U.S. to Open Public Land Near Parks for Drilling

[grondramb]

This certainly sounds positive on the surface - we need all the domestic energy production we can get to keep those dollars here.

They oil wells right inside L.A. without noticeable environmental impact. Its a question of how careful they are willing to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/08lease.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

National Park Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_park_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org) officials say that the decision to open lands close to Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument and within eyeshot of Canyonlands National Park was made without the kind of consultation that had previously been routine.

The bureau’s new maps, made public on Election Day, show not just those empty areas but 40 to 45 new areas where leasing will also be allowed.





The tracts will be sold at auction on Dec. 19, the last lease sale before President Bush leaves office a month later. The new leases were added after a map of the proposed tracts was given to the National Park Service for comment this fall. The proximity of industrial activity concerns park managers, who worry about the impact on the air, water and wildlife within the park, as well as the potential for noise, said Michael D. Snyder, a regional director of the Park Service who is based in Denver.

[DH]

This certainly sounds positive on the surface - we need all the domestic energy production we can get to keep those dollars here.

They oil wells right inside L.A. without noticeable environmental impact. Its a question of how careful they are willing to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/08lease.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

National Park Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_park_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org) officials say that the decision to open lands close to Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument and within eyeshot of Canyonlands National Park was made without the kind of consultation that had previously been routine.

The bureau’s new maps, made public on Election Day, show not just those empty areas but 40 to 45 new areas where leasing will also be allowed.





The tracts will be sold at auction on Dec. 19, the last lease sale before President Bush leaves office a month later. The new leases were added after a map of the proposed tracts was given to the National Park Service for comment this fall. The proximity of industrial activity concerns park managers, who worry about the impact on the air, water and wildlife within the park, as well as the potential for noise, said Michael D. Snyder, a regional director of the Park Service who is based in Denver.


Just one of several exciting things we can expect from Dubya on his way out the door. We can also look forward to uranium mining at the Grand Canyon (which he is going to do in subversion the direct will of Congress) and allowing coal companies to dump rubble from coal mountaintops so that they bury streams and shit. Yee fuckin' haw!

And then of course there will be the probable full pardons of Scooter Libby, Jack Abramhoff, and Bob Ney.....

Oh, and I always think of Los Angeles in the same way as I do a pristine national park.......

drill baby drill! (even though the oil compamies claim they don't even have the equipment to drill on the current leases they already have.......)

[jgerry]

I'm less pissed of about this "drill baby drill" stuff than I should be. Why? Because nothing short of letting them drill offshore, and pretty much wherever else they want, is going to placate these people. When it finally comes around that this will have done nothing but give us maybe 1% or 2% of our domestic consumption, well, so be it. I think it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm sick of being the environmental wacko.

There are good reasons to drill, especially offshore, or at least to let the states actually decide for themselves. And we need more nuclear, and I personally need to stop hearing the "drill baby drill" wackos screaming all the time. So I simply have to give up this fight. Drill baby drill. :(

[pgogborn]

According to various press reports President Obama is going to reverse a long standing ban on offshore drilling for gas and oil along a large stretch of the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy-graf01/31energy-graf01-popup.jpg
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html)

Early in his campaign Barack Obama said "When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts. That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good".

After that specific campaign call out to Florida I am left wondering why it is that Florida could now see new off-shore drilling and the contiguous West Coast continues to be left untouched.

[Snowman]

After that specific campaign call out to Florida I am left wondering why it is that Florida could now see new off-shore drilling and the contiguous West Coast continues to be left untouched.

Because he's making good on his promise to remove all troops from Iraq, and it's cheaper to bring them home over the Atlantic to have them drill for oil. Oh wait, you mean Obama lied AGAIN?

[keirgrey]

You can tell when he's lying: His mouth is moving. (In other words: He's a politician.)

[5thcrewman]

...I'm sick of being the environmental wacko...
Which wacko do you want to be?

[fake]

I'm less pissed of about this "drill baby drill" stuff than I should be. Why? Because nothing short of letting them drill offshore, and pretty much wherever else they want, is going to placate these people. When it finally comes around that this will have done nothing but give us maybe 1% or 2% of our domestic consumption, well, so be it. I think it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm sick of being the environmental wacko.

There are good reasons to drill, especially offshore, or at least to let the states actually decide for themselves. And we need more nuclear, and I personally need to stop hearing the "drill baby drill" wackos screaming all the time. So I simply have to give up this fight. Drill baby drill. :(

You know why Obama may indeed be the worst President of all time, and is worse than Bush is not simply because he has continued most of the wrongs of the Bush years, but his lie, and con was so good that as the people he conned come to realize this they will just give up. Bush couldn't get this done with a republican congress. Obama did it with a democratically controlled congress. We are still at war, we are more in debt, we have less environmental protection, a worsening recession, payoffs to the big financial firms.

When will the Obama cronyism scandals begin to break? He only knows Chicago politics, and it is obvious. He is corrupt, and just as the people who wanted to believe in Bush could never admit his failure, the people who need to believe in Obama will never allow themselves to see his failure.

[smak]

I'm less pissed of about this "drill baby drill" stuff than I should be. Why? Because nothing short of letting them drill offshore, and pretty much wherever else they want, is going to placate these people. When it finally comes around that this will have done nothing but give us maybe 1% or 2% of our domestic consumption, well, so be it. I think it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm sick of being the environmental wacko.

There are good reasons to drill, especially offshore, or at least to let the states actually decide for themselves. And we need more nuclear, and I personally need to stop hearing the "drill baby drill" wackos screaming all the time. So I simply have to give up this fight. Drill baby drill. :(

You know why Obama may indeed be the worst President of all time, and is worse than Bush is not simply because he has continued most of the wrongs of the Bush years, but his lie, and con was so good that as the people he conned come to realize this they will just give up. Bush couldn't get this done with a republican congress. Obama did it with a democratically controlled congress. We are still at war, we are more in debt, we have less environmental protection, a worsening recession, payoffs to the big financial firms.

When will the Obama cronyism scandals begin to break? He only knows Chicago politics, and it is obvious. He is corrupt, and just as the people who wanted to believe in Bush could never admit his failure, the people who need to believe in Obama will never allow themselves to see his failure.

Is any of the above even close to the truth?

Obama promised we wouldn't still be in Iraq & Afhganistan in April 10? - No
More in debt - yes
Less enviromental protection - no
worsenning recession - no
payoffs to the big financial firms - happened in 2008

so you're 1 1/2 for 5.

-smak-

[fake]

I'm less pissed of about this "drill baby drill" stuff than I should be. Why? Because nothing short of letting them drill offshore, and pretty much wherever else they want, is going to placate these people. When it finally comes around that this will have done nothing but give us maybe 1% or 2% of our domestic consumption, well, so be it. I think it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm sick of being the environmental wacko.

There are good reasons to drill, especially offshore, or at least to let the states actually decide for themselves. And we need more nuclear, and I personally need to stop hearing the "drill baby drill" wackos screaming all the time. So I simply have to give up this fight. Drill baby drill. :(

You know why Obama may indeed be the worst President of all time, and is worse than Bush is not simply because he has continued most of the wrongs of the Bush years, but his lie, and con was so good that as the people he conned come to realize this they will just give up. Bush couldn't get this done with a republican congress. Obama did it with a democratically controlled congress. We are still at war, we are more in debt, we have less environmental protection, a worsening recession, payoffs to the big financial firms.

When will the Obama cronyism scandals begin to break? He only knows Chicago politics, and it is obvious. He is corrupt, and just as the people who wanted to believe in Bush could never admit his failure, the people who need to believe in Obama will never allow themselves to see his failure.

Is any of the above even close to the truth?

Obama promised we wouldn't still be in Iraq & Afhganistan in April 10? - No
More in debt - yes
Less enviromental protection - no
worsenning recession - no
payoffs to the big financial firms - happened in 2008

so you're 1 1/2 for 5.

-smak-

Well he just approved offshore drilling so yes that is less environmental protection.

As far as the economy goes we are losing more jobs. So there is more people unemployed today than a month ago that means a worse economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSfp5pL7BSTM&pos=2

He has escalated the war in Afghanistan. Bush clung to Iraq, Obama clings to Afghanistan. Afghanistan the country that beat the U.S.S.R. What a waste of time.

He even did the silly bush stunt of going on some secret mission to see the troops and had a press conference.

[smak]

You know why Obama may indeed be the worst President of all time, and is worse than Bush is not simply because he has continued most of the wrongs of the Bush years, but his lie, and con was so good that as the people he conned come to realize this they will just give up. Bush couldn't get this done with a republican congress. Obama did it with a democratically controlled congress. We are still at war, we are more in debt, we have less environmental protection, a worsening recession, payoffs to the big financial firms.

When will the Obama cronyism scandals begin to break? He only knows Chicago politics, and it is obvious. He is corrupt, and just as the people who wanted to believe in Bush could never admit his failure, the people who need to believe in Obama will never allow themselves to see his failure.

Is any of the above even close to the truth?

Obama promised we wouldn't still be in Iraq & Afhganistan in April 10? - No
More in debt - yes
Less enviromental protection - no
worsenning recession - no
payoffs to the big financial firms - happened in 2008

so you're 1 1/2 for 5.

-smak-

Well he just approved offshore drilling so yes that is less environmental protection.

As far as the economy goes we are losing more jobs. So there is more people unemployed today than a month ago that means a worse economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSfp5pL7BSTM&pos=2

He has escalated the war in Afghanistan. Bush clung to Iraq, Obama clings to Afghanistan. Afghanistan the country that beat the U.S.S.R. What a waste of time.

He even did the silly bush stunt of going on some secret mission to see the troops and had a press conference.

Offshore drilling is one aspect of environmenntal protection. There are plenty of other aspects you seem to be ignoring.

You changed "recession" to "economy" and/or jobs. Nice trick.

Obama said he would pull out of Iraq and expand in Afhganistan. Which is what he's doing.

Not sure how all this adds up to Chicago politics, etc.. etc.. yawn.

He's either a ruthless corrupt Chicago politician, or he's green and is in over his head.

Make up your mind.

-smak-

[fake]

Offshore drilling is one aspect of environmenntal protection. There are plenty of other aspects you seem to be ignoring.


Sure it is one aspect. Obama eliminated a long standing ban on drilling right off our shores. So he has reduced our environmental protections. He took some away and didn't add others to make up for it. That is what is known as less.

You changed "recession" to "economy" and/or jobs. Nice trick.

It wasn't a trick. A trick is when someone says hey we calculate that GDP grew by such and such, but we are still loosing tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. Recession, economy, jobs. Those are what normal average people care about. Until we have jobs being added each month instead of loosing them one can not honestly say the economy is improving.
Obama said he would pull out of Iraq and expand in Afhganistan. Which is what he's doing.

Obama portrayed himself as the anti war candidate. He isn't anti war. Have any troops come home?

Not sure how all this adds up to Chicago politics, etc.. etc.. yawn.

He's either a ruthless corrupt Chicago politician, or he's green and is in over his head.

Make up your mind.

-smak-

I think Obama will considered a worse President than Bush. He is a lot like Bush. He has worshipers who will never see the bad policies he is implementing.

In three years people like you will still be blaming Bush for Obama's failure as President.

[TheIndependent]

Have any troops come home?

yes, Iraq troop#s are down from a high of 150k+ to just under 100k at this point IIRC. also IIRC, he added approx 30k in troops to Afghanistan...

[keirgrey]

In three years people like you will still be blaming Bush for Obama's failure as President.Obama's not going to be considered a failure. The health care bill alone will see to that. He did something that even the Democratic Reagan couldn't do (Clinton).

So...so much for that talking point.

[InigoMontoya]

the contiguous West Coast continues to be left untouched.
I'm confused.....

The last time I was at the beach (Long Beach, CA), I could see oil platforms in the distance.

[JP]

In three years people like you will still be blaming Bush for Obama's failure as President.Obama's not going to be considered a failure. The health care bill alone will see to that. He did something that even the Democratic Reagan couldn't do (Clinton).

So...so much for that talking point.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that any of those have to comply with reality. They only have to make sense in the conservative unreality bubble, which I assure you they do. In there, Barack was a failure as president before he was even sworn in.

[pgogborn]

the contiguous West Coast continues to be left untouched.
I'm confused.....

The last time I was at the beach (Long Beach, CA), I could see oil platforms in the distance.I should have said California will not be seeing any new platforms. Perhaps President Obama owes a Congresswoman from California a favor.

[pgogborn]

The Huffington Post pins the "Drill Baby Drill" refrain on President Obama and remembers when Obama campaigned against off-shore drilling.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LhHz2j3CGlc/S7SbAKJT9lI/AAAAAAAAAfc/CShqBt5Cmro/drill_baby_drill2.JPG

But the HuffPuff also gives space to a piece by Raymond J. Learsy headlined Obama's Brave Decison to Drill OffshoreIn an act of vision and courage, given the hostage the nation has become to the oil industry, oil interests, and the likes of OPEC, the Obama administration is proposing opening vast expanses along the Atlantic coastline, the Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling.

This is a momentous moment and brings to mind the leadership of another time and another president. In the depth of the depression, President Roosevelt, with courage and imagination, sought different solutions... >
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/obamas-brave-deciison-to_b_519836.html The visionary, courageous and momentous reminder of the leadership of President Roosevelt sounds like a liberal reality bubble to me (or not).

[fake]

Obama's not going to be considered a failure. The health care bill alone will see to that. He did something that even the Democratic Reagan couldn't do (Clinton).

So...so much for that talking point.


He failed to find bipartisan support for health care. The bill didn't pay for itself, and rely on future congress to do the heavy lifting to pay for it. He says this bill will reduce the deficit, but all he has really done is kick that can down the road. If the future leaders don't do as Obama needs them to, then the bill is a failure.

Obama has destroyed the coalition that elected him. In just his first year and a half he has broken nearly every campaign promise he ever made. He has broken more promises than Bush Jr., and broken the same promise the made Bush Sr. a one term President.

Most open administration in history. Fail
End the Wars Fail
Protect the environment Fail
Provide health care to all Americans Fail
Turn around the economy Stimulus Fail
Over turn don't ask don't tell or support equality for all Fail


The failure isn't all Obamas fault. Clinton failed on health care when it mattered most that he fail. It is obvious that good legislation can not come from one party rule. One of Clinton's biggest achievements (Welfare reform) only came after the Republicans came to power. Perhaps if Obama is forced to work with a future Republican congress he will get something passed that does some good.

[keirgrey]

Obama's not going to be considered a failure. The health care bill alone will see to that. He did something that even the Democratic Reagan couldn't do (Clinton).

So...so much for that talking point.


He failed to find bipartisan support for health care. The bill didn't pay for itself, and rely on future congress to do the heavy lifting to pay for it. He says this bill will reduce the deficit, but all he has really done is kick that can down the road. If the future leaders don't do as Obama needs them to, then the bill is a failure.

Obama has destroyed the coalition that elected him. In just his first year and a half he has broken nearly every campaign promise he ever made. He has broken more promises than Bush Jr., and broken the same promise the made Bush Sr. a one term President.

Most open administration in history. Fail
End the Wars Fail
Protect the environment Fail
Provide health care to all Americans Fail
Turn around the economy Stimulus Fail
Over turn don't ask don't tell or support equality for all Fail


The failure isn't all Obamas fault. Clinton failed on health care when it mattered most that he fail. It is obvious that good legislation can not come from one party rule. One of Clinton's biggest achievements (Welfare reform) only came after the Republicans came to power. Perhaps if Obama is forced to work with a future Republican congress he will get something passed that does some good.So what? The point is, in the eyes of the American public, he got it done. Doesn't sound like failure to me, except from the Republican's side.

You keep trumpeting the "He failed" line, though.

[JP]

So what? The point is, in the eyes of the American public, he got it done. Doesn't sound like failure to me, except from the Republican's side.And that's not even considering the other thing fake is failing to consider - not just whether Barack is seen as a failure, but whether the other side has anything and anybody they can put up as a viable alternative.

Dems and Indeps are going to think "Barack didn't get us out of Iraq fast enough and the healthcare bill wasn't all bipartisan-y, so I'm voting GOP" ? I don't think so. But then again, neither does fake.

[grondramb]

I think the health care bill will be judged on whether people like the health care bill and drilling thing will little political impact except on the few people who are not polarized. For me I think its another positive about him - he realizes we can go all new agey and fuel the country but there is so little oil left here it does make sense to rip the environment apart too much. But I'm in a small minority.

The real decision is on coal not oil. Let's see what he does there. We have enough coal to replace half of imported oil until the next generation of nuclear and alternative are ready but that will be a tough political row to hoe.

[fake]

So what? The point is, in the eyes of the American public, he got it done. Doesn't sound like failure to me, except from the Republican's side.And that's not even considering the other thing fake is failing to consider - not just whether Barack is seen as a failure, but whether the other side has anything and anybody they can put up as a viable alternative.

Dems and Indeps are going to think "Barack didn't get us out of Iraq fast enough and the healthcare bill wasn't all bipartisan-y, so I'm voting GOP" ? I don't think so. But then again, neither does fake.



It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. He will not again be able to inspire the youth vote for hope and change. The independents will are not automatically his, and for that matter

I don't even think he will have a motivated base. Why would the base be motivated? Will all people be treated equally under the law when the next election comes? Will we still be mired in war? What will the number unemployed and under employed be? Will gas prices be higher or lower? What will the debt be. Will taxes be higher or lower.

Obama already became the first black president so he won't have that going for him.

[keirgrey]

What? He'll suddenly be the second black president?

[JP]

It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. Makes some part of it break for... where? There's Barack and the Dems, and there's the GOP. You figure the colossal fuckup that is the current GOP will be forgotten by then? That the idea of letting those chuckleheads have the White House again won't be motivating to liberals? Having a Dem in the White House has certainly been motivating for the GOP too, of course, but it's all coming out as obstructionism on the part of the pols and total nuttiness on the part of the "grass roots", i.e. the teabaggers.

[fake]

What? He'll suddenly be the second black president?

No meaning he will less white guilt on his side.

[aindik]

It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. Makes some part of it break for... where? There's Barack and the Dems, and there's the GOP. You figure the colossal fuckup that is the current GOP will be forgotten by then? That the idea of letting those chuckleheads have the White House again won't be motivating to liberals? Having a Dem in the White House has certainly been motivating for the GOP too, of course, but it's all coming out as obstructionism on the part of the pols and total nuttiness on the part of the "grass roots", i.e. the teabaggers.

To be fair to fake, he's saying Obama will be widely considered a failure as President. As we all know very well, that's not mutually exclusive to his getting reelected.

[keirgrey]

What? He'll suddenly be the second black president?

No meaning he will less white guilt on his side.

Yeah, you're just poking for poking's sake now. Been a fun conversation, though.

[keirgrey]

It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. Makes some part of it break for... where? There's Barack and the Dems, and there's the GOP. You figure the colossal fuckup that is the current GOP will be forgotten by then? That the idea of letting those chuckleheads have the White House again won't be motivating to liberals? Having a Dem in the White House has certainly been motivating for the GOP too, of course, but it's all coming out as obstructionism on the part of the pols and total nuttiness on the part of the "grass roots", i.e. the teabaggers.

To be fair to fake, he's saying Obama will be widely considered a failure as President. As we all know very well, that's not mutually exclusive to his getting reelected.While that's true, I don't believe he will be considered a failure. I doubt he'll be considered "The Greatest President EVAR" (trademark), but he won't be considered a failure.

[fake]

It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. Makes some part of it break for... where? There's Barack and the Dems, and there's the GOP. You figure the colossal fuckup that is the current GOP will be forgotten by then? That the idea of letting those chuckleheads have the White House again won't be motivating to liberals? Having a Dem in the White House has certainly been motivating for the GOP too, of course, but it's all coming out as obstructionism on the part of the pols and total nuttiness on the part of the "grass roots", i.e. the teabaggers.

What I am saying is that the Obama opposition will be united. The Obama coalition will be broken.

What does the progressive left have to show for their support of him?

Will gays be treated equally under the law?

Will the environment be more protected?

Will those with no health care now have it?

Will we still be fighting needless war?

Will people still be hiding in the shadows trying to make a living and provide for their families, while they toil under the boot of a thug who claims to be a capitalist?

The hope and change slogan is going to hurt him. People had very high expectation. Obamas problem simple. His coalition will lose hope and not turn out because nothing changed.

[JP]

To be fair to fake, he's saying Obama will be widely considered a failure as President. As we all know very well, that's not mutually exclusive to his getting reelected.I'm uncertain what "coalition" he's talking about, then. There's no "coalition" to not consider Barack a failure. It might be said there's one TO consider him a failure, but the same could be said of liberals and George - opposition is always easier than unity.

As for the issue in question, drilling, it's true that some Dems are upset about the news of it being allowed. I'm not one of them. I say watch what happens. I think Barack is calling the bluff of the oil industry, that's allowing the "drill here drill now!" faction to run around pretending only the ban is what's keeping the industry from drilling right away and bringing gas prices down. I don't think the oil industry has any intention of drilling right away, I think they just want to sew up the rights to do so for the future. And even if they do drill sooner rather than later, gas prices won't be going down that much.

AND it takes a lot of wind out of the GOP's opposition to energy bills when they can't keep chanting "drill here drill now!" when the answer is "okay, go ahead". Same thing as it was for nuclear power, it's one less thing they can use as an excuse to oppose anything and everything.

[JP]

What I am saying is that the Obama opposition will be united. The Obama coalition will be broken.Yeah, I figured that out the first time.

What does the progressive left have to show for their support of him?Sarah Palin isn't a heartbeat away from being President.

Will gays be treated equally under the law?There will have been more progress toward that than when his term began. That's already happened. DADT is a dead policy walking.

Will the environment be more protected?Yes.

Will those with no health care now have it?Many more that don't have it now will have it, yes. And those that do have it will be less afraid of losing it.

Will we still be fighting needless war?Do you mean will we still be trying to wind down somebody else's botched and useless war? Maybe. You're counting on everybody forgetting who botched those?

Will people still be hiding in the shadows trying to make a living and provide for their families, while they toil under the boot of a thug who claims to be a capitalist? Will Gerome ever go back to Sarah, and will Melissa's father's amnesia clear up in time for him to stop her from marrying her new fiance who's actually her half-brother?

The hope and change slogan is going to hurt him. People had very high expectation. Obamas problem simple. His coalition will lose hope and not turn out because nothing changed.Keep telling yourself that. In time, you may come to actually believe it. You're pretending the person Barack has to run against in 2012 is 2008 Barack, when instead it's an actual person from the 2012 GOP. The GOP better hope their farm club has some major hitters they can move up fast, because the team roster right now hasn't got anybody that can take him.

[fake]

There will have been more progress toward that than when his term began. That's already happened. DADT is a dead policy walking.


Then why not have the courage of his convictions and exercise his power as Commander and Chief?

Do you mean will we still be trying to wind down somebody else's botched and useless war? Maybe. You're counting on everybody forgetting who botched those?

They will not blame a man who is not in office. They will blame the man who is.

Will Gerome ever go back to Sarah, and will Melissa's father's amnesia clear up in time for him to stop her from marrying her new fiance who's actually her half-brother?

While the plight of the undocumented may not have meaning to you, and I understand they can't vote. I would caution that making their increasingly perilous situation into a joke does not engender sympathy to your argument, and if the President cannot address immigration reform in a meaningful way he will lose some support because of it.

Keep telling yourself that. In time, you may come to actually believe it. You're pretending the person Barack has to run against in 2012 is 2008 Barack, when instead it's an actual person from the 2012 GOP. The GOP better hope their farm club has some major hitters they can move up fast, because the team roster right now hasn't got anybody that can take him.


Very short sighted indeed to think that in the whole of the party there isn't someone who could run against your hero Barack the unbeatable.

I would think Governors Perry, and Romney each has a very good chance.

[keirgrey]

Nope. Romney is already dead. He lost last time. Perry, well, we discussed that before. Both of them would be "better served" if you will by letting someone else be the cannon fodder this time around. They MIGHT have a shot in 2016.

[smak]

Obama portrayed himself as the anti war candidate. He isn't anti war. Have any troops come home?



See, this is where I know you're just making things up. Obama the anti war candidate? When did this happen?

And Romney? How's he going to win the Republican nomination when they want to run against Obamacare, which is basically Romneycare. How is Romney going to run against Obama's implementation of the same policies he implemented in MA.

And Perry? Jesus man, I didn't realize TX gives out hallucinonjenic mushrooms with every filling of your gas tank.

-smak-

[smak]

It is not as oversimplified as didn't get out of Iraq fast enough or that the healthcare bill is " all bipartisan-y. It will be the long culmination of broken promises, back room deals, strong arm political maneuvering, that breaks the coalition. Makes some part of it break for... where? There's Barack and the Dems, and there's the GOP. You figure the colossal fuckup that is the current GOP will be forgotten by then? That the idea of letting those chuckleheads have the White House again won't be motivating to liberals? Having a Dem in the White House has certainly been motivating for the GOP too, of course, but it's all coming out as obstructionism on the part of the pols and total nuttiness on the part of the "grass roots", i.e. the teabaggers.

What I am saying is that the Obama opposition will be united. The Obama coalition will be broken.

What does the progressive left have to show for their support of him?

Will gays be treated equally under the law?

Will the environment be more protected?

Will those with no health care now have it?

Will we still be fighting needless war?

Will people still be hiding in the shadows trying to make a living and provide for their families, while they toil under the boot of a thug who claims to be a capitalist?

The hope and change slogan is going to hurt him. People had very high expectation. Obamas problem simple. His coalition will lose hope and not turn out because nothing changed.

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.

Dems will be plenty enthused in 2012 when we see what kind of nutjob the Republicans run against him.

Romney is the only guy on the other side that has sniffed the 2012 nomination that most people think isn't a dangerous wackjob.

-smak-

[JP]

Then why not have the courage of his convictions and exercise his power as Commander and Chief?Because he wants me to have the satisfaction of explaining it to you.

It's because if you force that kind of controversial decision on people by fiat, they'll rebel. The religious whackos will be all up in arms, the neocon whackos will join them a' wimperin' and a' wailin' about how it'll destroy-i-fy the military BY GOD why does he hate America so much. Barack's slow-and-steady way, the military gets a chance to look at the idea and report what they think, which is that it won't make much difference and the troops are cool with it, so people get used to the idea gradually, and by the time the repeal happens it won't be OMFG!!!, it'll be ho-hum old news. It's like the old story about boiling a frog slowly.

They will not blame a man who is not in office. They will blame the man who is.That must be why everybody blamed FDR for the Great Depression.

While the plight of the undocumented may not have meaning to you, and I understand they can't vote. I would caution that making their increasingly perilous situation into a joke does not engender sympathy to your argument, and if the President cannot address immigration reform in a meaningful way he will lose some support because of it.I doubt it. Remember that he gets to run against an actual GOPer, not some vision of perfection like you keep pretending. And the Dems have a much better track record at NOT being paranoid xenophobes than the GOP does.

Very short sighted indeed to think that in the whole of the party there isn't someone who could run against your hero Barack the unbeatable.Did I say he was unbeatable? No. Did I say there was no one in the whole GOP who couldn't beat him? Again, no. Did you even read what I wrote? Maybe. Did you comprehend it? Obviously not.

[JETarpon]

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.


cite?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/30/healthcare_motivation

So far -- and it's early yet -- passing healthcare reform doesn't seem to have improved Democrats' chances for this fall much. A new CNN poll shows that voters on both sides are more enthusiastic about the prospect of voting this year than they were before the bill passed, but that hasn't helped the Dems much.

According to CNN's latest survey, that gap remains. Back in January, 31 percent of Democrats said they were either "extremely enthusiastic" or "very enthusiastic" about voting this year, compared with 49 percent of Republicans who said the same thing. Now, it's 36 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of Republicans.

[aindik]

Then why not have the courage of his convictions and exercise his power as Commander and Chief?Because he wants me to have the satisfaction of explaining it to you.

It's because if you force that kind of controversial decision on people by fiat, they'll rebel. The religious whackos will be all up in arms, the neocon whackos will join them a' wimperin' and a' wailin' about how it'll destroy-i-fy the military BY GOD why does he hate America so much. Barack's slow-and-steady way, the military gets a chance to look at the idea and report what they think, which is that it won't make much difference and the troops are cool with it, so people get used to the idea gradually, and by the time the repeal happens it won't be OMFG!!!, it'll be ho-hum old news. It's like the old story about boiling a frog slowly.


There's an even better reason. DADT is a federal statute. Obama can't overrule a federal statute by executive order.

When the last guy tried that, Obama and the people on Obama's side didn't like it very much, and rightfully so. (And just today there was a thread about it.).

To overturn DADT requires an act of congress.

Though, there probably is more he could do by executive order than he's done, but he can't completely get rid of DADT all by himself.

[JP]

There's an even better reason. DADT is a federal statute. Obama can't overrule a federal statute by executive order.A point I had forgotten, thank you.

I'll save my frog-boiling explanation for the "well then why hasn't Barack made it his absolutely tippity-toppest priority and been prodding congress about it daily since he was elected?!" question I'm sure fake is even now formulating. :)

[smak]

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.


cite?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/30/healthcare_motivation

So far -- and it's early yet -- passing healthcare reform doesn't seem to have improved Democrats' chances for this fall much. A new CNN poll shows that voters on both sides are more enthusiastic about the prospect of voting this year than they were before the bill passed, but that hasn't helped the Dems much.

According to CNN's latest survey, that gap remains. Back in January, 31 percent of Democrats said they were either "extremely enthusiastic" or "very enthusiastic" about voting this year, compared with 49 percent of Republicans who said the same thing. Now, it's 36 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of Republicans.

Not as much as I remembered, but this is a different poll.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xsg3x-wy9uoscr0iy73jug.gif

Dem enthusiasm jumped 40% while Repub 16%. :)

-smak-

[Snowman]

While that's true, I don't believe he will be considered a failure. I doubt he'll be considered "The Greatest President EVAR" (trademark), but he won't be considered a failure.

Let's be fair. We felt that way about Bush after 4 years too. After 8, well, we changed our minds.

[Snowman]

Not as much as I remembered, but this is a different poll.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xsg3x-wy9uoscr0iy73jug.gif

Dem enthusiasm jumped 40% while Repub 16%. :)

-smak-

But why are they enthusiastic? Is it because there's someone worth voting FOR or because they want to vote someone out?

The last federal election was nothing to be enthusiastic for. No matter who won, nothing useful was going to come of it. When the lesser of two evils is hard to determine, vote party line.

[JETarpon]

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.


cite?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/30/healthcare_motivation

So far -- and it's early yet -- passing healthcare reform doesn't seem to have improved Democrats' chances for this fall much. A new CNN poll shows that voters on both sides are more enthusiastic about the prospect of voting this year than they were before the bill passed, but that hasn't helped the Dems much.

According to CNN's latest survey, that gap remains. Back in January, 31 percent of Democrats said they were either "extremely enthusiastic" or "very enthusiastic" about voting this year, compared with 49 percent of Republicans who said the same thing. Now, it's 36 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of Republicans.

Not as much as I remembered, but this is a different poll.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xsg3x-wy9uoscr0iy73jug.gif

Dem enthusiasm jumped 40% while Repub 16%. :)

-smak-

so, in the last 2 weeks, the enthusiasm gap has gone from 15 points to.... 15 points?

[smak]

cite?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/30/healthcare_motivation



Not as much as I remembered, but this is a different poll.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xsg3x-wy9uoscr0iy73jug.gif

Dem enthusiasm jumped 40% while Repub 16%. :)

-smak-

so, in the last 2 weeks, the enthusiasm gap has gone from 15 points to.... 15 points?

Nothing happened on the 14th. It was the 21st. And yes, 25-35 is significantly different than 43-50.

-smak-

[JETarpon]

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.



Let me quote that again, since you've moved the goalposts.

"The last 2 weeks" from April 1st. Well, that would put us at March 18th. We don't have a measurement from the 18th. So, we have to pick either the 14th or the 21st. The 14th was before the passage of the bill. The 21st may or may not have been, so let's use the 14th as the best approximation of the numbers on the 18th. Also, if we use the March 21st date, it will only be possible to measure one week. Any speculation about numbers after March 28th would be just that: speculation.

When the new numbers come out this Sunday, you can make a new statement about what happened in the last two weeks, but for now, if you want to talk 2 weeks, we need to use the 14th through the 28th.


The gap on the 14th was 15 points.

The gap two weeks later was 15 points.

The "enthusiasm gap" which is what you said had gotten much smaller, actually didn't change at all. In terms of the gap, 24-39 and 35-50 are exactly the same.

[evizzle]

People are enthusiastic about voting for congress? Man, I must live in a different world...

[smak]

The "enthusiasm" gap has gotten much smaller in the last 2 weeks.



Let me quote that again, since you've moved the goalposts.

"The last 2 weeks" from April 1st. Well, that would put us at March 18th. We don't have a measurement from the 18th. So, we have to pick either the 14th or the 21st. The 14th was before the passage of the bill. The 21st may or may not have been, so let's use the 14th as the best approximation of the numbers on the 18th. Also, if we use the March 21st date, it will only be possible to measure one week. Any speculation about numbers after March 28th would be just that: speculation.

When the new numbers come out this Sunday, you can make a new statement about what happened in the last two weeks, but for now, if you want to talk 2 weeks, we need to use the 14th through the 28th.


The gap on the 14th was 15 points.

The gap two weeks later was 15 points.

The "enthusiasm gap" which is what you said had gotten much smaller, actually didn't change at all. In terms of the gap, 24-39 and 35-50 are exactly the same.

Yah, it really make sense that when I said 2 weeks I was talking about a Thursday, 3 days before the health care vote.

You know I was talking about since the vote. It's the only thing that makes sense.

And I specifically said this poll was one example, and not the one I was actually referring to.

I'm looking for that one in a format I can post, or I can just post the text of the poll, and the differences from a month ago.

-smak-

[JETarpon]

I can't figure out how to get to the graph, but the new Gallup numbers are out. Republican enthusiasm: +4, Democrat enthusiasm: no change. The enthusiasm gap is now at +19 for the Republicans.