Public opinion swings back in favor of environmental protection - but Republicans still don't get it.

Tricky situation we are in.

Save man or save nature?

Ideologues are just that: dogmatic.

The only thing that poll shows is that Republicans have their minds made up on what is really best in this energy dilemma.

They hate Obama because he is black, and/or a democrat.
They hate environmental protections because it makes it harder to make money.
They understand that if we don’t find our own oil, we have to buy it from people we don’t like, and/or who don’t like us.

Sadly, the voting public is predominantly uninformed, short-sighted, and fickle. Many people adopt “opinions,” and change their affiliations, according to how the wind blows. Other people lack the interest or ability to reach their own conclusions, so they mimic the words of someone they believe can speak for them.

Drastic events cause temporary “bubbles” of attention. When John Lennon was murdered, handgun control organizations had a sudden, but short-lived, swell of support. The nation was outraged about Exxon Valdiz and suddenly expressed concern about the environment and the need to abate reliance on fossil fuels; within a few years, however, gas-guzzling SUV’s and minivans began to dominate automobile sales.

And, let’s not forget that it’s less painful for people to hear reassuring lies than to face the uncomfortable truth.

As for Obama, Republicans hate him simply because he’s a Democrat, and hate him even more because he’s intelligent and eloquent.

@ChazMaz Nature doesn’t need our salvation. The planet has existed for 4.6 billion years, and mankind’s been around for about 30,000 years. Nature will do just fine after humanity, and all traces of its existence, have disappeared from earth.

@Cruiser , what energy dilemma? Crude oil prices are down because there’s a glut of oil stockpiled in the U.S. right now.

@Primobabe – Right. But, tell that to the people of the gulf coast.

@IchtheosaurusRex I was referring to the dilemma in the pole you referenced showing the relationship of sourcing energy vs environmental concerns.

I’m saddened by how the political world has changed during my own lifetime. As recently as the early-1970’s, political parties knew how to work together and compromise. The parties were opponents, and legislators would disagree and dispute particular issues, but they shared the common goals of wanting to do the right thing and achieve something good.

Today, party politics are based in hatred and anger—“us” vs. “them,” and ignore the matters at hand. The Republican party will oppose any progressive initiative, regardless of its merits, and attack any Democrat simply for his/her affliliation. Contrast this with the fact that Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were rivals on the Senate floor but best friends in life.

Traditionally, a First Lady chooses a cause to support and promote, but a cause that isn’t controversial or politically volatile. Michelle Obama’s platform is childhood obesity. Her goal is to use education and awareness to curb some appalling trends. One-third of American children are obese, many more are overweight, and—for the first time ever—U.S. life expectancies are declining. Who could argue or take issue with this cause? Well, Mrs. Obama’s been accused of being anti-family and advocating a totalitarian upheaval of parental rights.

@ChazMaz Given the demographics of the Gulf Coast states, it’s fair to say that many/most of those people supported deregulation, which removed the very protections to prevent this sort of castrophe (No big government! Let private industry self-regulate!) and scream and wail for tax cuts (Now, they want big government to swoop in, fix the problem, and clean up the mess).

@Cruiser , but what is “right” with respect to that dilemma? Is it more important to ramp up energy production in spite of environmental consequences? How do you justify that position vs. conservation and alternative energy?

I, for one, don’t get it. Give it to me in a nutshell… minus the proven faslehoods.

@IchtheosaurusRex I don’t think there is a way as to me I see it is simply an economic compromise. Who screams and waves their hands the most when gasoline and other energy costs go up? Pretty much everybody especially the lower income earners. So I simply feel republicans are demonstrating a more rational commitment to the simple fact that if you want low cost energy you have to take calculated risks and live with the results and consequences. Environment or energy you cannot have your cake and eat it too with out getting crumbs in your lap.

This one does.

One needs to look no further than the source of the campaign funds that elected officials receive. If you are put in power by corporate interests in the energy sector and other big business industrial interests, you are expected to vote to protect their interests, not the people you nominally represent. If you fail to do so, their support for your re-election will go elsewhere. It is money, not values or policies that win (buy) votes.

Did you for a moment believe that elected officials are elected because average citizens understand the issues and come out to vote to support candidiates who represent their interests?

The next thing in energy is nuclear fusion! Igniting and handling the lit pile is key. Fusion must go hand in hand with a cure fore cancer… we clear?

I could not possibly have said anything better than @Primobabe. GA.

@cprevite (Blushing) Thank you.

@ChazMaz Man and nature are interdependent. It is not a choice between the two.

@Cruiser , considering the magnitude of this disaster and the possibility – only a possibility at this point – that BP might have cut corners in the construction of this well, I don’t see it as an economic compromise at all.

Yes, I read the heart-wrenching stories of people who had to choose between buying fuel for their mega SUVs and food for their table when gas prices spiked to $4 per gallon a while ago. It was hard for me to find much sympathy for them. This is because we’ve had no effective energy policy since the 1970’s oil embargoes. Rather than concentrate on alternatives and conservation, the political apparatus in this country has focused on oil prices, not on oil.

As a result, we are now importing ⅔ of the oil we use, and ⅓ of the oil we produce domestically comes from offshore drilling. We’ve done next to nothing to encourage (much less mandate) conservation. As a result, we still have overused highways clogged with oversized vehicles that most people don’t really need.

And, there is no end in sight. Not to our dependence on oil, and not to the spill. The top kill and junk shot didn’t work. So they’re going to try another siphon next. Good luck with that. But let’s see how the public react when they or another outfit wants to start drilling a new well a mile underwater.

@IchtheosaurusRex For sure in the rear view mirror of an economic disaster nothing would look like an economic compromise and surely nothing less than criminal at this point but the table was certainly set with public support for everything I would consider a compromise over the economic concerns of cheap oil and gas versus the environmental impact and potential for disasters such that we are currently experiencing. Hindsight is always 20/20 and like you intone this event will nary be much of a motivator when gasoline is over $4.00/gallon unless the Feds dig in their heels and make the hard policy changes that will change the mindset of the gas guzzling crowd. Worst part is this F’n economy where nobody can ill afford to bear the burden of higher oil/gasoline prices and Obama is over a barrel (pun intended) about more offshore oil licenses and public demand for low cost gasoline despite this incredible disaster. IMO he/we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.