<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The good, the bad, and the ugly of the &#8216;Gang of 10&#8217; drilling deal, part 2]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Gar Lipow</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/something-else-for-nothing/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:58:35 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/something-else-for-nothing/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>May or may not be good policy, but lousy politics</strong></p><p>As I said in a recent post, the Republicans have no interest in a compromise. The gang of ten proposal is standard used car tactics. McCain has already said explicitly that he is against it. Putting drilling on the table at this moment does NOT lead to a compromise where you get renewable funding too. It either leads to a bill where the Republicans get everything they want and clean energy gets somewhere between bubkes and crumbs, or it leads to Democrats painted as extremist obstructionists when they won't back down further when the GO10 "compromise" is rejected by the Republicans. I know you are mainly a policy guy, but isn't obvious if this kind of compromise is to be made at all, it should not be made in this political environment?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>May or may not be good policy, but lousy politics</strong></p><p>As I said in a recent post, the Republicans have no interest in a compromise. The gang of ten proposal is standard used car tactics. McCain has already said explicitly that he is against it. Putting drilling on the table at this moment does NOT lead to a compromise where you get renewable funding too. It either leads to a bill where the Republicans get everything they want and clean energy gets somewhere between bubkes and crumbs, or it leads to Democrats painted as extremist obstructionists when they won't back down further when the GO10 "compromise" is rejected by the Republicans. I know you are mainly a policy guy, but isn't obvious if this kind of compromise is to be made at all, it should not be made in this political environment?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>