Gibbs: 'Premature' For Obama To Change Position On Offshore Drilling

[freddie mertz]

Gibbs: 'Premature' For Obama To Change Position On Offshore Drilling
First Posted: 05- 3-10 02:27 PM | Updated: 05- 3-10 02:53 PM


The Obama administration said on Monday that it remains "premature" to rule out including additional offshore drilling as part of comprehensive energy legislation, even as Senate Democrats warn that such a provision would make the bill "dead on arrival." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the president will determine whether to stay with or abandon his call for additional drilling off various parts of the coast once he gets the findings of an investigation into the massive oil spill in the Gulf.

"The president was specific in ordering Secretary Salazar to look at all the possible aspects of what could go wrong in this instance to report back to him in that thirty day period," Gibbs said in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "This is an administration that is going to take any information we can get from that and have that dictate our decision making going forward. I think it would be premature to get too far ahead of where Secretary Salazar's investigation is."

While the White House declines to fully abandon offshore drilling in light of the current spill, others in the Senate are ramping up their opposition. On Friday, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl.) said any energy bill that included such exploration in its legislative language would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. His office went even further, speculating that larger energy bill itself was now all but impassable in the Senate.
"It's dead on arrival if it contains oil drilling," an aide said, "if it doesn't have offshore drilling then you don't have Republicans."

Over the weekend, the lone Republican who had lent his support to a soon-to-be-introduced energy bill re-affirmed his stance that offshore drilling should be a component of the final product. "We've had problems with car design, but you don't stop driving," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told the Greenville (S.C.) News. "The Challenger accident was heart-breaking but we went back to space. The biggest beneficiaries of this proposal to stop drilling would be overseas oil interests, OPEC and regimes that don't like us very much."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/gibbs-premature-for-obama_n_561313.html

Personally, I found Graham's comparisons to driving cars and the Challenger to be "less than convincing" (on edit: as in imbecilic). But we wouldn't want to alienate a "good" Republican like him, would we? (Sarcasm)... Meanwhile, the spill grows larger by four times in one day.

[NJmaverick]

1. Waiting for all the facts and using them to make an informed decision

is certainly a welcome change from the last administration.

[freddie mertz]

2. As if we need any other "Facts" to show that this sort of drilling is dangerous?

Than THIS:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/oil-spill-tripled-in-size_n_560883.html

[NJmaverick]

4. Yes we MOST DEFINITELY need more than a Huffington Post article

[freddie mertz]

9. I was referring to the video link. nt.

[NJmaverick]

13. sorry but it will take more than a video to make a proper decision on a matter

of such importance and impact

[freddie mertz]

14. Do you think the decision to expand drilling was correct?

On what grounds?

[NJmaverick]

17. The decision was not made in a vacuum so in order to properly evaluate

you have to consider this was part of a larger give and take that was made in an effort to pass a critically important energy/green house gas bill. Now if how and why this disaster occurred will determine if the decision needs to be changed in light of the new facts and incidents.

[freddie mertz]

18. So your answer is...?

Not clear.

[tekisui]

28. LOL! You think that 'give' that Obama gave is getting us closer to

an energy bill? After this massive leak? :rofl:

When he took the repuke position, he shot himself in the foot. Sure, he had no way of knowing that the Gulf would fill up with oil after he made his announcement, but that is why Democrats should not take repuke positions. The energy bill is dead. dead. dead. Like the Gulf.

[depakid]

31. "that is why Democrats should not take repuke positions."

When they do- sooner or later, it comes back to bite them in the ass.

(this quite aside from the politically stupid dynamic it sets up which enables and legitimizes the far right end blurs the contrast between the parties).

[freddie mertz]

35. Then there is the MORAL aspect of the thing.

We should be able to assume that Obama could and would have been informed of the potential for disasters like this.

There must be at least a FEW rational energy and environmental experts with access to him. Yes? Please?

If he did indeed have access to this information, he should not have acted as he did.

If he was not informed, he needs some new advisors, at the very least.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. If Obama came out in support for killing kittens

you would find a way to support it.

[freddie mertz]

47. LOL!

:toast: :thumbsup: :hi: :rofl: :patriot:

[tekisui]

56. Indeed.

[zipplewrath]

5. Well, read between the lines

He's thrown the ball to Ken. He can't now make a declaration that would undermine Ken's work. However, Nelson is basically telling Ken what do decide and why. Then it gets back to how far politically anyone thinks an energy bill can make it with, or without the drilling option. Ken won't make that evaluation, he'll merely work up the technical explanation for what the decision is. I think Nelson might be speaking a bit out of turn here though.

[NJmaverick]

6. The President was already on record as saying he was holding up drilling

until the facts of this disaster were known. There is absolutely no reason to doubt those claims, much less proof.

[zipplewrath]

15. Yes, but that's not the topic

The issue is what happens beyond that. He's not going to undermine Ken's work. Nelson can talk big, but it is a bigger issue than himself.

[tekisui]

26. How about the FACT that the Gulf is FULL of OIL?

And the FACT that Obama said: “Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills,” Obama said on April 2 “They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn't come from the oil rigs; they came from the refineries on shore.”


They may not 'generally cause spills', but when they DO, and clearly they DO, it FUCKS SHIT UP, likely for a GENERATION. Doing MORE of the SAME is NOT a good policy. EVEN if new safety measures are in place. There is NO FOOL PROOF offshore RIG. FACT. TRUTH. REALITY.:eyes:

[freddie mertz]

49. Our friend never even answered the direct question.

We probably won't hear from him again.

[marshall]

57. It certainly beats being reactionary

Caution is always prudent when making a u-turn.

[joeybee12]

3. "Less than convincing"? Graham is an idiot...if a car has a problem, you recall the model, take

it off the road...the comparison is positively stoo-pid!

[freddie mertz]

11. I was being deliberately mild, for effect.

Graham is a maroon.

[BlooInBloo]

7. If there's one thing that burns me up, it's a President who thinks and waits for information before

making decisions.

Why oh why can't we have a President who is as imbecilic as the average American, and just runs around making decisions left and right, according to whatever emotional thing might be happening at that very second?

:cry:

Because I'm a self-proclaimed true progressive! And that's how I roll! :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

8. Your gut doesn't take nearly as long to decide on things

that's how you become the decider.

[BlooInBloo]

10. I looked into my gut's eyes, and saw that it had a good soul. True story.

[AtomicKitten]

23. That's deep. nt

[freddie mertz]

12. The policy was wrong from the outset.

As the "facts" would seem to suggest.

[DrDan]

19. +100

[freddie mertz]

16. What further information do we need?

What would it look like?

Is anyone going to be gullible enough to believe that this sort of drilling can be truly safe after this?

[kimmerspixelated]

20. This is a huge disaster just in the first few days.

Every report says it's larger than thought, and it is growing exponentially, and will reach out globally. Can we afford anything else like this to ever happen again? The only thing good is that it sure looks like alternative energy has gotten a big boost in urgency. Usually it takes something quite drastic for real change to come about. But it will certainly get worse before it gets better, as this effects a large house of cards. It is sickening beyond words.

[freddie mertz]

22. It's sickening and frightening.

And we may assume our leaders know more than they are telling us, too.

[freddie mertz]

21. Kicking for some further reasoned responses.

Always welcome.

[AtomicKitten]

24. The implications of this ecologic disaster are self-evident.

If the political implications are allowed to play out without the incessant backseat driving and second guessing of this administration, the policy reinstating an indefinite offshore drilling moratorium will write itself.

[Radical Activist]

25. He's acting in a deliberate, thoughtful way that will build more support.

Just like he does with any issue. The results of the investigation could make it easier to make the case for new regulations of existing offshore platforms.

It's only a matter of time before his position changes. I just wonder if people complaining about Obama's position will be call their Congressman and Senators too.

[freddie mertz]

34. Do you think his original decision to expand drilling was "thoughtful"?

I could use words like "political," "expedient," even "cynical" (depending on the tone you choose to adopt).

But "thoughtful" suggests that he truly and responsibly weighed the potential environmental consequences of this sort of activity before making the decision.

I think recent events have thrown that into doubt, at the very least.

[Radical Activist]

55. When gas is $5.00 a gallon and

the public is screaming, do you risk losing the election over one issue? Yes, it was political. Not as cynical as Howard Dean running on an anti-war platform even though he supported maintaining defense spending levels and keeping troops in Iraq for another five years, just like Kerry and Gephardt did. Not THAT cynical, but it was a political move.

Look at the details. It's not hard to verbally support offshore drilling and still have such strict regulations and such limited expansion that you can deflate the tires of the opposition while presenting very little additional risk of environmental damage. That's why Republican leaders were all complaining that Obama's offshore plant didn't go far enough.

I know some people, like many Dean fans, would rather have someone jump up and down about how progressive they are instead of reading the fine print. You have to pay more attention with Obama because he isn't going to scream at you about how liberal his actions really are.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Obama's secret deal with Big Oil is at stake here! That's why Gibbs is spouting this nonsense

Obama's policy was wrong before this gusher began! He is also wrong about nuclear power and "clean" coal!

[jeanpalmer]

29. He trapped himself

He jumped into bed with the oil companies and now he's going to pay the price. His timing was really bad too. There's no chance that his opening up of more offshore drilling will ever fly. Thank God. When's he ever going to learn that it's important to support his base instead of pander to rogue corporations.

[depakid]

30. The administration's got a lot of political damage control to do- and they need the cover

of the investigation before flopping back to their previous policy position.

As far as when Obama will "learn" to support his base: I'm inclined to go with Greg Sargent's take several days ago- expressed on another issue: the gratuitous smack he took at the Warren Court:

...what’s mystifying about this kind of talk is that it doesn’t serve any clear purpose, other than needlessly antagonizing the left. When Obama announced his drilling plan, he said it was time to “move beyond the tired debates between right and left,” apparently drawing an equivalence between both side’s arguments about, of all things, energy issues.

Those sympathetic to Obama will argue that this sort of thing amounts to a shrewd act of positining — it disarms the right’s efforts to paint him as a liberal ideologue. Perhaps, but this kind of talk doesn’t do a thing to stop the attacks from the right.

Will denigrating the liberal camp persuade the “middle” that he’s reasonable and unthreatening, and therefore more inclined to agree with him? Doubtful. Seems more likely that middle of the road voters care less about positioning than about the actual substance of Obama’s arguments.

Given Obama’s previous public statements, it seems highly unlikely that he actually believes that the liberal courts overreached or that there’s an equivalence between left and right on energy issues. But Obama nonetheless feels the need to stake out a “non-ideological” middle ground on many issues for rhetorical and political purposes. So this is just something the left is going to have to learn to live with — or continue to rail against. It isn’t going away.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/obama-and-the-liberal-courts/

[polichick]

32. Thanks for that post. I wish he'd just LEAD and quit posturing. nt

[freddie mertz]

36. Thanks for a thoughtful analysis of how we got to this point.

It may just be that the president is so stuck in this delusional bi-partisan "dreamscape" that we will have to seek new Democratic leadership in the next cycle.

He's had a chance to lead and has been blowing it over and over on the issues that helped get him elected--HCR, war and peace, energy, labor, GLBT, etc.

At some point, perhaps this one, we will have crossed a bridge too far.

[mochajava666]

58. Obama needs to be a leader for once

Instead, he only will come down hard on liberals who won't compromise their morals as easily as he can. He jumps on Dean and Kucinich, but will do radio spots for Blanche Lincoln, and not even ask Lieberman to compromise on HCR.

I'm sick and tired of him always siding with people that want him to fail. His efforts to be bipartisan might look good in a history book (stating that he would never stoop to their level and always offered a compromise up front), but our country needs bold leadership, not half measures.

I'm also tired of apologists that say if his left wing supporters (like me) would have held his feet to the fire more, he would have done the right thing. How many letters, marches, petitions, etc., does the left have to do? The left got him elected because we thought he was telling the truth during his campaign. It's his job, not ours, for him to keep his word.

If off-shore drilling was supported by the left as a way of curbing nuclear reactors, but big oil was against it due to marginal cost-benefit from lawsuits, Obama would be against drilling. He never misses an opportunity to poke the left in the eye, while looking "bipartisan" at the same time.

Does he really want to change the course of this country from what it was under W? I think maybe he did at one time, but now he obviously doesn't have the stomach for it.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Y'all wish. All this backbiting only shows how quickly 24/7 Obama critics can grasp at straws.

No matter how y'all gripe, his approval ratings among self-identified liberal Democrats will remain sky-high, which just goes to show how totally out-of-touch with the Democratic base y'all are, no matter how much you pretend to speak for them.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

33. oh ferchrissake, just drill until every single last drop of oil is gone, & the oceans along with it

drill and drill until it's too late to do what we should have done back when Jimmy Carter was talking about it.

such utter stupidity! sheesh. what in hell will it take for some fucking SENSIBLE energy policy--like, um, wind and solar and so on? I thought this guy was somehow brilliant, but all I see is the same old crap that is not very bright.

[freddie mertz]

37. Indeed.

I think he is smart all right. He had a lot of us fooled.

I always found his energy statements on clean coal and the like to be highly suspect however.

Obvious now that politics takes precedence over principle.

[ima_sinnic]

45. the short-sightedness is astounding.

wtf are we even dicking around with oil anymore, when it's a finite resource and "eventually" running out? we just don't care because "eventually" is supposedly not within our lifetimes? do we wait to develop something else AFTER it runs out? what is the sense in even continuing to drill rather than developing new, alternative sources of energy?

again, an opportunity to be innovative, bold, imaginative, cutting edge is squandered--this total waste of resources now gets passed to the next administration, the next generation--until, finally, somebody, somewhere has the fucking balls to go somewhere new.

lack of foresight is an attribute of stupid people. I now consider Obama among them if he continues down this path--the same old path that now threatens the entire planet. If not this gusher, maybe the next--"eventually" it will either all be gone or saturating our soil and water--either way, the greed and irresponsibility is mind boggling. "master chess player" indeed.

[jeanpalmer]

51. That's it in a nutshell

What an opportunity he had to be bold and innovative, to get us on the path to alternative energy. That's what we all were hoping for. But he is squandering that opportunity. And it's going to cost us 4-8 years of sliding backwards. And when the bottom falls out, we'll have almost nothing.

He's not the person we thought he was. Instead, he's doing his damndest to become a patsy or frontman for Wall St., Big Oil, and the insurance industry.

[Writer]

38. Totalistic thinking. n/t

[freddie mertz]

42. Who, Gibbs?

I just thought Gibbs was being lame.

While Graham made cheap excuses.

[Writer]

44. No. n/t

[freddie mertz]

46. For someone named 'writer"...

You don't write much.

:shrug:

[greencharlie]

39. there are 30,000 rigs in the gulf...

one gusher doesn't a disaster make...

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[The Damned]

43. "Premature?"

The only thing premature here is the ejaculation of oil from that rig!

[freddie mertz]

48. Indeed!!!

O8)

[Lucky 13]

50. I hate his position on this.

I couldn't understand why he expanded drilling in the first place and I can't understand his reservation in taking it off the table now. It's the right thing to do. Period. To me this is not a gray area.

[polichick]

54. He plays politics with the environment - it's inexcusable! nt

[boppers]

52. I missed the national infrastructure rollout?

The one that eliminated all of the cars, trucks, and planes and trains that run on petroleum products, along with all of the countless consumer goods, production equipment, (etc.) made with petroleum derived plastics?

When did that happen?