This is why Pelosi should never have offered this "compromise" in the first place.  In 6 months, Dems should have enough votes to pass renewables legislation without offshore drilling.  Allowing offshore drilling is just handing over taxpayer dollars to the oil companies while destroying the environment and doing nothing to reduce gas prices.

Americans need to know that getting off of fossil fuels is the only true solution to our energy problems.  This "compromise" just plays into GOP talking points.  

Is agreeing to offshore drilling a way of undercutting one of the few Republican issues?

There's no way that any drilling is going to happen for many, many years.  The equipment just isn't available.  Additionally there is going to be a lot of resistance in most coastal states and judicial delays in the others.

By then we (hopefully) will have viable, affordable electric cars, significant installed wind generation, and much less expensive solar generation.  The shift away from petroleum should be well underway before the first big spill created.

Add to that the increasing public realization that global climate change is something that must be taken seriously.  How many people are likely to go out and buy a gas burning car when they can get a better performing electric for the same money and save significantly each time they 'tank up'?

Let the Regressives have their off-shore drilling rights.  See if the market agrees with them.

I'm betting that zero new rigs will appear.

Obama is on the ropes here on drilling.  He is taking the beating, maybe he can tire out the opposition by taking the punches like Ali could?

That maybe working.  But I think he should now go radical and fight back directly.  Straight talk the former straight talker.

Tell the truth, increasing supply is a dead end, only reducing demand will solve the problem.  Propose voluntary, patriotic oil use reduction targets of 1 1/4% per quarter, along with programs that will help meet those reductions.

Develop an emergency oil rationing plan in case of a catastrophic short supply becuae of war or natural disaster, coupled with petroleum reserve supply.  

If quarterly targets are missed, institute milder rationing to get the reduction plan back on track.  Call for personal sacrifice similar to those made by the generations that won WW2.

It's a radical way to fight back.  Just right for Obama.  FDR did it, talked to the people and got the necessary sacrifice for national survival.  It's a good time to do that again.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Thomas Frank's new book, The Wrecking Crew, proposes that the conservative agenda calls for deliberate misgovernment to shake the public trust in government so they can further weaken regulations and private interests can cash in.
Compromises with people who are trying not to succeed can only be counter productive.    

How well has this worked to reduce the risk to our economy?  

How much better would targeted reduction, that keeps ahead of supply restriction, coupled with emergency rationing be at eliminating that oil price shock risk to our economy?

It would mean a whole new economic boom based on stability of energy prices and a reduction of inflation.  Our currency would gain strength immediately, and that would lower prices signifigantly.

In a world of state owned oil companies and OPEC price fixing and corrupt insider trading, how could a market based approach to hedging risk, that depends on real free market (a free market that doesn't exist) efficiency, be effective?  It doesn't work.  As we all can see.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

the conservative agenda calls for deliberate misgovernment to shake the public trust in government so they can further weaken regulations and private interests can cash in.

Is there a more perfect description of the achievements of the current administration? It may have have looked like pure ineptitude but W turned out to be 'smarter' than he looked.

Is there a sad paradox here? Is 'good' government that actually addresses itself to the fundamental necessities of fiscal, social and environmental responsibility inevitably doomed to be undervalued and condemned? Do we only have respect for a government that totally f**ks up, so long as it does so spectacularly and shamelessly? I guess we'll know in November. "You can fool some of the people all of the time..."

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

The current federal movement to reduce government as much as possible began under the Reagan presidency.  If I remember correctly, it was not even a secret policy.  They said they wanted to starve the agencies they didn't like, then claim that government can't do the job so it needs to be deregulated and privatized.  Amtrak is a favorite target for this, as publicly owned urban transportation has long been on a local level.

So, this is an old idea that began even before Reagan was in the White House.  Unfortunately, as has sometimes been pointed out on Grist, the corporate media has every reason to censor this information, and that's exactly what it's done.