|March 2010: The President has a thing for making conservative environmental decisions...|
Back in April 2010 British Petroleum's deep sea oil drilling rig exploded, causing the worst environmental disaster in US history. This is something that will be forever etched in the memories of anyone who cares about the environment. What a lot fewer people remember, however, is that three weeks before the catastrophe, President Obama did something that shocked the environmentalist community: He proposed an expansion of offshore-drilling, including in the Southern Atlantic. At the time, people asked why? He gained nothing. Didn't get anything in return from the right--at a minimum, why throw away such a powerful bargaining chip? At a maximum, um, why do it at all?
There he goes again. With the president's decision this week to request "that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time" Obama is once again putting the environment at risk for...what, exactly? Just as with this proposal to expand offshore drilling, he gains nothing:
Not on the right...By now it's clear to everyone (well, perhaps sans Axelrod and Obama, himself) that the right has zero intention of giving Obama any credit for pandering to their causes. They wouldn't care if he created a beer-type campaign to distribute handguns and conceal-carry holsters to college students in college town bars whilst driving up in a Hummer to hand them out personally. They just...don't...care. They want one thing, and one thing only: for him to be gone.
Not on the left...What of the environmental left (and minority environmental middle)? What of the people who helped bring him into power in the first place? Again, they're taken for granted. The presumed strategy by the arrogant Axelrod et al. seems to be simple (and echoed by the democratic national committee fundraiser talking points when they called some months back), to wit:
"Who you gonna vote for? The crazy on the right? No, you'll vote for the democrat, and you may not like it, but that's what you'll do." Of course, this assumption misses a couple of points, including a) the possibility that people just won't vote or b), the always potential Ralph Nader factor.
The betterment of society through more jobs in the lung disease-related medical supply field...So, assuming he and his people have done these calculations (and how can they not, at this point?), what exactly does he get in return? The betterment of society through--more jobs in the asthma-related medical supply field? Some sort of promise of assistance from energy interests in return for carrying their (dirty) water? Reading his explanation re: oil drilling in 2010, he explained in a nebulous way that it's in the country's short-term economic interests to drill. Seems he's doing the same today, in spite of the fact that it's not going to help the economy at all:
The administration’s fecklessness is no doubt based on some crass political (mis)calculation. But in fact the standard would not have any noticeable negative impact on the economy and, if anything, would have driven investment and innovation even in the short term.
|I fail to see the logic.|