An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

All Tied Up?

Every conceivable metaphor – the prevailing winds, the political tide, the conventional wisdom – has been thrown at the presidential race for months now, explaining why this November would be the death knell of the GOP and how you should already begin practicing saying “President Obama.” Still, for some reason, the most recent polls from Rasmussen seem to show the race drifting into a statistical tie. What happened? Dick Morris has a guess.

Part of the slippage is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.

Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate — who we don’t really yet know very well — reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:

Morris goes on to list a number of issues. For the record, I don’t agree with the description of a “flip flop” on all of them. In some cases, such as the campaign finance question, it looks more like unavoidable pragmatism. On others, though, such as gun control, he would be the envy of any bass in the bottom of a boat.

His second point seems far more plausible and it comes in the area of energy.

Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue — oil drilling — exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.

This isn’t so much about Obama as an individual candidate, I believe, as it is a rapidly growing, general sense of dismay at the Democratic Party’s refusal to come to the table on the energy question. Morris feels that this is one issue where Obama can not afford to step back. It would simply be a bridge too far for his most active base of supporters. But with no short term solutions presenting themselves, will it turn out to be a Catch 22? Like Morris, I’m not sure where apostate Obama supporters would flee. Bob Barr? Nader? In any event, I agree that the numbers seem to be slipping as the summer wears on, and it’s hard to imagine that the pains at the pump aren’t feeding into this somehow.

  • CitizenKang
    Um, as "Andrew Sullivan points out, a major problem with Morris' article is that its entire premise (that the race is tied) is untrue.

    <img src="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/16/rcpaverage.gif">

    Then again, when was the last time Morris was correct about anything?
  • CitizenKang
  • pacatrue
    Well, I very much agree that the rumors of the GOP's death have been greatly exaggerated. That said, I find almost all of Morris' analysis, well, idiotic. Just to grab one item since I'm supposed to be working, he says:

    "The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas."

    Ah, those liberals. Notice how he never says what the problem is? There can only possibly be an elitist position on something and a populist position on something if there is one something. "Let them eat cake" is an elitist position about the price of bread, but "let them eat cake" is not an elitist position if you're talking about your kids birthday party.

    Obviously, there are at least two problems being discussed here, not one. One problem is climate change. The other is the effect of a higher gas price on the economy and individual pocket books. How is preventing climate change, which could cost easily in the hundreds of billions of dollars to respond to if it stays on course, an elitist position? It's like saying the Democrats wanting to channel tax revenues into bridge maintenance is an elitist position because the money could be spent on something else. I understand that Morris doesn't care about climate change. But his lack of interest in the future isn't earthy, folksy, or practical. It's short-sighted. Caring about climate change doesn't mean you don't care about gas prices. I at least as a resident liberal care about both very much. Now, we need to come up with a plan that can tackle both issues, instead of claiming that anyone who doesn't abandon the future for the present is elitist.
  • Neocon
    I watched Dick Morris say this about 3 days ago. At that time they were talking about polls last week.

    Secondly this is not Obama's fault. The democrats for years have opposed drilling cause it wont work, or it will cause more greenhouse gases or it wont make a difference in prices. Never the less their judgment is not sound and as a result this is going to tie Obama to the Democrats. Just as they continue to tie McCain to Bush then Obama must be tied to the Democratic party which he wants to lead in November.
  • DLS
    All Obama has to say is that he might agree to some drilling, especially on leases already held by the oil companies, and the issue is dead.
  • DLS
    "In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas."

    That's what many liberals have said, along with things like we have "too low" [sic] prices or "artificially low" [sic] prices (as compared to the case in Europe where huge taxes are heaped on the actual price of the fuels themselves) and have been in favor of higher prices and higher fuel taxes, in part to coerce Americans into lowering their consumption (forced conservation).

    That ends with nearly all liberals when they must actually pay high prices for fuels like everyone else.

    There is a single issue here, high fuel prices. Global warming, "climate change," or whatever else it is called is a separate issue. (No, it is not a "reason" why higher fuel prices and forced conservation "should" be considered good.)
  • elrod
    Quoting a bad Dick Morris article? Sometimes I think folks around here are just desperate to make this race closer than it is.

    Look, Obama is not blowing McCain out right now. But unless Obama seriously flubs his overseas trip, or some crazy event occurs, Barack Obama will win the election comfortably. The reasons are fundamental: the GOP is a rotten brand and McCain can only do so much to distance himself from it. Then you add the motivation and organization. That alone may push Obama over the top in some surprising states like North Dakota or Montana.

    The only evidence for a tightening of the race comes from the tracking polls, which have already built back up to a 3-point lead for Obama. Hmm. Maybe the mid-summer polling is missing people on vacation - especially since trackers don't call people back. The stand-alone polls, which actually follow through on calls, all show a lead between 6 and 9 points. And they show a major enthusiasm gap to go with it.

    The race is not tied. Barack Obama has a modest but steady lead over John McCain. That could change, but it hasn't as of now.
  • elrod
    High fuel prices are caused largely by speculators out of control. If we cut the Enron loophole and prevent speculators from leveraging oil futures like 1920s margin stocks then we'd cut oil prices in half. Funny enough, it was Dick Morris who I first heard that from. But it's true: demand from India and China should put oil at about $80 a barrel, not $140.

    Drilling more in the US is a bogus non-solution.
  • DLS
    "The race is not tied. Barack Obama has a modest but steady lead over John McCain. That could change, but it hasn't as of now."

    Iowa Electronic Markets (graphs)

    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...

    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...
  • "Dick" Morris. Heh.

    Drill if the coastal communities say it's okay. After all, they are the ones most affected by any environmental accidents.

    But at the same time, we have to realize that drilling won't have a big effect on gas prices, certainly not in the short term and not in the 15+ years from now it will take to actually start really extracting oil from these new locations.

    What we have to do is find ALTERNATE and SUSTAINABLE fuels. We should also ignore the lunatic minority that seems to relish the idea of spewing more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. That means finding ALTERNATE, SUSTAINABLE and ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY fuels.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    So all you have to do to "come to the table on the energy question" is to lie to the American people? Make no mistake, anyone who claims that the oil that might be discovered in the areas that they can't drill in now is enough to make a difference in the current world market, much less the market as it will exist by the time the exploration is done and actual producing wells are drilled and pumping, is lying. The same is true of claims about if we'd only started drilling back in the day. For one thing, the oil companies had absolutely no interest in exploring offshore at the price point that existed at the time for oil. Those who claim differently aren't simply mistaken. Guess what? Aren't candidate McCain and all of his surrogates making these claims? Isn't pretty much every Republican officeholder and pundit? Yes, I consider honest Republican an oxymoron even greater than many consider honest politician.
  • runasim
    According to this, it will be determined by how stupid the American public. is, and that's not a comforting question to face,
    On energy, McCain is offering pie-in-the sky 'fixes' , so that we can delay facing up to the problems we need to face and wasting resources in the processs.
    Obama has a long term permanent fix policy, but the lack of gimmicks is his disadvantage.

    Another 4 years and another lie. People fell for it before, so it's quite likely they'll do so again.
    On some days, I'm not so proud of America.
  • casualobserver
    Make no mistake, anyone who claims that the oil that might be discovered in the areas that they can't drill in now is enough to make a difference in the current world market, much less the market as it will exist by the time the exploration is done and actual producing wells are drilled and pumping, is lying.

    Apparently CNN and the Times believe in lying...........(although they at least provide citations for their wild ass claims)

    The paper also cited an Interior Department study that said the U.S. continental shelf contained 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand, at current consumption levels, for 16 years and enough natural gas for 25 years, according to the Times
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oi...
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Sorry, C.O., but in fact the article you linked to made no such false promises. First, it's two years old in case you didn't notice. This sort of limits its part in the debate today. While the paragraph you quoted was accurate please notice that nowhere did CNN claim that it would lower prices even from the levels of 2006 much less 2008. It also said absolutely nothing about costs of extraction versus price. And above all else, remember that figure is just a wild ass guess!
  • daveinboca
    Satterfield, your entries are both preposterous lies. Because the study is two years old doesn't mean that the Interior Dept study is wrong, and because of better drilling tech offshore spearheaded by Brazil, is probably more in proven recoverable reserves.

    I was International Editor of The Oil Daily for a while & the problem with oil offshore drilling is not the oil companies, but govt. imbecility like the Clinton veto of ANWR in '96. The Dems are trying to drive up oil prices & blame it on the oil companies, period.

    Keep on with your delusional ravings.
  • dave,
    And who put the executive order in to place that banned drilling?

    Are you against finding alternative fuels and energy?

    For the record, the problem is not going to be that we're going to run out of oil. The problem is that at some point oil will become too expensive to get out of the ground. If we don't prepare for that, our economy will crumble. Apparently the rightwingers are okay with that. No wonder they don't care about the Bush recession.
  • daveinboca
    I'm no fan of GWB & his feckless administration, but between now and that far-off date [way past 2020 which some "think-tank experts" predict] when oil gets too expensive, due diligence requires that we drill where the oil is, not where the govt has deigned to sign leases.

    I've heard that oil is running out for about 40 years now----just like I heard about global cooling in the seventies. Ain't gonna happen for a long while yet, & better exploration & extraction techniques mean that instead of 30% of the oil in existing fields, over 70% will be profitably extracted. Read Oil & Gas Journal, not the Sierra Club, to find out what is happening in oil E&P.
  • Dave,
    Might I say that your devotion to oil is "idealistic." However, it ignores the number 1 rule of investing. Diversify!

    Because if your guesses are wrong about oil, then we're f*cked. But if we diversify our energy supplies and you're right, then we'll at least have cleaner sources of fuel, we'll be sending less money to the Middle East, etc...
  • DLS
    "Drill if the coastal communities say it's okay. After all, they are the ones most affected by any environmental accidents. "

    Everyone else has a say, too. It' snot just the residents' coastline (or interior sites) and I am not worried about environmental-accident alarmism.

    Now you are onto something legally insofar as what is the object of federal versus state jurisdiction offshore. Will liberals rediscover federalism?

    * * *

    "I've heard that oil is running out for about 40 years now----just like I heard about global cooling in the seventies."

    In some cases, the latter was brought to you (with the same "solutions") by the same folks who lead the global warming fad now -- along with those who probably don't want you to know about it such as "libertarian" Lowell Ponte, author of "The Cooling."

    Economic oil is going to run out eventually, though the process will be slow-motion and braked as more expensive sources become viable the higher prices go.

    As it is, we should end the arbitrary, stupid political lockups offshore and on our continent and open everything to drilling. Lockup is pathological.
  • DLS
    "Might I say that your devotion to oil is "idealistic." However, it ignores the number 1 rule of investing. Diversify!"

    Chris -- the alternatives have to be practical and realistic, too.

    A rational short-term approach to high demand and low supply with oil is to speed up research and development of conversion of coal to other fuels (not only using it to fuel boilers for electricity production but to convert it to transportation fuels, where so much oil is used without any real substitute any time soon).

    Then of course when it comes to alternatives to coal for electricity production, the obvious replacement is nuclear. Hydropower is also a non-air-polluting alternative, but nearly all the really good, big sites have been exploited already.
  • DLS
    "According to this, it will be determined by how stupid the American public. is, and that's not a comforting question to face"

    The Democrats have exploited stupidity for decades. Obama is doing a great job of it now with his sound-bite appearances, though if you are able to dig into his background such as by reading the recent New York article about him you'll have more, not less, respect for him after doing so.
  • DLS
    "Read Oil & Gas Journal, not the Sierra Club, to find out what is happening in oil E&P."

    Actually, there's an enormous real-world lesson as well as paradox in that that liberals need to learn when it comes to both regulation and the "revolving door" government-industry phenomenon. Those who know the industry best and are in the best position to make all kinds of decisions about the industry are members of the industry themselves. Nobody else knows the industry better. This is true for all industries.
  • DLS,
    But it's also true that the industry is motivated by profits, not by the greater good. Generating maximum profits often runs contrary to being open and truthful.
  • DLS
    "What we have to do is find ALTERNATE and SUSTAINABLE fuels. We should also ignore the lunatic minority that seems to relish the idea of spewing more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. That means finding ALTERNATE, SUSTAINABLE and ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY fuels."

    Global warming-related political-economic policy goals are almost total BS. Real air pollution is what we should be concerned about, as well as the reality of what alternatives are economical and practical (not politically or merely emotionally appealing). Burning hydrocarbons completely (i.e., perfectly) yields carbon dioxide and water, nothing else. THAT IS WHAT ALL INTELLIGENT, MORAL, PHILOSOPHICALLY ADVANCED PEOPLE REALIZE IS THE IDEAL AND WHAT IS DESIREABLE AND PREFERRED, not undesireable. What then is open to consideration is substitution of some other energy source for the combustion of hydrocarbons (leaving them free for other uses, such as in industry and in chemistry.

    For electricity production, we have coal, nuclear, hydropower, and oil and gas combustion. Typically we switch from coal or oil to gas when air pollution needs to be reduced, or we provide gas combustion for peak load (leaving coal as the source for base load). Solar may be great on hot summer afternoons for peak load (the logic behind this all but shouts at people), but solar and wind are not nation-wide replacements for base load. The obvious replacement for coal is nuclear, because hydropower isn't viable everywhere (and hydropower has a far worse environmental effect than nuclear, which has the smallest of all, solar, wind, biomass included). However, the hypocritical activists are mindlessly anti-nuclear. So what you see is contined construction of new coal-fired plants, because coal is so cheap. The alternatives do not make economic sense.

    With transportation, it's all about oil-based fuels. Any alternative must not cost much more and needs comparable energy density. (No, we do not "have" [sic] to "subtantially reconsider and consequently reduce our expectations and standards of vehicle performance.")

    With space heating, it's mainly gas (and we need to develop our gas fields as well as import more liquefied natural gas and defy the NIMBYs and environmentalist anti-progress kooks and build more LNG facilities) with heating oil in the Northeast and a few other old places; electricity used for space heating is uneconomic as a rule except where you have really cheap power such as in the Northwest with big hydropower availablility.
  • DLS
    "But it's also true that the industry is motivated by profits, not by the greater good. Generating maximum profits often runs contrary to being open and truthful."

    Yes, or to put it more bluntly, there are crooks in this world. (As well as just plain greedy people -- and of course Adam Smith's "conspiracy to raise prices" remark is well-grounded.)

    Leaving aside the real-world critique of libertarianism (as it applies to minimalist government and regulation) that it's not only flirting with anarchism and is "atomistic" but (in this thread's context) it effectively is the "honor system," but people cheat -- in addition to that, the ideal economic situation consists of innumerable sellers as well as buyers with equal power in the market, but that's often not the way the real world happens to be.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Reading industry publications is not always the way to get objective information. Neither is reading attacks from a far right wing political ideologue on a blog. First, the article is two years old. It does not state in the article how old the Interior Department study was at the time the article was written. One thing ignored by Daveinboca and the other supporters is that in most cases the people who live closest to the areas they want open to exploration don't want it. Their livelihoods depend on tourism and they fear what the sight of oil rigs instead of open water might do to it. In addition I think that if certain conditions are met the areas could be open for exploration. First the oil companies would have to open their records to a confidential auditing process to prove that they have in fact made efforts to explore the areas they currently have leases for instead of just sitting on unused leases. Secondly there would have to be draconian punishments in place for any company that caused a spill or other environmental disaster and it was proven to have occurred due to negligence.

    I lived in Tulsa for five years. For most of that time my wife was an executive assistant in a mid-size oil company. For two years of it I worked in the office of a small oil company, which means knowing the owners, the geologists and everyone else involved. The low level folks like us get to see and hear almost everything in businesses like that. I am not ignorant of the business in general though neither of the companies we worked for were involved in offshore work. There's some amazing technology helping find oil nowadays. But in the end it's not a proven resource until the exploratory well is drilled and successful.
  • DLS
    "I lived in Tulsa for five years."

    Oil industry -- educational. Bible Belt -- hope you handled it okay.

    "But in the end it's not a proven resource until the exploratory well is drilled and successful."

    Some of our existing sites (lease sites) and such are tricky.


    http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/11nov/pacific...


    That is another reason why the the other sites should not be locked up, which makes no sense.

    Oh, and Chris -- many of us don't object to wind farms offshore along with oil rigs? Even though to many the wind farms are much worse of an eyesore or form of visual pollution. The real issue with these things (what matters the most) is the hazard they present to shipping.

    It's a shame we don't have development offshore already. That, and Monterey Bay developed so much as to rival San Diego and constitute a #4 national-class major metro area complete with world-class shipping port and channel over the undersea canyon...but that's California and its "Massachusetts Lite" dysfunctional nonsense for you. Liquefied natural gas plants need to be situated next door in Mexico due to the nonsense.
  • Those windfarms are majestic looking IMO :-)
  • DLS
    Here's a reasonable compromise, actually generous since there should be no lockups at all:

    Just open the top fields to development.

    [BIG file]

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/topfields.pdf
  • DLS
    Chris -- you are an Evil Bird Killer [tm].

    I'm not a big fan of wind farms but in boring terrain or as opposed to just looking at water, the wind farms are literally of passing interest when I travel by them.

    http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap...

    http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap...
  • Do those maps portend the creation of America's Windbasket?
  • DLS
    "Wind basket": Could be. Why not put what's otherwise not highly-used (or just plain boring or awfully windy-to-visit) places to use?

    (In fact, wind towers can be erected on farm lands, too.)

    * * *

    And don't forget the coal!

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/of96-092/other_fil...

    I'll be nice, Chris, and not address (yet?) the federal lockup of so much land in the West (how colonial of Washington to do that as well as to draw such arbitrary straight-line boundaries like the Europeans did in Asia and Africa), or the opening of so much of that land to l o g g i n g .
  • DLS
    Wind and switchgrass* farms on the Plains? Why not?

    * Hemp ("for victory" over the Middle Easterners and Chavez) is just a dream.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    When I lived in Tulsa it was the early '80s. Good old Oral and ORU were at their height of influence. I've been active in science fiction fandom for my entire adult life. This includes some association with WorldCons, if you know what those are. Because we had experience running an annual convention with attendance of over 1500 there were those who insisted on thinking that we might be able to bid on doing WorldCon in Tulsa since historically WorldCons that aren't on the coasts are smaller. What does this have to do with the Bible Belt's Buckle? Late night discussions of promoting the idea of a Tulsa WorldCon led me to suggest that we could always do one of those cartoony maps like you saw back then of the large theme parks. It would be "Six Flags Over Jesus". The prayer tower would be like an airplane ride with angels whose backs you'd ride on, the roller coaster would have one of its hills going over the praying hands in front of his largely empty hospital, etc.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC