Sen. Obama hits administration's energy policies
CHICAGO (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama accused the Bush administration Monday of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe.
"Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program," the Illinois Democrat said. He referred to one of the principal themes of President Bush's State of the Union address January 31.
...
Obama had nothing but criticism for Bush's efforts on the issue.
"When it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure in imagination and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for change is coming from the very people who are running the country," he said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Obama is correct. After all, what should we expect? Many of the people in the administration are former oil executives. Why don't Americans see that the Bush/Cheney "energy policy" will always be to 1) pay lip service to independence from fossil fuels and use terms like "Clear Skies" or whatever, while 2) trying desperately to maintain the status quo? There is just too much money involved in "big oil", and the administration puts money above the interests of the country in many cases.
If the Democrats can come up with a concise way to articulate a plan for ways to do things in the best interests of Americans, and demonstrate ways of doing things not just because the dollar dictates but because the needs of the people dictate... they will win their November elections in cakewalks, and win the White House in 2008 as well. If people can be made to realize they will benefit more from voting in their own best interests instead of voting in the interests of a wealthy, select few... I think we might see some Democratic landslide victories.
What would it take to achieve that? I still think that finding ways to steal control of the national political debate from the Republicans is the first step, and that much of the GOP advantage is in the ways they use psychology and in the ways they manipulate language (of course they have control over AM radio and FOX television, and they also have a large hand in the rest of our mainstream media... but it's tough to argue they haven't gotten there through techniques of psychology and manipulation of the language.)
For example, how many times have Republican speakers used the term "9-11" as a political tool? Too many times to count. The mere mention of the term "9-11" is used to pull up mental images of people running in panic from collapsing buildings, of firefighters searching through rubble in vain, of Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts planning more attacks... The mere use of the term "9-11" instills fear into many Americans, whether it's a conscious or subconscious kind of fear. Heck, we even phone 9-1-1 if we are having personal emergencies. (I don't believe the fact that the attacks occurred on "9-11" was a coincidence. "9-11" and "9-1-1" both score fear points!) Anyway, we need to find a way to take that one away from the Republicans. I am trying to do my part by referring to those events as the "World Trade Center Attacks".
If we Democrats consciously refer to those events as something other than "9-11", it will help. If we consciously refer to the "estate tax" as just that, and not use their term ("death tax"), it will help. If we consciously refer to the "war on terror" (their term) by a different name, it will help. It will help us if we refer to "terrorism" (their term), "gay rights" (their term), "gay marriage" (their term), "gun control" (their term) and so many others by new names, so the same old fearful images won't continually be churned up in the minds of American voters.
Pointing up the bungling of the Bush administration is only going to take us so far. The GOP has gone for our jugular, while we have been sitting patiently, waiting for them to implode. I think a far better strategy is to see what we can do about beating them at their own game.
The Republican party spends large amounts of its money on its think tanks, much more than the Democrats do. I think it's way past time we caught up with them and used their own strategies against them.
That was a lot of blabbering, I'll be the first to admit. So...
I think Feingold/Obama would be a great ticket, by the way!
Another great commentary by Snaver,
I'd go with the Feingold/Obama ticket. Ahhh seems like Barack is starting to come out from cover, looks like we might have a contender.
Post a Comment