Watch Out Florida: Obama Signals Support for Offshore Oil Drilling
By Deb Cupples on August 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM in Barack Obama, Gas Prices, Off-Shore Drilling
In June, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that he opposed drilling for oil off the U.S. coastline, explaining that 1) it would take 10 years to produce any oil at all, and 2) that said oil would not do much to lower gas prices anyway because our nation consumes such a high percentage of the world’s oil. (The Hill)
Yesterday, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Sen. Obama has "softened" his stance on offshore drilling:
"Long an opponent of offshore drilling, Sen. Barack Obama offered
encouraging words for a bipartisan energy plan that would permit oil
drilling within 50 miles of Florida’s west coast."In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9′s Political Connections this morning, Obama commended the self-styled "Gang of 10" senators who earlier in the day introduced a broad energy bill that also would funnel billions into developing renewable sources.
"’My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise,’ Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. ‘If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.’" (St. Pete Times)
There’s that word again: compromise. It’s a reasonable-sounding word, but compromise can have pretty deleterious effects. Is offshore drilling an issue about which we should compromise?
Many of us Americans eat food from the sea: fish and shrimp and lobster (well, I don’t eat lobster, because I really dislike the taste, but I adore scallops). And hundreds of miles of our coastlines serve as tourist destinations — which pump money into many state and local economies precisely because of the quality of their beaches.
All it would take are a few accidents (like oil spills) to taint the food and scenery, which certainly could cause a drag on multiple industries. Given that we wouldn’t see any results from drilling for 10 years (according to Sen. Obama’s statement in June), are the risks to our nation’s coastlines worth the meager and long-delayed results of offshore drilling?
I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fair question.
Interestingly enough, the St. Pete Times implied that Sen. Obama has not formally embraced the offshore-drilling plan. It seems safe to say that he does support it — given that he said "I am not going to be rigid" about it.
You can’t get a little bit pregnant: either Sen. Obama is willing to allow offshore drilling or he isn’t. Subtle phrasing can cause voters to misunderstand where he really stands on issues.
I can’t help remembering Obama’s stated opposition back in January and March to retroactive immunity for telecom companies (Telecom Amnesty) that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans. In June, Obama’s stance morphed into qualified support for a House bill that included Telecom Amnesty, which Obama ended up voting for when it came to the Senate.
Similarly, I can’t help remembering Obama’s clear statements opposing NAFTA in March, stating that he would use the treaty’s opt-out clause as a "hammer" to force re-negotiation of the treaty so as to benefit American workers who’d lost their jobs. In May, after Obama won the primaries, he made a clear statement that he really doesn’t want to force re-negotiation of NAFTA.
Incidentally, if the drilling plan is passed, Florida would not have a choice: the drilling would happen, according to the St. Pete Times, because the Gulf of Mexico is thought to be oil rich.
Other coastal states would have a choice about whether or not drilling occurred off their shores (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia).


















Pingback: Obama: Where does he stand? There is something seriously wrong with Senator Obama. « Dianej’s Weblog