Democrats, why do you think Obama has done an about face on his drilling for domestic oil stance?

I'm a Conservative; yes, this proves once again what a hypocrite he really is. I don't think he's going to really drill oil, it's just a scheme to get more votes and to get the health care crap out of people's minds for a bit. That is all.

Actually that is revisionist history. The President voted for a continuation of the ban on drilling while in the Senate, but during the Presidential campaign the President said he would consider limited drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

Don't let the conservatives take advantage of you, they constantly lie about the positions the President took during the campaign. They know that if you repeat a lie over and over again people assume that it is the truth. The President is not doing an about face, he said he would support limited drilling and that is exactly what he just announced, limited drilling.

Your claim that he has done an about face is an indication that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Both during the campaign and during his State of The Union address in January, Obama stated that some expansion of off shore drilling would be necessary. What he made fun of was the contention that a nation that uses 25% of the world's oil but possesses only 2% of the world's oil reserves can drill its way to energy independence.

As this article demonstrates, this is hardly a reversal:

"Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his State of the Union address in January that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31...

Obama is proposing a compromise (which is what he usually does) which will allow the expansion of off shore drilling but protect the most environmentally sensitive areas, such as Alaska's Bristol Bay. This is a big difference from the complete lifting of the ban that Bush instituted just prior to leaving office. It is instead a sensible course of action.

See this NY Times Editorial which sums things up nicely:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/opinion/01thu1.h...

I think it's because of all the Republicans who said that they wanted to pursue an "all-of-the-above" strategy for ending our dependence on foreign oil. And actually he never made fun of John McCain for thinking drilling was necessary...that's something you made up and put in your question because you felt that if you just asked the question with out hinting at your predisposition you wouldn't receive the answers you wanted.

Obama actually said that he would support offshore drilling if it was part of a larger package of measures...a broad energy bill....see?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

So, I'm just saying, your question kind of asks what Democrats think about something that never really happened except in your imagination. I think Obama did that in your imagination because you hate black people. But it's only a guess. I don't really know what all goes on in there besides this "oil drilling" debate.

He didn't. He has always maintained the position that he was open to possibility of more offshore drilling in order to maintain American prosperity while renewable energy sources are developed. Considering the recent recession and the fact that the recipients of stimulus funds have not used them as intended, Obama has had to resort to this possibility sooner than he probably intended.

I think it's clear that President Obama has been doing everything he can to try rejuvenate the American economy. Despite stocks being up and recent GDP growth, most Americans have still not seen their own lives prosper. I propose that wealthy capitalists are responsible for this disparity. Wealth can't simply be created from thin air, so in order to increase their own profits, they've resorted to bilking the rest of the country from the fruits of our labors. They are not the honest businessmen helpless against the whims of a tyrannical government, like conservative media wants you to believe. This is a fiction created in order to distract us from their con games. They've even gone so far as to accuse the government of Marxist communism for trying to limit their thievery. Conservative leaders claim they are protecting Americans' freedom, but all they are really protecting is the freedom of the greedy to rob honest, hard-working Americans.

Sorry for sounding like a socialist, but I find nothing to love in what capitalism in our country has been turned into.

apparently you have how logic works backwards, which might clarify plenty. coach to me you probably did no longer blow up the WTC on 9/11. coach you at the instant are not in the back of alien abductions and anal probing of rural rednecks. coach to me you probably did no longer kill JFK, RFK and MLK. coach you probably did no longer kidnap and kill Jon Benet Ramsey. What you call "excuse or brush off" is in basic terms human beings affirming that there is not any evidence or wrongdoing in those synthetic, phony scandals. The claims human beings such as you're making are in simple terms no longer authentic. The "evidence" you furnish does not coach your claims, and, in certainty, maximum situations your "evidence" might no longer be evidence, in any respect. What are you claiming surpassed off with Benghazi? That the administration study preliminary and inconclusive speaking factors presented via intelligence companies that proved to be erroneous, after the certainty? what's the declare with the IRS? That Tea social gathering communities have been in specific concentrated for their political ideals? The Inspector popular record unearths no evidence of this, nor does any "evidence" presented subsequently some distance. it particularly is impossible to "coach" innocence. you need to coach in any different case, and have did no longer accomplish that.

Obama wants his cap and trade and he thinks if he throws the Republicans a bone by drilling and promising nuclear power plants they will fall in line and support his cap and trade bill. Obama knows there is a good chance the Democrats will lose their majority in November so he is in a time crunch to get as much through as possible before November.

Dems just don't believe in drilling in the National and State Parks

Pubs could care less about the country or the environment

The answer is not drilling everywhere all the time," Obama said in an event at Andrews Air Force Base. "But the answer is not, also, for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security."

The information is out there.

he tried to put a good face on it, "create jobs and lower independance on foreign oil, drill smart, blah blah" He should have said outright, its a kickback to republicans and their corporate owners. It wont create "thousands of jobs", it wont be more than a drop in the bucket, and there is more chance of a spill or pollution than not. But, in order to appear centrist, and get things done, its how the game is played.

It seems to me like he is trying to move to the center and take away the issue from the Republicans. He probably thinks he can gain more votes in the center than he would lose on the left. What are the leftist environmentalists going to do, vote for Sarah Palin?

Stoner girl is a conservative? If there's one thing I can't stand it's a stoner Republican. Or gay Republicans. How can you throw your lot in with people that hate you?