I don't know if banning all new offshore drilling is a good idea as some on the left have suggested in reaction to Obama's recent announcement. I do know the issue has a long way to go before getting to the President's desk.
In a business where the art of negotiation is key, and proper framing is essential, one must hold one's cards "close to the vest" as they say. You don't throw away your most powerful bargaining chips without getting something in return. I fail to see what the Obama Administration has received in return for playing one of its big chips, namely, the willingness to permit some offshore drilling.
The only way this makes sense is if Senator Lindsey Graham promised his "Yes" vote in return for the drilling policy. One Republican vote will put this bill over the top. But even if this is a behind-the-scenes deal, why would the White House go public and cut off any chance of leveraging the concession further in the future? Make the promise to play ball on drilling, but don't announce the policy change until the heat of the debate, when it can have the most potential impact. In my opinion, it is highly probable that there is no deal with Senator Graham. I also don't buy into the argument that this was an attempt to keep gas prices low heading into summer. How could the promise of paltry reserves available nearly a decade from now have an impact on prices today?
When the opposition is playing 24-7 hardball, major concessions do not make sense unless the Administration gets something in return. Republicans have opposed a very centrist agenda ever since Obama came to the White House. The reflexive tendency to say "No" first showed itself with the stimulus plan, a balanced package that had tons of tax cuts and spent far less than many economists were recommending. Those nods in the ideological direction of the GOP were ignored, and the same pattern has held true for other pieces of legislation, most notably health care.