Setting aside the misleading title, tags, and description, you could have posted a video with the full answer he gave some 20 seconds after this clip ends.

As for "not having an opinion" he gave one: which was that we don't know when life begins, only God does.

You can disagree with that (and he does discuss that in his full answer), but you can't call that part of his answer a dodge, just humility.

He goes on to talk about reducing abortions through providing greater education and assistance to the people who're likely to wind up with an unwanted pregnancy...but I'm sure that's just Christian Marxist craziness to you. Probably something he got from his "crazy" pastor about helping the least of us.

Except he spent so much effort dancing around questions during his interview they ran out of time before getting to them all. Also, he stated that the overall number of abortions have not gone down which is false. Saying "I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion" is the new way to say "I don't want to offend anyone by taking a firm stance." I also don't see how you connect abortion to Marxism or Christian values.

I certainly don't like McCain, but his performance in this forum trounced Obama. Obama looked like he was on the fence, closed off on certain areas, and unwilling to give straight answers. The press called this "being thoughtful." Right... McCain, being the more experienced politician, was ready to belt out immediate pandering responses to the target audience. Obama just hasn't had enough practice with dodging and lying yet to convince anyone except his loyal followers. Good thing he's buddies with George Clooney... maybe he can get some acting tips.

I'd call what Obama's answers thoughtful too. Look at the answers each gave to "what should we do about evil?"

Obama gave a pretty lengthy answer, talking about the need to confront it, while being wary of the dangers of committing evil in the pursuit of stopping it.

McCain just said "defeat it", which frankly scares me, and should invalidate him from even potentially winding up with nuclear launch codes.

As for the abortion comments, Obama made it clear that he was pro-Choice, just not in the clip you decided to post. He also made the point that perhaps banning abortions isn't the best way to prevent them, and said that part of the new Democratic party platform will include efforts to reduce the number of abortions through assistance and education -- that's the part you'd call Marxism (and I would call Christian), by the way.

The only way you could interpret his answer as a dodge is if you think he should state his position in the most offensive way possible (like "I'm pro-abortion" or "life doesn't begin at conception, moron"), and shouldn't try to find common ground with people who he knows don't agree with him on the fundamental question of when life begins.

I agree though, McCain did better than his average in this (and Obama worse than his average). I think the Republican platform is designed to make evangelicals happy, and that helped McCain here. Democrats try to be more secular, and so had more explainin' to do. The crowd definitely cheered more for McCain, but I felt the applause came from the answers I liked least; one-word or one-phrase answers to questions that I felt deserved more thought.

When I was watching the Obama half of the forum, I was actually predicting that McCain would be giving one-word, and one-phrase answers to many of the questions (and was going to get applause for the simplicity, too). It's one of the big divides I see between the two -- Obama sees nuance and shades of gray in most situations, while McCain sees black and white. I'm big on shades of gray, myself, and I worry about getting another President who tries to simplify things the way Bush and McCain do.

I can see your point. I'm not going to keep arguing about why I dislike both of these candidates because I know from following the posts around here that you are unquestionably an Obama supporter and believer in the stuff he wants to do. I understand since I can tell you actually think about your position and frame well thought out arguments. I just totally disagree with you. Internet squabbling isn't going to change our core politics. The main reasons I've posted these Obama videos lately is because there are practically *NO* videos here about him that are negative without being titled or summarized in a way saying it is a pathetic smear. Contrary to popular opinion, this guy is not a political messiah and his shit does stink. I wanted to see what would happen if I posted a few negative videos of the same calibre as the anti-McCain stuff that shoots to the top. I'm up to 8 videos now varying in content and I'm lucky to get 2 votes. The highest I got was one sift with a clip from Letterman. I guarantee if I posted the short clip from McCain where he joked that rich is defined as making 5 million a year with that nice little Bush dictator quote ending, it would be top 15 material. It wouldn't matter for him that it was out of context or cheapened the 9 minute response he gave afterwards, because Videosift already has its bias.

I wouldn't really call this arguing, this has been a delightfully civil exchange as far as these things go, and I appreciate your candor.

You have to admit though, this particular clip, even out of context, doesn't mean what you titled the video.

I don't think Obama is a political messiah -- as a matter of fact, that's one of the smears used against him is to purport that he sees himself as one, or that his supporters see him as one. It's true that I personally have pinned a lot of high hopes on him, but that's more about the Democratic platform moving into ascendancy than it is about him personally.

Videosift has its bias, but not all anti-McCain stuff sifts. For example, the clip of him saying he defines rich as $5 million/year or more probably wouldn't sift, because you'd have to edit it a healthy amount, and it's not particularly damning. Expect it to wind up in a video montage, though.

My main problem with all the anti-Obama stuff is that it's either a) made up, b) misrepresented, or c) about someone else with a weak tie to Obama. The Letterman clip was none of those things, and was entertaining to boot, so it sifted.

No one hits him for caving on FISA, or for talking tough about Iran, or even about the fact that he's said he does not expect to be able to balance the budget in his first term. They do hit him as being inexperienced, but they usually invalidate those arguments by lying about it (e.g. "He's never done anything bipartisan" or "He's never done anything significant"...both false!).

Instead it's mostly implying he's a Muslim, impugning his patriotism, Jeremiah Wright, calling his popularity "celebrity", lies about his tax policy, and lies about his energy policy.

The lowest class thing the left says about McCain is that he's old and angry...and lots of people who know him personally say the same (even his mom). The rest is just clips of things he's said which coincide with his stated policies.

The homegrown anti-Obama stuff often looks like this, or worse.

I don't think Obama necessarily believes that he is a political messiah, but I know people who sure think he is. I've also read comments here throughout the nomination process where people are really expecting monumental things from this guy like he is going to raise his staff and bring world peace. I've come to realize throughout the past few months when discussing this with friends of differing political beliefs that the things that bother me about Obama are positives to them. The same thing here. You say that your are pinning hopes on Obama to bring about the ascendancy of the Democratic platform. That is the last thing I would want to see. Not only have the Democrats failed to deliver on just about every single promise they made to gain congressional control, but they have an approval rating even lower than Bush right now. This coming from Americans of all political affiliations.

He has also caved on more than FISA. He retracted his initial statements about the surge being a useless idea and pretended to be a supporter. A Virginia democrat claimed the surges success was credited to Obama. Obama now professes the success of the surge in a complete 180 from his original statements that it would worsen the situation. When asked if he could go back to the moment he voiced his opposition to the surge, and use the information he has now to make his decision, Obama said that he would not change his opinion since being opposed to Bush was more important at the time than the outcome. He also reversed his position on gun control while cleaning up the mess from his clinging to God and guns statement about Pennsylvania.

I see Obama as a man with loads of good intentions that will serve to break this country even further. Bush went crazy with the Patriot Act and other expansions of government power in the name of saftey. Spending is getting out of control and the economy is slow. I think Obama will drive the nail in its coffin with full support of a Democratic ascendancy.

I'm pissed about the Democrats in Congress too, because they haven't fought for their platform tooth and nail like the Republicans have. In other circumstances, I'd call that a positive, but right now we need them to fight, not try to rise above the fray.

Doesn't mean I'm going to stay home on election day, or toss my lot in with Nader or the Greens, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

It does mean that my soul-searching was all over and done with after the primaries -- now it's just time to fight to win.

As for "professing the success of the surge", he's done no such thing. He'll concede that the increase in troops has brought greater security, and you're right, he's trying to make it sound like he never said it would make violence worse, but he is still saying it hasn't done what it was supposed to do in bringing political reconciliation. To me, that's all academic, because I'm firmly in the camp of believing that the strongest incentive for Iraqis to handle their own affairs would be us saying "we're leaving"...and the Iraqi leadership now agrees.

To be more honest, I'm less worried about when the troops are out, than having a clearly defined plan for what our goals are, and how we know when we've reached them, and how we determine whether or not it's worth continuing. Bush/McCain refuse to give us any of those, and just try to spread drama about how it's some sort of existential conflict, and it simply isn't.

As for economics, keep in mind that Bush inherited a budget surplus from that evil Democrat Bill Clinton...who'd come to office after 12 years of Republican deficit spending, and 8 years of Republican control has almost doubled the national debt. If you're concerned about debt, check this study of Obama and McCain's tax policies, and take particular note of which one results in the smaller deficit.

Also, there's quite the choir of economists now who're calling for more regulation of the market, and a government sponsored universal health care plan.

I'm much more worried about the Patriot act, and you should consider that McCain is 100% behind keeping it, while Obama wants to get rid of it, and has committed to a review of the Bush executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty".

I think if you're looking for a pro-civil-rights candidate, you should be looking at the guy who has a degree from Harvard in Constitutional Law, rather than the guy who graduated 894th of 899 from the Naval Academy (where I imagine there was more emphasis on national security than protecting the rights of the individual).

If I were in a situation where the Democrat was pro-torture, pro-wiretapping, and anti-4th amendment, and the Republican was in favor of adhering to the Constitution, I'd vote Republican for the first time, ever.

I don't envy the choice you're having to make in this election, I just hope you consider that defending our rights might be more important than seeing your economic philosophy promoted.

>> ^Lurch:
Saying "I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion" is the new way to say "I don't want to offend anyone by taking a firm stance."


Actually, it's just a more accurate way of saying that you support a woman's right to control what happens with her reproductive organs.

Nobody is "pro-abortion" because that's like saying "Abortions for everybody!"

Delicate concepts like that tend to escape fat-headed cons.

Thanks for the downvote quantumrougy. I can always count on you to perform predictably and bring the insults. Using your logic, concepts of protecting human life seem to escape you libs. This is why it is still a debate. Is it really all about a woman's right to choose when there is a seperate life growing inside her? When do we start to recogize that there is a baby in there? The issue gets clouded even further when someone murders a pregnant woman and charges come up for double homicide. Is it homicide now because she didn't choose to do it herself? I do agree it isn't some flippant decision woman make, but that doesn't make it right. You see things just as black and white as those "fat-headed cons" you love to hate, only from another extreme. Also, the question Obama was asked wasn't if he is for abortion or not. It was at what point does a baby get human rights, which he took the safe politcal road and didn't answer.

NetRunner, my choice never included McCain. I've never supported him and he is not even a true conservative. The closest to that I suppose was Ron Paul. A lot of Republicans probably won't even vote for McCain this election helping Obama to the win. In regards to the surge, Obama removed his previous statements of objection from his website. Changed his statements to acknowledge that violence had decreased. Used that to ramp up calls for troops to be moved to Afghanistan. Then finally said he would still be against the surge if he had the choice again just on principle of opposing Bush. I suppose "professing success" was not the way to put it. More like taking credit for success of things he has opposed and thought would fail.

Civil rights candidates have historically had a good crop of Republicans. It just seems that Republicans today are just as much for big government as the Democrats. Both sides of our craptacular two party system are becoming more and more alike in many ways. They pander and lie until they probably can't even remember what they stand for anymore. I also think that for all the anti-war blustering from the Democrats, they have no intention of taking any serious action. Obama will probably draw down troops, but not bring about a complete withdrawl. Hell, a big withdrawl is already being discussed by the oh so hated Bush administration as violence has substantially decreased, the Iraqi Army is mostly trained, and almost all of the 16 goals set for their government have been met.

As far as universal health care is concerned, I've been through the VA. If the government makes civilian health care anything like that we're boned. This is the way I see if from both my experience with a government controlled health care system, and hearing from relatives that have lived in both Canada and England. If you have the government take over the health care industry, you will cause a string of problems over time. The overall quality of doctors and care will start to decrease as it no longer pays to spend all that time and money on medical school. You will have incredibly long wait times for care. Right now you've got people coming in from Canada just so they can get treatment for something they'd be waiting endlessly for under a national healthcare system. Free hospitals crowd with people looking for attention over meaningless problems like stubbed toes and colds delaying people with real troubles. In a government controlled system, I was given improper vaccinations, put on waiting lists that were many months long, and could hardly ever see a doctor. A friend of mine can no longer move his right hand up and down after a doctor in a national healthcare system finally saw him for a broken arm a whole day after it had happend, then set it improperly. The short version is in my opinion that nationalized healthcare = turning hospitals into the DMV. If the system was instituted in a way that offers the option for people with no other choice, but leaves the private system in tact that might be better.

Also, I'd like to see which economists are calling for more government regulation of the market. Especially since this has always proven to cause problems in the past. Like what happened when they decided to promote corn based Ethanol, set production quotas, and subsidies. Whoops, we broke the market. *shrug*

Glad to hear you're staying clear of McCain. I understand why you're thinking both parties are the same, but I think you need to look at the diversity and moderation within the Democratic party (as well as examine the netroots and what they're about) before writing them off as antithetical. It's not like we're a bunch of dirty hippies, or communists or something.

As for economists calling for regulation of the market, here's an article from the economist, and another from the WSJ.

For health care, it's more doctors & some large businesses calling for it, but here's a non-partisan analysis of both healthcare plans. For economics, there's this site, and it's analysis of the universal health care plans around the world.

BTW, Obama's plan isn't to force everyone onto Medicare, it's to make Medicare available to everyone at a competitive price. He isn't even calling for a health insurance mandate for adults, just one for children.

To me, Obama's plan is essentially one I'd expect from the conservative party in the U.S., assuming they were moderates and not extremists.

As for ethanol subsidies, that's pretty darned silly to accuse that of having broken the market, when most of the strife is being caused by inflation, sagging wages, and investment companies overextending themselves in the unregulated mortgage-backed securities market. If you're just talking about food prices, they are high because diesel costs 4x what it used to, and because there were a lot of crop failures this year, not solely because the subsidy has diverted some corn to being used as automotive fuel.

Mostly I'm trying to point out that extremist conservative/libertarian economic philosophy is not one that all economists adopt, and that there's a whole school of thought out there that advocates a mix of free market and government solutions.

Moving this video to Lurch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Not ethanol subsidies by themselves, but the major intervention in the market did break some things. Government action was pretty heavy handed here. The examples from your economist perspectives are bit more common sense related. I am referring more to outright market manipulation like demanding the switch to fuel alternatives that aren't ready yet. It is almost on par with demanding people switch from candlelight to light bulbs before the framework is even in place to have electricity for everyone. On top of already increasing problems with oil speculation and rising prices, we have made no solid moves towards providing our own oil while we end up making corn an energy commodity. Instead of seeking ways to increase supply of what is in demand, we start talking fluff about switching to alternatives that either don't work or don't exist in a functional capacity. How about working on that while actually providing what the market demands in the mean time? Even the mere mention of possibly attempting to drill for ourselves caused prices to temporarily drop while speculators worried. Attempts to force an inefficient fuel source into the mainstream causes even more problems. Farmers trying to collect the money being offered rotated out standard food crops like wheat and rice in favor of corn. Massive amounts of corn were allocated to ethanol production cutting into what used to be used to food and exporting. Natural causes wiped out another significant portion in Iowa. Now you've got the US, who is a major corn exporter in the world, unable to provide the exports it once handled. Food riots start breaking out around the world in areas where food prices are rising. While all this is happening, we are still required by law to produce even more of this stuff. So I don't expect prices to come down anytime soon. There is actually a good sift here on the subject.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ethanol-Silly-Senator-Corn-is-for-Food

As for the health care plans, I suppose we'll see when he actually moves to implement it. I doubt he will get a real universal plan through without opposition. Also, if past attempts by Democrats are any indication, the things he proposes in a moderate tone are only for election time. The real policies and tax plans shine through once they are elected.

I'm not a fan of ethanol subsidies personally. Funding for research into cellulosic ethanol, sure, but corn-based ethanol subsidies have more to do with the Iowa caucus than any real energy policy.

As for your analogy, you'd have to add in how most people need to burn a candle every day for their job, and candle prices skyrocketing to where it's putting strain on people's ability to buy food for their family.

Given that, I'd welcome the government using economic policy to try to help develop alternatives, like electric lightbulbs, even if I didn't believe that burning so many candles might wreck the world's climate.

You really should read some non-rightwing positions on oil drilling, because you really have to obfuscate the facts to get anyone to believe it's a solution.

There's 68 million acres leased to oil companies now for oil drilling, and they're not drilling. The lead time isn't the ridiculous timeframes that they've been feeding McCain, it's 7 years at least -- they've never gotten an offshore platform operational in less time than that. Even once it's online, it's barely a trickle of oil they could pump each day compared to world supply (because price is set on global supply and demand, not U.S. only), and might, at best, drop the price of gas would drop by $0.03...in 2030 once production had fully ramped up.

Don't believe me? Read this report from the Bush DOE on the topic.

As for speculation, that only recently became legal, through the "Enron-loophole", created by then-Senator Phil Gramm (who became McCain's chief economic adviser). If speculation is the main/only cause, then we should repeal the law that opened the loophole.

As for the recent drop in oil, again, only the Republican pundits claim that they're the ones who made price drop by talking about drilling. Most reports say it's the poor economic situation, and the fact that gasoline is finally starting to show price elasticity (in other words, people are using less because it's so expensive), that predicted demand is being downgraded slightly, resulting in a lower speculative price.

Even the White House refrained from taking credit for the drop in price, and pointed to the drop in demand as the primary cause, though they don't seem to be falling over themselves to take credit for the high prices and wrecked economy for some reason.

As for changing positions once in office, which President did that? The only one I've known who's gone from moderate to extreme partisan post-election is George W. Bush. Every other President has more or less stayed true to their campaign, or more commonly became more moderate once in office, like Bush's dad.

As for opposition to Healthcare, I expect it to come from the Republican party, but I expect them to realize, they oppose it at their own peril.

Short memory on the reversing of campaign positions there I think. You don't have to go back far to see back pedaling on politician's campaign promises. To be fair and include both parties, Bush Sr. promised no new taxes with his famous line... right before raising taxes. Same with Clinton. Clinton ran on a platform promising tax breaks right before causing what some called the largest tax increase in history. Although that isn't true, it was still a 180 on policy with a very sizable increase.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Another famous Democrat reverser would be LBJ. Running on a platform to pull out of Vietnam, he ended up sending more troops. The basic point is that campaign promises are garbage. You have to look beyond their words and see actions. How have they voted in the past and what do they really support? I've seen Obama's record and I don't like it. I am hard pressed to find anything I can agree with him on outside of a troop draw down. Some of his more moderate and reasonable sounding positions now are contrary to his political history. I think he has very socialist ideals and is very much in favor of a big government. McCain is also full of shit in his campaign platform. He knows conservatives don't want to vote for him and he has to pander to them for support. His voting history is just as contrary in many cases to the things he pretends to favor.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080225/ai_n24349357

You speak as someone who bathes his mind in right-wing conservative circles, and just won't listen. It also sounds like you're against McCain because he's too liberal.

I never said candidates don't reverse themselves on campaign promises, just that they usually don't flip from left to right, or right to left, or from centrist to extremist. Teddy Roosevelt was the last President who really "flipped", and he didn't flip so much as he just defied classification within the party platforms.

This one just campaigned as a moderate, and had a moderate record in Texas, then came to Washington and went nuts on us.

Any chance I got through on oil drilling? On health care? No?

I hear you on disagreement, but if you're only getting your information from Republican advocacy groups, you're really not getting the full picture.

I can understand an ideological difference of opinion, but you've repeated a lot of easily debunked right-wing talking points, and I have to say you're just not getting a well-rounded diet of information if you believe in stuff like the environmentally protected offshore oil drilling scam.

*sigh*

I do have very conservative values and beliefs. The same way you have very liberal values and beliefs. I don't bathe my mind in conservative circles for knowledge, I just see a conservative side in information I collect from any source. No, you aren't enlightening me or "getting through" on changing my position on health care or drilling. I don't share your views on what is necessary to improve our system. I do not want lots of government involvement. I read everything you have linked for me and I still do not see anything attracting me to Obama's proposals. I have also read comparisons here:

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/08/18/obama-vs-mccain-health-care-policies/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/571038?src=mp&spon=17&uac=54211HJ

I don't like what I see in other countries where health care falls under government control and I don't want to see it it here. Since our ideas of what is needed differ, I don't think we're going to be reaching the same conclusion after viewing someones policy ideas.

As for drilling, I think the core of the problem comes from our policies over many years. We just plain stopped expanding. No refineries were being built and no substantial drilling occured. Energy and environmental legislation varying from state to state requires all kinds of different gasoline blends to be refined from places that are already at capacity. We took a hit after Katrina when off-shore platforms were destroyed. While demand steadily increased over the years we did nothing to increase our own production. Now its too late to have any immediate action cause any change. Instead, congress keeps reinvestigating oil companies for price gouging and collusion while always reaching the same conclusions. They want to tax them more, institute windfall profits taxes, punish oil companies for prices. My opinion, which even Obama has now flipped to partially support (releasing reserves), is to being drilling in OCS, ANWR, and any other domestic reserves that can be tapped while allowing the production of more refineries to handle increased production. To fix prices temporarily, release some of the strategic reserves at intervals to punish speculators. By flooding the market with oil, prices will come down. The knowledge that a long term plan is in effect to increase production will also help in keep rising prices related to speculation down.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/05/obama-backs-oil-reserve-release/

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/exxon-posts-record-3236-billion-tax.html

Oh, and since you posted polling for healthcare:

Opposition to drilling is coming from Democrats, and they oppose it at their own peril.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/poll-most-americans-want-offshore-drilling/

The whole oil drilling thing isn't really about conservative vs. liberal, except to the extent that Republicans and Democrats are having a dispute about it.

It's a matter of whether or not you're shaping policy based on facts, or based on non-factual information.

Did you read the EIA report I linked? Did you see the source of it, the data, and the conclusion? Do you think it's somehow fabricated?

Do you deny the claim that the oil companies are the ones who're holding back production themselves (because they have millions of acres of land with millions of barrels of oil to extract already, and they're not doing it).

I agree with you about releasing oil from the SPR, but the last article I read about it said Bush was nixing that idea, though Congressional Republicans disagree with him.

I also agree that Republicans have won the spin war on the topic, and sold a fictional scenario to the public, but the truth of the matter is that the ban on drilling in OCS and ANWR is not limiting current production of oil. Releasing the ban will make no impact on oil supply for 10 years or more if they started drilling immediately (and I doubt they will), and the impact it will have will be minimal and speculators already know that.

Also, it's not like we're nationalizing the output from these oil wells -- the oil companies are still free to export the oil to other countries, and likely will. If that were part of the proposal, that we'd require that all oil pumped in the U.S. stayed in the U.S. the bit of "we need to increase our own production" would actually make sense. As is, that's simply not what will happen. We'll increase the land available to the oil companies, and they'll make use of it when they see a need, and then make the oil available on the global market whenever they feel like it.

As an indication of when that would be, so far they haven't made use of the land they've already got, so it could be a decade or three.

To try to say the Democrats are some how evil for resisting this insanity just shows that you're buying into the biggest sham since the Iraq war.

As for Democrats caving, they're just doing the math -- the ban has to be renewed each year, and it expires in September. Given that Bush & the Republicans care more about winning a political pissing match than, well, anything else, there's no way it won't get vetoed, no matter what bill it's attached to, and they won't have the votes to override, either.

The whole policy is only designed to help oil companies make more money, not get relief to people like you & me, and it's transparently obvious to people who bother to research it.

Yes, I read that report and I see things in it that your are not. The most important point is that the report is basing estimates on outdated price references. The pricing scheme being used can be found here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/wop.html

Now, according to the EIA report estimates, they were expecting oil prices to be below $50 a barrel by 2014. So far oil has peaked at what? Damn close to $150 a barrel? EIA estimates put oil in 2008 at $60 a barrel. That’s a big difference. Also, look at the wording they use to describe WHY the areas were not recommended for production at the time.

“Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOP AT THE REFERENCE CASE PRICES.”

What did that say to you? Of course I added the emphasis to point out the part I see as most important. What I see is that under the incorrect pricing assumptions used in the report, expanding would not have been profitable to oil companies. Don’t you think circumstances are a bit different now? It would sure as hell be profitable to expand with the prices per barrel as high as they are today. What else are people complaining about? Time to start production? Just because it takes time to get up and running does not mean you never begin the process. Also, untapped California reserves could be up and running within one year. This is all basic economics. Demand rises while we have done nothing to increase our own supply. Oil is a business (obviously). If given the opportunity they will expand and increase their production to fill demand. Begin drilling, stop punishing oil companies, release some reserves to cause massive losses to speculators, and watch prices fall. It is not complicated, and you're right about one thing. It is transparently obvious to people who bother to research it.

So to answer your questions, I saw the source, the data, and the conclusion. I don’t think it’s fabricated, just wrong.

I don't see that as changing the argument. That means that I could be mistaken with my pessimism about how quickly they'll expoit it if they get a lease. The fact that they already have land they're not using, despite the high price, keeps my pessimism alive.

However, it won't make the price go down, if it's only economically attractive from an ROI perspective due to high price. At best, that means it would shrink the size of price increases for a period of time (which was shown on the original report as creating a small plateau in a declining supply trend)...but realistic estimates of the supply increase to be had from exploiting the OCS is trivial compared to expected demand increases worldwide. Those could be wrong about the rate, but it's unlikely to be wrong about the rate of increase being faster than it is now.

I'm not arguing that it would have no impact, just that the impact on price will be trivial, and the impact on the environment wouldn't be.

It sure as hell isn't the only thing standing between us and $1/gal gas prices. It might mean that in 10 years we'll see a slight leveling off in the increase in the price of oil, but given the fact that they didn't expect oil to get as high as it is now, even in 20 years, something tells me that gas is going to be something obscene like $10+/gal by then anyways.

We should be focusing on alternatives and conservation, not drilling.

This is where we come full circle to our ideological differences. I'm all in favor of alternatives and conservation. I just don't see any valid reasons not to allow oil companies to expand production while that work continues. I've heard all the "it won't make a difference" stuff before as well. The flaw I see in your idea of trivial amounts of oil is that it comes from estimates made many years ago (as in prior to the moratorium in 1981) with outdated equipment. The same organization responsible for this OCS estimate (the MMS) also placed numbers from the Gulf of Mexico at barely 9 billion barrels. That was in 1987, many years *after* they estimated the OCS numbers. Now, with modern technology, that estimate has skyrocketed to upwards of 45 billion barrels. I think that warrants another check.

Also, since you keep bringing up the leases not being used, this is also false. In fact, it doesn't even make any logical sense. After checking around, I think it is safe to assume that the source of your information is once again the MMS (Minerals Management Service). It seems they have a listing of over 7,000 leases out with only just under 2,000 identified as "producing." Well, the devil is once again in the details. The MMS does not classify a lease as active until it produces over 130,000 barrels a day. Since those leases have been purchased, there has been exploratory drilling, developmental plans filed, environmental surveys taken, spill recovery plans filed, and infrastructure is being produced to actually begin getting the oil out of the ground. So, once again, it is a problem with not checking out the details of what is being claimed.

Again, I am all in favor of alternatives being developed. I'm just not in favor of it being artifically forced through government market interference. There really have been no valid reasons not to produce more domestic oil while developing alternatives that I have seen. From what I have seen and heard of it, Bob Barr's energy policy ideas sound like something I can agree with. Unfortunately, no one pays attention to things outside of the two party system.

To be honest, I'd never factchecked that 68 million acres thing, and it's kinda humorous. The debunking of it is centered around how it takes 10 years to get an onshore drilling operation up and running to the point where it's "producing".

Then there's the debunking of the debunking, and the bill described within.

More to the point, you're making an ideological claim about the role of government now, instead of poo-pooing Democrats for denying us our supply of oil. I can respect that, it's the repetition of baseless talking points that make me see red.

I completely agree that the real problem is that market forces weren't driven to alternatives until now. Personally, I see that as vindicating my philosophy of government, but hey, now that market forces are going to make gas ridiculously expensive, I get the silver lining that now people will start reducing consumption, and begin making the switch to alternatives that aren't carbon-emitting, and they can keep pretending that global warming isn't real while they do it.

I just feel sorry for people who're really having to sacrifice because of the spike in price, and frustrated that we didn't avoid this totally avoidable situation.

Well, in regards to global warming, yes they can. Especially since the global warming side has taken some serious blows recently. Being faced with evidence that contradicts warming trends, the retraction of the IPCC report that started the whole thing by some of its authors, record increases in Arctic sea ice, discovery of deep sea volcanic vents causing ice melting in the caps, and an increasing number of climatologists bailing on the idea, global warming has hit the back burner. It also no longer seems to be proper to call it global warming since we stopped warming about a decade ago. So, now it's proper to refer to it as climate change to cover all your bases. I sat on the fence reading up on global warming for a few years. I've come to the conclusion that it is false, although we should definitely still strive to clean up after ourselves since it is entirely possible to make your immediate area an absolute crap hole. I see the constant pushing of global warming and climate change in the face of contradictory evidence to be another excuse for extensions of government control and regulation. People can buy as many hybrids as they want for all I care, as long as we don't hit lows of government intereference like in England where people are being fined for having too much garbage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041098/Families-break-bin-rules-overfill-110-fine--drunken-yob-receive.html Although the forced change to the mercury filled bulbs are a start towards making an unnecessary shift just for the sake of feeling environmentally responsible.

Also, I agree it was a completely avoidable situation, but probably not for the same reasons as you. If we never started blocking domestic oil expansion in the first place we could already of had many of these areas up and producing already.

To believe drilling would've kept gas at $1.50/gal or so you have to believe:

1. The amount of oil to be gained both makes up for all currently imported oil, and future U.S. demand.
2. The amount of oil to be gained either makes up for increasing global demand (e.g. that of China and India) in addition to US demand, or that we will ban/limit oil exports with legislation to ensure low domestic prices.
3. The price of gas is set by actual supply/demand curves, not speculative ones.
4. The declining value of the dollar is not or would not be a factor in the price increase.
5. Refining and transportation of oil/gas would not be limiting factors.

I'm also assuming you think that the above, even if all true, would only hold true for a finite period of time, and not indefinitely. In other words, I'm assuming you believe oil is a finite, non-renewable resource.

At which point, you pretty much have to agree that it wouldn't have prevented a spike in gas price, just delayed it.

As for global warming, why do you think it's not happening? Is it an issue with the science in the IPCC report? Do you disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or do you think the ecosystem can absorb the volume we're emitting?

More to the point, which camp of these guys do you fall into?

Or is your disbelief rooted in something more basic, like 2008 is cooler than 2007, so therefore global warming is bunk?

Despite your contention, the consensus is solidifying around its reality, both the overall warming trend, and the fact that it's caused by human activity. Even the Republican party representatives have generally shifted away from trying to deny that, and just argue against all attempts to do anything about it on a cost/benefit analysis basis.

I'm quite puzzled by your resistance to the thought that drilling isn't the magical solution. Then again, you started from the position that the Republicans talking about drilling reduced the price of oil, which puts you solidly into dittohead territory.

If you're one of these diehard Fox News-watching, Limbaugh-worshiping conservatives, just say so, and I'll stop wasting my time.

I like how this comes up just about every time I voice a non-liberal opinion. I don't watch Fox News and I don't listen to Limbaugh. Like I said before, we see the world in two entirely different ways. I've thrown my two cents in on this site about global warming multiple times and I am just not seeing this convincing consensus you are talking about. I see plenty of people ready to proclaim "the debate is over!" They just get louder as more contrary evidence emerges. I also think it is amusing that a lot of the people spouting global warming apocalypse demand so much change from America. Never mind China or India putting out far more greenhouse gasses they we could possibly muster up over here. I think it is a farce, and a chance to milk more money through building a regulatory industry.

I also find it amusing you keep referring to our discussion about oil like you are enlightening me on some great truth. I think we have both presented well reasoned arguments here. You gave me a department of energy report, and I pointed to why it was incorrect from their own faulty pricing estimates. With facts no longer supporting the idea that drilling is meaningless at this point, we agreed that alternatives are a good direction and that the price increases will help push in that direction. We diverge where I think that if we had been tapping new wells and increasing domestic production over the past twenty years instead of constantly blocking expansion we would be in a better position today. I see no problem with moving to increase supply. Your arguments, while well reasoned and representative of your views, are still speculative. No different than mine. I don't expect you to suddenly turn around and tell me I am right, and I most certainly don't consider discussing it a waste of time even though you are using the same talking points I hear from Obama and other Democrats (for the most part). Oh, and I think it is perfectly logical to assume a minor connection between talk of drilling and a quick temporary dip in oil pricing no matter what party announces it. Speculators bid on the future and can get nervous if it appears they could lose money. Making an announcement that indicates a possible future increase in domestic supply could most definitly cause a temporary price fluctuation.

I like to debate these things out until there's common ground, or at least bang out a opposing position that's logically defensible (if not one I agree with). This conversation hasn't really moved towards either one of those things. That's why I'm getting frustrated, because you often aren't responding to my argument, just saying "I disagree."

For example, the price point on oil in that study; why would that make any difference? Are you saying that entirely changes the expectations for supply? Even if it does, do you expect oil that's only profitable to be extracted at a high price to be used to lower the price of oil, and make extracting it unprofitable? They either won't extract it quickly enough to drop the price, or won't bother to start extraction until the easy stuff is running dry (my bet is on the latter).

Never mind that my last post was mostly asking how you'd quantify the expected effects of drilling. Do you think it'll bring back $1.50/gal? If so, for how long? When should we move to alternatives, if not now? Only when we're nearly done with oil?

As for global warming, I was just asking which denial category you were in, the "it's not happening" camp, the "it's natural" camp, the "it's not so bad" camp, the "it'll be good for us" camp, or the "hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" camp. More for frame of reference than anything else, so I know where your specific stand is.

As for it being a conspiracy to bring more tax revenue, it seems a pretty inefficient conspiracy. All they really need to do is run up the national debt with a trillion dollar war in in Iraq, or bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and then tax increases are easy to justify, if only to help slow down the size of the debt.

I'll agree there's a "minor connection" between Obama & Pelosi making sounds of caving on drilling and the price drop, but it's not the reason it went down, and the Republicans talking about drilling has been going on since the 2000 primary and earlier -- the Democrats caving to it is new.

I do think more oil would make things a little better, but I'm more worried about environmental impacts, to the degree that I honestly wouldn't be for it even if there was incontrovertible proof it'd cut the price at the pump in half instantly...but so far I haven't seen a credible study arguing it'll change it by more than $0.03/gal, so I don't see a reason for much of anyone to be behind the idea.

The main reason I keep steering the conversation back to oil is because at it's root it's really not a liberal/conservative schism, so much as a conservationist vs. non-conservationist one, and there are more concrete facts about it available than say, health care or abortion. There's potential on that topic for us to be able to convince each other to at least soften each other's positions.

So, you do not believe that any of the things I pointed have pointed out so far are “logically defensible?” The DOE report is wrong. It is based on faulty pricing assumptions and talks about profitability of expansion under those conditions. The assumption that there is not enough oil to make a difference in this country is false as well. The surveys of some of the areas that we could drill that were conducted in the 80’s used outdated equipment and faulty methods. Their estimations have been proven completely wrong by enormous amounts. You do not think we reached a common ground by agreeing that the current situation will promote conservation and exploration of alternatives? I have said much more than “I disagree.” I have cited factual information and discussed the reports you have posted.

Do I think drilling will bring back $1.50/gal gasoline? This is a loaded question considering prices have *never* been rock steady. We have built up an anti-oil mentality in this country over many years, blocked expansion, and brought a majority of the price increase on ourselves. I most definitely believe that drilling coupled with releasing a small portion of our reserves to the market will drop prices. You may not immediately drop to a solid $1.50/gal, but gas prices always have been and always will be in flux. Newer estimates are placing the number of barrels in the OCS conservatively at 86 billion. That will definitely make a difference in our domestic supply vs. imports. Don’t forget there are even more untapped oil reserves throughout this country besides the OCS that can be drilled as well. This is even excluding all the oil shale resources which the US has in abundance. As I see it, the only reason to oppose drilling comes from beliefs that it will destroy the environment which is a myth.

As for global warming, I’ve discussed it many times here before. The last I can remember was in Fedquip’s sift talk post claiming the debate is over here:
http://nature.videosift.com/talk/The-Decade-long-Conversation-to-nowhere
I’m tired of rewriting the same information over and over again. If you want to pick a category off of Wikipedia to pigeonhole me I would say I can fall under:
Global warming is not occurring or has ceased
Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.
Those all cover my general beliefs. Warming trends ended nearly a decade ago. I think global warming is based in fear and is used to push particular agendas through the threat of a coming apocalypse. I also believe our understanding of the Earth and its complex climate patterns is still very limited. As more evidence is uncovered of warming periods prior to the industrial revolution which were even more intense than the one experienced at the height of the global warming frenzy, I think we begin to see just how little we really know. Talk is even beginning now of global cooling as the fears of a coming ice age are about to be recycled.

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/
http://www.johncornyn.com/posts/345