8.07.2008

The Gang of 10: Obama's Checkmate?

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.

132 comments

Nick said...

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.

Mark said...

Hopefully Obama will be smart enough to move on this immediately.

MATT J. H. said...

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.

Jack said...

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.

Not a NeoClown said...

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,

Laura said...

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.

tesaar said...

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.

Ben said...

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!).

jem286 said...

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!

Nate said...

Ben,

I intended that to read as center-right relative to the Republican caucus -- not relative to the Senate as a whole.

cora said...

Nate,

it's a wise bill. They will both support it. So stalemate again.

Jim said...

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?

Juris said...

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.

cothromach said...

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 his retirement from Politics after the Presidential election. McCain's latest inclusion into his stump speech of the Webb GI bill -- and taking credit for its passage ("we passed..."), despite openly opposing it, threatening to write a rival bill in opposition, and not even voting on the Webb bill -- leads me to believe this is some crooked scheme cooked up by a Rove-like strategist so that McCain can claim he was on the right side, no matter which audience he is speaking to. And, if McCain can continue to get away with it, I see no reason why he would bother to stop: Yes, he may even blow off an Energy bill like this one.

jd35 said...

Sounds good to me under any circumstances. You're right on. Obama would be smart to voice his full support as soon as possible.

Rob said...

It also beefs up Obama's legislative record. He'd be a little bit of a johnny-come-lately to the group, but coverage of sponsoring successful legislation during the campaign would insulate him from the "no record of accomplishment" attack.

Blame said...

I have been waiting for Obama to compromise for weeks now.

He was a bit slow to face reality, although to be fair it takes most candidates 3 electorial defeats.

Nether candidate dares to be too enthusiastic about a bill that has not been finalised. It damages their barganing position.

Brian Dell said...

rob, you don't get a "legislative accomplishment" star if all you do is vote. You have to SPONSOR legislation for that. If something like this had ever been Obama's brainchild, then, yes, he'd have a record. Fact is, he's never INITIATED something like this.

Look who the Ds are on this: Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, Landrieu. All of them in the most conservative fifth of Senate Dems and accordingly well to the right of Obama. There's no way Obama would be in with this centrist crowd under normal circumstances.

Bart said...

Importantly, all of the Republicans in the Gang of 10 are not up for re-election this year or have at least a 98% chance of being re-elected (according to Nate's scorecard). So Obama's support for this compromise would not take the knees out of Democratic efforts to unseat incumbent Republicans like Sununu, Smith, Wicker, Coleman, or McConnell. But on the flip side, McCain's support for the compromise would bolster G10 member Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

joel said...

Both Obama and McCain should resign their senate seats. I figure Obama will probably win and since McCain has not represented his state in 5 months they deserve better.
If these guys think they will win why are they covering their bets.
I think if Obama resigned his seat it would show supreme confidence in his winning and if he somehow lost he could always run for governor or run for his seat again in a special election. McCain could always become a spokeman for viagra or cialis!

Peter B Fitzgerald said...

An intriguing post, and I hope the Obama campaign is on the same page.

A couple proofreading points:

1) Under point three, I think you meant "undermining McCain's claims," not Obama's.

2) In the last paragraph, "frivolous talking point" not "taking point."

Chris Of Rights said...

Calling this checkmate for Obama seems quite a leap of faith to me. Except for "windfall taxes" on oil companies, this proposal is far closer to McCain's energy plan than Obama's, so if I had to pick a candidate who might be able to wriggle a checkmate out of this, I'd be looking at McCain.

Frankly, I think the answer is neither will.

the it prof said...

Living here in Savannah, I would have to say that neither Chambliss is definitely not "center-right". Isaakson may be closer to that description because he hails from Atlanta.

In any case, Obama should go ahead and, as a minimum, vote for this compromise. If he can enlist as a supporter, so much the better. This is as good a compromise as we're going to get on the energy issue. And I think it will be a lot easier for Obama to compromise on off-shore drilling than it will be for McCain to give up the tax breaks to his pals in the oil industry.

p smith said...

The Time and CBS polls giving Obama a lead of 46-41 and 45-39 respectively are terrible news for McCain. They reinforce the tracker polls and the AP poll all of which show Obama re-establishing a lead of somewhere between 2 and 6 points.

More than this, if you look at any media outlet including Fox News, it is plain that the narrative is focused on McCain being negative and frivolous. As I and many others have indicated, going the low road always risked damaging McCain's strongest asset, his independence and his reputation for being a stand up guy. When people see him engaging in Socratic discourse with Paris Hilton and playing silly politics with tire gauges, he just becomes another Republican. In the current climate, that is simply suicide and I am fast coming to the view that PeteKent was right about last week being an inflection point save that I believe it was in Obama's favour. McCain taking the low road could have been the critical moment of this campaign.

With Hillary set to campaign for Obama in Nevada this week and Florida next week, I have a feeling (pure speculation on my part) that the polls are going to start edging Obama's way further as McCain's polling regresses to the Republican mean.

Mark said...

McCain is screwed on this one, because he very publicly made a "no new taxes pledge last week", which he's already waffled on a little. There is no way he back out again of that one without getting slaughtered by his base. He simply has no wiggle room - you can't say "no new taxes' one week and then support them on your featured issue the next. It cost George H.W. "Read My Lips" Bush relection.

The DNC is launching a new ExxonMcCain08 spoof campaign. This ties right into it.

someperson718 said...

The MOMENT I read McCain opposed the bill (the tax part he COULD NOT ACCEPT) I knew Obama had an ace in the hole. Obama could full throatedly accept this compromise which would help his bi partisan bonafides, his ability to compromise instead of flip flop, and would back McCain into a corner as someone like Bush, who is partisan and won't compromise to get things done. This could be the one folks, I just hope the Obama campaign takes advantage of this one. Lindsey Grahm? Thanks for the help.

unertl said...

p smith,

Going negative brings down the other guy's numbers, but it also brings down your own in the long-term. The exception is if the attack resonates particularly well, as it did against Kerry in '04. McCain is running a big risk by using non-issues based negative attacks and I think it will backfire.

One thing that I do have to give the McCain campaign credit for is focusing the debate on energy. Obama easily trumps McCain in so many other issues (health care, free trade, education, etc.), but the Republicans have instead centered everything around the one issue they have a shot at.

Peterbilt said...

A+.

I wouldn't even call it a "stalemate" if/when McCain ultimately supports it. That still leaves it a net gainer for Obama. Nice post; great food for my political-news crack habit.

sarasotajoe said...

This may be accurate analysis in terms of electoral politics, but it is spurious policy. Drilling is not an energy plan.

The world currently consumes 75 million ballels of oil per day - the US consumes more than 20 million of those barrels. An increase of 1/3 in domestic production - the best case scenario assuming we drilled everywhere possible - would bring our output from 6 to 8 million barrels per day. This would still leave us purchasing a majority of our oil from foreign sources, which would still control the price.

Any oil extracted anywhere enters the world market. If we drilled an extra 2 million barrels per day. OPEC would ship 2 million barrels per day less, keeping the world's oil prices stable (or - like they have done in the past, they would cut production by 1 million and ask other oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf, Asia etc. to cut production as well.)

The current increase in the price of oil has nothing to do with our capacity, which would only become significant if our capacity approached our consumption. Instead the increase is largely a function of the declining dollar relative to other currencies. SInce oil is priced in dollars in the world marketplace, the declining dollar necessitates an increase in the number of dollars foreign oil producers need to charge in order to make the same profits they were used to when dollars were worth more.

The only way our capacity can impact the price of oil is if it appproaches our consumption. In order to do this our consumption would need to decrease by 15 million barrels per day. An increase in production of 2 million barrels per day is just not going to do it. The way to decrease consumption is to heavily invest in alternative sources of energy and increased efficiency.

Drilling as an energy plan is a recipe for continued reliance on oil, which means continued reliance on OPEC. The effect on prices will be zero. Bush's Energy Information Agency issued a report four years ago that acknowledged this. They concluded that in the best case scenario, increased drilling would lower the cost of a barrel of oil by $1.44 per barrel. They further concluded that the $1.44 savings would be erased by OPEC decreasing production. To put that $1.44 in perspective: between June 4 and 5 of this year speculation caused the price of a barrel of oil to increase by more than $15 per barrel. The only winners from drilling will be the oil companies - and ironically: OPEC.

If Obama supports this legislation he needs to emphasize why he opposed drilling in the first place. Americans support drilling because no one has explained why it's dumb. It certainly seems reasonable - gas prices are high so let's drill. Obama has made the mistake of opposing drilling without explaining himself. If he's going to support a compromise, he would still be well served to explain why he sees it as a compromise. If he were to say "look - drilling will never solve our energy crisis and here are the numbers - we just don't have enough to ever be free of OPEC unless we use something other than oil. So I'm supporting this bill because it also contains the beginnings of a path toward independence from oil. But it is not enough, drilling is a dumb part of this bill that does nothing to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline while it threatens our coastlines with the kind of mess that occurred just two weeks ago in the Mississippi river during that oil tanker collision . When I'm president we will do better than this bill, but its provisions for investment in alternative energy, funded by a tax on windfall profits of the oil companies makes it worth supporting. John McCain supports the drilling - which is useles - and objects to taxing the oil companies. " Definitely do not co-sponsor it. Vote for it holding your nose and explain why.

Darío said...

New poll from Capital Survey in Alabama: Obama 34, McCain 47.

SurveyUSA poll from Oregon August 2: Obama 48, McCain 45.

I am a Fractal said...

Nate,

You underestimate mccain's ability to lie. He can oppose a bill, like the GI bill, then upon passage take full credit for it as if he wrote it himself.

Lying makes things a lot easier for him, he seems to feel, because for those not paying much attention, there's no such thing as a lie.

sdf said...

So the more national polls show nearly the same result -- Obama +5 or +6 -- the more it seems the Rasmussen tracker is a bit of a mini-outlier. Perhaps due to his LV model?

counsellorben said...

Nate,

I agree with your premise that Obama should come out strongly in support of this compromise.  I would argue that he should use a pianissimo approach in his support, building his argument up slowly from the stump form now through the convention, have much of the rhetoric delivered by other speakers play up the compromise during the convention, and then come out and declare his full-throated support during his speech at Invesco Field.  This will show great notes of bipartisanship and practical executive action.

Further, Obama should work with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to set the legislative calendar to "fast-track" any legislation when Congress returns after the conventions.

This strategy would deflate the Republican convention, which is appropriate, since McCain does not acknowledge the benefits of proper tire inflation pressure anyway.  It would seize control of the issue in a way that could certainly change the game for the rest of the election cycle.

Also, sarasotajoe,

Your analysis is correct on the merits, but legislation is about compromise.  This particular compromise has many things to recommend it.  I agree that more US drilling will have at best a very minor impact, and then only after several years, but that is the price to pay to get the rest of the bill.  Half a loaf is always better than none.

Darío said...

New Rasmussen poll August 7: Obama 47, McCain 46.

OH 09 Dem said...

Nate,
Considering how close Thune and Graham are to McCain, do you think that they would even allow Obama to support the Bill and move it forward? I think it is more likely that they will find some way to sabotage the Bill if Obama comes out so strongly in support of it because they will understand the political implications.

Adam said...

"Considering how close Thune and Graham are to McCain, do you think that they would even allow Obama to support the Bill and move it forward? I think it is more likely that they will find some way to sabotage the Bill if Obama comes out so strongly in support of it because they will understand the political implications."

Yeah, that's a really good point. Considering I'm pretty sure certain provisions putting limits on drilling (oil has to stay in US etc) have been blocked by the lockstep Republicans, they may very well do the exact same thing if they possibly believe Obama might benefit from it passing. Or, at least offer amendments stripping the limitations the gang of 10 now proposes, and prevent cloture on the bill if it doesn't have them. After all, it's not like they actually have any principles.

Jim S. said...

Nate,
Will you run my campaign if/when I ever run for public office?

KevinHayden said...

Your logic, for once, escapes me. Set aside the political implications and look at the bill again.

It's supported by Dems without any worry about constituent backlash as their states have no coast. Except Landrieu, whose state has been completely co-opted by Big Oil anyway.

Second, any energy bill lacking a significant energy conservation component is flawed at the outset. It's like putting your money in a savings acct drawing 3% before paying off the credt cards accruing 12% interest.

Third: if this is - in Gore-speak - a race to the Moon, it funds the race only halfway up Mt Everest. This level of commitment would face the same fate as Carter's initiatives did: killed by a successor before they reached puberty.

Fourth: Global warming. There's insufficient initiatives directed towards high energy use industries that burn a lot of carbon.

Obama has signalled an opening to negotiations He hasn't begun to extract the pounds of flesh necessary to close the deal. He succeeded in taking it away as a bludgeon McCain can use in his campaign. He doesn't need a weak bill to close the election deal; he only needed to sisarm his opponent.

His skills as a negotiator are already proven to be much stronger than this.It is and should be a starting point. After all, closing the war down in Iraq will be the biggest depressant on oil prices, reducing the need for swift action. For moonshot-level commitment, Obama can wait till winter to lay out a bolderr, more substantive energy proposal that will be a defining landmark of his new administration.

Folks need to quit jumping the calendar. Closing the deal on getting elected properly takes place in the final six weeks. Economic proposals are the best closing arguments, not an energy bill only partially about economic gain over the long term. (drilling)

Obama's not in trouble so has no need to overplay this hand.

Timing is everything.

Scott said...

Would you please rename this site obamatwoseventy.com?

Brian said...

This hinges upon what kinda of areas the dems are willing to open to drilling. If its not oil-rich areas of the coast, republicans can criticize Obama for opening up areas that aren't going to produce the oil we need, which falls into the rhetoric that Obama doesn't know what he is doing.

Higglytown said...

McCain-Obama: Trust on Issues
McCain
Obama
Links

Economy
46%
42%
C, T

National Security
52%
39%
C, T

Energy
46%
42%
C, T

Ethics
44%
46%
C, T

Iraq
51%
39%
C, T

Immigration
45%
36%
C, T

Environment
40%
48%
C, T

Balance Federal Budget
43%
40%
C, T

Negotiate Trade Agreements
45%
40%
C, T

Taxes
47%
40%
C, T

Social Security
44%
38%
C, T

Healthcare
41%
46%
C, T

Education
39%
43%
C, T

Abortion
40%
34%
C, T

On Rasmussen's daily tracker, it appears there has been a flip on voter sentiment on who would do a better job on many important issues. They keep trending more and more toward McCain.

McCain appears only to be behind on Education, Ethics, Environment and Healthcare, four subjects that just are not being talked about. On every subject on which McCain and Obama are weighing in on McCain appears to be winning the debate on issues. Obama is still a slight favorite in polls on personality, but at some point people will stop polling on personality and poll on issues.

tesaar said...

Brian: There are NO oil rich areas left to open in US. That´s why drilling is useless and why oil companies aren´t already drilling on the areas they have.

Adam said...

"On Rasmussen's daily tracker, it appears there has been a flip on voter sentiment on who would do a better job on many important issues. They keep trending more and more toward McCain."

Yes, of course there is. He's now using different weights for all his polls based on his sudden 2% drop in Democrats. That's why he's only at O+1 in his tracker when all the other national polls are at 5-6%.

Also, you keep saying people don't vote on personality but rather on issues. Do you actually have any evidence to back this up? Didn't Bush win in 2000 pretty much entirely because he was "the guy you'd want to have a beer with"? Didn't he win in 2004 because Kerry "looked French" and was caught windsurfing? You give voters wayyyyyy too much credit.

Juris said...

Higgly: Trust on issues is always volatile during the campaign season. In June 2004 the public had flipped to believe that Kerry would do a better job protecting the country againt terrorism, for example, a few that flipped again by the time election day rolled around.

I would surmise that these candidate images are drive a lot by the latest series of ads or most recent campaign events, at least until everyone gets serious after Labor Day.

Nick said...

So the Democrat has to support a horrible bill that gives the right what it wants, or else fear being blown out of the water politically?

Where have I heard this before?

Keep on capitulating, Barack.

Higglytown said...

"After all, closing the war down in Iraq will be the biggest depressant on oil pricesin" by KevinHayden

This is only true if Iraq stays stable and can keep producing oil. One of the main reasons oil prices are down right now is the influx of oil onto the market since the surge took place and things calmed enough to allow Iraq to extract oil again.

A premature withdrawal that destabilizes the country will cause the opposite effect. Most military professionals are saying we need to stay a lot longer than 16 months or the country will be destabilized.

In addition, how does the influx of oil from Iraq reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. All it does is leave us in the same position we were in prior to the current gas hike. We must act domestically.

Brian said...

tesaar:

Its going to be hard for Obama to argue that there are no oil rich areas left to drill while saying "OK we can drill but not in ANWR".

Higglytown said...

I would agree Juris, I am just saying at this point in the election it is trending toward McCain. Is his campaign smart enough to take advantage of it? Who knows. They havent been the sharpest tools, but then again Obama has blown many opportunities as well. I am guessing McCain comes out supporting the bill this week or early next week sometime. He will beat Obama to the punch. I do not think anything will get passed this term though. Why would either side of the aisle want to give Bush the luxury of improving his legacy by passing a last minute bipartisan bill he has wanted. He isn't helping either side of the aisle right now.

Higglytown said...

Bush can be defined as an oil president in negative terms right now, passing the bill improves his oil image to a more positive standing.

Brian said...

Higglytown:

We aren't leaving Iraq. Do you know about the embassy compound we constructed in Baghdad? They call it "Fortress America". Its absolutely enormous with 6 apartment complexes, its own water and waste treatment independent of the rest of the nation, with reinforced walls. Cost a billion dollars. It really IS a fortress. They can bivouac a large army in there and setup a provisional government if they have to. You don't build something like that so you can abandon it. And if the democrats were serious about getting us out, they could have stopped funding for construction in the last 2 years as they have run congress.

No, we're staying, and both parties know we are staying.

Adam said...

"I do not think anything will get passed this term though. Why would either side of the aisle want to give Bush the luxury of improving his legacy by passing a last minute bipartisan bill he has wanted. He isn't helping either side of the aisle right now."

I think you're definitely right here. Not only is Pelosi showing a surprising spine about not allowing any drilling legislation on the floor (as I guess her entire San Francisco constituency would abandon her otherwise), but there's enough gridlock and far too little time left to work out such a massive compromise anyway. All projections have Democrats picking up at least 4-5 Senate seats with an outside shot at 60; there's just not enough impetus there with Landreau as the only Democratic senator in any danger at all. And hell, Bush might veto it anyway if it doesn't give the oil companies everything they want.

Bob said...

Juris, the 'poison pill' is that big oil wants the right to drill anywhere they want, not just expand slightly in such a limited area. They want that last golden egg from the Bush administration - this bill effectively removes that, especially when it would make 'stage' where the American people in the front row watching to see just how much this 'drilling thing' actually helps. No complaining they need to explore, are in remote areas, or transport the crud vast distances. They will have to put up or shut up and still really have only a bit more than they do now.

John McCain might not see the danger but his sycophantic managers that whisper in his ear will not want him to accept this bill.

DarienCrow said...

Morning Adam

Bush won in 2000 pretty much entirely because the other guy was Al Gore.

Bush won in 2004 pretty much entirely because the other guy was John Kerry.

It's really that simple

Brian said...

Adam:

Current projection have the dems picking up seats, but the dems edge in voter ID has seen a sharp drop over the last couple of months. Eventually that may spill over into election results.

Adam said...

Darien,

You're pretty much exactly right. That's why I don't think "voting on policy instead of personality" holds nearly the weight Higgly thinks it does.

Those elections were all about a fired up conservative base, and Democrats voting for the lesser of two evils. This one is about a fired up liberal base, and Republicans voting for the lesser of two evils.


Brian,

Your whole evidence for "dem edge in voter ID dropping sharply" is one poll by Rasmussen, for which the change was well within the margin of error. He said himself in previous months such changes occur glacially, nothing like the change he's actually registered. We'll see next month whether there's enough evidence to validate such a shift.

Paul Bradford said...

Nate:

As usual, this is a terrific piece. Please send a link to your contacts in the Obama campaign. ;-)

Obama needs to simplify the argument. There are two ways to deal with the oil problem: 1)increase supply or 2)decrease demand. He needs to make the case that it's both intelligent and patriotic to take the latter path and that the Republicans are compromised by big oil and are leading us on the former.

dsimon said...

Brian: If its not oil-rich areas of the coast, republicans can criticize Obama for opening up areas that aren't going to produce the oil we need, which falls into the rhetoric that Obama doesn't know what he is doing.

I don't see why Obama doesn't attack McCain as not knowing what he's doing when McCain says drilling will get us out of our $4 per gallon problem. Our own government's Energy Information Agency says offshore drilling will have only a minimal effect on oil prices, so why does McCain think it will work?

It's hard to win a policy argument when so many Americans don't know the facts. Democrats need to push that there's a mountain of evidence that more drilling won't help and the absence of evidence that drilling is a solution, and so McCain's proposal is a fantasy that won't help consumers but will make lots of money for the oil companies. They should say that we've had seven years of an administration that doesn't pay attention to evidence; we don't need four more.

Go after McCain's credibility, tie him to the Bush administration, and tie him to big oil: a trifecta.

moondancer said...

Nate

I like your take. So if Obama strengthens his support, how many hours before the codger flips?

Higglytown

So with McCains great numbers on issues, it will astound the bobbleheads all the more when he gets steamrolled. Right?

rmadilo said...

The "compromise" re-framing is key. It not only redefines flip-flop, but points out that Obama is willing to reach across the isle to "get stuff done". He has already used the word compromise and this reasoning wrt this gang-of-10 legislation. This language appeals to democrats and independents, and even republicans. It doesn't appeal to those McCain is trying to hold onto.

Robby said...

Ugh, I'm agreeing with DarienCrow...

I need a shower...

PeteKent said...

I think it is funny how desperate the Obama supporters are here that they are clamoring for their candidate to accept any position that they think will help him in the Polls.

As it is Obama is seen as having no core, a molten center that conforms to whatever he thinks he needs to get elected.

People here are most likely more interested in the horserace than governance and just want Obama to win. Some of you have the sense to know that there remains within the Democrat party a desire to see its ideological positions vindicated.

If Obama were to truly embrace drilling, he would deeply offend his party's core. Apostasy on environmental issues will not be excused like his about face on FISA.

This appears to be McCain's checkmate, not Obama's.

PeteKent said...

Let’s take a more expansive look at where we are. You are all squirming to get off the hook on drilling and looking for fancy solutions like the Gang of ten borne out of your candidate’s innate stubbornness and sense of arrogance that he is always right, until the polls prove him wrong! Three points:

Paris Hilton keeps the Obama celebrity story alive.

Obama keeps tire gauge story going.

HRC wants roll call.

Things just don’t seem to be going right for Barack Obama.

While many here and in the left wind media (MSNBC and CNN) seem to think that endless broadcasting of the Paris Hilton counter-ad serves to ridicule John McCain, what it is really doing is keeping the Barack Obama is an empty celebrity story alive and rooting it in the public’s consciousness. Obama’s problem is further reflected by yesterday’s Pew survey which indicates that by large margins the public thinks it is hearing too much about Obama, while half as many feel the same way about McCain about whom they seem to be clamoring for more information.

Obama has reached a saturation point of coverage and has worn out his welcome with the public. This bodes ill for his intrusive media campaign during the Olympics and sets him up for a backlash from his convention and especially for his Invesco field acceptance speech.

Meanwhile to compound his own problems, Obama continues to give the tire gauge story legs, highlighting the degree to which he is out of touch with the public sentiment to, as McCain say, Drill Here, Drill Now! Obama mocks McCain on this, but he would be smart to pivot away from Energy for the moment, he having lost the high ground on it, especially with his party having shut down the House and handed the Republicans their best issue in decades. Right yet, btw, no one but Nate and you sheep seem to think it is solution.

Finally, there is Mrs. Clinton. Now she wants a roll call at the Convention! What up with that?

Rasmussen shows no signs of moving back toward Obama and Gallup has again shown his lead melting down. Imagine a world where McCain sustained a lead over Obama for a period of time? Unfathomable? We’ll see!

Brian said...

dsimon:

I don't see why Obama doesn't attack McCain as not knowing what he's doing when McCain says drilling will get us out of our $4 per gallon problem. Our own government's Energy Information Agency says offshore drilling will have only a minimal effect on oil prices, so why does McCain think it will work?

I've followed economics for about 25 years, and I can tell you that its terribly difficult for such agencies to be accurate on market forces like that. They miss one variable, or understate or overstate some aspect, and their entire model is shot. Its not that easy.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Obama response:

"Washington finally made some progress in this. It's a plan that will invest in renewable fuels and fuel efficient cars. Like all compromises this has it's drawbacks. A limited amount of off shore drilling. I'm willing to consider it if it's going to pass."

McCain response:


An anonymous aide to the Senator was quoted in the Wall Street Journal applauding the efforts, but said his boss wouldn't support the proposal because "he cannot and will not support legislation that raises taxes."

The McCain camp response was taken from:
http://www.alternet.org/wire/94096/
has_mccain_walked_into_an_energy_trap/

tomthress said...

"Rasmussen shows no signs of moving back toward Obama and Gallup has again shown his lead melting down. Imagine a world where McCain sustained a lead over Obama for a period of time? Unfathomable? We’ll see!"

Rasmussen moved two points in Obama's favor YESTERDAY! And the average of Rasmussen and Gallup has been unchanged for the last 3-4 days (not to mention Gallup's releasing results in a little over an hour - who knows what they'll show).

p smith said...

I may have to commit the apostasy of agreeing with PeteKent. I don't think Obama should be playing lowest common denominator politics on this. There is a really simple message here to get across that offshore drilling is a false panacea that will offer no tangible benefits for 10 years. You have McCain's own words to use to make that point. I have no problem with Obama saying that he is prepared to give ground to get progress on alternative energy solutions but he should not play the game of trying to sound like he is for offshore drilling.

Pretending to sound like a republican is never the answer because the public will just vote for the real thing. Obama is at his best when he is exposing GOP gimmicks for what they are just like the gas tax holiday which has been conveniently forgotten by McCain. McCain's campaign is fast becoming tarnished and Obama needs to batter him on policy while McCain continues to flip flop on meaty GOP issues such as tire gauges and Paris Hilton.

Brian said...

McCain's best position here is to say when you have an oil crisis, you should err on the side of producing too much oil. So restricting ANWR and other places to only open up a few select offshore fields to drill in some compromise deal is a bad idea.

tomthress said...

"I'm willing to consider it if it's going to pass."

I think that's a very poor choice of words from Obama. It really reflects a lack of leadership on the energy issue. (and I say this as somebody who supports both Obama and this particular set of energy proposals)

Adam said...

Yeah, you're right Tom, that was a poor choice of words. It would have been much better to say something like:

"Drilling isn't really very useful or helpful, but if compromising on this minor point is the only way we're going to get a plan that actually helps people past a filibuster, then compromising is worth the benefits."

People don't want an ideologue, they want someone who can solve problems.

PeteKent said...

P Smith said: McCain's campaign is fast becoming tarnished and Obama needs to batter him on policy while McCain continues to flip flop on meaty GOP issues such as tire gauges and Paris Hilton.


*****


I think you are missing the forest for the tress, by using these serio-comic tactics, McCain is firmly establishing Obama's identity as an empty-headed celebrity while painting him as out of touch on drilling. Obama loses on both issues, even if McCain looks negative. People will forget this period of negativity, but they will remember Paris and the tire guage for a long time.

PeteKent said...

Liberal defender:

Excellent pivot by McCain to taxes, dont you agree?

Taxes are one of Obama's biggest weaknesses and McCain is wise to hammer on his using more taxes as the solution for every problem.

Nataraj said...

People who don't like the drilling compromise have argued on two things that are contradictory.

1. Drilling will bring in oil only too far into the future and too little to dipress prices
2. Increased oil supply will make climate crisis worse.

I support the compromise particularly because of (1) - if drilling will not have any major impact on supplies or prices - whats the problem anyway ?

I do think we need to do other things - like setting a floor price on oil, move to carbon taxes from income tax and compelling oil companies to spend a part of the profit on alternate energy.

ajbeecroft said...

Quinnipiac NY
Obama 52
McCain 31


Not exactly a shock, but a slight improvement from last month (50-36).
Between this and the recent Rasmussen polls of CT, NY and NJ I think we've seen that that Suffolk poll of MA was nothing to pay attention to.

p smith said...

Before I finished typing the last message, PeteKent reverted to type with more nonsense.

The whole Paris Hilton thing is badly hurting McCain not Obama. Not because she has called him old but because the message that the public are taking from this is that McCain is engaging in frivolous puerile name calling at a time when serious debate is required. The whole celebrity again just isn't taking off because it is so fundamentally untrue. Everyone knows that there is no connection between vacuous bimbos and a Harvard law graduate who has had to overcome adversity to become a presidential candidate. Similarly on tire gauges McCain has now rowed back and dropped the issue because he looked and sounded petty and then dishonest when he ultimately accepted that Obama was right but sought to mischaracterise it as being Obama's entire energy plan.

Your synopsis of the Pew poll is similarly one eyed and wrong. People were not saying they don't like Obama, they were simply saying that Obama had been in the news too much. If I were polled as a Democrat I would say that too. The poll also reveals that the majority of voters see McCain's rather than Obama's campaigning as negative and that is the true correlation to draw from the poll.

That is the reason why the last three national polls have shown Obama's lead growing back to 5/6 points. McCain has crossed the Rubicon and torched all the bridges. He has expended his reputation and is now just another Republican twat.

tomthress said...

"Excellent pivot by McCain to taxes, dont you agree?"

"Excellent" is overstating it, but I sort of agree that it's a nice segue to "taxes". In terms of domestic policy, McCain's got two potential issue advantages over Obama - drilling and taxes. Personally, I think that drilling is a summer issue and I just can't imagine anybody going to the polls and deciding that the single most important issue facing the next President is whether or not to allow offshore oil drilling, since by election day I really believe that $4 gas prices will simply be an unpleasant memory.

For McCain, that leaves the classic Republican issue of lower taxes. Even there, I think that Obama can win the tax issue (compare the 1990's - higher taxes, strong economy, budget surpluses - with the 2000's - lower taxes, weaker economy, budget deficits), but it's probably McCain's only hope to actually win a domestic issue.

DarienCrow said...

This is the problem that I see with Obama'a campaign.

Every position McCain takes, Obama follows. Every challenge McCain sends out with the exception of town halls, Obama does it... and with that whole "you have not gone to Iraq in 900+ days and you never talk to our generals on the ground"? He over-did it.

So if he changes his position on drilling it only spotlights the fact that McCain took the position first and Obama just looks like he's saying "I was wrong... McCain is right". He looks like a follower.

So McCain says jump and Obama starts hopping all over the place. It's kind of obvious too.

Hillary sees this as maybe... just maybe thsy will have buyers remorse at the convention.

But that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

bobdee said...

One thought overlooked in the foregoing discussion is that this bill, if passed, gives a huge leg-up to a more comprehensive energy plan, once Obama is elected. The Rethug's ability to oppose the measures Obama has proposed will be undercut enormously by their having been forced by this bill to support extension of the tax credits for hybrids and by closing the oil company tax loopholes. This sets the table for doing what needs to be done, as Obama has outlined. It will be a tactical victory in advancing the overall energy policy strategy.

So, three cheers for Nate. My spirits were raised by reading this post.

Brian said...

tomthress:

Even there, I think that Obama can win the tax issue (compare the 1990's - higher taxes, strong economy, budget surpluses - with the 2000's - lower taxes, weaker economy, budget deficits), but it's probably McCain's only hope to actually win a domestic issue.

That's too simplistic, and its annoying that the republicans don't get out on front of that issue. The 1990s boom wasn't due to higher taxes - it was business growth overcoming those hikes. And tax cuts in the 2000s didn't create an economic downturn - tax cuts helped make that downturn less painful.

Kennyb said...

You don't need a poll to see if people are (or are wiling to say when prompted) that they are tired of Obama coverage. Instead, look at the ratings of political pundits and see if they are rising or falling.

tomthress said...

"That's too simplistic, and its annoying that the republicans don't get out on front of that issue. The 1990s boom wasn't due to higher taxes - it was business growth overcoming those hikes. And tax cuts in the 2000s didn't create an economic downturn - tax cuts helped make that downturn less painful."

I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that this was a valid argument, only that, at a simplistic level, it's an easy argument, not as a pro-higher taxes argument so much as a rebuttal to the "Obama will raise your taxes and it will destroy our economy" argument.

If McCain wants to campaign on the issues (and as of now, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that he does), I think he has two choices. Either make this campaign about foreign policy / national security (which is how Bush beat Kerry) or try to turn the domestic policy debate into a debate about taxes (which is how Bush beat Gore, to the extent Bush beat Gore on the issues in 2000).

Cugel said...

sarasotajoe - that's a great presentation of facts. Don't expect it to have much impact on this site though.

It shows why we need alternative energy, not more drilling. Drilling is utterly useless, so, of course the Republicans are for it. The Oil companies just want to grab those leases for the future and never develop them.

Instead they can borrow money against those paper "assets" and it helps their stock price, since investors see an increase in the value of total company assets. That's all this is: a financial windfall profit scheme for big oil that won't produce a DROP of oil.

They're NOT going to produce more oil from these fields in the next 20 years no matter how many leases they are handed. The only reason there's any public support for drilling is that people don't know that the oil won't suddenly start flowing NEXT YEAR. They have no idea how long it takes to develop.

Adam -- You're right. If Obama tried to sign on and make this bill his own, several of the Republican co-sponsors would pull out and Republicans would sink the bill. You'd see some of them filibustering their own bill so that Obama couldn't take any credit for it.

They want a campaign issue to beat Obama and Democrats with, not a real solution to any problem the country might have. The country can rot for all they care, so long as they get re-elected.

The bill tanking wouldn't be a terrible thing though. NO bill passed in this Congress has any hope of being useful with Bush waiting to veto anything that might actually help us and 49 Republican Senators ready to block any compromise.

I'm betting Bush would veto this as a "tax increase."

The best thing Congress can do right now is adjourn for the year, let the members go campaign, and then come back next year ready to do some business under President Obama with an increased Democratic majority in both houses.

If the Democrats can get close to 60 Senators, or even 58, it's going to help a lot since it will only take 2 or 3 Republican defections to move legislation and there's a chance of that

The only way to move our nation forward is to throw the Republican bastards out who are blocking everything in sight. That's a sad commentary on politics today.

PeteKent said...

P Smith so wrong when he thinks that Paris Hilton is hurting McCain more than Obama. Being attacked by her is good for McCain, she is soemone that thye public rejects as a flake, but more importantly the Paris ad keeps the focus on Obama as celebrity and not as leader and that tarnishes him. No one will remember that McCain went negative. Karl Rove could tell you that. So could Dick Morriss. Besides Obama is constantly sounding so smug and snide that he get his own bad marks for not running an above board campaign and that is much more damaging to his brand.

The Pew poll is being reported as people being sick of hearing about Obama. Perception is reality, my freinds, perception is reality!

And "Republican twat"? That demeans yourself and your candidate and demonstrates how worried you are.

Darrien Crow: Excellent analysis of how Obama is not a leader, but a poll driven follower.

He is a neophyte and the camera loves him, but he should have learned a bit more about triangulation from the Clintons!

Well said, to Brian too. Its good to see the disinformation here refuted in real time. Higgy, Va Con and me need help.

Where is Matt JH with his handwringing today?

OTF said...

SurveyUSA poll in OR is shady!

They have Hispanics at 4% instead of 10% of voters and have whites at 90% instead of 81%. They eliminated more than 1/2 of the Hispanic vote which Obama is winning in polls at 63% to 22%. He has much more than +3 in OR.

It seems more than Rasmussen arte playing games with their polls. The media and pollsters are determined to make things appear closer than it is b/c it's good business to keep interest and sell air time.

Jason said...

How is the Paris Hilton ad hurting Obama when it is focused on McCain's old age? Obama's face is no where to be seen in that "ad". Compairing McCain to the Crypt Keeper and The Golden Girls is hurting Obama??...yeah right.

PeteKent said...

Cugel:

You are a tiresome hack. I usally just scan your posts for soemthing to ridicule, since you never say anything worth paying attention to or that is not a product of your extreme patisanship.

This did catch my eye: "Drilling is utterly useless, so, of course the Republicans are for it."

UTTERLY USELESS? What BS! How do we get oil? Make it in a lab? How long will need oil? Like forever! It is a pipe dream to suggest we will NEVER need oil. What we don't want is foreign oil, but ours is fine thank you very much. We need energy, clown! You think if we ban oil that we can achieve some sort of perfect society or something. Just like Obama.

You, cugel, are the very sort of person that Rush Limbaugh makes fun of in that high-pitched voice of his.

$4.00 gas was a godsend to those of us who think that being GREEN is a crock. The tide is turning against environmentalism. Quick try and capture the energy in it as ebbs!

Rob said...

@ Brian Dell from way upthread-

Nate was talking about sponsoring the legislation--not just voting for it. Making the group of 10 a group of 11. I was talking about sponsor the legislation. The word 'sponsor' was in my four-line post. Try reading these things.

OTF said...

SurveyUSA also cooked the books in it's poll in Fla showing McCain +6

They used 43%Rep 38% Dem 17%IND
AS of July 1 37%R 41%Dem 22% IND

He gave Repub +5 in affiliation when they are actaully +4 Dem.

Marlon said...

If you look at the latest polls. John McCain (and the Republicans) are creeping up on Obama and the democrats on "who's better for the economy".

The drilling talk, has made the republicans, creep up on the democrats with the question of the economy. This is the case, despite the fact that "energy" is third (at only 10%) behind the Economy and the war, as what's most important to them.

Obama needs to move on from the Energy discussion, and back to bread and butter issues, Jobs, Social Security, trade, healthcare and infrastructure.

You assessment was correct Nate! We need to move off of energy/oil. It's not a winning argument for us/Obama at the moment.

Foretold Future said...

I for one welcome McCain's negative ads i.e. Paris Hilton. He's sinking his campaign better than Obama ever could. The masterstroke by Paris was hilarious and really put in perspective where McCain's campaign is going... nowhere. The funniest part is the that McCain camp actually responded to Paris.

The slip up on that whole tire gauge thing was amusing as well. McCain... please keep the hits coming. Everyone enjoys a little comedy every now and then.

Marlon said...

Yes! I think Obama should sign this also.

But don't think that McCain won't sign it either. He always follows Obama, with the hope that he can appear less partisan (and less a republican) to the "dolts" who he feels votes.

OTF said...

Also in OR they had party affiliation as 41%D 37%R 21%I...July 1st roles 43%D 33%R 24%I

Dems have a +10 in voter ID not +4...seems t oexplain even more how you get Obama +3

JRS said...

Brian:
Republicans "get out in front" of the economic issue in the same way each election. You blame the poor performance of your president on the previous Democratic administration. The sad fact is that the economy under-performs under Republican presidents. Just look at the growth rate patterns since 1940.

Change in Real GDP-

1940-1952
FDR/HST (D) 6.22%

1960-1960
IKE (R) 2.94%

1961-1968
JFK/LBJ (D) 4.85%

1969-1976
RMN/JRF (R) 2.80%

1977-1980
JEC (D) 3.30%

1981-1992
RWR/GHB (R) 2.99%

1993-2000
WJC (D) 3.98%

2001-2008
GWB (R) 2.53% est.

The average growth in real gross domestic product over nearly 70 years had been 4.99% for Democratic administrations and only 2.84% for the Republicans. You can take other economic indicators as well (unemployment rate, inequality, wage growth, stock market, etc.) and you will find the same thing.

This line of attack is getting old. The impact of Republican policies always seems to be relatively painful

DarienCrow said...

President Bush made a little announcement a few days back. He took down the federal block on offshore oil drilling.

It was technically meaningless words because it has no power without congressional desire to drill offshore. What it did do was force the price of oil to start trending down from the mere thought of drilling our own oil once again.

Can you possibly imagine what it would do to the price of oil if congress actually said "Yes we can"?

DarcyPennell said...

PeteKent:
Besides Obama is constantly sounding so smug and snide that he get his own bad marks for not running an above board campaign and that is much more damaging to his brand.

See, to me it's McCain who sounds smug. For instance his smirks when George Stephanopoulos asked him about the "lose a war, win an election" remark. People like you and I who strongly favor one candidate are naturally going to resent the other, especially when he's trying to score points against our guy. That doesn't matter because you and I aren't going to change our votes unless something extraordinary happens this fall.

We'd do better not to assume that our reactions to the candidates have any relationship to how Americans on the whole see them.

OTF said...

DarienCrow,

I guess you don't follow the news as the price of oil went down from $147 the same day inventory numbers were released showing decreased demand again. Demand has been down over 2% every month for the last 8 months. It's funny how oil went up 40% to $147 in that time. It's called specualation. Oil webt down again yesterday guess what more inventory numbers released showing decreased demand. The little statement by Bush had nothing to do with it and only McCain and those treuly ignorant recite that montra.

But be assured the speculators are going to drive the price up again. Supply has been constant and demand has been down continuously for 8 months. They are like brokers who short a stock and it starts going up and they are going to lose their shirt they try to talk down a stcok with good fundamentals b/c they are on the wrong side of the deal. In this case they are going ti talk up oil on any thing they can find b/c they bought oil at $140+ a few weeks ago and they are going to lose big if it keeps going down.

Brian said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

DarienCrow:

There's many factors that go into why market prices are where they are. To blame it on "speculators" is too simplistic. If speculators are the sole driver of price, then shouldn't we thank them for cheap oil in the 80s and 90s?

Marlon said...

"SurveyUSA also cooked the books in it's poll in Fla showing McCain +6

They used 43%Rep 38% Dem 17%IND
AS of July 1 37%R 41%Dem 22% IND

He gave Repub +5 in affiliation when they are actaully +4 Dem."

Hey OTF this is what all the polls are doing now, to keep the race close and control the narrative for the media.

It's a perfect example of how to keep the media masters happy.

The new Time poll did the same thing. The increased repubs by 2 and decreased Dems by 1. By those numbers, Obama should be up by 8 points in that poll. But "I can't have that now".

The Numantine said...

This whole debate is being framed wrong. The drilling moratorium expires Sept. 30 if no action is taken to extend it. The so-called "compromise" bill is actually not an approach to permit drilling, but an attempt to keep at least most of the moratorium in place.

OTF said...

Brian,

You do relaize they changed the rules on commodity margin buying. Speculation wasn't as rampant b/c you had to put up more money to buy a future. Currently you can by futures with as liitle as 5% which means you can buy at a 20X margin. The stock market you can buy at 2X or 100% margin. When you can buy at such huge nmargin that fuels specualtion and big profits. But those that bought at huge margins at 140+/barrel are crapping a brick right now looking at huuge losses if oil keeps falling. Maybe I can find the article again but somebosy wrote about the oil bubble. It's going to be like the housig bubble potentially with oil specualtors loosing huge and having to cover their losses. Some of them are over extended and can't or may have trouble covering.

judas_priest said...

Peter Kent:

Your calling Cugel a "tiresome hack" is like Ann Coulter calling someoone "shrill" and untruthful.

Brian said...

QTF:

Are you arguing that we should thank the speculators even more for cheap oil in the 80s and 90s?

Brian said...

You can't just say the speculators are the sole reason for high prices now, and then believe speculators had nothing to do with cheap oil in previous decades. Either they have immense influence, or they do not.

raft said...

So PeteKent, last week, among other things, you predicted that Obama was going to pick Bayh as his VP on Tuesday. How did that work out? You also predicted that Obama would be widely criticized for his Olympics ad buy. Within days McCain made an even larger ad buy during the Olympics. Again, how did that prediction of yours work out?

If you have ever made a correct prediction or analysis about anything, feel free to point it out to me. I really doubt you can. PeteKent: the most prolific and yet the most continuously wrong commenter on 538.

Chuck said...

If Obama does support this bill, I cannot wait to hear the spin on the right-wing shows and radio stations. It will be classic.

judas_priest said...

Marlon:

Every your paranoid vision of polls being cooked is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you would have us believe that the people running these polls are whores, producing bent results for money, even at the cost of ruining their professional reputations. (And it would take a number of people to produce this bending.) On the other hand you obviously think these people are loyal to their “johns,” willing to keep their mouths shut about this. You also think that the purveyors of these allegedly slanted polls are making a ton of money from publishing them. And that changing the results a couple of points makes a major difference, even though most of the other polls are in the same range.

Where is any evidence other than inside your head for this warped vision? Consider what one blabber could make selling his/her story.

Consider further that random sampling will produce samples such as these purely by chance. There is a real world out there – find it.

Alex S. said...

Many people, on the left and the right, have mistaken Obama´s "change" message for a dedication to "re-liberalize" the US and bring back old, staunchly left policies. But instead, he means to change the political climate, the way of discourse. Instead of reenacting the Culture Wars of the 60´s he wants to leave them behind. This bill is exactly what he is aiming for.

2 years ago, McCain might have been on the list, too - his energy plan just has a different focus, but his rhetorics have probably broken all bridges.

dsimon said...

Brian: I've followed economics for about 25 years, and I can tell you that its terribly difficult for such agencies to be accurate on market forces like that. They miss one variable, or understate or overstate some aspect, and their entire model is shot. Its not that easy.

If it's not that easy, what does that say about McCain's confident assertions that more drilling will substantially affect the price of oil? Where's the support for his calls that drilling will get us out of $4 per gallon gas prices?

The facts are pretty clear: even if the offshore ban is lifted, no oil will come onto the market for about 7 to 10 years. So it won't affect gas prices today, which are based primarily on supply and demand. I haven't heard anyone who says otherwise, so I think any assertions to the contrary are just wrong.

Oil is a global commodity, so even when that supply does come onto the market, its effect won't be substantial. If there's anyone in the field who thinks this extra supply is going to really help things, I haven't heard it and McCain hasn't produced one.

Finally, there are plenty of other things we can and should be doing right now. European vehicle efficiency standards are already at 44 mpg., so we don't need new technology; we could substantially cut consumption if we just chose better cars to drive. And in 10 years, when that offshore oil does start coming onto the market, we should be transitioning off of oil-powered vehicles anyway--if we're serious about doing something about this problem.

We can't wait ten years to stop oil from limiting our foreign policy, to keep sending money to countries that don't like us, to keep putting our troops at risk to maintain the supply lines, to keep polluting our local and global environments. If we're serious, we need to start making different decisions now. Drilling, even if it helps with gas prices (which it probably won't), just delays dealing with these other problems which need to be dealt with now. (Even if we increased domestic production by 50%, we'd still be importing about 50% of our oil, so that's not a big help.)

At least that's the argument Democrats should be making. It has the added advantage of being true.

dsimon said...

Brian: The 1990s boom wasn't due to higher taxes - it was business growth overcoming those hikes. And tax cuts in the 2000s didn't create an economic downturn - tax cuts helped make that downturn less painful.

I know that's a popular assertion by those who defend lower taxes, but where's the proof? How does one know if the economy would have done better with lower taxes, or if the higher taxes which led to a balanced budget helped lower interest rates which helped continue that sustained economic growth?

Supply-siders said in the early 1990s that tax hikes would destroy the delicate economic recovery that was under way. They didn't. Yes, I agree that the Laffer Curve is correct at the endpoints: eventually, sufficiently high taxation will produce decreasing revenues because they will take away the incentive to be productive. But I think it's pretty clear that a top marginal income tax rate of 39.6% isn't high enough to produce that result. I don't know anyone who was deterred from making more money because the additional income would be put in that bracket.

Moreover, one could argue that the Bush tax cuts have made things worse because they have left us with far larger deficits. The debt interest is sapping our tax money which could be used for productive purposes (or used for responsible tax cuts, if one prefers that route) and the mounting debt has contributed to a weaker dollar which has pushed up oil prices, further weakening the economy.

It seems to me that the economy just isn't sensitive to relatively small changes in marginal income tax rates at the levels where they are these days. One can play all sorts of hypotheticals, but there's no way to prove that things would have been even worse without the tax cuts, or even better with more of them. But it does seem to me that the 1990s show that the Clinton-era tax code was not a substantial impingement on sustained growth that benefited those at all income levels.

Karen Desmond said...

Perhaps he is already moving towards doing this. On aug 6 he was on Jon Ralston's show, and when talking about making a compromise on this issue he specifically mentioned the Gang of 10 (it's at about 1:45 of this clip)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Ralston_vs_Obama.html

NonWonderDog said...

I've already seen the Republican counter-attack on this: "Obama has no energy plan, he's just grabbing on to the gang-of-ten plan."

That completely ignores the fact that Obama's web page is much more detailed with respect to energy policy, of course, but that hasn't stopped McCain yet from claiming that Obama has no plan.

Allen said...

FYI, Sam Wang's blog at Princeton allows users to submit comments.

He had one blog post criticizing 538.com for having a predicted electoral vote distribution that was not Gaussian. I posted a comment pointing out that you only get a Gaussian distribution if you assume independence between the state outcomes, and 538.com's includes correlations which breaks that assumption. I posted another comment further explaining how not including state-to-state correlations when making certain predictions can give you a false sense of confidence in your answer. (Sam Wang's results do not include correlations.)

It turns out however that Sam Wang moderates the comments on this blog. He deleted the comments I made, and also deleted an earlier comment I made pointing out that the # of EV's on one of his maps did not add up to 538.

Because he is moderating thoughtful comments that he does not agree with or that point out problems in his assumptions or methodology, I believe both his site and his blog should be boycotted, i.e., simply ignored.

Thank you.

KevinHayden said...

I've never trusted gangs. Not the Mafia kind. Not the Westside Story kind. Not the disintegrating urban core kind. Nor the first political 'gang' in Communist China.

Who decided to adopt such a phrase from the Communist Chinese? We adopted rhetoric about the 'homeland' from similarly repressive societies.I won't support anything anybody proposes that comes from a gang.

And Obama shouldn't either.

He's got an economic program to push and the election won't be won on detailed energy analysis nor deals from gangs.

Virginia Conservative said...

Keep trying to tell the public that higher taxes= economic growth. Good luck with that!

Michael Herrmann said...

I think a lot of people misunderstand the real point of the Paris Hilton kerfluffle and all the other negative campaigning coming out of McCain's camp and Obama's response to it. We are in bitch-slap territory here. Whoever ends up looking weak or ridiculous is going to lose. Right now I think that McCain is the loser, because Paris's entry into the "debate" makes him an object of derision. An association with her doesn't hurt Obama so long as the American people are laughing at the other guy.

The Cunctator said...

Only downside is it screws us on any possibility of getting climate change legislation that will allow us to avoid complete disaster.

Oh well.

KAP said...

Bingo!

Spot-on, brilliant analysis. I only hope the Obama campaign reads this blog.

Bob said...

cunctator, China and India are pumping the majority of carbon into the air right now - working to be 'carbon perfect' for us won't really solve the issue, especially with some chanting 'drill drill drill' for political purposes.

What this does is allow them their 'psychological' benefit without really giving out anything new while we get to push the new technologies. If the recent MIT news about near 100% efficiency electrolysis of H20 into oxygen and hydrogen pans out, all the alternative technologies that produce electricity; wind, tide, solar can now be easily and safely turned into hydrogen vehicle fuel. Add in the 2 massive natural gas deposits discovered in Pennsylvania and Louisiana and our need for petroleum-based fuels will plummet without adding a dollar to the trade deficit.

Switching to in country energy sources will reduce our carbon footprint, spend money in-country with tangible long term benefits, and maybe even someday eliminating a need for much oil at all - one will follow the other and our tech and example would spread to the rest of the world with time.

Heck we are overdue for another ice age anyway - maybe global warming and it will collide and will just end up tepid as a result. ;)

PeteKent said...

08.08.08

It is being widely reported (Jake tapper and Open Secrets.Org broke it) that Obama has received more money from big oil (Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc) than McCain! Who wudda thunk it?

We all should since McCain voted against Bush's giveaway bill to the oil industry while Obama voted for it!

Perhaps Obama should showcase that vote in a new ad: It would demonstrate his bi-partisanship.

aria said...

PeteKent:

According to the same author who examined the issue a few days earlier:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics -- that's us -- John McCain's campaign had collected $1.3 million from oil and gas interests through June. If you add in the money being collected by the Republican Party to support McCain's candidacy, the total figure could be $2 million, as Obama's campaign claims, or it could be a little less or a little more. But until the accounting is sorted out between the McCain campaign and the Victory Fund, we can't put a precise dollar figure on it. (
Drilling Down: Obama's Charge on McCain's Oil Money
)


And since when donations contributed by the company's employees constitute a support from the company itself? If, as an employee, one wishes to help his/her candidate, that does not necessarily make the exec board align with the same candidate.

Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500. McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on. (You can see detail on all these companies in the spreadsheet linked below.) McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000 to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to about $394,000. (Oil Industry Leans Toward McCain, But Big Producers Favor Obama)

Tim said...

Obama is playing politics as usual. I was really excited when I first heard him speak, back when he was trying to court the nation. Now that we put out, he's definitely become a bit more of a 'flip-flopper' as the saying goes nowadays. Anyone catch that CNN footage of the angry reporters circling the skies with no destination? The Obama camp put them on a flight to nowhere, under the presumption they'd be flying with the actual candidate. Where was Obama that night? Meeting with Hillary and the boys at Bilderberg, of course. Same old crap, just a different bag to hold it.

Daystar2002 said...

Are we saying the solution to all of our political problems is to play one part of the country against the rest? I'm not clear why it is environmentally ok to drill off the East Coast but not off the West. So it is all right for people on the East Coast to decide if they agree to drill but not on the West Coast. And people in states that don't boarder the ocean, they really need to mind their own business, right? Oh, and I don't suppose that the people in Alaska should be able to decide about drilling in their state? That reasoning reeks of nothing but slimy POLITICS.

"$20 billion to R&D”? With $100 plus barrel oil, do you really think we need to pay taxes to have someone invest in new technology for transportation. And who needs a subsidy to get motivated to purchase an alternate fuel vehicle. Sounds like buying votes.

"$84 billion" Yea! Let's use the federal government to take back our gasoline money. Those dirty rotten oil companies. They took our money. By the way, who's paying the licensing fees? Wait a minute. Who winds up paying the $84 billion? So basically they want to rob from the oil companies and rob the taxpayers at the same time? Oh! I get it. They win and we lose. Makes sense to me.

Reminds me what Senator Everett Dirksen said many years ago, ”it is absolutely critical for politicians to have principles." and "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about some serious money." Where have all the Everett Dirksen’s of the world gone. I don’t see them anywhere in the “Gang of 10”

Are we so politically and economically naive as to believe that this is actually a solution? This is nothing just plain political expediency. For those of you that don’t recognize the term, it means now is the time to grab all we can.

These guys were elected to be U.S. Senators not State Senators. The balance are names no one outside of their state recognizes with the exception of Lindsey Graham. Senator Graham has just moved himself to the top of the list of biggest disappointments in the Senate or the Congress. Potomac fever has overtaken him

Beamer's said...

This is a killer post. And a great site. Keep it up.

-Jake of socialdynamite.com

John said...

I can't believe that no-one has noticed that this bill does precisely what Paris Hilton stated as her energy policy in her counter-ad.

Also I think the whole thing is weak sauce really, and I don't care about drilling one way or the other... I don't really get why anybody does.

Sustainable Energy said...

John,
Even though Paris looked intelligent and maybe actually hot for the first time (brains are attractive), she had a fundamental mistake that McCain immediately made as well when he followed up to her ad. She says to do off-shore drilling "IN THE SHORT-TERM" and then alternative energy in the LONG-TERM. Republican propaganda notwithstanding, drilling would not provide relief for a decade, if ever. So, before McCain signs on as a co-sponsor to the Paris Plan, or you draft her as a member of the Gang of 10, this should be clarified.

徵信社robin said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信

徵信, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, , 徵信公司, , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, , , , , 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, , , , 徵信, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

mate said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴

住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,