If by change you are referring to the fact that he changes his supposed beliefs at the drop of a hat.
A story on today's MSNBC.com notes that Obama has once again changed, this time caving on his previous opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling, "if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources." I have to say, of all Obama's flip-flops, this one is the one that disappoints me most if for no other reason than it is the one that is most obviously the result of political expediency and not, as Obama claims, political compromise.
This is one of those issues where Obama had a real opportunity to stand up for what was right and eschew political pandering. And he blew it. By signing on to the idea of offshore drilling, Obama has done exactly what he criticized Hillary Clinton for doing earlier in the campaign when she floated the idea of a gas tax holiday - a proposal which he called a "shell game" that would mean little to nothing for consumers (see here). How convenient that Obama has now championed his own shell game, supporting offshore oil drilling that would produce no actual oil for at least another ten years and even that oil would more than likely be sold in foreign markets rather than in the U.S.
The American people may not understand this - but it was Obama's job not to cave to political pressure but to explain it to them. At the very least, if he really thought a compromise on offshore drilling was the only way to increase spending on alternative fuel sources, he could have insisted on a provision that would have forced any new oil found through such drilling to be sold only in domestic markets. His failure to do so is not only an environmental failure, it is a failure of political principle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
*resisting comparison to you-know-who*
This is one of the more interesting attacks on Obama making the rounds lately, which I simultaneously understand and roll my eyes at.
Understand: the very idea of "offshore drilling" is a red herring devised specifically to sound good to the idiot demographic while meaning absolutely nothing. Utterly Macbethian, if you will. So on the one hand, even a flip-flop means nothing in effect, which makes it all the more irritating for him to have flopped on it, because this is clear pandering . . .
. . . or it isn't, and he's signaling his willingness to make a deal. In so doing, he's probably also counting on enough of "his guys and gals" being in Congress to make that deal different than the one being discussed now. This wouldn't be a particularly bad strategy, if that's how it goes.
Where I roll my eyes is in everyone ignoring the elephant in the rhetorical room: the if. After Bush, a candidate willing to say, "Look, I want it this way, but if I can only get what I want another way, I may be willing to make that deal." I'd think that a cooperative approach would be more welcome to others, too; evidently, based on what's going around about this, it's not.
Also, what do you propose as a mechanism for keeping the oil in the domestic market? Damned if I can think of one that'll stand.
As for your "or it isn't" argument, I would respond that the time you start signaling that you're willing to make a deal on offshore drilling is AFTER you win the election. It's ridiculous to do so now as it means less than nothing. As for your "roll my eyes" argument, I would respond that this is not a position on which I think Obama should be willing to compromise. Much like drilling in ANWaR, expanded offshore drilling offers minimal benefits (if any) and too many environmental consequences for compromise to be meaningful.
This was Obama's opportunity to set himself decisively apart from McCain on an environmental issue and stand for something. He blew it. Big time. Does that make McCain the better candidate? Hell no. But it's yet another significant chink in the supposedly spotless Obama armor.
As for a mechanism for keeping the oil in the U.S....hell if I know. I couldn't even begin to suggest how you would go about such a thing. But it would have been a slightly better compromise.
Well, wait a second. Not long ago, you post that you want Obama to say something, rather than speak in platitudes. Now, you're pissed that he had the temerity to signal (maybe) that he'd be open to a particular deal in a particular sector to get a particular (if still vague) package of policies moving. Damned if he doesn't, damned if he does -- and not for what he does (though that, too), but for the act of doing. That's an unfair way to evaluate the situation.
Now, I happen to agree with you that this is a colossally stupid idea (I think that was fairly clear from my original comment), but this may be great politics. Look at it this way. 2/3 of the country thinks (wrongly, but that aside) that drilling is just the best idea EVAR. So tie your support to it to real solutions, look like you're a) supporting change and looking ahead while b) pandering shamelessly to the idiot demographic -- and let's be honest, most of them will say "yeah, he flopped, but he was RIGHT to flop this time!"
At the same time, bank on your party gaining more seats in both houses -- which virtually everyone is predicting. All of a sudden, your need to compromise is substantially lessened, and you can get moving the way you want to. I've no real indication that this is what he has in mind, but it strikes me as a pretty good idea.
How do you classify his pandering to the stupid demographic as articulating a meaningful direction for his administration? I hardly think my failing to give him credit for this one means he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. To quote Gertrude Stein, there's no there there.
Sure there's a there there -- or what is it that we're upset about? To say that this is meaningless is to reduce "meaningful" to "that with which I agree/can endorse," which isn't what it means.
It's a shitty idea, particularly if he follows through on it -- but it's not meaningless.
Oh, and to clarify, he's targeting the idiot demographic, not the stupid demographic.
The stupid demographic is composed of those who, god bless 'em, simply don't have the processing power at their disposal.
The idiot demographic is that subset of the population that is ostensibly capable of rational thought, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Post a Comment