No. Nonono. No offshore drilling, Obama

By GottaLaff

I understand why he's saying what he's saying, but no:

The Palm Beach Post reports, "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes. 'My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,' Obama said..."

"'If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done,' Obama said."

More: "[H]e told the Post he would be open to expanding the current drilling boundaries if it meant winning approval for more fuel-efficient cars, developing alternative energy sources and making the country more 'energy independent.'"

Doesn't one cancel out the other? Drilling cannot be done without causing enviromental damage sooner or later. And it will do nothing to make the country more energy independent.

"'I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem,' he said. 'It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'"

In that case, why do it? Why compromise his own standards and our environment to make a meaningless compromise with the other side? While it's true that a majority of Americans support offshore drilling, will this really win Obama a substantial number of votes?