So, if you promote more offshore drilling then you have no responsibility for some accidents?

[KansasVoter]

So if a president promoted more nuclear power plants, and one had a major accident, then there is no responsibility for promoting it?

So that means Bush is not responsible for civilians dying in the war? Or soldiers dying in the war since he was not responsible for the accidental bombings or the bad intelligence?

More oil wells means more chances of accidents! More nuke plants means more chances of nuke accidents. Start a war and there are chances of people dying on both sides. All three require some level of responsibility.

Is it Obama's fault the oil well sank? No. But promoting more oil wells in the ocean is bound to increase the chances of accidents. So anyone promoting more oil wells in the ocean is part of the possible leaks.

Why does stuff the would make us mad with Bush not make us mad with Obama?

I can think Obama is great and dedicate myself to him winning in 2012 (which I have) and still think the off Shore drilling is a horrible idea and still think this leak proves it is a bad idea.

People, it is not 'with us' or 'against us'.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Then you have to hold the majority of Americans Responsible......

Certainly, as a tactical move to bolster the energy bill,
the timing wasn't a good one for the WH,
but that is about as much as this signifies....
as it doesn't make the incident "his" fault.

So yes, if you want to categorize Pres. Obama's offering to compromise (with caveat)
on the concept as an actual fault for the incident at hand, then you'd have to blame a whole
lot more people than that, and it would include folks on both sides of the aisle,
as well as Americans who appeared to support offshore drilling in the
majority.

Americans favor offshore drilling
CNNMoney.com - 23rd Feb 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the nation struggles to meet its energy needs, a majority of Americans think Offshore Drilling for oil and Natural Gas is a good idea, according to according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday. The poll, which surveyed more than 500 adults by phone in July, found that 69% of respondents support the idea of Offshore Drilling, while 30% opposed it. In June, 73% were in favor of Offshore Drilling.
http://politifi.com/news/Americans-favor-offshore-drilling-216659.html

Support for Alternative Energy and Offshore Drilling
March 2, 2010
At the same time, the public continues to broadly support expanded offshore oil drilling: 63% say they favor allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters while 31% are opposed.

These opinions also have changed little since 2008.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1509/alternative-energy-offshore-oil-drilling-nuclear-cap-and-trade

Obama To Open Up Offshore Drilling, But Not That Much
By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 03/31/2010 06:57 PM ET

It wasn't exactly "Drill, baby, drill" but President Obama still surprised friends and critics alike by announcing Wednesday the administration would allow some off-shore drilling.

The operative word here is "some." Industry experts and key congressional staffers told IBD that the policy change really creates only the possibility of drilling off Virginia's coast. In most other cases, huge procedural, legal and legislative hurdles remain.

A Republican staffer called it simply a "well-orchestrated media stunt."

"They got a lot of stories that said 'the president opens vast areas,' when in reality he closed more than he opened," the GOP staffer said.

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, whose district includes Richmond, Va., applauded the decision but said it wasn't much good to anybody outside his state.

"By standing in the way of developing these vast resources in an environmentally safe way, the administration is actively blocking job creation and needed revenue at a time when our country needs it most," he said in a statement.

The timing of the announcement sparked speculation among congressional staffers and energy lobbyists. Some thought the administration was offering an olive branch to industry and the GOP ahead of a proposed cap-and-trade bill. That follows Obama's recent moves to help finance new nuclear power plants.

Others thought it might be a pre-emptive move to take drilling off the table during those cap-and-trade bill negotiations.

The general impression was that the less-than-meets-the-eye drilling plan would not move the ball much on cap-and-trade.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=529062

[KansasVoter]

2. Fine, when lets not blame Bush for the war since a majority of people wanted it also.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Obama didn't deliberately lie to the majority of Americans about the reasons for offshore drilling

And offshore drilling didn't start under his administration. I do blame the American people for not questioning their leaders more and getting caught up in a jingoistic fervor after 9/11. But Bush played an active role in making the Iraq War happen, whereas Obama's support of offshore drilling is more or less jumping on the bandwagon of public opinion.

Now I do blame the American people for the fact that Republicans support things like the Federal Marriage Amendment and the flag burning amendment. Republican leaders don't actually give two shits about these things and support them only because of public opinion.

[brentspeak]

16. What a joke -- you're excerpting from Investor's Business Daily

You must be running out of legitimate sources to prove whatever points you're trying to make.

And the CNN poll claiming that "a majority of Americans" support offshore drilling was based on calling all of 500 people.

[tekisui]

20. When you lay down with dogs...

You wake up with fleas.

When Obama gave this early concession to the conservatives, he became wedded to the position. Now, the risks of offshore drilling is a glaring reality and we know that Obama ans the repukes were wrong.

Sadly, anything good in that energy bill will not come to fruition, at least not anytime soon. That bill is dead, now. Had we stayed with the higher principle, a clean energy bill could be more popular than ever. He gave up too much too soon, and will suffer politically for it.

[high density]

3. If you promote more interstate highways, are you responsible for the deaths on the highway?

Ultimately finding energy is often a dangerous endeavor. I have my doubts about whether this spill will sour people to offshore drilling. For most people the issues are out of sight and out of mind.

[KansasVoter]

4. You HAVE to have highways. You don't HAVE to have more offshore drilling........

unless you base you energy policy on oil.

And if you do then you will have more accidents and thus have some responsibility for it.

[high density]

9. I don't think we can blame decades and decades of energy policy on Obama

It would've been nice if we started tackling this problem in the 60s and 70s, instead we did nothing and here we are.

[Jennicut]

10. Oh really? Are the American people willing to give up

their current way of life until alternative renewable clean energy is in place to take the place of what coal and oil produce for us?

The fact of the matter is that if the consumption level was not there, we wouldn't need to find more oil in obscure, hard to reach areas.

No matter how much money we pour into renewable energy at this very moment, it is not ready to take the place of coal and oil. Govt. failure of epic proportions? Not the oil spill or the mine disaster. It is the structure for renewable energy is so slow, not in place, underfunded, etc. And yes, the majority of American people did not want to hear it from Jimmy Carter and others. We are all paying the price for the lack of forethought.

James Lovelock thinks nuclear energy is the answer as renewables will take to long to make any difference on climate change. Who knows. That has it's own set of problems. But not many people here are willing to talk about the real problems with energy consumption.

[brentspeak]

18. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing merely by writing "Drill, baby, drill!"

[Jennicut]

19. And you could have saved your presumptions. I am not for "drill,baby,drill".

I am for politicians actually telling the truth about where our consumption of energy actually leads us. We should have been investing in renewables years ago. Because we didn't, we went down this path instead. A total mess.

[Radical Activist]

23. Hogwash.

Coal doesn't protect our way of life. Take away the massive coal subsidies, give them to renwables instead and all of a sudden coal isn't cheap anymore. Also, we already have the natural gas infrastructure built and online that, if we use them to capacity, we could shut down nearly all coal plants today. Coal power is unnecessary and the new auto mileage and emissions standards are starting to reduce oil consumption.

I don't know who James Lovelock is but he's full of shit. Utility scale solar plants are ready, cost competitive and can be built FASTER than nuclear plants. Building a nuclear plant without subsidies and doing it safely takes MORE money and MORE time than building new wind and solar.

Check out the industry bullshit before you repeat it.

[Radical Activist]

21. You don't have to have so many interstate highways

unless you base you energy policy on oil.

[tranche]

5. If you want to get mad then get mad. You don't need company. Just go yell at a cloud by yourself.

[KansasVoter]

6. I sound mad?

[tranche]

7. Not yet. But it looks like your trying to connect your way to a reason for being mad.

And looking for company.

[JTFrog]

15. Yes. And apparently you want everyone to be mad at Obama.

"Why does stuff the would make us mad with Bush not make us mad with Obama?"

As always, comparing the two is rather absurd and transparent.

[BlooInBloo]

8. How many new offshore oil rigs have been approced by Obama and have gone up?

[Zoeisright]

12. Bullshit. This disaster happened BECAUSE of Bush and Cheney.

They are the assholes who deregulated the industry. Do you think they would back off on new offshore drilling if this had happened in 2008? HELL NO.

President Obama putting a hold on new offshore drilling shows that he's smart and can change his mind when the situation demands it.

Grow up.

[brentspeak]

17. It doesn't look like you read the OP

Is it Obama's fault the oil well sank? No. But promoting more oil wells in the ocean is bound to increase the chances of accidents. So anyone promoting more oil wells in the ocean is part of the possible leaks.

[johnaries]

13. I wish it were that simple. But it's not.

I wish we could just flip a switch and go from fossil fuels to renewable, green energy. But we can't. It will take time to switch. Much longer than most of us would like to admit. For one thing, the entire infrastructure needs to be be rebuilt. Which is a good thing, because the old one has been Band-Aided for too long and it is about to fall apart, anyway.

But, unfortunately, we still need energy in the meantime.

And if we are going to switch to renewables and "do it right", it's going to take even longer. Frankly, if people had listened to Jimmy Carter we wouldn't have these problems today. But, suddenly, the 1970's "Energy Crisis" magically disappeared. I'll leave it to your own imagination as to whether or not it was a manufactured crisis, but if we had continued on the Carter path we wouldn't be here.

So, we are in a transitional period. Actually, we are in a pre-transitional period because Republicans are blocking every effort to map out a new policy. But, regardless, we have to provide for energy needs during the transitional period. That means allowing some of the very things we are eventually trying to eliminate - at least for now.

Don't forget, Obama has blocked the majority of projects that Bushco supported. He has only authorized a fraction of those projects - and did so begrudgingly.

So, until we can complete the Big Switch, we will need some nuclear power plants and some more drilling to fill the gap until the conversion is complete. It's a matter of need, not desire.

[CTLawGuy]

14. Is 9/11 an argument AGAINST

allowing air travel, then? Should Bush have permanently closed all the airports and we go back to trains and boats? It's fine to be against drilling, but using fallacious arguments does your cause no good. The failure of an oil rig doesn't per se (in a logical sense) mean that oil drilling is bad; however the poor environmental impact, the fact that most of it comes from the ME and it is a finite resource, are better arguments.

While we still use oil and oil based products, I have no problem with more drilling being a (temporary) part of a comprehensive energy plan (if done safely of course) that eventually weans us off of oil and onto an alternative energy source. The problem with Sarah Palin's "drill baby drill" is that there is no comprehensive energy strategy in that. There is nothing leading us to an alternative energy source. With Obama you have exploration of other sources of energy such as wind.

[Mass]

22. Agree with you 100 %. He was wrong to promote more drilling, particularly

knowing that the quantities that could be extracted are just a drop compared to the need.

As are wrong a bunch of Democratic Senators, some of whom are very much liked here.

May be it is time to recognize that a large part of the Democratic officials are not that concerned with environmental issues.

[phleshdef]

24. I suppose if you promote air travel, you are responsible for plane crashes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against offshore drilling. But in reality, the only people responsible for this disaster is BP. BP failed to take the proper safety precautions that most experts say would have prevented this particular event from happening.