I try and avoid using grandiose rhetoric of this kind. But there is a potential checkmate scenario sitting on the board for Barack Obama, and it involves the 'Gang of 10' energy compromise bill currently being floated by a bipartisan group of ten senators.
The compromise proposal -- formally the New Energy Reform Act of 2008 -- is a complicated piece of legislation, but involves three or four basic components:
-- Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.
-- Dedicates $20 billion to R&D on alternative fuels for motor vehicles.
-- Extends a series of tax credits and incentives, such as for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.
-- Funds the above -- at total cost of about $84 billion -- by closing tax loopholes for petroleum companies, in conjunction with licensing fees.
Barack Obama has come out with lukewarm support for the bill. McCain has come out with what amounts to lukewarm opposition to it, objecting to the removal of the oil company tax loopholes.
There would be tremendous electoral upside to Obama in making his support for the legislation full-throated, by signing on as a co-sponsor to the legislation and making the Gang of 10 a Gang of 11. Consider the benefits of such action:
- Would take the drilling issue off the table. Offshore drilling polls well, favored by roughly 2:1 margins. But more than that, it gives the Republicans a rhetorically effective detour by which they can bypass most of the debate on energy policy, and much of the debate on the economy in general. The passage of a bill -- particularly one that had Obama's support -- would mitigate the issue and force the Republicans to argue the economy from much weaker ground, such as the Democrat-friendly territory of social security, health care, and middle class tax cuts.
- Would make Obama look bipartisan. The Republicans supporting the bill aren't your usual cast of Gordon Smiths and Susan Collinses. Instead, they are center-right types: Saxby Chambliss, John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, and Johnny Isakson. Obama's claims to bipartisanship would be very credible.
- Would make McCain look obstructionist. The converse of this is also true, substantially undermining Obama's claims to be a moderate/maverick.
- Would highlight McCain's loyalty to Big Oil. Even worse for McCain is his reason for opposing the bill -- his refusal to remove oil company tax loopholes. In this populist climate, and particularly in the wake of Exxon's record-setting profits, that is a potentially lethal position to hold.
- Would recast 'flip-flops' as 'compromises'. One of the potential drawbacks to Obama voicing more aggressive support for the legislation is that the McCain campaign would try and highlight is reversal on the offshore drilling issue. However, Obama has a couple of relatively persuasive defenses. Firstly, McCain flip-flopped himself on this very issue. And secondly, Obama can begin to build a narrative that explains his flip-flops by some means other than electoral opportunism. Namely, flexibility is required in order to engineer bipartisan compromise: he is willing to support drilling, but only if oil company tax loopholes are closed, and only if there are provisions to invest those tax revenues in alternative fuels. Since essentially all of Obama's shifts have been toward the center rather than the left, this might pay dividends not only on the drilling issue itself, but also in other instances in which he has changed his position.
- Would help Obama in electorally significant states. The bill is rather cleverly engineered in terms of electoral politics. It permits drilling in the swing states of Virgnia, North Carolina and Florida, but does not permit it on the West Coast, where the measure is significantly less popular. There might also be some secondary benefit to Obama in supporting the moderate Democratic senators who have championed the legislation. If Kent Conrad shoots a commercial in North Dakota, and says "This man had my back when the chips were down and it was time to lower your gas prices and secure America's energy future", that is very persuasive stuff.
- Would distance Obama from Pelosi and Reid. Increasingly, the right is trying to lump Obama together with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the extremely unpopular institution of the Congress. Supporting the compromise would allow Obama to keep Pelosi, who has been attempting to prevent a drilling bill from coming to a floor vote in the House, at arm's-length, and create the perception that he is in charge of his own destiny.
- Preempts a non-compromise drilling bill from passing. And frankly, it might also be doing Pelosi a favor. Intrade now forecasts that there is about a 50:50 chance of a drilling bill of some kind passing by the end of the year. What Pelosi is essentially doing is gambling that gas prices will decline over the summer while the Congress is on recess. If gas prices continue to go up, however, Pelosi could face an insurrection from swing-district Democrats, putting her at a Morton's Fork between allowing a vote on a drilling bill that wouldn't include compromise provisions (but which nevertheless would almost certainly pass), or attempting to plug the dam at the potential cost of a material number of House seats.
- Preempts McCain from doing the same. I believe that McCain made a significant and potentially even fatal mistake by opposing the tax loophole closure provision of the bill. But Obama may only have a limited amount of time to exploit it. There are too many electoral benefits to this bill for one or the other candidates not to come out vociferously in favor of it, and if Obama does not do so first, McCain may do so instead. Ninety percent of electoral politics is possession, and whomever grabs the apple first will make the other candidate look like a follower.
Frankly, it would not surprise me if the Obama campaign is already keyed into this maneuver. Last Friday, they sent up a trial balloon in the form of Obama's softly-voiced support for the compromise. The trial balloon did not burst; Obama took very little flak for his apparent flip-flop on the drilling issue, whereas the Republicans were reduced to a frivolous taking point about tire gauges. Then this week, Obama began to hammer McCain on his support for oil company tax breaks, highlighting McCain's reason for opposing the compromise measure. Everything is all set up for Obama to move on the issue literally overnight. If he gets the optics right, he will leave McCain in an unenviable position.
125 comments
Spot on! At first I just heard "Obama supports drilling!" and thought it was a bad idea. Then I read into the nuances and other aspects and now am convinced this is the best thing for him and the country. That bill is the right stuff.
Hopefully Obama will be smart enough to move on this immediately.
The democratic moderates like myself have been screaming for a move like this for weeks. Your assumptions seem solid,and If Obama can get the high ground on drilling, McCain is weakened significantly.
Showing the ability to compromise is huge. Americans are sick of partisan politics. Obama should make this move, its all positive.
I'm a very liberal Democrat who is more liberal on environmental issues than any other. But I think this would be a good bill even if it had no political implications. I don't like the offshore drilling part, of course, but sometimes compromise is necessary.
I hope Obama comes out and supports this bill, both because it's a good bill and it will help him win the election.
I'm also a far lefty, and I'm in favor of this. The bill actually makes sense, for one thing.
Nate, one quibble: Dems in the House are in no danger of a "material loss of seats" on this or any other issue. Otherwise, your comments were outstanding. Nice work,
A similar argument is made in Has McCain walked into an energy trap?. This is exactly what I thought Obama could do with his compromise on offshore drilling and I am pleased to see it starting to play out this way.
I´ve argued on couple sites since Obama announced his willingness to compromise that it was a win-win move for him. McCain just has nowhere to go after he already flip-flopped. Republicans also can´t obstruct any reasonable alternative energy issues in the bill as a lot ef them have touted drilling as the issue that solves everything.
There's got to be a more accurate word to describe Chambliss, Isakson, Thune, Graham, and Corker than "center-right."
What's remotely "center" about any of these guys?
Here are their latest American Conservative Union ratings:
Isakson: 96
Chambliss: 92
Thune: 88
Graham: 88
Corker: 83
As for the substance of the post, I think you're correct about it being a smart political play for Obama, but it's terrible policy (we don't need more off-shore oil drilling) and will have the effect of dragging the Overton Window even further to the right (if that's possible in a world in in which Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss can be labeled "center" anything...by a Democrat, no less!).
I completely agree. This, to me, is a no-brainer. I actually thought as you did when Obama started softly voicing his support for the compromise. I sincerely hope his team is ready to jump on this issue and sign on to the bill. It helps him in so many ways, and this seems like a bill that almost no one could oppose, making the fact that McCain doesn't want the oil companies to lose money a front and center issue. DO IT!
Ben,
I intended that to read as center-right relative to the Republican caucus -- not relative to the Senate as a whole.
Nate,
it's a wise bill. They will both support it. So stalemate again.
I fully agree with all who say that Obama needs to get on board with the compromise. Time is of the essence. Anybody got inside connections to get this voiced in the campaign?
Don't bet that McCain would oppose such a bill. As long as it contained expanded offshore drilling, he could claim "victory" for having promoted the idea. The bill doesn't appear to have too much that would be a poison pill to McCain's pals.
The underlying question here is whether McCain will show up to vote on such a bill.
Obama is at least keeping up the act of being a Senator by showing up to vote every other week; I'm sure he would make sure to show up to vote on this bill.
McCain, on the other hand, will be celebrating the 5-month anniversary of his most recent vote (and only vote since mid-March) when the Congress reconvenes on September 8th. I can't figure out whether this excessive absence is campaign strategy, laziness, or a prelude to h