Morning Must Reads: Shore Thing

WDIM?

Court orders father of dead Marine to pay demented funeral protesters. … As the family tried to bury their young Marine, protesters from the Kansas based Westboro Baptist Church, led by Reverend Fred Phelps, picketed the funeral carrying signs with printed slogans such as “God Hates You” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” as they loudly chanted their protests with the clear intent of disrupting the funeral. … Albert Snyder, the father of Lance Cpl. Snyder, sued the group – seeking $5 million in damages for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. … A Baltimore jury agreed that Pelps and his Westboro Baptist Church mob acted despicably and awarded the father $11 million in damages, an amount that was reduced by the judge to the requested $5 million. However, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court, stating that the signs carried by Rev. Phelps and his thugs contained “imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric” protected by the First Amendment. Such messages are intended to spark debate and cannot be reasonably read as factual assertions about an individual. … Yesterday, the 4th Circuit ordered Mr. Snyder to pay Westboro Baptist Church the sum of $16,500 to cover Westboro’s costs in appealing the lower court verdict – this despite Mr. Snyder’s attorneys’ entreaties to the court that Mr. Snyder was in no position to pay these charges.

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/30/court-orders-father-of-dead-marine-to-pay-demented-funeral-protesters-we-need-to-help/

There has been another suicide bombing in Russia…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/world/europe/01dagestan.html?hp

McConnell’s office takes credit. Not only was that link to the odious Politico, but I couldn’t find any mention of the equally odious McConnell.

The link “opening coastal waters to offshore drilling” does not link to the correct url.

Headline: NYT
Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time

Hey, Libs!

How’s that Hope & Change stuff working out for you?

Looks to me, like even your “sacred cows” are being butchered by your phony “spiritual Vegan”.

Nobody is safe with this fool in power. Now, he likes those “Mother Earth destroying” failed policies of Bush, Cheney and Rove!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Drill, Baby-Drill, Drill, Drill.

p.s.
Don’t you worry-They aren’t going to actually “allow” new drilling. He is just doing this to manipulate the Republicans without Balls (RWBs) into negotiating away some of their cherished positions. Then he will screw them again, (just like he has before, and does everyone else).
This BS is, as we all know, only PR-Just thought I would bust your chops.
By the way, pretty neat how he has curtailed drilling for Alaska’s North Shore (an area which was already cleared by the courts for drilling). Screw Palin!! That b–ch will pay for her insolent attitude toward “his omnipotence”!

Cheerio,

I campaigned for President Obama in part because he promised more ‘green jobs’ and action on global warming. But I also supported him because he is a rational, mature man who has the courage to make tough decisions. …..

http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/03/31/obama-oil-and-rational-leadership/

“But I also supported him because he is a rational, mature man who has the courage to make tough decisions.”

Now is that French for he was wrong when he ridiculed McCain for the same proposal during the campaign? Come to think of it, he made fun of McCain for suggesting that “Cadillac” health cae plans be taxed.

Hope and change my a**, he is clueless and grasping at any straw.

And Bill O’Reilly has offered to pay the $16,000

I think the media has over-corrected a bit from its early hesitation about covering the brew crew…

Hesitation? What hesitation? They’ve been getting more coverage than they deserved ever since Obama took office.

That photo’s great.
.
“Hey, Mitch. How’s that nopey-lamey thing workin’ out for ya?”

Jim, I don’t know if you’re just blowing a partisan strawberry or open to some discussion, but I find this move by Obama to be really really interesting politically. Obviously, it has the effect as you mention of cutting the Republicans off at the pass in terms of taking away one of their talking points and being seen as meeting their demands halfway. Whether he believes in drilling or not, he’s certainly see the advantage of reaching out on this.
.
What I find interesting is the areas that he’s actually proposing to open up, as seen in this helpful NYT map.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy-graf01.html?ref=earth
Is it mere coincidence that the proposed areas are only in the South and Alaska, represented predominantly by Republicans? Is this a put up or shut up challenge? Yeah, Repubs, if you like drilling so much, we’ll do it off your shores?
.
I have no idea if this calculation has anything to do with the areas chosen, but I certainly find it curious. Politically, I think it’s savvy, especially if it does indeed win him some moderate votes.

Agree. But I do enjoy the stories about how many of the tea party organizers are on some kind of government assistance.

free, are you implying that McCain is “clueless and grasping at any straw”, as those are his ideas in the first place? Shouldn’t you be happy that Obama is adopting some Republican ideas? Or maybe you just can’t be pleased?

Adam Sorensen:
.
“Marc Ambinder thinks it’s brilliant politics”
.
Why is this assumed to be politics, and not policy?

Barack Obama: Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates between right and left, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place. Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.

So either Ambinder is correct, and this is another “brilliant” preemptive compromise with the party that gave his health care package zero votes (and tied it up in fruitless negotiations for the better part of a year), or it could simply be that this is Barack Obama’s policy.
.
Maybe, just maybe Obama isn’t primarily compromising, he’s primarily enacting his agenda.
.
Do you know something that we don’t, Adam Sorensen, that suggests to you that this is purely a political move, and not Obama’s actual plan to enact policy that is “beyond the tired debates between right and left,” as he, himself says?
.
Why isn’t it just as likely that this is more Third Way policy on the part of a New Democrat administration?

That’s good news, thanks freeinpa. Charging the father for costs was just a stupid decision of the court.

Can’t say I’m happy about the offshore drilling announcement.

On the other hand, we won’t see any new drilling for years. By then, either we’ll have taken meaningful action on climate change, or it will be too late and we’ll already be in the “amelioration” phase, trying to figure out how to live with the effects of coastal flooding, drought, mass extinction, etc. I’d put money on the latter.

Also – as I understand it, coal and shale are where the big action is.

Or it could be both. Obama is a centrist and also views it as effective politics. Regardless, good politics does not necessarily mean good policy.
.
FWIW, Washington Monthly publishes similar speculation from an anonymous Hill staffer:
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023133.php

Stuart, it’s not unreasonable for Ambinder to conclude this is more politics than policy as Obama was against drilling during the campaign. I don’t think that’s cynical though, as we’ve seen that without the politics, there is no policy, ie. without the votes, you can’t get policy enacted. Obama has shown over and over again his pragmatism, of being willing to give in on 10, 20 even 30% on policy he really doesn’t like if it gives him the votes to enact 70% of the stuff he does like. Obama is very much a half- or 3/4- loaf is better than none kind of guy.
.
(This is different than Clinton’s triangulation, I believe, which was much more cynical and more about his insecure need to be liked. But that’s just MHO.)

FTW!

It’s those damned Canadian shale sheiks with their radical ideas and funny clothes. I hope their camels sit on them… er moose er something…
-
When the rubber finally hits the road on off-shore drilling or nuclear power there might not be a road there to hit. We’ll be back to $5.00 a gallon gas, Obama will be covered and blameless, the real reality and logistics of how the corporate economy works will finally sink in to the “drill, baby, drill” crowd (as much as it’s going to), and the 100 percent efficient solar cell will be hitting the market… well, wishful thinking on that point…

As an oil industry scientist, I can say that they reaction to the east coast stuff is “meh”, and has always been “meh”. There are a couple pockets where there is likely a little gas and oil (delta and smallish turbidite deposits), but by and large the geology is wrong. You are not going to see a big rush to drill the eastern seaboard. The infrastructure ain’t there and the amounts we are talking about don’t warrant building infrastructure at this time.
_
Northslope of Alaska leasing was always going to happen at some point, because the Russians and Canadians are moving fast at establishing drilling rights to vast areas of the Arctic and thus it is essentially a national security issue. Whether anyone will try drilling a well out in what would be terrible condition in the near future (10 years) remains to be seen…
_
The real, tangible result of this announcement is Republicans like the Boner have to go out and explain why they are now stamping their feet and opposing the president on this even though it was their number one campaign issue one short year ago.

Oh I don’t disagree that it was a stupid decision. I was merely pointing out that someone who is consistently belittled by the left had stepped up to help the parents. I am sure we will hear a call for some new tax proposed by the left to helpo the parents.

No but the Great One is. He was quick to ridicule ideas and now that he is sinking faster than the Titanic he is adopting ideas as if they were his own.

I could not tell if he was smirking went he announced it. I only have a 37 inch TV and Obama’s ego doesn’t fit on it.

I’m curious as to why the coasts of NC, SC and GA are “on”, while about 4/5 of the Florida coastline is “off limits”.
.
Say, there wouldn’t be a politically well-connected demographic camped out in the Sunshine State, would there?

“explain why they are now stamping their feet and opposing the president on this even though it was their number one campaign issue one short year ago.”

They can campaign on that Obama opposed it before he voted for it. They can also point out that Obama only quotes “proved” reserves and not “probable reserves” which are much higher. They can also argue why did Democrats argue for years that it would take 10 years or longer for drilling to work? Did that time frame change? No it is still the simple fact that not only is switching to alternate energies not possible in that 10 year time frame it is an economic disaster that will cost jobs and skyrocket energy costs for businesses and Americans.

I too am an energy scientist and have spent years on synthetic fuels research.

“…maybe you just can’t be pleased by anyone who doesn’t agree with your views?”
.
Exactly.

The Emanuel guy you mentioned…is he related to that other foul-mouthed Emanuel guy? and is his future with the White House now the same as he described in his e-mail?

Boehner is stamping his feet because this proposal doesn’t go far enough.

My link suggests contributing to a fund that has been set up to help the father. One of those private charity thingys.

@ Freep: If you’re going to compare egos, Dick’s is the size of Montana…ready to shoot itself off if you disagree.

You are hardly literate. Making hooch in your backyard still does not equate to “synthetic fuels research”.

I see you use the same rational and knowledge based decision process about people as you do pretty much everything– You are clueless and believe your opinions are actually a thought. The next time you have one— just let it go.

Still with the Bush>Cheney deranged syndrome. No wonder libs want health care. Anti-psychotic meds must be expensive

Your response is just dumb and doesn’t deserve additional comment, but here goes.
.
Any 4F war hawk with the guts to put our country into an unnecessary war has to have a “set” and you know it. Since YOU were the one who mentioned egos not fitting into flat-screen TVs, why do you crack about “libs needing meds” when somebody challenges you on it? You have vast experience putting the jerk in knee-jerk.

free, I don’t think you can say that Obama is presenting the idea as his own. In fact, I think he’s very open in saying he’s willing to incorporate Republican ideas in his energy plan. What we call, throwing them a bone. I don’t think this is a conversion of beliefs, but one of compromise. Politically, it’s a smart move.

nfl — Did we catch you in another episode of “arguing with furniture”?

Probably. I was offered a scene on “Talking to Rocks” as well. Tough choice

Oops – 11.1 was meant for 12.3!

Obama was against drilling during the campaign
.
Are you sure about that?

link to “Obama shifts on oil drilling? August 1, 2008″
.
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) – Barack Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” Obama said.

When you say:

I don’t think that’s cynical though, as we’ve seen that without the politics, there is no policy, ie. without the votes, you can’t get policy enacted.

, aren’t you assuming that constraint? I haven’t seen that, without the votes, there is no policy at all. I’ve only seen that, without Republican votes, Obama needs liberal Democratic votes to enact the policy he tries to enact. Assuming that he’s attempting a liberal policy moderated by political reality ignores what he actually says about liberal policy (“we need to move beyond the tired debates between right and left“) and what we end up with: New Democrats’ preferred policy.
.
Obama has shown over and over again his pragmatism, of being willing to give in on 10, 20 even 30% on policy he really doesn’t like if it gives him the votes to enact 70% of the stuff he does like.
.
The merits of his “pragmatism” surely must be debated after spending so many months fruitlessly begging for Republican votes in accordance with centrist ideological principles.
.
Again, what makes you so sure that “the stuff he does like” is liberal policy? What if he’s trying to compromise with Republicans in order to get 70% of his Third Way agenda enacted?
.
Obama is very much a half- or 3/4- loaf is better than none kind of guy.
.
Really? Do you know him personally? How do you know what “kind of guy” Obama is?
.
How do you know that he isn’t getting as much as he can, just not what many liberals are misguidedly expecting him to try for?

See 12.4 below

Did you know, jimpinter, there is a difference between random spewage and a comment?

“I was offered a scene on “Talking to Rocks” as well”

And the ever popular Penna. Slate beat you out.

=
“doesn’t deserve additional comment, but here goes.”

Proving Stupidity overrides any liberal sense
==
And now with diecash1 we have the trifecta for ignorance on he left

why do you crack about “libs needing meds” when somebody challenges you on it?
==

Trust me a liberal like you is never a challenge!

pafro: Just…read…yr…defn…of…”Synthetic Fuels Research”…Cant…stop…laughing…*snort*

“I haven’t seen that, without the votes, there is no policy at all. I’ve only seen that, without Republican votes, Obama needs liberal Democratic votes to enact the policy he tries to enact.”
.
No, he’s pretty well proved that he has those, almost regardless of the policy. He needs Centrist i.e., “conservative” Democratic votes that he won’t get if his policies are deemed “too liberal” by Centrist gasbags in the MSM. I have no idea what policies Obama actually believes in but it’s quite clear that he firmly believes in the Centrist, bi-partisan politics that are so appealing to Independents and Beltway Centrists. And he may be entirely correct that his “success” depends upon it.
.
Why ignore that fact to make a presumption about motive?

Why ignore that fact to make a presumption about motive?
.
What do you mean?
.
I think that Obama prefers certain policies to others, and that those policies are similar if not always identical to those which other New Democrats prefer.
.
I don’t think it’s a “presumption about motive” to argue that, when Obama says:

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,“

that this “kind of comprehensive energy policy” he means is something out of PPI’s (or a similar centrist think-tank’s) plans.
.
When he says:

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy…”

I don’t doubt that he will argue for the necessity of compromising (or being seen as compromising by the Village) with market-fundamentalist conservatives or corrupt Republican apparatchiks in order to effect the Third Way policy he favors.
.
When one speaks to the political-economic ideology of another, one is necessarily speaking to motive, but not necessarily personal motive. In the sense that I think there’s an argument to be made that Obama is a New Democrat pursuing the enactment of New Democrat policy, of course I’m arguing a motive, but I hope that I’m clear about that motive being that Obama believes that the Third Way is the best way for America, just as conservatives believe in their magic-fairy, state-less, robber-baron market, and liberals believe in a market of balanced powers.
.
Sure, there may be dedication to a centrist political strategy, and maybe those politics are pragmatic, or maybe they aren’t. That’s different than having policy goals. You say you can’t see what they are, I’m arguing that there’s a Third Way duck walking and quacking in front of us.

“I think that Obama prefers certain policies to others…”
.
But you don’t know that, it’s a presumption on your part. I’m arguing that he must appear to be centrist and bi-partisan, regardless of whether he would prefer to.

“Obama is a centrist ”

In brick to that glass facade of liberal nonsense Howard Dean in a rare moment of truthfulness.

==

The always daffy Howard Dean appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Sunday to discuss the health care reform bill. He explained that the broader principle of the legislation has less to do with fixing the health system and more to do with a Marxist principle of redistributing wealth.

“When [wealth distribution] gets out of whack as it did in the ’20s and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”

Yep no socialism here

I see what you’re saying.
.
Think though, about what designs to “appear” to be anything mean in terms of motive.
.
Either one of two things is the case:
.
1) Obama is a centrist, believes in bipartisanism, finds right and left to be incompatible with his philosophy, prefers Third Way policies, etc., etc.
.
2) Obama is not a centrist
.
If 1) is the case, then he appears as he is, which happens to be that which is most appropriate to Village culture. One motive may be to enhance the image of what kind of politician he is, but another is to enact the policy he believes in.
.
If 2) is the case, then he appears as he wants others to see him, and his motive is to hide the reality of his non-centrism, perhaps in order to have the best chance of enacting policy the Village abhors (liberalism) or concedes to in various degrees (rightism). The motive is the control of appearance in order to effect a hidden policy agenda, or simply to succeed in Beltway politics by taking the path of least resistance.
.
I am speaking of the likelihood of 1), but arguments for both 1) and 2) speak to motive.
.
An argument that he’s acting primarily to effect an appearance is just as much a presumption of motive as an argument that he’s acting primarily to effect an agenda.

“If 2) is the case, then he appears as he wants others to see him, and his motive is to hide the reality of his non-centrism, perhaps in order to have the best chance of enacting policy the Village abhors (liberalism)…”
.
Perhaps but I can’t really speculate about that either. The best I can say is that he’s motivated to keep power. Policy-wise, he’s an enigma. Politically, he may be a genius. Either way, the root of the problem isn’t his policy desires, it’s that real progressive policy is still impossible due to the pathological centrism of the corporate press and independent voters.

Policy-wise, he’s an enigma.
.
Primary problem debate (voter & Village pathologies vs leaders’ desired policies) aside, why do you say that?
.
Could you please elaborate?

I mean that we can’t know what policies Obama might prefer, if not for political considerations. Not that it matters much.

pafro: Thank you for stating what I think is the facts of the President’s m.o. There will be no drilling in the Atlantic. No advantage to the oil companies. This throws the Reps. off course.

@3.1 Jeebu WTH was that?