The White House spent much of its political capital on passing healthcare reform, leaving the rest of President Obama’s agenda in limbo. The vulnerable Democrats that risked their seats by voting in favor of Obamacare are increasingly at odds with climate change regulation.
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), for example, blasted the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide as a ‘radical expansion of the federal government’s reach.’ Ironically, her criticism of government expansion was unleashed just days after voting for a $1 trillion healthcare bill.
Sen. McCain won Kirkpatrick’s district by 8.8 points in the 2008 presidential election, explaining her hesitance to drift too far to the left. But Kirkpatrick is not the only Democrat defending a seat in a conservative district. She is among a number of Democrats that are unwilling to wager their careers between now and the November midterm elections.
Because of the circumstances, President Obama is making a new offer to pass a cap-and-trade energy bill. In an effort to buy support from moderates, Obama announced plans to expand offshore energy exploration and production. But is it an empty overture?
Consider what the ”exploration plan” includes: No drilling in the Pacific, no drilling in the North East Atlantic, no drilling in much of Alaska and no drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) observed:
“The ironic reality is that the Administration’s new policy actually closes more offshore drilling in sites than it opens. Had the Administration done nothing, a lease plan was already set to take effect that would have opened vast expanses of the Outer Continental Shelf, drastically increasing our nation’s ability to tap into our domestic energy supply. Essentially, President Obama has stepped in and halted that plan from going into effect and has, with his new plan, opened only a fraction of the land that would have otherwise been made accessible.”
Despite the media headlines, it remains a bill that restricts American energy development and further promotes U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources.

My understanding is that this “initiative” also cancelled a number of existing leases in the Bakken reserves. These have created many jobs in the Dakotas, both in oil production and in affiliated sectors like transportation