"Drill, drill, drill!! Drill, drill, dri- oh no wait, not yet!!!!!"

[Pangloss]

For months now Republicans have been telling us about how we need to start drilling, and it's all Democrats' fault that we haven't been. It's been, what, two weeks since the "drill drill drill" chanting on the floor of the convention?

 

So what happens today? The House passes a bill that would allow offshore drilling, and Republicans threaten to filibuster it in the Senate and the President announced that he will VETO it!

 

No really. This actually happened today. No no, I'm serious. No really, stop laughing, I'm not kidding.

 

Really. Really.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/washington/17cong.html?hp

[ParanoiA]

That misses the point that the republicans don't like how the bill was written, and have basically been routed on this issue. The democrats kept them out of writing the bill and if I'm understanding what I'm reading, it eliminates tax break incentives for alternative fuels. But I'm not sure that second paragraph makes much sense. Savings from tax breaks to pay for tax breaks and incentives? Huh?

 

They faulted it for failing to add incentives for coal and nuclear power and for not limiting environmental suits against drilling proposals. They also criticized Democrats for not negotiating with Republicans in writing the bill.

 

Among other objections, House Republicans joined industry in criticizing the measure because it would eliminate about $18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, including a manufacturing deduction of particular benefit to large firms. The savings from the oil companies would be diverted to pay for tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels, vehicles that use alternative energy and other fuel efficiency programs and research.

 

Here's why the republicans are actually pissed:

 

Democrats said Republicans were left frustrated because the bill robbed them of a chief line of attack in allowing Democrats to vote for new drilling in conjunction with clean energy initiatives.

 

It's not a new practice to hijack another party's position while distorting it at the same time. I'm just not sure enough about the details of the bill to judge whether or not the democrats did that or not. The republicans are certainly saying that, but they could just be pissy because they just lost a major issue to throw in Obama's face.

[Sisyphus]

"Sure, we wanted offshore drilling, but we didn't want you to want it!"

 

Savings from tax breaks to pay for tax breaks and incentives? Huh?

 

It just means they want to move the tax breaks from oil manufacturing to renewable energy. Makes sense to me.

[ParanoiA]

 

It just means they want to move the tax breaks from oil manufacturing to renewable energy. Makes sense to me.

 

No, I mean I'm not putting that paragraph together in my head right.

 

Among other objections, House Republicans joined industry in criticizing the measure because it would eliminate about $18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, including a manufacturing deduction of particular benefit to large firms.

 

Ok, so far so good....

 

The savings from the oil companies would be diverted to pay for tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels, vehicles that use alternative energy and other fuel efficiency programs and research.

 

Here's where I'm getting lost. Who's savings? Are we calling the additional revenue from cancelling the tax breaks, savings? If so, how and why does the government "pay for tax breaks and incentives"?

 

Wait. I think I got it. Are they saying that the additional revenue from cancelling the tax breaks will offset proposed tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels?

 

That wording is kind of confusing.

[big314mp]

What a joke. I wish the American people were smart enough to see through this kind of crap, but quantum mechanics will have me walking through walls before that happens.

 

What happened to the idea of, "we got some of what we want, let's take it and run."

 

And god forbid we take subsidies away from oil companies. Somewhere I read that the cost of the LHC was slightly more than ExxonMobile's profits in one quarter.

[iNow]

Yeah, that is poorly written. I presume, "Since we're no longer going to be giving as much money to oil companies, we can instead use that money for rebates on renewables."

 

 

However, the hypocrisy is palpable. Drill! We must drill! It's the only way to save your family!

 

Nope. Playing politics is FAR more important than your family.

[Pangloss]

That misses the point that the republicans don't like how the bill was written, and have basically been routed on this issue.

 

The republicans are certainly saying that, but they could just be pissy because they just lost a major issue to throw in Obama's face.

 

It's definitely the latter, guy. Government in a democracy isn't an all-or-nothing affair. You get the two sides together on an issue and you find common ground. So for Republicans to pound the podium demanding X, and then reject one-half of X when they get it, that is anathema to how things work in a democracy. You accept one-half of X in the hope that some day you'll get some semblance of the other half. That's what you do. That's what governments in this country have done for 230 years. That's what makes this country great -- that ability to find common ground and make slow, gradual progress over time.

 

Do you want to drill oil out of the ground and put it in people's gas tanks, or do you want to trounce Democrats and put them in their place? Which is more important to you?

[ParanoiA]

It's definitely the latter, guy. Government in a democracy isn't an all-or-nothing affair. You get the two sides together on an issue and you find common ground. So for Republicans to pound the podium demanding X, and then reject one-half of X when they get it, that is anathema to how things work in a democracy. You accept one-half of X in the hope that some day you'll get some semblance of the other half. That's what you do. That's what governments in this country have done for 230 years. That's what makes this country great -- that ability to find common ground and make slow, gradual progress over time.

 

Do you want to drill oil out of the ground and put it in people's gas tanks, or do you want to trounce Democrats and put them in their place? Which is more important to you?

 

No, I agree. I've always felt compromise is for politicians, not for the people. That's their role, and they blew it.

 

However, I wanted to point out that they had a "side" to their story, and it is possible to hijack a position on its face, while disingenuously undermining it in legislation. In that case, standing against the legislation could be the noble position.

 

Face value is not always valuable.

[Pangloss]

Definitely -- they have every right to tell people everything from what they think of the bill to how badly Richard Durbin's body order was that day. (grin) But joking aside, you're right that there's a political aspect to it for Democrats as well, or as you say face value is not always valuable -- certainly.

[iNow]

This is an interesting exploration:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185173&title=drill-pickle

 

 

What was that about a "greasy sanchez?"

 

[bascule]

Political gridlock is frustrating, but so is Republican blustering about non-issues. They blustered about offshore drilling (and lied outright with the "drill here, drill now, pay less" message), which will not impact oil prices for another 22 years, and now they're blustering about the offshore drilling bill not being what they wanted.

 

I just hope this next election shifts the balance of power such that some of this gridlock is resolved.

[Pangloss]

You believe that shifting the balance of power will actually alleviate gridlock? I'm just not sure we live in that world anymore.

 

But yeah, that's why I feel that a dramatic statement is needed in this election. I think most of us here agree that politicians in both parties are out of touch and in dire need of a wake-up call. I think that's what can potentially rescue us from partisan-driven politics -- getting people more or less on the same page, then explaining to congress through non-partisan watchfulness and attention that our tolerance for shenanigans is very low.

[bascule]

Wow, just watched yesterday's Daily Show which pointed me to this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html

 

Apparently the main concern with the bill was that it only allowed offshore drilling up to 50 miles off the coast. The Republicans argued that the majority of oil lies between 3 and 50 miles off the coast (down from the previous 200 mile limit), citing facts from a government report from an agency which is now mired in scandal, including "allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct." (TDS claimed the latter was in the form of accepting sexual favors from energy companies)

 

Here's the cite for the Republicans citing the Minerals Management Service: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091201368.html

 

TDS clip here:

 

[Pangloss]

(Isn't the bill for drilling between 50 and 100 miles?)

 

I'm not sure I get your drift. Are you suggesting that there may not actually be any oil between 3 and 50 miles? That would be interesting if it's true.

 

(Of course, in this subforum that means that there cannot be any oil between 3 and 50 miles. I mean, geez Pangloss, how much more do you need?!)

[bascule]

(Isn't the bill for drilling between 50 and 100 miles?)

 

The bill allows for drilling between 50 - 100 miles with approval of the adjacent state, and between 100 - 200 miles without the approval of the adjacent state. (i.e. federal approval only)

 

So, the bill would allow them to drill 150 miles closer to the shore than they were previously able to.

 

I'm not sure I get your drift.

 

The Democrats attempted a compromise and the Republicans acted as if they just got the middle finger.

 

Are you suggesting that there may not actually be any oil between 3 and 50 miles?

 

Oh for the love of strawmen...

 

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, the Republicans were effectively complaining that all the oil between 50 - 200 miles of the coast is the shwag, or to quote some of the Republicans from TDS responding to the bill: "a joke", "a farce", "a charade". Between 3 and 50 miles is where all the good oil is! And they made this case using... data from a report produced by a federal department which is under investigation for accepting bribes from oil companies.

 

Given that, don't you think the report might be a bit questionable?

[Pangloss]

Yes I do, and thanks for clarifying.

 

I absolutely agree with you that "the Democrats attempted a compromise and the Republicans acted as if they just got the middle finger." Well put. In my opinion it makes no sense that Republicans rejected this compromise, because it's what they asked for; it's just not all of what they asked for. That's how you do things in a democracy, you accept compromise because it allows you to move forward. The Republican position SHOULD have been "okay we take this and it lets us start drilling, and we can try to get more of these areas opened up in future legislation". What's wrong with that? That approach has been working for 230 years and it BURNS ME UP that they rejected it. It's a complete vindication of everything I've been saying about partisan politics for years.

 

But that doesn't mean there isn't oil closer than 50 miles, and in fact it's not very likely that there isn't any, so really that Stewart piece is just spinning things back in the opposite direction for reasons that are obviously partisan in nature.

[iNow]

When did anyone EVER say there is NO oil closer than 50 miles? That's the strawman part, AFAICT.

 

Oh, and Bascule... I shared that exact video back in post #10.

[ParanoiA]

A question is a strawman?

 

Are you suggesting that there may not actually be any oil between 3 and 50 miles?

 

Questioning the report is reasonable. Questioning the questioner questioning the report is reasonable, too, I would think. Hell, I just assumed he was skeptical about the oil from 3 to 50 miles since he's skeptical about the report on oil from 3 to 50 miles. Would his skepticism of the report even be germane if he wasn't skeptical about oil from 3 to 50 miles?

 

Looks to me like you all have your guns drawn, ready to fire at anything that moves.

[Pangloss]

I appreciate that, but I'll just add that I understand what bascule was saying and I agree that the report would be questionable under those circumstances. The connection between the 3-50 miles data and the oil-sex scandal is not one I'd heard before, so I appreciate it being passed along. It's interesting and it's relevant.

 

But it only supports the point that Republicans are wrong not to accept this compromise. It does not support the point that drilling should not occur closer than 50 miles. We need more information to address that issue.

[swansont]

Seems to me that the Republicans' definition of compromise in this case is "agreeing to everything we want"

[john5746]

Seems to me that the Republicans' definition of compromise in this case is "agreeing to everything we want"

 

That's Bush in his element: No thinking, just doing. Wait until there is a crisis and then say we must follow him or else.