies working on all of these new ideas have something far more valuable as a goal, money. Everyone knows that the first company that can create any of this tech that is feasible and affordable and functional is going to be rich. THAT is what drives the research, not a government mandate.

So … again we come to your implication that more offshore drilling will actually be able to give us oil in this "meanwhile." I haven’t seen anything reliable that says that it will. The offshore "solution" doesn’t kick in any real results for 15+ years, according to Bush’s own Dept. of Energy.

And if Clinton and the democrats hadn’t vetoed it 12 years ago, we would be seeing the outcome today.
Instead we hear the same thing. "not for 10 years".

So we once again have a congress that spews crap about energy, refuses to do anything at all, tells us "not for 10 years" and we will end up 10 years from now in what condition?

Enough of the stupidity, let the oil companies drill. There is no downside that can be given that’s logical anymore. In 10 years, while we are still waiting for that cheap battery powered car that will go 250 miles on a charge and can be recharged in 10 minutes, we will have oil to use.

You’re talking to a guy who wants a weak US and strong China. He’s sick of "US imperialism" and all that liberal extremist crap. China sucking up oil 100 miles off our coast and getting rich off it selling it to us is fair game in his book.

don’t forget stating iran is a serious threat.

all these things sound very familiar. almost like…. our current president.

hope and change

Lots of developments have been made in the last 10 years. Only 2-3 of which we have had the higher oil prices.

Explain the other 7 years of developments and breakthroughs.

Why not do both? Ever heard of a Plan B?

And you want to deny us a solution in 15+ years?

The biggest problem with politicians is that they think of "now" instead of the future. who cares about the future. Let someone else worry about it. Nice way to think.

Yeah … investing into clean energy is so "who cares about the future…"

You mean Obama doing all that APPEASEMENT of Iran? Was that like Bush, too?

If Democrats gain control of everything we won’t have shit for an alternative solution in 10-15 years. Democrats oppose nuclear power, and they opposed Bush promoting the R&D of hydrogen fuel cells that would run off a stronger power grid from nuclear energy.

Notice I actually supported my claim with loudly stated Democrat positions, as opposed to running around saying "Hope and change will fix everything!"

Democrats don’t oppose nuclear power. They just don’t see it as a "solution" as the republicans do because it doesn’t work most of the time (note: strict safety and disposal procedures and very specific places that reactors are feasible to build), and hydrogen is merely a crock of shit that Bush keeps pushing even though it requires more petroleum to extract hydrogen than you’d save by using it.

nuclear provides 20% of our power. renewables provide 3%. what doesn’t work most of the time again?

Hydrogen fuel cells can never work!

So tell us, o wise one, what is the solution? What specific technology on the horizon, which is massively scalable and does not require massive influx of finite raw materials, are you focusing your hope upon? Because all I hear from you here is, "No we can’t!"

I guess you think we can conserve our energy needs away.

I am not focusing it on anything whatsoever, which, for the 385th time, is why we need to be doing research instead of just going out and getting more oil when we don’t need it. It’s curious that you tell me to not focus on one thing, but all I hear from the republicans is NUKE NUKE NUKE.

So your solution is…. some magical, mystical technology that hasn’t been thought of yet and you don’t even know what it is?

And you think THAT is going to be viable for broad-based consumer use in less than 15 years??

Talk about living in dreamland.

There are 104 nuclear reactors in America, and that number has not changed in over 20 years. Want to know why? Because you cannot decide to build a nuclear reactor in just any area, it requires very specific location and environmental conditions to be safe.

No genius, I’m admitting that I don’t know everything that there is to know, but do know that investing in a non renewable resource doesn’t make much sense. I didn’t realize it was wrong to show humility in a debate.

Apparently it does make sense for the people investing in it, because they are seeing all those huge profits that Obama wants to confiscate with a "windfall profits tax"! We are not talking about government subsidies for oil. You want to bitch about things that don’t make sense to invest in, let’s start talking about corn-based ethanol subsidies. Now there is some seriously retarded-ass shit. And it was justified by the same kind of nonsense that you are spewing in this thread.

It is pretty damn clear that the government does not have clue one what we should be "investing" in. I say let the market decide.

Touche, I have no rebuttal for that because it was my improper wording. What I meant was not investing so as to make capital gain, but to invest our future as a nation and to invest our reliance on a non renewable source. My fault for not being clear.

Related posts:

1. Graph of donations to McCain from Big Oil since he flip flopped on offshore drilling Of that total, $881,450, or 73 percent, came after June 15. McCain announced his position in favor of offshore...
2. Obama now favors drilling on the coastline Sen. said Saturday he is simply acting pragmatically in softening his opposition to additional oil drilling along the nation's coastline,...
3. Serious question: was Obama ever actually opposed to drilling? That is, did he ever actually say it was really a bad thing? Everything I ever heard from him simply...
4. To the conservatives & pro-oil republicans: Why is it that you love oil so much and want to push so hard to bring in more oil?...
5. Here’s a good read on windfall taxes and why it’s silly to levy them against Big Oil What Is a 'Windfall' Profit? August 4, 2008 The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to...