After reading today's Seattle Times editorial on the topic of offshore drilling one would get the impression this is merely the last foolish gasp of a failing administration that we can simply hope for the end of come next January. That utterly misses the point of the current rapidly changing political landscape on the issue.
The piece notes: "America's energy independence will not be found in offshore oil drilling." True. America's energy independence - if it can ever be achieved - will be found in a multiplicity of policy solutions.
Yet for now, Democratic responses to the great gnashing of teeth among the American public seems to be slap an extra tax on the profits of domestic oil companies (see Carter, Jimmy) and pray for the day when you can plug your new car - paid for out of your pocket - into the wall, where the electricity will no doubt be powered by solar panels, wind farms, and/or biofuels aplenty.
By chance, the American public might not see that as anything other than a very long-term solution to a very immediate problem.
The Times - and the left-of-center in general - seems utterly flummoxed by this shift. They really shouldn't be. As a general rule, whenever a news story that benefits conservatives makes it to the pages of the New York Times one can rest assured it has real legs, including this: "but the public debate over drilling suggests that the political landscape has changed."
It has changed, and quickly at that. Where feel-good policy pronouncements from environmentalists sold with the general public when filling up the gas tank was a mere chore, they don't now that the task has become a painful hit on the family wallet. Rasmussen and Gallup both have had polls showing substantial support for offshore drilling that would have been unheard of even last year.
As a visible sign that the issue has fundamentally flipped, the popularity of offshore drilling is even rising in Florida, where the topic has long been political taboo. Indeed, a separate Rasmussen poll in Florida not only found strong majority support for drilling, it also found this:
The Florida survey also found that McCain currently leads Obama in the state by a 47% to 39% margin. Six percent (6%) said they would vote for some other candidate while 8% are undecided.However, after voters were told that McCain favored offshore drilling and Obama opposed it, McCain's lead increased to eleven points, 49% to 38%. While a three-point net gain is not stunning, it is significant that the issue didn't push voters towards Obama. All of McCain's gains on the offshore drilling issue came from male voters.
Democrats like to say offshore drilling and the like represents the policies of the past. Yet, expanded domestic exploration has been slowed, frustrated, and blocked by environmental groups for decades. The policies of the past are exactly the ones that helped get us in this mess to begin with [In fairness, so did a lack of conservation, but low and behold, conservation has only become palatable to the general public when it became an economic self-interest. Now SUV sales are plunging, domestic auto companies are falling all over themselves to ramp up fuel-efficient models, and consumers are looking to tighten energy usage with gusto.]
Speaking of the past, the Times editorial relied on this closing line:
Bush can explain himself to the first President Bush -- and for that matter, his brother Jeb, who opposed offshore drilling as governor of Florida.
Perhaps they should have checked what Jeb more recently said on the topic:
You can protect the natural resources and the coastline of the state and also be part of national effort to deal with a national security crisis that our country faces right now," he said. "It's a huge economic problem for a lot of Americans, which is four-plus dollars a gallon gasoline. It's a burden that was never anticipated when we were discussing drilling policy 20 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago, two years ago."So I think you've got to give people in public life a little bit of room when the context changes for them to also adjust their views."
All those changes when gas crossed the $4 a gallon threshold. What happens when it crosses $5?
Posted by Eric Earling at June 23, 2008 10:57 PM | Email ThisActually, the policies proposed by the 'Rats are those of the past, very much in line with those advocated by that most successful, charismatic President of recent years, Jimmy Carter. Everyone button up in a sweater, give up your cars and ride the bus (tell that to your Queen Fraudoire or fat-a$$ Mayor Nickels), put solar panels on your roof (good luck with that in Seattle), and live a third world lifestyle, which is what you're going to get if you try to run an industrialized society on the things proposed by the 'Rats: ancient, ancient technologies like windmills and solar energy.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 24, 2008 06:27 AMIf we were starving from overpopulation, would they tell us "we can't farm our way out of this?" Sure we've got to get the overpopulation under control, but in the meantime, growing some wheat & corn would be nice.
As usual, the dems are incoherent on this issue. First they say we can't drill our way out of this problem, and new exploration won't bring in new oil for several years, and then they propose their solution which is some magic new technology which won't be available for even longer.
Of course the dems are all excited about electric cars. But they never stop and figure out that the electricity to power those cars must come from somewhere. Wind turbine farms (Cuisinart for birds) won't have anywhere near the capacity to power all those cars. So the electricity must come from oil (nope, emits CO2, aka plant food), natural gas (nope, more plant food), coal (nope, acid rain and plant food) or nuclear (nope, too dangerous). They're all waiting for some deus ex machina to save the day.
But then no one has accused the libs of logical consistency. Must be nice living in such a fantasy land.
The Rs are behind the curve on this latest red herring thrown out by the Reid/Pelosi crowd.
Answer the question and answer is truthfully. The truth will win out.
Posted by: swatter on June 24, 2008 07:47 AMFolks that traditionally have voted for Democrats but really don't pay attention may suddenly be realizing that the Dems have made America the land of "we can't". If there is a window into the soul of the modern Democratic Party surely this issue is it.
I don't know what Obama means with his slogan, "yes we can". All I hear coming out of his mouth lately is "no we can't"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 24, 2008 08:45 AMNope. And to borrow a line from There Will Be Blood (a fantastic movie BTW), "Your milkshake, I drink it up!". That'll be our oil they will be harvesting.
The news story on the local station this morning only talked about the impact of "speculators" on the price of oil and how Congress "generally agrees" that this is the cause of higher prices, and then they cut to Obama talking about the only way to lower prices is to decrease demand. Amazing the credibility given to Democratic issues. Nothing on increasing supply domestically, which is favored by more and more people every day.
Posted by: Palouse on June 24, 2008 09:39 AMThe left thinks getting us all into hybrids or depending on public transit will decrease demand. Surely Obama understands that nothing gets to market without oil, crops don't get harvested without oil, his campaign plane doesn't fly without oil. Hmmm, maybe Obama can set an example by decreasing his own demand for oil. He could campaign by train.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 24, 2008 11:05 AMThe impact of speculators is a real part of the problem. The law of supply and demand now applies to oil futures as much as for the oil itself. Its not an accident the hub of the futures market is in London, not Wall Street.
Further, our government isn't really interested in dropping the price. Doing so requires the Saudis to agree, and they have no interest in agreeing. They are making too much money. Nor will our government put pressure on the Saudis. Washington needs Saudi support for US policies in Iraq, and in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.
There are bad days ahead. By August (or Convention Season) gas will be over $5 a gallon. That is also harvest season and the full extent of the crop failures from the on-going floods in the Mid-West will become known. Plan on Corn Flakes at $10.00 a box.
Meanwhile, members of both parties have this deer in the headlights look on their faces. Their response....Get used to it!
My response....VIO. Vote Incumbants Out.
Posted by: Diogenes on June 24, 2008 11:09 AMCan you imagine trying to build Hoover Dam today? I can't. It would be impossible. Forget about American ingenuity.
Posted by: swatter on June 24, 2008 11:18 AMThe dirty little secret is that the infrastructure is already in Alaska, the infrastructure is already in the Gulf of Mexico... the only place it might take longer to get the oil is in deep water where they would have to start anew with infrastructure... everywhere else it would be within a max of 3 years.
AND, if we don't START the time limit whine is a meaningless red herring.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 24, 2008 11:42 AMI'm hoping high oil prices is the nightmare the left didn't see coming. The polls showing overwhelming support for domestic oil drilling certainly point that way. It could well be that the public will no longer tolerate the obstructionism of the extremist environmental left which controls the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 24, 2008 11:54 AMJeb couldn't anticipate $4 or $5 per gallon gas just two years ago? Those Bush boys are sure a dim lot.
Posted by: Splinter on June 24, 2008 12:56 PMBut not quite.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 24, 2008 01:07 PMAl Gore ramped up the fear mongering, but forgot to check on the sun. Similarly, we see the left screaming and ranting at Big Oil and Nuclear Energy, while demand and prices grow and grow.
Once again, the left will be blindsided by its inability to understand that ideas do have consequences. And when push comes to shove, voters are going to side with whoever gives them lower prices.
It's going to be funny when the exit polls show that all of the indoctrinated Obama youth who blushed at the stadium rallies, abandoned him for a cheaper receipt at the pump to fuel their active auto-based twenty-something lifestyles. And where are all of those transit trains promised? Oh yeah, they won't be ready until 2050.
Progressivism is great until you get the bill.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 24, 2008 01:47 PMI won't be surprised if he complains that the higher gas prices are going to help McCain.
Posted by: Bruno on June 24, 2008 03:31 PMI won't be surprised if he complains that the higher gas prices are going to help McCain.
Posted by: Bruno on June 24, 2008 03:32 PMI won't be surprised if he complains that the higher gas prices are going to help McCain.
Posted by: Bruno on June 24, 2008 03:32 PMIn other words, they assumed that we would all alter our lifestyle to match what they wanted it to be. They never thought that the public would instead demand that the goverment change and/or remove laws so that they could keep their current lifestyle.
Posted by: Ken on June 24, 2008 03:38 PM