Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:
1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,
they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.
David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/op...brooks.html?hp |
Really? Look what my friend Google
turned up, by THE pro ANWR group no less:
Quote:
|
Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of “green” legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit:
|