Consistency is the trademark of a fool. Or a republican trying to paint his opponent as a "flip flopper." I think the article largely missed the point of Senator Obama's apparent change of mind regarding off shore drilling. What he has done by suggesting that offshore drilling may be a reasonable part of a comprehensive energy plan is not a sell out as the author suggests, but a very calculated and clever means of getting buy-in from those Americans who think we should do whatever it takes to get gas prices down, for a comprehensive energy reform, with the ultimate goal of moving away from oil . The suggested provision for offshore drilling allows bi-partisan participation for both objectives. Therefore, the deluded and pandering politicians who support the ridiculous idea of giving away the rest of our coast line to Exxon can support the broader policy objectives of incentivizing renewables and conservation without looking like flip-floppers and the progressives can say we now have a strong plan to eliminate our dependancy on oil. This compromise that Mr. Obama suggests is a masterful political move that will ultimately favor renewables and conservation. Well done Senator Obama, I applaud your refusal to give into the false assertion that one must be consistent in order to be right!

This seems right to me.

The point Ms. Henneberger seems to have missed is that Democrats are struggling on this issue. Their position is unpopular and the arguments that they make in support of their position are transparently bogus.

The legitimate argument for their stand is based on a belief that the US needs to move away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and cooperating with any proposals that stand in the way of this is bad regardless of the effect on energy prices. The cynical argument for their stand is that they don't want to risk the support of the more extreme environmentalists and their NIMBY crowd of wealthy supporters.

The Democrats don't make the first argument because the majority of Americans aren't willing to put up with high energy prices to eliminate the use of fossil fuels as quickly as the eco centric crowd would like. And obviously they don't make the second argument because politicians never acknowledge the self serving reasons behind their actions.

Obama wants to be elected and it was necessary for him to deal with the realities of this issue. Ms. Henneberger isn't running for president and she can take whatever positions she feels like in her ivory tower. I wonder what position Ms. Henneberger would have taken if she was a candidate for president.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

He has not endorsed off shore drilling as a solution to our energy crisis. He has said he would not oppose the legislation as it is being proposed, at the moment, by the gang of ten.

They will not be back until Sept. No legislation will be written or passed around Congress for months and months and months.

He is saying if the Eastern states - choose to engage in off shore drilling - circumscribed, controlled etc etc then it's up to them.

How long will it take a state to get an amendment thru it's own Senate? How long then for the impact studies? How long for the oil companies to jump thru all the EPA hoops before even attempting to drill? Years and years.

Which all 10 of the gang of ten know!!

It's a sop. It shuts up the drill now idiots.

By being flexible on a matter that means nothing - because it will never come to pass - isn't flip flopping or treason or whatever heinous crime some care to paint it.

And if the legisaltion does not meet his approval - if it even gets written in a year or so - then he can veto it.

This is what he has said he would give us - smart politics. Bipartisan politics. Working government.

Finally.

Yeah, the Gang of Ten plan is nothing but a sop to the booboisie

Which is the way leftards see the electorate, especially those working - class stiffs who are so STUPID as to believe that drilling here increases energy independence, helps strengthen the dollar, and provide employment for tens of thousands of Americans.

I mean, don't they know Congress has more important things to do, such as commit political fellatio on the enviro-weenies in order to stay in power?

You got that right. In the ballot box forum here at the Fray I have made the same point for years now; I could support SOME off-shore drilling IF the CONS will ALSO support conservation measures.

This is wisdom.

Neo-cons were consistent but they were rarely ever right!

There seems to be this fairy tale promoted by some enviro writers that if we work hard enough, invest enough, that the tens of millions of cars, trucks, planes, trains, etc in this country can be converted/replaced to something greener in a few years. Try many decades! I'm all for other smart options (and we have seen the realities of ethanol to know that solutions can have bad consequences..) but if this summer's gas was $4, who is to say 5-7 years from now it won't be $8 or $10? If we know it's a supply/demand issue - and Economics 101 say any increase in supply brings down price. It's a fools arguement to say we should not because it doesn't fix the problem. We can be happily buying electric or hydrogen or super mpg gas cars (luv my Prius at 50mpg) while unsubsidized and carefully regulated drilling increases supply, or at least reverses the decline in current production. There will be continued oil production in this country and around the world for the rest of the century. It's too integrated for a quick replacement.

I would say Obama's being smart to recognize this.

I agree Obama is being smart but he is also being honest since increased offshore drilling wouldn't have an impact on the price of gas for many, many years.

As you noted we need a combination of changes with regards to energy.

BUT the main reason I will just say 'NO' to something like offshore drilling is because MOST of the people that push for it ONLY are pushing for an INCREASE in SUPPLY and NOT a DECREASE in DEMAND.

Obama recogizes that BOTH are required in a sound energy policy.

I believe if he continues to move RIGHT, I might just vote for him after all. If he would've just admitted the SURGE was working too. There really is HOPE for this politican, as he inches his way to the right of Carter, now if we can get him to come on over to the RIGHT of Clinton, and support drilling in ANWR, then that will be a CHANGE that even a republican can believe in. He is moving in the RIGHT direction, to become a republican, naw, not necessary. The wind that is blowing is turning the blades on the wind mills, it is blowing his poll numbers down, and he is slow to react, even slower than McCain, but faster than reid and Pelosi. HOPE that you who are backing Obama will check something besides a democrat pollster, because a national independent poll shows that 75% of the people want off shore drilling, and 58% want to drill in ANWR now. Who is on the right side of this issue, well it's not the enviromentalists.