[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Yes we can drill baby, drill! (click to view)
Date: April 1, 2010
President Obama unveiled a massive new domestic energy initiative yesterday that will include an expansion of oil drilling in various parts of US coastal territory. Among other regions, drilling will occur in parts of the Alaskan coast, which of course we remember was something Sarah Palin was always harping in favor of back in the day.

Obama coming out in favor of oil drilling was thus classic political give-and-take; by moderating his stance on oil he is hoping Republicans will back some of his other energy-related initiatives, such as greater investments in green technology and tighter limits on carbon emissions.

But of course that probably won't happen. The right-wing talking heads have already responded snarkily to the overture, and according to this rather cruelly titled piece in TIME magazine ("Obama's compromise on offshore drilling pleases exactly no one") Republicans have bashed the President's drilling plans for not going far enough.

I guess it's possible cooler heads in the GOP will prevail, and there will end up being bipartisan support for the energy bill, but if not, one wonders if the President should even bother chasing that chimera anymore.

[Guy_Fawkes]

No matter what Obama does he will never please the likes of Sarah Palin and her ilk. They are far too deep in the party coolaid bowl to see anything through with reason. The same can be said for the hard leftists and econuts who will cry for the rape of mother earth.

[Pseudonym]

More drilling is good, but I would like specifics on which areas are being opened up and which are not. I guess tentative support for now.

[Pseudonym]

I like the Brenda Cummings quote:
"Short of sending Sarah Palin back to Alaska to personally club polar bear cubs to death, the Obama administration could not have come up with a more efficient extinction plan for the polar bear."

Environmentalists make me laugh.

[Psudo]

I'm all for coastal oil drilling, but will oval office support for it actually result in new domestic oil production? Will US refineries, which are already operating at capacity, be expanded to handle more capacity? I'd like to see it, but I'm a little skeptical.

As Steve Milloy points out, Bush supported new drilling for two years with less of a Democratic majority in the legislature to no avail. Can Obama accomplish more than that with an even more opposed legislature?

As for polar bear populations, we have a horrible time estimating polar bear populations and mixed evidence about whether those populations are increasing or decreasing [an example]. Treating them as if they were facing extinction is more faith than science. And I'm pretty sick of hearing about it.

[Mr_Canada]

I don't get it, is that Obama dressed as Palin? I don't get why Palin would be saying "What more do they want?".

[Kjorteo]

I gave up on chasing that chimera a long time ago, but then again, I'm not the President.

[sandorski]

The Republicans will simply Oppose anything Obama does.Whether they agree with the Policy or not. The HC Reform debate is the perfect example of this. The Bill is practically a carbon copy of previous Republican proposals and still there was complete Republican opposition, even from those Republicans who made the previous proposals the Bill implemented.

[commanderkai]

Maybe I missed it, but saying it doesn't go far enough isn't bashing. The Senate minority leader did say it was a "step in the right direction", after all.

[martin14]

Psudo wrote:

I'm all for coastal oil drilling, but will oval office support for it actually result in new domestic oil production? Will US refineries, which are already operating at capacity, be expanded to handle more capacity? I'd like to see it, but I'm a little skeptical.

As Steve Milloy points out, Bush supported new drilling for two years with less of a Democratic majority in the legislature to no avail. Can Obama accomplish more than that with an even more opposed legislature?

As for polar bear populations, we have a horrible time estimating polar bear populations and mixed evidence about whether those populations are increasing or decreasing [an example]. Treating them as if they were facing extinction is more faith than science. And I'm pretty sick of hearing about it.

Ur right Psudo. the real problem is in the refineries.

Seems funny the Dems are now trying Republican programs.

[Pseudonym]

sandorski wrote:

...The [Health Care] Bill is practically a carbon copy of previous Republican proposals...

My mind. It boggles.

[Pseudonym]

Mr_Canada wrote:

I don't get it, is that Obama dressed as Palin? I don't get why Palin would be saying "What more do they want?".

Palin is associated with the "Drill, baby, drill" chant and other such drilling advocacy. Obama is dressed as Palin because he is now taking up a favorable position towards drilling. Obama is saying "What more do they want?" because Republicans are not satisfied with his increased drilling proposal.

[Mr_Canada]

So... 'Yes' is what you are trying to say, right?

[Teikiatsu]

The problem is that this will not lead to more drilling, only to more exploration. By the time the oil companies locate deposits worth investing resources towards, Obama will have implemented some manner of Cap and Trade and the EPA will institute new regulations now that they can call carbon dioxide a dangerous greenhouse gas. Unless something changes in the next year (please please November elections please) this whole thing is a farce from Obama to try and garner Republican support for his energy plans.

It's just a matter of Obama thinking he's clever and people seeing through the charade.

[Teikiatsu]

sandorski wrote:

The Republicans will simply Oppose anything Obama does.Whether they agree with the Policy or not. The HC Reform debate is the perfect example of this. The Bill is practically a carbon copy of previous Republican proposals and still there was complete Republican opposition, even from those Republicans who made the previous proposals the Bill implemented.

Republican proposals were 130 pages long. The Democrat's bill (now law, ugh) is 2400+. That is not a carbon copy. The claims that the proposals are from the Heritage Foundation are false and they have responded.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HeritageFou ... 6yZnmxpY9w

Claiming that the Republicans had no problem with the Romney plan in Massachussets are also wrong, as the states can implement plans like mandated health insurance but the federal government cannot.

It is not correct to say that Republicans (and conservatives like me) simply oppose Obama because he is Obama. We oppose his ideas, as well as Pelosi's and Reid's, because they are far too leftist. The proposals of the HRC were a massive swing to the left, over-regulating, massive tax hikes, massive intrusion into privacy, and basically the wet dream of the left. There wasn't even an attempt to compromise as they had the votes in both Houses when the bills were up for vote in 2009. You think we wouldn't oppose that?