More Respect Lost for Harry Reid
In a move that does nothing in my opinion but validate John McCain's pandering and hackery concerning offshore drilling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Senate Republicans that he'll be allowing four of their energy bills up for a vote. One of them is specifically concerning offshore drilling. Even CNN reported in that article that the move "surprised Senate Republicans."
Ok, let me get this straight: I have no problem with compromise. And if passing such a bill is the only way to get <i>sweeping</i> energy resolutions to pass, then I would take it (begrudgingly). My issue comes from the fact that this is a move that John McCain has consistently called for, and endorsed adamantly as being able to give almost immediate relief at the pumps.
In fact, McCain said just today that relief could come in only "months." Anyone with even a basic understanding of oil drilling, and of offshore oil drilling especially, would know that any benefits from such a measure would not be seen for several years. This is on top of the fact that it would, in the end, only save a couple of cents. Yes, if that relief was <i>immediate</i>, such a saving would be very beneficial. But at the rate we're talking about, the benefit will be practically unseen.
This is also on top of the fact that we should <i>NOT</i> be investing in continuing to feed our dependence on fossil fuels. We should be putting the money that would be spent on such offshore drilling endeavors into expanding renewable energy technology, such as solar and wind.
Barack Obama is absolutely right in his rejection of such measures. I understand that (hopefully) the vote will not even pass. Perhaps I am overreacting on this. But I have found McCain's offshore drilling advocacy to be one of hte most blatantly idiotic policies of his. Of course I can't say this move surprises me, considering Reid's history as Senate Majority Leader. But it's still disappointing nonetheless.
Ok, let me get this straight: I have no problem with compromise. And if passing such a bill is the only way to get <i>sweeping</i> energy resolutions to pass, then I would take it (begrudgingly). My issue comes from the fact that this is a move that John McCain has consistently called for, and endorsed adamantly as being able to give almost immediate relief at the pumps.
In fact, McCain said just today that relief could come in only "months." Anyone with even a basic understanding of oil drilling, and of offshore oil drilling especially, would know that any benefits from such a measure would not be seen for several years. This is on top of the fact that it would, in the end, only save a couple of cents. Yes, if that relief was <i>immediate</i>, such a saving would be very beneficial. But at the rate we're talking about, the benefit will be practically unseen.
This is also on top of the fact that we should <i>NOT</i> be investing in continuing to feed our dependence on fossil fuels. We should be putting the money that would be spent on such offshore drilling endeavors into expanding renewable energy technology, such as solar and wind.
Barack Obama is absolutely right in his rejection of such measures. I understand that (hopefully) the vote will not even pass. Perhaps I am overreacting on this. But I have found McCain's offshore drilling advocacy to be one of hte most blatantly idiotic policies of his. Of course I can't say this move surprises me, considering Reid's history as Senate Majority Leader. But it's still disappointing nonetheless.
Advertisement





And if Reid and the Democrats BLOCK what appears to be a useful set of bills that would 'help' Americans, can you not envision the 527 and GOP attack ads that would ensur over the next 98 days?
And is it not clear to you that these bills can be REVERSED once Obama is elected and the Democrats have near bulletproof majorities in both houses of Congress?
It's called 'politics' - and sometimes one has to play the game in order to prevail in the end.
July 28, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand this, and have acknowledged it myself. It does not change the fact that it's a frustrating move on Reid's part. The fact that the Republicans were surprised by the move means that they didn't expect such a concession, but they got it anyway.
As the article I cited mentioned, the bill would be up for a vote right before the Senate takes a recess and faces its constituents who are hurting at the pump.
If their solution is truly to allow more offshore drilling, it's nothing less than pathetic.
July 28, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chrono:
Think about it the way that I, a gay man, think about Obama's position on gay marriage.
You and I both know that Obama almost certainly approves of marriage rights for all. But he cannot run on that platform and have any realistic hope of winning the Presidency.
So he takes the most principled position he can. And you and I know that, as president, he will nominate SCOTUS justices who will vote to see that the 'comity of jurisdictions' clause of the Constitution (as well as the equal application of rights provisions of the 14th Amendment) are used to settle the issue when it finally comes to the SCOTUS (sometime during his Presidency).
And he will also veto ANY attempt to legislate gay marriage away or attempt to amend the Constitution in any way before the SCOTUS decides the issue once and for all.
So while he is 'for' gay marriage, he has to assume a 'neutral' position on it and then hope that we unerstand the strange dance that politicians must sometimes engage in to move LEFT while appearing to stand still or seem to move right.
July 28, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Dad is gay. I am quite well aware of the way in which Obama has positioned himself.
But this is not the same thing. This is not Barack Obama running for President of the United States. This is our Senate Majority Leader pandering to a gimmick that, much as you might like to argue otherwise, does not seem to have much value in it. Barack Obama has not endorsed such a measure, and he has not taken any real heat or negativity from it, except from John McCain, who was going to do it anyway. I see no reason why Harry Reid must do such a thing.
Not to mention, if we're talking about a difference, I don't believe Obama is simply taking a "neutral" stance on "gay marriage" because it's more electable. He's always talked about full rights for gays, but that "marriage" should be defined religiously. Basically, if religious institutions want to marry gay couples, then he sees no issue with it. It's in tune with the separation of church and state, as I see it, and it's not pandering and compromise for the sake of electability.
I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree, and I don't think your analogy is quite applicable to the situation at hand.
July 28, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink