Reply With Quote
LMAO.
Yeah, John Kerry's "flip-flop" label was a conservative fabrication. So is Obama's sudden change in heart on off-shore drilling.
It didn't work for Kerry. Obama should stick to his guns and keep his integrity.
I concur.
LMAO.
Yeah, John Kerry's "flip-flop" label was a conservative fabrication. So is Obama's sudden change in heart on off-shore drilling.
It didn't work for Kerry. Obama should stick to his guns and keep his integrity.
So you don't know how to read and you don't know how congress works. Ok.
You mean like Ms. America, Nancy Pelosi. Tells her fellow dimms, it is okay to say they support drilling if it will get them elected. While she saves the planet.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html
My problem with Pelosi on this issue is that the energy plan she is against leaves it up to the states to decide whether to drill off-shore. If her cons uents in California are that opposed and there are enough of them, I am sure they can keep their state from allowing off-shore drilling.You mean like Ms. America, Nancy Pelosi. Tells her fellow dimms, it is okay to say they support drilling if it will get them elected. While she saves the planet.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html
i really hate to break this to you, but....................
51% of Californians back offshore drilling
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008
(07-30) 22:28 PDT San Francisco -- A majority of Californians favor more oil drilling off the coast, according to a statewide survey released Wednesday, for the first time since oil prices ed nearly three decades ago.
The support by 51 percent of residents polled this month by the Public Policy Ins ute of California represents a shift caused by renewed Republican advocacy for drilling as well as motorists' reaction to soaring pump prices, according to the pollster.
With high oil prices and calls from President Bush and Republican presidential aspirant Sen. John McCain to open coastal waters to domestic production, support for drilling has jumped, particularly among Republicans, the poll says. Support increases with age and is slightly higher among men than women.
But as the price of oil hovers around $120 per barrel, double the cost a year ago, support for drilling has increased even among Democrats and independents, says the survey of 2,504 adult residents polled across the state July 8-22.
At the same time, more than half of the Californians surveyed believe that the effects of global warming have already begun and pose a serious threat to the state's economy and quality of life.
Those surveyed overwhelmingly support state requirements to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing the use of renewable energy from solar and wind sources and requiring carmakers, refineries and utilities to initiate tougher controls on emissions.
<< Map of oil rigs off Calif. coast >>
Californians once again pick air pollution as the most important environmental problem. And more Latinos and blacks - and residents of the Central Valley and Los Angeles - view it as a "very serious" threat. Across the state, people strongly favor tough air pollution standards on agriculture and industry as well as for diesel engines in trucks, buses and cargo ships.
In answer to an open-ended question about the state's most important environmental problem, after air pollution, people listed gas prices, energy and oil drilling, global warming and the loss of forests and wildfires. For the first time, worry over gas prices took a jump, from 1 percent last year to 12 percent this year.
"Over the course of the last year, at a time when we've seen support rising for offshore oil drilling, we've also seen a fairly dramatic increase in the Californians who say gasoline prices have caused financial hardship," said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Ins ute of California.
More support among GOP
But the biggest single factor in the change in at ude to drilling, he said, is "much more political support among Republican voters for offshore oil drilling than there was a year ago. The Republicans are hearing both from the president and the presidential nominee, who are making the case that drilling is good for economic and national security."
Republicans account for the greatest jump in support of offshore oil drilling, with 77 percent in favor, compared with 60 percent in the same poll last year. Democrats increased support to 35 percent in favor from 29 percent last year. Independents shifted to 44 percent in support compared with 33 percent in favor last year.
Some suggested that respondents would have answered differently if they had more information.
"The appropriate question is if you knew you could get more energy from efficiency and clean technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal, would you rather do that or drill along our pristine coast and risk harming a multibillion-dollar tourism, fishing and recreation economy," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She supports a congressional moratorium on exploration off the shores of coastal states.
On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was joined by governors of Oregon and Washington in asking for an extension of the moratorium. The governors of Maine, New Jersey and Maryland also want an extension.
But oil industry representatives say letters and calls for more domestic drilling are coming into Congress as Bush and other Republicans push for a vote on the moratorium and support legislation that would allow states to choose whether to develop oil resources.
Some oil producers say they aren't surprised at the shift in at udes of California residents, considering national polls that show a much higher support of opening up coastal waters to new drilling. A Field Poll released July 17 found that 51 percent opposed offshore drilling, down from the 56 percent that opposed it the last time the pollsters asked the question, three years ago.
"America's current energy challenge is having a profound effect on the daily lives of families all across the country, and that is part of what is changing the public perception," said Nicole Daigle, director of public affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents 5,000 independent oil and gas companies that produce onshore and offshore oil.
'Worse in the future'
As for offshore development, Daigle said, "It's not going to happen over night. But if we don't get started, it'll be worse for the country in the future."
The public's appe e for offshore drilling waned after the 1969 blowout and oil spill at a Unocal platform off the coast of Santa Barbara blackened Southern California beaches and killed wildlife.
But according to a 2003 University of California Energy Ins ute paper comparing the cost of a gallon of gasoline against the California public's support for offshore oil and gas drilling, that mood shifted as gasoline prices fluctuated.
"If you look back at a series of polls conducted by Field and others dating back to 1977, what you see is that support rises and falls with the price of gas," said Eric Smith, a professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara and author of the paper.
Today's support for drilling hasn't been so high since the early 80s, when oil prices were high, according to past Field polls.
Energy Department information shows that it could take a decade or more to affect gas prices, yet the link between support for drilling and fuel costs remains, Smith said.
"From the survey data that I see, a lot of people are confused about how quickly the impact of offshore oil drilling would affect gas prices. Sen. McCain has been saying it's a solution to the crisis. But the crisis is today. Offshore oil drilling would have an impact in perhaps a decade. It's wishful thinking."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNHL122B1T.DTL
Why is that breaking anything to me? My comments were that if her cons uents felt as strongly about the issue as she does, she should have no problem. I wasn't saying anything about whether they actually support her on this or whether they should support her on this. In fact, my entire point was that the legislation in question leaves the decision to the state and that Pelosi should defer to her cons uents and let them decide.
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-05-2008 at 12:27 PM.
Did you even read what he posted? Obama's willing to make concessions to move his energy policy forward. Is integrity incompatible with pragmatism? If so, we'll never move this country past the red/blue stalemate and get something done.
I don't mind McCain changing his opinions about things. I mind when he fabricates that he has always held to the same political ideology since day 1 as a government official.
Now, I'm sure at some point in the course of his political life, Obama will do that as well. And when he does, it will annoy me greatly and impact my opinion of him. The difference is that Obama didn't say, "I have always supported offshore drilling", he said, "I am willing to discuss it."
Discuss. That's an important word. Civilized discourse. McCain has shown very little ability to do so except to berate and make ridiculous attacks on Obama's character. And it's going to cost him in the presidential debates, where he will be crushed by Obama, who is staunchly focused on the issues right now. I hope he stays that way.
I have more of a problem with someone who can't change his mind when new information becomes available, than with "flip flops".
Everybody should be able to change their mind occasionally, so I allow a certain amount of leeway when it comes to such things.
No one should have any doubt that a candidate in an election will change positions to get votes. That said, one should not assume that all changes in policy positions are based on this.
YOu lose either way.
I've flip-flopped many times during my lifetime.
Yeah, I read what he posted. Obama didn't flip-flop, he's just COMPROMISING!!
Compromising his integrity, IMO.
Well Hitler did kill Jews, gays, communists, and gypsys...
Bush killed Muslims, Kurds and Christians.........
Name one?
I like how conservative conveniently forget that just a few short weeks ago the Republican leadership put out a ABP on 'conservatives' agreeing on liberal issues if it would help get reelected....Oh the hypocrisy!You mean like Ms. America, Nancy Pelosi. Tells her fellow dimms, it is okay to say they support drilling if it will get them elected. While she saves the planet.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html
Plus McCain is such a poor public speaker and Obama is charismatic on stage....Obama goes into the convention with a 6-8 point lead in the polls he has now and by the end of the convention it jumps to double digits...Discuss. That's an important word. Civilized discourse. McCain has shown very little ability to do so except to berate and make ridiculous attacks on Obama's character. And it's going to cost him in the presidential debates, where he will be crushed by Obama, who is staunchly focused on the issues right now. I hope he stays that way.
Yeah, Obama is charismatic... with a telestrator in front of his face to read off...
So when McCain has a telestrator and STILL sucks, what does that mean?
They're both ing idiots.
But at the end of the day, only one is going to have a direct and negative effect on my paycheck.
Yep. Damn those Columbia, University of Chicago, and Harvard educated individuals who have actually taught at one of the top universities in the nation. He's obviously a fool.
I think we both know they aren't ing idiots in the sense that they aren't well educated, but rather, they are both ing idiots because they are either too far left or to far right and neither of them truly represent America, just like no one has since I've been alive.
If politicians would stop being politicians, then we'd be better off.
But like I said, one of them is going to raise my taxes, so I'm going to vote for the other one.
Now quit being a sensitive little about this.
Because clearly if you went to one of those schools that automatically means you are smart. , you libs love to bash Bush and he was an Ivy Leaguer too.
Oh wait, only Republicans that went to Ivy league schools can be looked down on intellectually
It's not about where they went to school, it's about their elitist views that are out of touch with America.
you said it, brother!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
