What's going on in Britain is inspiring, but it still looks like the same dynamic holds as here: Majorities in Labour and the Conservatives (as well as the mass media) still regard support for civil rights as some sort of distasteful obsession. I may not understand British politics enough in that regard; SueNJ97's post at 9:46 provides more room for hope.

But, in this country, we also have some measure of support for the Constitution across the political spectrum. Remember that, while the Republican leadership is completely anti-freedom (the bluntest way of putting it), Ron Paul has been getting 16% of the Primary vote from the rank and file. Similarly, the Dem leadership has been MIA, there are a few resolutely pro-freedom pols, and most support has been among the membership. Is that sufficient?

I'm all for the people leading the way when there is little support among the political elite. But when the majority of the populace supports civil rights while there is no single aggrieved demographic (or more than one) to lead a mass movement, can that happen? Doesn't it make support for the Constitution too politically "soft?"

Do you want us and the Iraqi people to lose? . . . just so your guy gets elected? . . . or so that you can say I told you so?

RTFA, pal. If you ever bothered doing so, you would find that "the Iraqi people" are pretty united against our hundred-year ("Make it a thousand!") occupation.

That Bush! He said he was a uniter, not a divider, didn't he? Well, there you go!

As for the American people, we've been purposely kept in the dark about these monstrosities that we're paying for. But, by overwhelming majorities, we are against paying more, in blood or treasure, for Bush's luxury war.

Why do you hate democracy, at home and abroad?

Oh, and as for the chaos/ethnic cleansing/civil war that the Iraqis will have when we leave? They already had it. Baghdad, which used to be a patchwork of Sunni and Shia populations (among others), is now rigidly divided into huge Sunni and Shiite blocks. (Sort of like, I don't know, Boston in the '80s.)

But they've finally found something for them to politically unite around: getting us to leave.

It's not the eevull environmentalists that are keeping us from getting American oil, it's the fact that we've been very, very good at finding and exploiting oil resources. As a result, American oil production has been declining since 1970. Bringing Alaskan oil on-line in the early '80s only slowed the decline. Yes, there are some marginal fields that could yield a bit more oil, but for the most part, the major oil companies have moved offshore and, beyond, to other countries.

On top of that, most countries besides Saudi have had declining production since the 90's, if not earlier.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of developing our Atlantic continental shelf. (I'm against developing ANWR; the environmental cost is too high for the payoff.) But other countries fringing the Atlantic--Canada, Norway, Brazil, Nigeria, etc--have successfully extracted oil there. The geologic setting is similar all the way around the basin, and countries with high environmental standards and significant fisheries have managed to develop oil fields with minimal impact. As others have mentioned upthread, the transport of oil is more hazardous than offshore exploration and production. The real obstacle has been those pesky people living in the coastal states, on both sides of the political spectrum. Get them to go along with drilling!

But it's still not going to solve our basic energy dilemma, nor our greenhouse-gas problem. There's no excuse for not pursuing conservation throughout our economy. In many cases, that will require government incentives. Coal will continue to be exploited, yes, but we've been increasing our usage of that, too (doubling every ~30 years), so that "250 year supply" we had back in the 70's will probably be gone sometime in the mid-century. Renewables need to be developed further--this will require some real support for research. Nuclear power plants should be built, although I understand that right now the economics are against new-plant construction. But, by any measure, the short-lived fossil-fuel age is coming to an end, like it or not. I hope we can transition to whatever follows without destroying ourselves or our environment in the process.

Oh, and for the last time, Cheney's lying (surprise!): CHINA IS NOT DRILLING OFFSHORE CUBA. (Click the sig.) They're doing some landward seismic near Havana; that's about it.

I've noted a very few people in comment threads, here and elsewhere, that explain how this is all part of the new Hope and Change, and Paul Dirks note at 9:50 AM about posters at my.barackobama.com is pretty disturbing. But much more common are disappointed Obama supporters who (barely) accept this as regrettable political calculation. (That position is as charitable as I could get, when I'm in a good mood.) Could you please post links to "liberal" bloggers or pundits who give this atrocity their full-throated support?

I ask because we've heard taunts about "obamatons" all through the primary season. I've always assumed such creatures, if they existed, were a tiny minority of Obama supporters; this issue actually provides a pretty solid way to identify one in the flesh.

Oh, that's good. "Obama is the snooty guy at the country club." As others have noted, this observation isn't exactly going to be rocketing around the beer joints of America. (On the other hand, I hope it does catch on among the MSM braindead. "Oh gosh, Biff, I totally know what you mean! There's a guy like that at my country club, who thinks he's above all the other members." Meanwhile, Mr. & Mrs. America ask each other, "WTF?")

You have no game, Rove. You never did. You were just a nasty, ruthless little ratfucker that happened along at the right cultural moment. Now, your products have sabotaged America, and 2/3 of the country wouldn't touch 'em with a barge pole.