"Kerry’s Office: Drilling Will Help Get 60 Votes For Climate Legislation"

[Clio the Leo]

Someone get John Kerry an "Obama Apologist" t-shirt. ;)

Kerry’s Office: Drilling Will Help Get 60 Votes For Climate Legislation

The office of John Kerry, who has staked out a key role shepherding climate legislation, sends over a statement supporting Obama’s offshore drilling announcement, saying it’s explicitly about winning over Republican support for climate change legislation.

Kerry spokesperson Whitney Smith emails:

“President Obama once again today reaffirmed his commitment to passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

“In the difficult work of putting together a 60 vote coalition to price carbon, Senator Kerry has put aside his own long-time policy objections and been willing to explore potential energy sources off our coasts as part of a suite of alternative solutions. He and his colleagues are committed to find acceptable compromises on onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration, conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner that protects the interests of the coastal states.

“They’ve met with Senators who oppose drilling and those who support it and they’ve worked for months to determine the best solutions.”

Kerry and Senator Lindsey Graham, in the belief that “cap and trade” can’t pass the Senate, are trying to build bipartisan support in the Senate for a climate change bill that would adopt, among other things, a “market-based” approach to curtailing carbon emissions. As the statement above suggests, Kerry believes that this move will win over some GOP support for this approach.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/kerrys-office-drilling-will-help-get-60-votes-for-climate-legislation/

[polichick]

1. Sort of like payoffs to the ins. industry and big pharma got all those Republican votes?? nt

[Clio the Leo]

2. Are you referring to the new health care LAW? NT

[polichick]

6. I'm referring to all those Republican votes we got for selling out...

Oh yeah, Obama got zip by doing that.

[Clio the Leo]

9. during the passage of the new LAW? NT

[polichick]

15. Yeah, that shitty sellout law. Zero Republicans - but you keep ignoring that. nt

[Clio the Leo]

18. So you actually WANT Republican support?

Btw I'm -ing with

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

41. In your OP. Kerry is saying clearly that he hopes for at least one Repug vote.

59 + 1 (R).

Did you miss that?

[karynnj]

45. True - and he'll need more than that

[freddie mertz]

74. Then why is the author of the OP calling folks out on this point?

I find this very confusing.

[polichick]

51. No, I want the president to stop selling out to corporate interests...

Can't imagine why this answer got deleted the first time.

[OhioBlue]

97. true - but we passed that the first time in the Senate when we had 60

We gotta get at least one R now.

[karynnj]

44. No, those deals were needed to get the 60 Democrats -

without which there would have been no bill. The entire thing could not have been done by reconciliation. You might also notice, we did not have a lot of votes to spare in the House.

[polichick]

89. Those industry deals were cut early on when the prez was very much courting Republicans. nt

[Jennicut]

87. We were not really looking for Rethug votes on HCR, we were looking for Dem votes

in the Senate. How soon we forget.

[polichick]

90. Maybe you've forgotten, but I haven't - see #89. nt

[karynnj]

43. The dynamics here are completely different

Here, there are not 60 Democratic votes. There are not even 59. Some of the concessions will be to get DEMOCRATS to vote for it. In fact, reconciliation is not an option here.

Here is the Johanns amendment prohibiting it and the list of people who voted for it:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Johanns Amdt. No. 735 )
Vote Number: 126 Vote Date: April 1, 2009, 05:51 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 735 to S.Con.Res. 13 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.
Vote Counts: YEAs 67
NAYs 31
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---67
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00126

Then consider that 14 Democratic Senators wrote asking favors for Coal - including many DU favorites - like Franken, Feingold, Rockefeller, and Brown.

Now, why did they that - they are representing state that will be hurt if energy from coal is made more expensive or is replaced by more expensive fuels. They are acting in their constituents' short term interests.

[ananda]

3. In bizarro lookingglass world..

you destroy the environment in order to
get votes to save it...

Words fail.

[tridim]

11. Why didn't you listen to the President's speech this morning?

[karynnj]

49. Not really here is a Daily Kos Diary that analyzes Obama's action

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/31/1114/30039

Miller is one of the best bloggers I have seen there on climate change - and he is against this drilling. It is clear that what Obama did was to rule out the most environmentally sensitive areas, and allow drilling, outside states that want drilling. If you look at the letter from anti-OSD, you will see that there is no drilling outside most of their states. (DE is the exception)

The problem is how do you pass a law to limit carbon, which needs 60 votes in the Senate. If you believe that pricing carbon is needed to prevent catastrophe, then these deals might be ok - if more good is done than bad. (Not to mention, there was Republican and conservative support to do this in the energy bill - with no climate change provisions.

What I don't know is if Obama's offer is only as part as a comprehensive package.

[Webster Green]

4. "winning over Republican support "

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. Who said Democrats don't have a sense of humor. nt

[CakeGrrl]

5. Once again, there's more to what's going on behind the scenes

than the surface action that gets people so reactionary.

Nevertheless, prepare for a gazillion threads this week about the Prez being an evil oil driller!

:crazy:

[Clio the Leo]

10. Have you ever noticed.....

.... that those who's opinions seem based on a very shallow reading of the story in question are also the ones who're posting an OP repeating an outrage that has already been said in five other threads?

Odd isn't it.

[tridim]

13. There will be outrage, no matter what the Pres does.

The DU outrage over this proposal is especially nutty. The outrage meme was solidified well before the speech (because you know Obama is just like Bush :eyes: ), and then the content of the speech was completely ignored by the outraged. They didn't listen to a word he said.

This is developing into a distinct pattern.

[Ignis]

25. Ah, the "chess game" excuse. There's a new one.

How is it that bad policy under Shrub becomes good policy under Obama? :shrug:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

47. because he's stealing the republican's thunder..

by uhhhh, you know, enacting republican legislation. can't wait for bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran! then tridem can spam the board with "did you even listen to his speech this morning?"

[Ignis]

50. I'm sure the Iranian defector won't provide us any info for causus belli.

Nope, not a whit. :eyes:

[karynnj]

52. Do you remember Obama supported this in the general election?

At that point Kerry was against it, arguing that the small amount of additional oil could not lower an international commodity price, nor make America appreciably more energy independent. Here, Kerry's statement explains that this is done to get 60 Senators to pass an bill that will put a price on carbon. The first step towards working on lowering the carbon we put into the atmosphere.

Look at the Senate, and you will see they need to make these painful deals to get 60 votes. John Kerry has been the most consistent voice on the environment for decades - and though he is awful on other things, Lieberman has nearly as good a record. (In 2004, the League of Conservation voters made their first primary endorsement - of Kerry, who had a 96% lifetime average - far above the other candidates - except Lieberman, who had a 95%.)

[Ignis]

58. I don't question Kerry's green bona fides, but ...

Is this really the best back-room deal we could come up with? After over a year of triangulation, caving on HCR, bipartisanship-to-the-extreme, supporting another Surge, etc., this is really the best we could do?

Bad policy remains bad policy, even if it's done in furtherance of good aims down the road.

[karynnj]

63. I think this is actually harder than healthcare

On healthcare, we started with all Democrats wanting some reform - the issues were what they would accept and what they wouldn't. In addition, for an approximately 4 month period, we had 60 Senators.

ON climate change, the Democrats splinter into many interest groups. There are states in the midwest that are dependent on coal, the dirtiest fuel, their Senators wanted to allow them to continue to have that level of pollution - 14 signed a letter. Some of them also have substantial "dirty" industries - like cement making. They wanted to protect those industries.

I have been following these demands, and it seemed hopeless. (and it might be) But, on the other hand, I believe people liek Gore and Kerry who quote the scientists, who speak of a very small window of time in which we have to respond before we hit a tipping point. That is the pressure on Kerry to agree to things like this, to get a mechanism in that will lower carbon.

Here is an article, that seems to explain how hard it has been to getting to this point - http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10003239/resurrecting-a-climate-bill-the-power-of-sen-kerrys-irrational-exuberance/?tag=content

[Ignis]

65. Thanks, interesting article. But why now? Why push this before midterms?

Why not just promise Kerry that he'll get serious WH support for a comprehensive (and sweeping) climate bill in mid-November? I just don't see the benefit from rolling over on offshore drilling at this time.

This seems like more of the same: Kicking the Left while we're down. :shrug: Whether or not that's the reality, someone in the WH needs to get better at selling these initiatives to the Left, not just the Right.

[karynnj]

66. I think your last paragraph is on target

I hope that when the bill is introduced, that Kerry makes an effort to reach out to the environmental groups and try to make the case for it. He has the credibility and the long term relationships that would allow him to at least have his reasons heard. They know his motivations are good, the only question would be whether the deal is as good as can be had and that overall it is a bill that does good.

[Ignis]

70. True, on this issue Kerry has the base covered.

But I think the larger issue is the ham-fisted way in which the Obama administration is presenting these policy decisions.

Frankly, we're not going to win over any of the current crop of Republicans, even if we promise them the moon (and then deliver). And yet that's where the PR focus seems to be: Selling "centrist" positions as evidence of bipartisanship--rather than the capitulation to the RW that they really are.

Meanwhile, we can't be bothered to do a little damage control on the Left to ensure that left-leaning environmentalists don't feel like they've just watched Lucy pull the football away yet again.

It comes down to this: These actions--either singly or in aggregate--prove Rahm's assertion that this administration believes that "Liberals are fucking retarded." But we're still expected to GOTV...because what choice do we really have?

Bah.

:rant:

[karynnj]

92. Somehow the Obama administartion needs to convey the nuance they actually seem to have in this

Trying to understand the Artic drilling, I googled for articles and found this excellent one - http://www.adn.com/2010/03/31/1206793/bristol-bay-off-limits-arctic.html from an Alaskan paper (one I've seen do credible Palin coverage)

Reading the article, it seemed both that the decisions were not carved in stone and could be changed if good cases were made. In addition, it was obvious that a lot of thought went into the decision process. Now, I don't know if this is true elsewhere - or even if my interpretation of the article is correct. I have never even been to Alaska and no nothing of the oli production.

If, as may be the case, no republicans can be won over, the bill won't pass. That would likely mean that Graham and other Republicans have deliberately lied to Kerry and Lieberman. Now, while I wouldn't put this past them - I think that Graham has taken ar too much abuse from his position for it to be fake. I also wonder if the 2 Maine Senators will vote against something that their state likely supports. (we did see that on health care)

In fairness, I think Rahm's comment was more limited - that it was retarded to run ads against the conservative Democrats. I have worried about the same thing. I thought it a problem when Bold Progressives ran ads essentially calling Baucus corrupt and bought by the insurance companies. Now, in his case, he is not up until 2014, so it likely did little damage. But, I really did not think that that message would motivate his constituents to call him to request progressive changes - if anything it might inhibit it. What it potentially could do was leave a pre-existing meme that is easier years later for Republicans to exploit.

[frylock]

46. is john kerry still "working behind the scenes" to ensure all those ohio ballots get counted?

BTDT

[blm]

113. Did Ohio Dem party get the vote count laws changed?

.

[villager]

7. We haven't freed ourselves from the "60 vote" canard yet?

n/t

[Ignis]

42. +1

It's cowardly to hide behind this 60-vote boogieman. Force the vote and force Republicans to show themselves for the obstructionist Party of No that they really are.

[frylock]

48. force the vote and force the DEMOCRATS to show themselves as obstructionists

[Ignis]

55. Replace "Democrats" with "DLC" and I'd agree.

But we have a lot of great Dems who continue to fight the good fight on our side. Let's not overlook their hard work.

[frylock]

56. and i feel badly for those good dems..

my dearest friend works for one. but you're only as strong as your weakest link.

[Ignis]

59. Indeed. For all our vaunted talk of message discipline...

We sure do let the Blue Dogs wield inordinate influence over Democratic policy decisions.

If we're going to steal from the Republican play-book, why not at least pick one of the winning plays?

[karynnj]

54. The Republicans will happily vote against it - as will many Democrats

if there are not these deals mad. Look at the vote to prohibit it being passed by reconciliation - you will see a good many Democrats. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=255629&mesg_id=255980

[karynnj]

53. Here it is no a "canard"

It is fact. To use reconciliation, language has to be put in the budget allowing that. In the case of the climate bill, not only was that not done, the Johanns amendment which specifically prohibts that passed with 67 votes.

Including many DU favorites - Feingold, Tester, Webb etc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=255629&mesg_id=255980

[Teaser]

12. if this works, great. but we know the Republicans can't be trusted

so I remain dubious.

[Mass]

14. But will it help solving global climate change?

I like Kerry a lot, but in this case, I respectly disagree. May be it will help get 60 votes, but for what?

[GoCubsGo]

19. It will if...

...you get the Lindsay Grahams and Ben Nelsons of the world to realize that things like "Cap and Trade" really ARE better than having oil rigs off your coastline, which would be destroying your state's coastal tourism industry, and massively decreasing all the beachfront property values.

Jim DeMint is running for re-election in November. Think he'll run in support of this? Think the repugs who are running for governor here, and in Georgia and Florida, will run on drilling off their coastlines? Or, Marco Rubio, or Johnny Isakson, or Richard Burr? They can either support the President they hate so much, or they can be hypocrites and be for it before they were against it. I can't wait to see how this all works out. My bet is that they're all a bunch of NIMBY hypocrites.

[karynnj]

57. Like you I like and respect Kerry, but as you say it depends on what is in the bill

Kerry (and Obama) have a really tough problem here. If you believe that carbon has to be reduced sharply starting now, you can't wait until more people support this. (In addition, the House and Senate might be harder to work with after November.) There are so many groups of Senators, all legitimately trying to protect their constituents' short term interests. Many of these awful deals are made to get the votes of Democrats.

[Silent3]

16. How about we reform the filibuster rules...

...so we don't need every Blue Dog hardly-a-Democrat plus at least one Party of No vote to get anything done?

I'm not for complete elimination of the filibuster -- Democrats have to look forward to when they're in the minority again -- but I am for making it tougher to invoke a filibuster and much tougher to maintain one.

[Clio the Leo]

17. and that Palin woman chimes in to reassure the "libs"...

Rep.Boehner spot-on Obama goal=cram thru job-killing, energy-depleting, burdensome Cap & Tax scheme on heels of Obama's new"pro-drilling"msg

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/11376698405

[GoCubsGo]

21. That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not that I expected anything more from that imbecile.

[Clio the Leo]

24. It was kinda Grassley-esque huh?

a la Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said ‘time to delivr on healthcare’ When you are a “hammer” u think evrything is NAIL I’m no NAIL

She sounds MAD!!! lol

[phleshdef]

33. If you remove the negative language, her and Boehner are probably correct...

...in that this is being thrown out there as a political bone to take focus away from cap and trade.

[PVnRT]

20. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[wisteria]

22. It's not perfect, but it is a beginning and can be tweaked after it passes.

You can't always get everything you go after.

[jefferson_dem]

26. Good.

If this drilling expedition is attached to a comprehensive energy plan, I'm on board.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Don't interfere with the nutso's

You'll only get monkey poo all over your shirt.

[burning rain]

28. It's not that I disagree with Obama & Kerry on offshore drilling...

I don't--but offering this as a preemptive concession to win Republican votes strikes me as poor negotiating strategy. Democrats would have done better to reserve it, along with nuclear I daresay, as concessions to make Republicans yell and plead for, and grant them only in return for hard promises of votes in the Senate. As it is, Republicans owe the administration nothing for this unilateral decision.

[OhioBlue]

98. that's what I thought too - seems kinda silly to give in early.

they should have kept that in their back pocket...

[Cha]

29. Sooo..more freaking logic..can WE

STAND IT? That's the question?

Thanks, Clio and thank you Senator Kerry who has worked tirelessy for our environment! Be interesting to hear what Al Gore has to say about this avenue to passing the Environmental Legislation.

No apologies...I trust these leaders over anonymous interneters who don't know what's going on but that doesn't stop the knee jerking.

[YvonneCa]

107. Exactly. I, for one, am glad we have elected leadership...

...who value the environment authoring this legislation. They (Obama, Kerry and Gore) are also quite savvy about getting legislation through Congress...a lot of combined years of experience there. ;) I think they understand the 'why' of passing an energy security/climate change/economic reform bill and are realistic about an approach that can succeed...given the political climate in the country.

These are the folks I trust to run the country. I voted for intelligence, and enjoy seeing that in action...especially after the GWB years. I also look forward to hearing from former Vice President Gore.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. Is Kerry back in his 2000-2004 Republican ass kissing mode?

John, seriously, I thought you got over that shit when the DLC stabbed you in the back and left you hanging out to dry.

[karynnj]

60. Do you have a way that he can get 60 votes on a comprehensive

energy package? There is no one in the Senate who has been more consistent on the environment than Senator Kerry. Not to mention, his voting record places him as the 6th most liberal Senator. He NEVER had a voting DLC record. (Otherwise he wouldn't have voted with Kennedy on over 95% of the votes - and that was a 2004 statistic computed from the years immediately before 2004.) How do you explain the strong support that Kennedy gave Kerry in 2004. (He did not get all that involved with Tsongus, so don't say it was because they represented the same state.)

Not to mention, as you constantly bring this up, Governor Dean was a DLC centrist moderate governor of VT for his entire 12 years.

[politicasista]

82. *crickets* n/t

[tabbycat31]

32. I don't think it will

Frank Lautenberg: “Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal economies. Giving Big Oil more access to our nation’s waters is really a Kill, Baby, Kill policy: it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars..

[wisteria]

35. Do you have any references that refer to endangering many of NJ Beaches?

I am trying to understand just how drilling in VA affects NJ.

[tabbycat31]

37. an article from today

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/obama_details_plan_to_allow_of.html

problem is that oil does not know state boundaries.

[wisteria]

103. Thanks, n/t

[karynnj]

61. My guess is that Lautenberg will vote for the bill if it has

good mechanisms for reducing carbon production.

[Cha]

68. I've read that states' legislatures would have the final say..

"Progressives need to relax on policy like this. If you read this article you will see that Obama leaves final decision to drill offshore to the states' legislatures. Additionally, there will have to be studies done by the oil companies before hole one is drilled. That is years away. In the Gulf, drilling couldn't begin until 2022. Where will alternative energy be by that date?? Will there still be the need to drill??"

From the Comment Section in http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ under Steve Benen's piece on "All A Part Of The Plan".

[BlooInBloo]

34. Since that's asinine on its face...

The only thing I can think of is that Kerry is deliberately egging republicans on in *not* getting any of their votes, thus calling a bluff or something.

(shrug)

[Ignis]

36. ...

[politicasista]

38. He'll get called a sellout corportist on this deal, but hope and Obama are right

Who knows, it could be a stroke of political genius.

[Cha]

69. President Obama and Senator Kerry have

earned my political trust. :)

[politicasista]

83. Bingo

And do agree that e-mails and letters are more productive than ranting on a message board. :)

[girl gone mad]

39. Cap and trade is nothing but a gift to the banks.

It's certainly not worth allowing offshore drilling over.

[karynnj]

62. There is no cap and trade in the bill

There will be various ways to limit carbon in several sectors of the economy that produce carbon.

[TheKentuckian]

40. How, why, and for what legislation?

They are already saying cap and trade can't pass (a market based approach, it's self), so what scheme can they pass and what further concessions are required to get there since we anted up with off shore drilling and a big nuclear program?

You think they are going to accept a big carbon tax? Even if a few did we would then lose more Democrats than we can peel off pukes. The environment will have to go into the "fix it later" pile while more coal, gas, oil, and nukes become the "new comprehensive strategy" for energy making minor if any headway on foreign oil dependence but the air, water, and land continue to be destroyed.

They aren't doing shit but making sure "the stakeholders" keep their beaks wet and the status quo is maintained under the disguise of "reform".

[CBR]

64. Any word on the alternative and green energy plans to be

released tomorrow? I heard a WH adviser on Dylan's show say there were going to be announcements tomorrow. This looks like a long roll-out.

[Cha]

67. Oh Good! First I heard I heard of it..right

here. Thanks CBR.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Looks like we are back to the failed '60 vote strategery' (sic)

That worked out really well before, didn't it?

[Chisox08]

72. On what planet?

The Repukes already said they will not vote for anything. They are still looking for their pound of flesh, they still want their Waterloo. Don't count on their votes.

[Ignis]

73. Oh sure, our first 999 attempts at bipartisanship failed, but maybe THIS time!

:eyes:

[Cha]

75. "Obama Closes Loophole That Allowed Drilling In Rockies Without Environmental Review "

Cross Post..LBN..

<snip>

"SALT LAKE CITY � The Obama administration will limit the use of an administrative shortcut that hhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/rocky-mountain-drilling-l_n_520579.htmlas been used to approve thousands of drilling permits across the Rocky Mountains without full environmental reviews.

The policy change was reflected in the settlement late Tuesday of a lawsuit filed in Utah by environmental groups that challenged the Bush administration's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The act allows federal land managers to fast-track drilling permits without ordering an environmental assessment of the consequences.

The U.S. attorney's office in Salt Lake City confirmed Wednesday that the settlement will all but close the loophole used to approve thousands of oil and gas wells from 2006 to 2008."

<MORE>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/rocky-mountain-drilling-l_n_520579.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4327950

Great News!

[CBR]

76. Good news. The President is relying on us to see

the strategy. He knows we are intelligent. We have to understand the political and media environment and the way things get accomplished. Yes, for all of those wondering, he is playing chess.

[Cha]

77. I'm glad it's you

replying..someone who does understand this. :)

[IndianaGreen]

78. ROTFLMAO

George Orwell was a prophet indeed!

:rofl:

[CBR]

79. Reverting to the old canard I see...

Ooooohhhhh look, someone thinks the President is doing the right thing by balancing politics and policy -- must be brainwashed by the government, the party and its elected leaders. It is like Godwin's law around here -- can't say Hitler, so we will yell ORWELL.

[ShortnFiery]

84. Yes, and we should feel blessed the he is depending on us to be so deftly aware

of his super-secret plan to help us "little people."

"Don't look at those bloated oil profits or obscene cost-over runs by the nuclear power plants, your President is thinking ahead. Trust him and our beloved party to do the right thing. Shh! Don't think - just go back to sleep."

That sounds eerily familiar?

[IndianaGreen]

85. Chocolate rations were just raised!

We should be so grateful!

[rucky]

80. Here we go again.

place your bets on how many votes this'll win us

[stranger81]

81. We must destroy the village in order to save it. n/t

[greencharlie]

86. I smell rats.... lots fo rats. nt

[boston bean]

88. ha ha ha ha ha........

[catgirl]

91. This does not kick in for 10 or so years

I trust Obama knows what he's doing. It doesn't worry me at all. Chill out people/
There will be a good solution way before that time.

[amborin]

93. destroy the environment to try to stop environmental destruction?

makes a whole lot of sense

:sarcasm:

[karynnj]

94. The statement from Kerry's office is far more ambiguous than Plum line's title

Looking for other information, I read the Hill article that led with saying that Kerry was open to supporting Obama's plan.
Here is their article

Sen. John Kerry, who is leading the effort to craft a climate bill in the Senate, said Wednesday that he would consider supporting President Barack Obama's decision to expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

Kerry's (D-Mass.) spokesperson Whitney Smith said that the move could help him attract the 60 votes necessary to move climate legislation through the Senate.
(same Smith quote as the other article)

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/90061-kerry-endorses-obama-drilling-plan

(There is no statement on his website)




Rereading the Plumline comment from Smith, her comment does NOT say definitively that Kerry supports the Obama plan, nor does it say what the Plumline title says. It simply says what has been said before that Kerry has shown openness - that he didn't in the past - to allow some OFS drilling if it was what was needed to get 60 votes. This has been true for more than 6 months - going back to when he and Graham wrote their op-ed.

(It is interesting that I did read the Plumline article and did not catch that their title went beyond the statement that Whitney Smith put out. This makes sense as Senator Kerry is in the Middle East and likely did not personally comment. )

[marlakay]

95. I can almost guarantee he won't get a single vote no matter what he does

I think many of us are biting our collective tongues so we won't give the other side any help.

Let's just say for a very very very long time I have been holding back what I really feel and I still am....

now multiply that by all the Sierra Club members like me and other green groups and what do you have?

[karynnj]

96. the Plum line overstated the statement from Kerry's office

Here is the Hill report. There take is merely that Kerry is open to supporting it. If you look at the statement itself, it has the same position Kerry had last September when he co-wrote the op-ed with Graham. It also does not say that this will give 60 votes. It says Kerry is looking to find what deals could get 60 votes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/90061-kerry-endorses-obama-drilling-plan

Read this - which also includes the statement from Kerry's office. (Kerry is in the Middle East http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x164516#164562 - so he likely has not commented personally on this.)

[politicasista]

100. delete n/t

already said. :)

[Moochy]

99. vulcan 3d chess

"Kerry believes that this move will win over some GOP support for this approach."

He believes he can win GOP support.... great. Other things Kerry believed: that a soft touch, Republican-Lite campaign would win over Republicans who loved Bush.

[karynnj]

101. Re-read the op, this is PLUMLINE's conclusion - Kerry's office's statement

does NOT say that. Not to mention, Kerry did NOT run a republican lite campaign.

[Moochy]

102. I was here, I held my nose

I voted for him, yeah his entire campaign was not Republican lite, just the military parts of it.
I saw the way he based much of his campaign on doing it better in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey we can disagree. :shrug:

I *do* appreciate you pointing out that Plumline spin, that is a bit of a switch of agency from the WH to Kerry's office.

[karynnj]

104. What Kerry proposed in Iraq was extremely different than what Bush was doing - in spite of what the

republicans said. Kerry gave a speech at NYU in September that detailed his Iraq plan - it included having an immediate summit bringing in the neighboring countries to help them resolve the political problems keeping them from forming a government. He also spoke of bringing in other countries to help rapidly train the Iraqis to expedite getting out. (This was mocked by the Republicans - but after losing Kerry was told by Jordan, Eqypt, France and Germany that they would take Iraqis into their country and train them - Rice, in her confirmation hearing said it wasn't needed) Kerry spoke of the danger of our presence being seen as occupation - he recommended a lower profile and in teh first debate brought up the fact that the US was building "permanent bases" and spoke against that. Does that sound like Bush??

As to Afghanistan, Kerry's comments then were more like his efforts in Pakistan as chair of SFRC. He spoke of the international coalition doing what was needed to rebuild (or build) the services needed so the government could succeed. At that point, it would have been more likely to work than it is now. (This incidentally seems a consistent theme in many trouble spots. )

The fact is that many bought Trippi's idiotic assertions that there was little difference between Bush and Kerry - they were false when said by him and in February 2004 when said by Dean.

[Moochy]

105. I agree that if Kerry got in he would have been more effective than Bush

I disagree with the very premise that either of the wars were even legal, let alone justified. So arguing over whether Kerry would be more effective in Afghanistan or Iraq at killing those who have proven "not to be a threat" as was recently revealed by McCrystal, seems pointless for me at least. SFRC has what influence on foreign relations? advisory? A rubber stamp for Bush's war crimes?

[karynnj]

110. The point was we were at war - even Dean did not recommend leaving

As to whether we should have been there how many thousands of times did he say "wrong war" or more significantly - "not a war of last resort". Do you understand the significance of that phrase? It is part of the definition of a just war. Running on "out now" would have led to a Bush landslide that would have been worse than McGovern's loss - he might have lost MA.

Kerry did not chair the SFRC until 2009 - Lugar was in charge then and even among the Republicans the SFRC raised concerns - Lugar and Hagel did. It is more than advisory, they write legislation for foreign policy issues - like PEPAR, which provided money to fight AIDS in Africa.

[Moochy]

111. I did prefer Dean's speeches on the war

You are right Kerry tried to define his message on the war, but the media did its damnedest to control the narrative, or rather to let it get hijacked intentionally by the swiftboaters.
I do still like him, and for a senator he's a good guy who tries to do the right thing, and often succeeds despite the institution's craven nature.
:evilgrin:

And given the public war hysteria he could not have run a OUT NOW campaign.. and that's not what I was expecting.... but a more Obamaesque pullout plan would have probably been more defensible than the plan to win it better before pulling out.

sigh.. looking at my faded Kerry/Edwards lawn sign from 2004 right now. :(

[karynnj]

112. Wow, I'm impressed you still have a Kerry/Edwards sign on your lawn

Mine was stolen in 2004, but I don't know if I would have kept it up. I still have a K/E (which I wish were a Kerry primary) bumper sticker on my car.

Obama's 2008 plan was a stretched out version of Kerry/Feingold - which 7 months before setting his 2008 plan, Obama voted against. Kerry's plan was actually not a plan "for winning it". There was nothing to win, Saddam's government was totally defeated - it was pretty clearly a plan to stabilize Iraq, under the most international face possible, and then leave. By mid 2004, who exactly were we fighting?

As to controlling the message, that is something we STILL have a problem with. Look at how healthcare is still, after passing, being demonized. On climate control, we have done even worse. It is really frightening to see that the number of people who believe that climate change is real has really had a very big change in the last 6 months.

Rachel Maddow yesterday cited work by a website I can't remember that found that Koch industries has but millions of dollars into many frontgroups that have made ads against it. Add to that the talk radio/cable echo chamber and many people now do not believe what all reputable climate scientists say - and they have smeared the professional integrity and credibility of scientists, who have spent their careers working on this.

This article ( http://www.esquire.com/features/marc-morano-0410 ) is a fascinating look at a despicable person, who is involved in the current effort to smear the scientists - and was involved with propagating the SBVT. (Looked at from a polling POV, Kerry was actually more successful is dispelling the lies than we have been so far on climate change - by the election, most people, who had any likelihood of voting for Kerry knew they were lying - the harm was that the entire thing weakened the view of Kerry as a strong, brave leader. Imagine if that part of his life were not lied about - the campaign's closing ad would likely have included 10 seconds of Rassman speaking, as a former marine and Republican, of his trust in Kerry to do the right thing. (I have never seen anything in any campaign that seemed as much like a Frank Kappra film moment as that reunion with Rassman - which was better because they did not have the time to script it)

[Moochy]

114. Its on my wall not my Lawn :)

it has faded quite a bit. Good points about the message still being controlled by right-wing voices. My perception of that is totally warped since I assiduously avoid most mainstream TV News, in favor of the BBC or online sources. That's why my view of the teabaggers movement is just that its another Jersey Shore style reality TV show. So I think the right wing still control the message in the main stream news for the most part, but if you try hard enough you can avoid much of it.

cheers!

[Canuckistanian]

106. Horsetrading?

Is that what this was about?

[golfguru]

108. No more climate change concerns?

Yeah, let us burn some more fossil fuels, there is no global warming <sarc>

[craigmatic]

109. Yeah right as if the repubs will cooperate with Obama if he gives them a concession

we've seen this movie before people.