I completely agree with Kevin drum on this, Obama Opens Up the Coast "I guess this makes me a bad environmentalist, but I've never really had a big problem with opening up these offshore tracts as long as (a) the affected states are OK with it and (b) oil companies don't get sweetheart deals. But here's what I don't get. When it comes to energy, conservatives are crazy about two things: nuclear power and offshore drilling. Now Obama has agreed to both. But does he seriously think this will 'help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation'? Wouldn't he be better off holding this stuff in reserve and negotiating it away in return for actual support, not just hoped-for support? What am I missing here?"
7 comments:
Yes, on the surface it looks like a unnecessary giveaway. But he sort of did the same thing on healthcare, giving up early on the Public Option, but getting a reform bill in the end.
I think Obama may be using off-shore drilling as his ante to set up a larger bet. My guess is that the larger bet is cap-and-trade, and that it will resurface in the not too distant future.
Off-shore drilling is a straw man in the entire enery debate, but it made a great slogan for the Palin/ McCain [sic] ticket. Who could forget Drill Baby, Drill.
Obama knows this so he must be using it as leverage for a larger goal.
The oil business wants to drill off-shore but doesn't want cap and trade.
Wall Street wants Cap and Trade badly, and probably doesn't really care about off-shore drilling either way.
Goldman Sachs has an easier time making money under cap and trade than they do from additional off-shore drilling.
It's not clear to me how Obama is playing his hand, but considering that he managed to get health care passed while holding a pair of deuces, I wouldn't bet against him.
We shall see how it all unfolds.
TT
Yeah, the obvious guess would be this as a trade for cap and trade, but the point is why just give this up early and not use it later as a more traditional bargaining chip. His bargaining record on health care record isn't good, he didn't get any GOP votes in spite of giving up the progressive positions early. Why repeat the mistake?
Maybe doing this gets it out of the way as a talking point by the opposition. Then again, my political savviness is measured in picopols. (a pol is a new political capital unit I just invented)
I think it is shrewd negotiating. After HCR Republicans essentially said "we got steamrollered and we're not going to negotiate anymore". So Obama starts off with a concession, signaling he is willing to negotiate. So if the Republicans don't negotiate they look intransigent, and if they do, well, we'll probably end up with a bill that is less partisan and Obama gets credit for bipartisanship. Either way Obama wins.
"So if the Republicans don't negotiate they look intransigent". Um, and why do we think this will motivate them to negotiate? This seems a big concession to give up (even if he has no problem with it) for nothing specific in return. Particularly after he already supported nuclear plant licenses.
It's too nice out for an extended answer, we can finish the discussion at an Indian buffet in a few weeks...
Short version is he is doing what he should have done with healthcare - get out in front of the debate with a proposal that is comprehensive, tackles the problem in a substantial and substantive way, includes meaningful elements from the other side, and takes some "progressive" elements off the table that both centrist independents and reasonable Republicans aren't comfortable with.
Indian buffet certainly works. :)
I agree with what you say he should have done, but I don't see him doing that here. Just like he took single payer off the table too soon (and got nothing for doing so), he's giving this up too soon and hasn't gotten anything for it.
The problem here is that the GOP position is to basically do nothing about climate change. Here's their 2008 platform on the topic, it's literally "let's give a prize for a scientist to solve it for us" and their energy policy is drill, nuclear, and sure lets do other stuff.. So how do you have a successful negotiation with a party that doesn't want to do anything?
So he's increased nuclear licenses and drilling (both things the GOP wanted and that I'm fine with), he's taken a carbon tax off the table (a far left position) and we assume he supports cap and trade but hasn't provided the details yet (just like he did with health care). But now that he's given the GOP their whole platform (or as much as he's going to, he's not drilling in ANWR), how will he convince the GOP to vote for cap and trade? Hey I gave you what you want now give me what I want? No we'll wait till you lose the election and then lower taxes and you can't override our filibuster anymore (unless the next Senate changes the rules).
Wouldn't it have been easier to say: this bill includes cap and trade and drilling and nuclear expansions, let's get together and vote on a comprehensive centrist solution.
Post a Comment