Would do you think about Pelosi softening her stance regarding offshore drilling?

Question

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-indicates-openness-to-offshore-drilling-vote-2008-08-11.html

Answer 1

$4.40 a gallon does have a eye opening effect.  

Answer 2

I think she is coming to her senses, as much as a radical socialist cant.  She is making the right decision.  We need to get off of foreign oil, but we cannot do that from building a bunch of windmills.  We need more domestic oil until better, more affordable fuel technologies are developed for transportation.  

Answer 3

She finally realized that if she doesn't soften her stance she will not get reelected, isn't democracy great?

Answer 4

She has had to, as has many in the Democrat majority congress.

They are bowing to public pressure to drill for domestic oil.

For them to continue to travel down the path of ignorance and not listen to the American people, many Democrats will not be re-elected to the congress! Finding her own position as house speaker now in jeopardy, Pelsoi did the only thing possible. This, of course, puts the Democrat party at odds with the environmentalists of whom wanted NO change on their party's stand against domestic drilling.

Their choice was to either stand with the status quo and refuse domestic oil drilling with a very real danger of losing their majority in congress, OR, bowing to public pressure and doing what the American people demand, which they should have done all along!

Answer 5

Politically, it makes sense. It makes sense for the country, as long as a logical energy policy comes out of it (that will never happen with Bush). Also, as long as people who live on the coast don't mind having oil rigs in their view of the ocean horizon. Be careful what you wish for!!!

Dropping opposition now is ok, but any major legislation should be made next year when Democrats are expected to have a greater majority in both the house and senate. They'll be able to get more for renewables.

vicinic - least you forget McCain flip-flopped on the very same issue you chastise democrats for. They all pander, but it's obvious you're biased.

Randall E - just like McCain did, huh?

Answer 6

Well maybe the anti war queen Cindy Sheehan is cutting into her popularity for some reason.

Answer 7

Talk is cheap.  I don't look at it as softening, I look at it as simply a new tactic.  She will allow some discussion but she hasn't softened anything.  She is totallly in the back pocket of the Big Green Monster" and there is no way she could or would allow a real vote.  Democracy has never been a strong point with leftwing wackos.  They are too sure they are know more than everyone else, even when they have no basis to come to that conclusion.

Well looks like I got that right, but it isn't too difficult predicting leftwing wackos.  When it comes to making the correct decision, they almost never come through however they can be counted on to adjust their positions (otherwise known as flat out lying).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

Answer 8

It's called "political pressure"-- if a vote was actually taken -- which she has prevented from coming to the floor-- it would pass and she knows it.

Answer 9

typical democrat that panders to whoever they are talking to.  The question should be  "Do you believe what Pelosi said about offshore drilling and will she vote consistently with what she said?"

Answer 10

She's just pandering.

She has no intention of agreeing to drill.  She likes high gas prices and revels in making us suffer.  That's how socialists get power, by creating chaos and problems.

btw, don't click on that link saying "answers-video."

It's a link that tries to install a virus.

Answer 11

The Dems have no solution for the cost of fuel.  Drilling is the only solution for the cost.  Let me explain.

1.  I love alternative energy, but alternative energy mandated by the government will increase the cost of fuel.  Many ethanol plants have gone on line since run up in gas prices.  That drove up the price of corn.  Adding more plants supported on large government substitutes will do the same, throw in that someone has to pay for the subsidies.  The way to think of it is like this.  If alternative was really cheaper, the government would not need to do anything.  The ethanol plants, many were not founded on substitutes. The net cost through either taxes or at the pump will have to go up.

2.  Using the federal reserves is only a temporary fix.  They are needed for emergencies.  If Bush would have used the reserves prior to Katrina like everyone wanted we would have had $4 gas in 2005.  

3.  Conservation needs to be a part.  Conservation requires high gas prices.  Some infrastruction can be maid.  Again, tax rebates for mor fuel efficient cars cost us more money than the gasoline, because someone has to pay that money sometime.  If it was cheaper without the rebate, no rebate will be needed.  Run the numbers.  Even with the rebate hybreds do not quite pan out.  In order to justify you must add in the rebate.  When the flourescent light bulbs became cost effective the sold like hotcakes.  

4. Drilling, is the only sulution that the government can do that decreases costs by adding supply.

NOTE: All the above may reduce costs from companies imposing them, but if the government has to mandate, it is a cost increase to Americans.

Answer 12

In America, if you want to get something done in Congress, you need to compromise with your opponents.  That's all this is, and it's not the negative thing people with extreme positions make it out to be.

Bending on drilling to get a comprehensive package that includes alternative energy development is simply the right thing to do.  The "Gang of 10" (Senators, 5 from each party) proposal is my current favorite.  Very comprehensive, actually includes provisions to pay for it without increasing the deficit.

Rush Limbaugh hates it.  What more do you need to know?  :-)

http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37830

Answer 13

It is funny how when Bush ignores popular sentiment it is good leadership, but when the democrats do it they are ignoring the will of the people.

Answer 14

Well, when 70% of American voters demand more drilling, then even Nancy 'I-married-well' Pelosi has to respond.

Answer 15

The polls tell her she'd adopted a losing position, and so she's modifying it.

In interviews Pelosi insisted that the reason she was opposed to the vote was that "we need the whole solution, and that involves wind and other renewables" - but of course those have nothing to do with oil, since oil is a transportation fuel and wind and solar are used to generate electricity.

Answer 16

I think that her book sales are going so poorly and that she is being pressured by you liberal friends to the point where she has to change her stance.  

Answer 17

I think she's just compromising, which is the only way to get anything done in Washington.  The Republicans in Congress have blocked all 13 renewable energy bills this session.  If it takes increasing offshore drilling a bit to fund some renewable energy projects, then it's the right thing to do.

Contrary to what Tomcat thinks, I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people who will be voting for Pelosi in the California Bay Area do not favor any offshore drilling.  This was not a move to gain support among her voters, it's simply an attempt at compromise.