CT Blue

During the election campaign Obama abandoned his previous opposition to off shore drilling. It was a patently political move, disappointed many, pleased no one, and fooled no one. If not for the desperation felt by so many to rid ourselves of all things Bush, it might very well have lost him 3 votes for every one he gained. As it was, everyone swallowed hard and soldiered on. It was hard to believe then, and it’s hard to believe now, that anyone in the “Drill Baby Drill” crowd voted for Obama. In a nutshell, he abandoned his principles, and more importantly, he abandoned sound policy, for nothing.

Last month he doubled down, by at least theoretically opening up major chunks of the oceans to the pubic spirited oil companies that have only our best interests at heart. This had the effect of raising the issue’s prominence. Maybe it was a smokescreen to send the media baying in one direction while he imposed stricter mileage requirements, but the fact is, he still did it. He could have imposed the requirements without destroying the oceans, but he chose not to do that.

Now he finds himself in the position of having to defend a policy with which he has probably never agreed, and from which he has derived not a particle of political advantage. Digby may be right that he was trying to get Lindsey Graham to let him kick the climate change football. If so, he forgot that Lindsey’s not the only Republican that can pull it back. Not that he wouldn’t in the end, anyway. If Graham really cared about climate change, if he really appreciated the risk it poses to the world, he wouldn’t threaten to scuttle it for transparently ridiculous reasons.He is and always has been the Susan Collins/Chuck Grassley of climate change.

On some issues, there is a right and a wrong. A “compromise” between opposing positions sometimes is just as wrong as the extremely wrong position. Had Obama stuck to his guns, he’d be looking great right now, without having suffered a bit of actual political disadvantage for having done the right thing in the first place. In fact, there might just be a little more enthusiasm on our side of the divide if, on this one issue, Obama had deviated from his pattern and actually stood up for principle. It’s not like an oil spill like this was unexpected-it’s the very reason informed people oppose off shore drilling.

A little off point, but worth noting: this idea of bi-partisanship is warped in many ways, but it must be said again that the “mid-point” has been steadily moving to the right for years. The right has gotten crazier, but gets respect and deference (witness the kid glove treatment of the tea baggers) and is allowed in the debate, while truly non-radical left positions (single payer, anyone) are simply not allowed to enter the debate. The latter statement is literally true. We are frozen out while insurance company lobbyists were embedded in the process and the country spent serious time talking about death panels. This is part of a pattern. Truly effective “left” positions are read out of beltway policy debates from the very start, while so called moderates seek common ground with right wingers whose positions drift ever rightward.