Democrats' Disastrous "Me, Too" Drilling Strategy

By: TheGreenMiles
Published On: 8/12/2008 11:00:00 AM

You've seen the cycle a million times before. Republicans see a political opportunity to pander. They take a position that, despite being the public policy equivalent of junk food, scores points with voters. Democrats, fearful of losing populist ground, say "me, too!"  

It's a devastatingly corrosive strategy that fails on every single level. Contrary to removing the issue from play or co-opting it, voters faced with Tough Stance or Tough Stance Imitator will choose the genuine article. A Republican opponent will still hammer the Democratic candidate just as hard with a snide "I'm glad my opponent has come around to my position" (the great part about this attack -- doesn't matter if the Democrat came around to this position at age 6, you can still use it).

It gets worse. Any Democrat who doesn't pander on the issue is branded as an extremist liberal unwilling to hammer out a deal. And if legislation is passed, even if it's a down-the-middle compromise, guess who the media will give credit for championing it? (Hint: Not us.)

So why are Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb all supporting Republican proposals to drill for fossil fuel off Virginia's shores? How do the gubernatorial contenders feel? And what would a winning strategy look like?


It's hard to call Kaine and Warner's positions anything other than trying to have it both ways. Gov. Kaine claims he only supports natural gas exploration "to determine potential natural gas deposits." Mark Warner twists himself into knots, saying, "I favor the exploration piece, not the development piece." And then what? It's sort of a window-shopping approach to drilling. 

Despite his longstanding support for more drilling, Sen. Webb does deserve credit for voting the right way on other energy issues, supporting proposals to extend renewable energy tax credits and crack down on speculators. Both bills were killed by GOP filibusters. 

Fortunately, both Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran voted against an offshore drilling plan during this year's special session. While neither candidate has yet laid out detailed energy plans, it's promising that both did the right thing on drilling this year.

I know what you're thinking. "Miles, you ignorant slut," you say, "Republicans will use the drilling issue to hammer us in November!" I'm sure they'll try, but I'm not so sure they'll succeed. Neither is Matt Yglesias:

So here's a thought: For years and years before 2006, the savvy leadership of the Republican Party took the view that indulging the base's passion for Mexican-hating would be a political error. It was important, thought Bush, Rove, et. al, to position the GOP as a forward-thinking pro-immigration party. Then along came a moment of political desperation for congressional Republicans at which point they seized upon immigrant-bashing as a cure for their midterm blues. Democrats, conditioned by decades of defeat to instinctively believe that whatever crap the GOP is pulling at any given moment is political genius, had a moment of panic. But at the end of the day, it turned out that the Republican strategists were right the first time and there is no mass swing constituency for immigration restriction capable of delivering elections -- the crank racists were already Republicans, and this just helped push Hispanics into the Democratic column.

Flash forward to the Great Drilling Debate of 2008. Recall that it's unlikely that Bush and the GOP leadership weren't pushing this issue     back in 2006 or 2004 out of their deep-rooted environmental convictions. Instead, the leadership didn't used to push offshore drilling because they thought offshore drilling was a bad issue -- the people who care either work for the oil companies (and are Republicans anyway) or else are drilling opponents worried that their communities and coastal economies will be wrecked by drilling. But facing another drubbing in November, congressional Republicans have talked themselves into believing that "drill drill drill" will deliver them a victory.

I'm sure you've heard plenty of polls reported in the media that Americans want more drilling. And it's true that if you ask, "Do you want more drilling in an effort to lower gas prices," Americans say yes. But that question reveals more about Americans' desire for lower gas prices than it does about their desire for drilling. And there's also the minor detail of the question's premise simply being false -- the Dept. of Energy says new drilling wouldn't lower gas prices for at least a decade, and only then by a few pennies.

Ask Americans whether they want clean energy solutions or more drilling and they'll choose clean energy every time. And why wouldn't they? Americans love more choices. Clean energy solutions would give us more energy diversity. Americans love saving money. Energy efficient technologies will cut our energy bills.  

Democrats are not dealing from a position of weakness on energy. They're dealing from a position of strength. Voters don't want more drilling. They want leadership on real solutions. Let's give it to them.

Look, I'm not saying we should never compromise on the drilling issue. There's a case to be made that the Gang of Ten energy proposal in the Senate right now could be a net positive bill. But if our Democratic leaders won't take strong stands now, we'll be negotiating from a position of weakness when the Senate reconvenes in September.

Speaking of which, have you called your members of Congress to tell them to oppose more giveaways to Big Oil and support clean energy solutions? You can find contact information here.


Comments



Thanks for this diary (VA Breeze - 8/12/2008 12:13:04 PM)
This is am important issue and it seems the "drill drill drill" cheerleaders are ignoring any facts on when and what impact drilling would have..

emailed both John Warner and Webb yesterday



Navy Opposes This Crackpot Idea (Elaine in Roanoke - 8/12/2008 1:17:21 PM)
I intend to contact Sen. Webb's office and ask why the good senator is not opposed to drilling off the Virginia coast on national security grounds. After all, the former Navy Secretary should have taken into account the Navy's strong opposition to the drilling.

The Navy's training off our coast is a matter of national security. They have stated their opposition on several occasions. That should override any long-term oil production gain  - however meager it would be - from such drilling.



While I don't like them giving in.. (Terry85 - 8/12/2008 1:59:13 PM)
It's sad that we have to play on the ignorance of Americans to win elections.


Offshore Drilling (halpernl - 8/12/2008 4:07:00 PM)
We Democrats need to be careful to not be against drilling for the wrong reasons or just because the Republicans are for it.  Whether we like it or not, we will not be weaned from oil for 20-30 years.  Conservation, the "C" word, is being forced upon us but I guarantee people will give up sex before their "right to drive a SUV".  All those electric cars of the future will need to charge their batteries somewhere.  All those electric utilities will have to generate that electricity using some sort of fuel.  Coal is the dirtiest fuel, followed by oil. Nuclear, well it has it's problems as well. Then there is natural gas - clean and abundant (for the time being).  Guess how we get natural gas - by DRILLING.  It is generally a byproduct of oil exploration.

While we can accurately point out that using drilling to win elections by implying lowering the price of oil is baloney, there are actually good reasons to drill as one piece of a complex energy puzzle.



Strongly Agree (HisRoc - 8/12/2008 5:18:03 PM)
Is it just possible that Senator Webb and Governor Warner have evaluated the situation and taken a principled, but pragmatic, position?  Why trash them for "pandering" when they are probably taking a viewpoint that they believe is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and our nation?

BTW, quoting the Navy as an authority on environmental issues is like quoting Hugh Hefner as an authority on chastity.  They know a lot about the concept, but only favor it when it suits their narrowly-defined interests.  



Navy's Position Is National Security (Elaine in Roanoke - 8/12/2008 5:31:40 PM)
The Navy's objections to drilling off the Virginia coast have nothing to do with whether the Navy has a good record on the environment. It has to do with training the people now fighting in two wars.

Whether people understand it or not, Norfolk, Oceana, etc., are a huge part of our security apparatus - and a huge part of Virginia's economy.

The Navy regularly trains off the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina. They contend that drilling rigs out in the ocean would make that training dangerous and less effective.

Unless people can prove them wrong, I accept that they are saying the truth. What possible harm could there be in accepting the military's opinion on a military matter?

There are plenty of places to drill off the shore of Florida in the Gulf. Plus, now Charlie Crist wants to be VP and has changed his position as Florida's governor.



I Know (HisRoc - 8/12/2008 5:48:10 PM)
Elaine,
I am very familiar with the Navy and Hampton Roads, the Virginia Capes, and Cape Charles.  I was born in Norfolk, raised in Princess Anne County before it was Virginia Beach, graduated from the Armed Forces Staff College at Breezy Point, and spent two tours of duty in the Pentagon.

I find it curious that environmentalist are so quick to embrace the Navy's "national security" argument on off-shore drilling when other Navy positions that run counter to environmental concerns are deemed "dangerous and irresponsible."  Two cases in point are the Navy gunnery ranges at Vieques Island, PR, and the use of submarine active SONAR.  Environmentalists, esp. the Sierra Club, have insisted that national security is trumped by protecting marine life.  But, when the Navy's national security interests happily coincide with the "do-nothing" position of the Sierra Club and others, suddenly the issue of training our fighting forces becomes sacrosanct.

Doesn't that strike you as being just a little bit hyprocritical?  



No ... (TheGreenMiles - 8/12/2008 8:22:19 PM)
It strikes me as politics. You don't pick and choose your allies -- you take whoever can help you accomplish your goals.


Okay (HisRoc - 8/12/2008 8:36:44 PM)
Then you, conversely, will oppose whomever doesn't support your goals, regardless of party affliation?

Do you support Gerry Connolly for Congress after he has presided over the clear-cutting of hundreds of acres of Fairfax County under the guise of "smart growth," just because he is a Democrat?



That's an easy one (TheGreenMiles - 8/13/2008 7:08:52 AM)
I'm not voting for Connolly because I don't live in FFX and I'm not campaigning for Connolly because people like Bill Day and Glenn Nye need the help more. And there are plenty of Democrats I don't support (hint: one is in the governor's mansion).

But do I "support" Connolly? I suppose. Better than a flat-Earth Republican winning the seat. But if there was a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican running in that district ... now that would be a tough choice.



No (Eileen Levandoski - 8/12/2008 8:41:17 PM)
The fact is that within this entire Virginia Capes area, the Navy is almost daily dropping 1,000 lb. missiles, there's live ordnance, plus as we learned last night at Rep. Bobby Scott's town hall meeting on the subject, there's also literally tons of old missiles and ordnance on the ocean's floor that shifts and migrates around. Bombs and pipelines cannot co-exist without an environmental nightmare occuring.  

And just fyi... there is another instance where the Sierra Club and the Navy have had their differences of opinion... OLF.



Huh? (HisRoc - 8/12/2008 8:49:31 PM)
"...the Navy is almost daily dropping 1,000 lb. missiles..."

Exactly what is your source of this information?  The Virginia Capes are NOT an approved range area.  Why do you think that they went all the way down to Puerto Rico for gunnery?



How about.. (Eileen Levandoski - 8/12/2008 10:18:41 PM)
you take Delegate Joe Bouchard's word for it.  He reiterated it again last night as a speaker at Rep. Bobby Scott's town hall meeting.  "Even if the Outer Continental Shelf contains needed fuel supplies, offshore drilling poses too many risks to the Navy's training operations areas where it conducts bomb and other munitions testing, said state Del. Joseph Bouchard, a former Navy captain and Virginia Beach Democrat who spoke on the panel. 'The Department of Defense has concluded that there should be no drilling,' he said."

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/0...

"...the Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this OCS planning location."
    - Department of Defense, April 10, 2006 (a position confirmed by Delegate Bouchard last month.)

In fact, the Navy is increasing its activities in the VACAPES.  Check out this 733 page EIS released last month.  http://www.vacapesrangecomplex...



Really? (HisRoc - 8/12/2008 11:02:07 PM)
Fine.  If you and Del. Joe Bouchard are so in tune with one another on this issue then why are you and the Sierra Club opposed to the Navy using the EXACT SAME WATERS for active SONAR testing?

http://virginia.sierraclubacti...



I thought... (Eileen Levandoski - 8/13/2008 7:14:02 AM)
I thought we were talking about offshore drilling here?!?


Not true -- unless you speak for DOD -- do you? (Friend - 8/12/2008 8:42:12 PM)
Elaine, the Navy has concerns but its official position in the public record at the Minerals Management Service says it is willing to consider options.  So please do not perpetuate the myth that the Navy is unilaterally opposed to the notion.

For you and others who do not have to work in or deal with the federal bureaucracy, there are rules that require agency coordination and DOD always -- and I know always is a big word -- gets the last say.  Vieques is an excellent example, as is pointed out in this string.

Don't hitch your wagon to this hoss, just yet. The Defense Department has cut back on training missions because it cannot afford the fuel.

I would not expect anyone who posts on this blog to have the clearance necessary to speak with authority about the Navy's operations or its operations areas.  That, for sure, would be a breach of the national security.  



Oh, please (TheGreenMiles - 8/13/2008 7:17:10 AM)
If you think we're breaching national security, please go running on the White House lawn to tell Dick Cheney about it. Otherwise stop acting like a hall monitor threatening to tell the principal on us.

A DOD spokesman told InsideDefense.com on July 27 that conflicts might arise if the Navy's Virginia Capes training range were opened for drilling. That was a breach of national security! You should report the DOD spokesman, too.



"Might" is an awful lot different than "will" (Friend - 8/13/2008 9:34:49 PM)
Big difference, cowboy.  Might is something that can be worked out, and a far cry from Ms. Levandoski's assertion that the Navy is 100%, unalterably, not in our lifetimes, opposed or Eileen in Roanoke's statement.  It is not news to say that there are competing interests that need to be accommodated.    How dare you challenge Sen. Webb's or Sen. Warner's belief that the Navy can be accommodated?  It is surely inconvenient for you that Warner is a former Secretary of the Navy and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Do you challenge Jim Webb's patriotism or his interest in miltary security?

You and others like you run the severe risk of alienating good, hard-working American people who are hurting.  It used to be the Democratic Party's platform to help people who are hurting.  Jim Webb reminds us of that.

New flash -- even your dear Speaker has backpedaled on this.