I listened to this wonderful talk on NPR last night. I thought this was the most important part of the speech:
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.
The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.
We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.
<
p>After he was finished, NPR launched into its “analysis” — I was so disgusted I had to turn it off. They completely ignored this call to action, and focused on such things as how the lack of drilling would hurt the economy of the Gulf. I thought I was listening to Fox News!
Republicans accused him of exploiting the crisis to promote an unwanted energy policy that, in prior proposals from the president, would cap the emission of greenhouse gases and force polluters to buy and trade emissions credits.
“The White House may view this oil spill as an opportunity to push its agenda in Washington, but Americans are more concerned about what it plans to do to solve the crisis at hand,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.).
Rep. Darrell Issa (R, Calif.) faulted the president for glancing over a major issue affecting the Gulf: Protecting the jobs and workers at risk from his six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling. “The politics of this crisis should not result in the permanent loss of tens of thousands of American jobs,” Mr. Issa said.
When Jimmy Carter gave a great speech about responsibility the American public loved it, but soon the pundits began to deride it. NPR, for all of its liberal journalism (which largely consists of treating minority and LGBT people as if they were people) is stacked with opinion-givers like Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts-shallow millionaires who don’t see politics as a way to achieve a better future for our children, and Cokie and Juan mock anyone who does see politics as a productive pursuit.
but I have noticed that they are trying to look and be more “balanced” lately.
<
p>I really thought the speech was very good, and wished he had made in in front of Congress and then he would have gotten some live response to the call to action and the negative comments would have come from real Republicans……………………
I stand with President Obama to pave the way for a clean-energy future that:
Combats climate change;
Creates a new economy powered by green jobs; and
Ends our dependence on foreign oil.
doublemansays
I agree that Obama’s call to action was the strongest part of the speech and many of the initial reviews of the speech have been very poor.
<
p>My problem is that the call to action was also pretty weak. This is a time to offer a bold, clear vision of where this country should go. I think Obama missed a perfect chance to offer that vision.
<
p>More important than the speech, though, is the disconnect between Obama’s words and his actions (typical of almost all politicians). He has expressed anger and has talked about holding BP accountable, but I think we’ve seen too much trust of BP from the White House on this mess. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how committed he is to their accountability.
<
p>It has been a growing feeling for a while, but I just don’t trust Obama to do the right thing anymore. Frankly, I don’t even trust him to even try to do the right thing. (On some issues, like the war and terror and detentions, he has been an unmitigated disaster and really damn scary.)
<
p>I wish Obama had offered a much bolder plan that he could then back off from, instead of offering a less expansive vision that he will still back off from anyway. Incremental pragmatism seems to be the goal of this White House rather than a means to an end.
howland-lew-naticksays
I thought he looked weak. Gestures and body language not in time with the teleprompter words. Whoever is in charge of the Executive Branch, it isn’t the President.
<
p>As for who’s in charge of the oil spill, it looks like BP runs the show. They play the music that makes the politicians dance. Isn’t BP one of the biggest political contributors?
<
p>Is Las Vegas giving odds on how long the spill will continue?
p>The only thing she didn’t mention was Obama’s birth certificate?
christophersays
…is will the President’s actions back up his words. So often he decides it’s time to say something. He says all the right things and we all say that’s why we voted for him, but then nothing. His health care address to Congress is another example. We all cheered when he said he would call out the lies, but we didn’t hear much from him again. It takes more than one speech; he must pound the bully pulpit day after day until both friend and foe alike realize he means business on these things.
When the President started to talk about our dependence on oil, the political cowardice that has kept us dependent on it, etc., I thought he was building up to an announcement of a major new legislative agenda–for instance, major tax hikes on fossil fuels, a Manhattan Project for R&D on fusion power, etc. I think the speech was that kind of occasion, so I was sorry that the President mostly stuck to exhortations on this topic that we’ve heard before.
<
p>TedF
stomvsays
but ain’t no way he’s in a position to do either between now and Nov 2010.
<
p>Pricing carbon (tax, cap’n’trade, etc) doesn’t have the votes in the senate, it’s messy, and we’ve got an election coming up where “jobs now” trumps good policy, period.
<
p>Spending money triggers deficit hawks, who migrate to other climes during Republican presidents but somehow are always in town when a Democrat wants to spend money on building up society instead of blowing up someone else’s society.
Well, I’m a deficit hawk, but there isn’t much I wouldn’t put on the chopping block, including “third rail” issues, for R&D on energy independence.
<
p>TedF
stomvsays
The reality is that R&D isn’t going to get us there. It’ll help, but it’s too slow and problems like this (300 million users, each using energy in many different ways) can’t be solved quickly with R&D.
<
p>Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on mass transit? Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on energy retrofits? Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on power grid infrastructure and continued/expanded subsidies for renewable electricity?
stomvsays
since you are a hawk, I’ve got some ideas on how to pay for all of that. I’m no OMB, so I have no idea what the order of magnitude on all these suggestions are, but here’goes, in no particular order (and recognizing that we don’t have the political will to do a damn one of ’em):
<
p>1. Raise the federal gas tax, one cent. Each month. Indefinitely. Frankly, it’s subtle, but would have the long term impact of shifting us toward higher MPG vehicles without coming down hard on those who happen to have a lower MPG vehicle at the moment and won’t be in a position to change immediately. 1/3 of our carbon footprint is oil, and a big chunk of that is imported. Higher MPG is part of the solution, and sustained higher gas prices induce higher MPG.
<
p>2. Carbon tax / cap and trade with 100% of allowances sold at auction. Price energy correctly and watch as people figure out how to get more with less.
<
p>3. Change the Schedule A mortgage interest rate deduction. Currently, all interest paid on a loan under $1M is tax free. I’d change that (on all folks who buy after Jan 1, 2011 or whatever) to something like: (1) calculate (1000 + 100*num_dependents). (2) divide 1 by the square feet of your home. (3) that fraction of your mortgage interest is tax free, still subject to the $1M limit. I don’t mind subsidizing somebody’s home ownership, I really don’t. I don’t mind subsidizing a kitchen, a bathroom or two, and bedrooms. I do mind subsidizing their indoor car parking, their home office, their bonus room, their man cave, their other den, etc. Bigger houses consume more energy directly in the form of heating and cooling and lighting, but they also lead to more oil consumption because they beg for sprawl — a lower housing density which means that folks drive farther to get there, and they’re less likely to walk or bicycle because things are too far.
<
p>4. Reduce some farm subsidies. America’s overconsumption of meat is partially fueled by farm subsides which make beef cheaper than bell peppers. End result: lower physical health and farming practices which over-consume fuel. As a side note, it also prevents the importation of sugar from places which grow it efficiently, resulting in corn syrup here and less opportunity for ethanol.
<
p>
<
p>We can cut spending, increase taxes, or buy on credit. If you don’t want to to the third one, you gotta do one of the other two. Getting off of fossil fuels and/or imported fuel is going to require both spending and taxes in my view.
The answer to your question is a qualified “yes”. I don’t profess any expertise on these issues, but it seems to me that energy efficiency measures (of course, mass transit in particular has benefits other than energy efficiency–I take the train to work every day!) are the medium-term goal; the long-term goal has to be new sources of energy. Wind? Yes. Solar? Yes. My own favorite–fusion? Yes.
<
p>Of course, I think that we ought to do this in a fiscally responsible way, so I agree with much of what you write below about how to pay for it, particularly increasing taxes on gasoline and carbon. I haven’t made up my mind about the mortgage interest deduction–I will say that one way potentially to solve the problem, though one that would cause some pain, is to stop patching the AMT every year. I agree with you in part about farm subsidies–I think we should subsidize more efficiently, which means less subsidies for cattle and other meat products, but I happen to think it’s important for us to ensure that we retain the capacity to produce enough food to feed the nation even in the face of lower labor costs abroad (of course, I would say the same thing for key strategic industries like steel and oil, but I guess I lost that battle a long time ago!)
<
p>TedF
hoyapaulsays
Frankly, I think it was a mistake for Obama to give in to the chattering media hounds who insisted that Obama “look like he’s taking charge” by making an address to the nation. It wasn’t a terrible speech, but it was far from great.
<
p>For one, it seemed awfully disjointed to me. The first part focused on past and current efforts to deal with the spill itself, which was good but needed to be fleshed out more. I don’t think people have a appreciation about how difficult it is for the government to mobilize to address an environmental disaster of this magnitude caused by gross corporate negligence a mile down in the ocean. It’s not an easy fix, and Obama could have made the details of the situation more clear.
<
p>While I certainly applaud the need to achieve a clean energy future, I don’t think it was particularly useful to talk about it in this speech. The fact is, anything Obama says about clean energy at this point is overshadowed by the fact that millions of gallons of oil continue to leak into the ocean. This isn’t to say that Obama shouldn’t use this crisis as an opportunity to push for cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels. He should. But the opportunity to do so is after the immediate danger is mitigated by actually stopping the flow of oil.
<
p>Obama should have focused on like a laser beam on (1) explaining the leak and its disastrous environmental consequences; (2) what the government is doing to stop the leak; and (3) why the drilling moratorium is necessary until we can ensure that the sort of gross corporate negligence witnessed here doesn’t happen again. Talking about clean energy while the immediate crisis continues may sound great, but gets us no closer to actually enacting new legislation.
Obama could have seriously energized his youth supporters again by getting angry and pushing harder than ever for cap and trade legislation as well as seriously commiting to finding good, feesable, reusable fuels. Mr.President you can not lose the youth and based on what’s happening at my school, You are falling fast. We cannot afford to lose our majorities this fall or else this country will fall apart again. Show show leadership and get to work
<
p>Do Something about the Gulf and Stick It To The Republicans for once!
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iiisays
Shouldn’t it be just “Do Something about the Gulf for once!”
<
p>FDR didn’t say do something about Pearl Harbor and stick it to the Republicans. We needed a team effort. JFK didn’t say let’s go to the moon and stick it to the republicans.
<
p>Isn’t this disaster such a magnitude that politics should be taken out of it?
<
p>We have a calamity approaching our shores and nothing and our president is failing in protecting and mitigating the damage.
<
p>I’ll hang up and listen off line for any comments you may have.
They don’t want to work with Obama. They flat out hate him, hate him, hate him. If he wanted to have free pizza for the country, they would call it a hit against small businesses. I don’t want their help anymore and I don’t think he should even try working with them anymore. He should just push Dems hard to vote YES or reconcile with the Progressive members of Congress and if they don’t the party shouldn’t offer them any help when a big scary Primary opponent knocks at their door. I think that Obama should stay down in the Gulf until the problem is fixed and prove his real commitment towards energy independence to the American public not to us progressives. If the GOP is willing to drop this absolute crap about socialism, birth certificates, and slow responses then we can talk about compromises but first we need to stand up to stupid and make sure this Novermber we make their party powerless and make the effort to get rid of every single one of them. This spill wasn’t political until the GOP made it that way
somervilletomsays
I think what Ernie is trying to say is that adding “and Stick It To The Republicans for once” hurts far more than it helps. I don’t read Ernie’s comment to mean that we shouldn’t stick it to the Republicans, I take it to mean that we shouldn’t TALK about it. JUST DO IT.
<
p>Look, think about the audience for all this.
<
p>1. Die-hard Republicans are going to oppose what he does and whine about what President Obama says, and aren’t ever going to support, contribute to, or vote for President Obama anyway. Other than sticking a finger in their eye, your suffix (“and stick it …”) accomplishes nothing. It won’t change their behavior or ours.
<
p>2. Moderate Republicans (an endangered species) might support what President Obama proposes, unless President Obama frames it in a political message that is offensive to them. Your suffix drives away the few moderate Republicans who are left, and yet gains nothing in exchange.
<
p>3. Independents might enthusiastically support President Obama’s proposals as proposals. Your suffix will absolutely turn them off.
<
p>4. Moderate Democrats enthusiastically support President Obama proposals, yet feel that your suffix is gratuitously hostile. They are likely to criticize his “excessive partisanship”.
<
p>5. Die-hard Democrats will love the proposal and love the suffix. They’d love the proposal anyway, and eagerly add the suffix themselves if President Obama leaves it off.
<
p>So the net is that President Obama should forgo the political posturing and get on with the management/recovery plan — which he shows every sign of doing.
“Senator Kerry supports closing tax loopholes for the oil and gas industry,” Kerry’s chief of staff David Wade e-mailed Raw Story, in response to a query. “However, the tax extenders bill is not the right vehicle for this reform because we need it included in comprehensive energy and climate legislation so they can help pay for the new tax incentives and investments for clean energy we are proposing.”
“He has introduced legislation to do so and has already succeeded in scaling back some of the loopholes including the manufacturing deduction for the oil and gas industry,” Wade said. “This was a simple case of needing this revenue for that fight in July.”
The Sanders amendment would have used the funds for debt reduction and efficiency programs.
p>“A tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government.” –Spiro T. Agnew
liveandletlivesays
with a disappointing end. I thought it was very weak, and pretty much a repeat of what we’ve heard on every important issue since Obama too office.
<
p>
So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party — as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development — and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.
All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.
<
p>Haven’t we been talking about this for decades? Hasn’t every idea already been floated out and talked about?
<
p>He’s not sure what a fossil-fuel addiction free country looks like. A vision from Obama would have been nice. “There will be solar panels on every rooftop, and wind farms or solar farms in every state. Clean energy will be a low cost and easily accessible way to heat and light homes.” You know, a vision, in such a way that the average American can see how they can incorporate clean energy into their lives. Instead what we got was this:
<
p>”a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”
<
p>Oh yeah, the profit motive. How to take this? Does he mean profitable for companies that produce the clean energy products. Like how profitable? Billion dollar profitable?
Or does he mean profitable for small businesses who would like to reduce their energy bill to bring home an extra couple of hundred a week/month. It makes a huge difference depending on which one he is talking about. Because if this is going to become another way to increase costs for the working/middle class/small business owner in order to facilitate huge profits for certain companies, it will definitely solidify my opinion of Obama as a leader of not the free market, but the leader of some other yet to be named new economy, started by the Bush Administration.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I listened to this wonderful talk on NPR last night. I thought this was the most important part of the speech:
<
p>After he was finished, NPR launched into its “analysis” — I was so disgusted I had to turn it off. They completely ignored this call to action, and focused on such things as how the lack of drilling would hurt the economy of the Gulf. I thought I was listening to Fox News!
<
p>Fortunately, the NYT seems to “get it” — they picked up on this call for action and highlighted it.
<
p>Meanwhile, in a continuing pattern of rising estimates,
<
p>Predictably, in an on-line WSJ poll, 70% of respondents gave the President a “D” or “F” grade…
<
p>The GOP response, too, was quite predictable:
<
p>Very discouraging.
joeltpatterson says
When Jimmy Carter gave a great speech about responsibility the American public loved it, but soon the pundits began to deride it. NPR, for all of its liberal journalism (which largely consists of treating minority and LGBT people as if they were people) is stacked with opinion-givers like Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts-shallow millionaires who don’t see politics as a way to achieve a better future for our children, and Cokie and Juan mock anyone who does see politics as a productive pursuit.
judy-meredith says
but I have noticed that they are trying to look and be more “balanced” lately.
<
p>I really thought the speech was very good, and wished he had made in in front of Congress and then he would have gotten some live response to the call to action and the negative comments would have come from real Republicans……………………
jasiu says
you can indicate your support here.
<
p>
doubleman says
I agree that Obama’s call to action was the strongest part of the speech and many of the initial reviews of the speech have been very poor.
<
p>My problem is that the call to action was also pretty weak. This is a time to offer a bold, clear vision of where this country should go. I think Obama missed a perfect chance to offer that vision.
<
p>More important than the speech, though, is the disconnect between Obama’s words and his actions (typical of almost all politicians). He has expressed anger and has talked about holding BP accountable, but I think we’ve seen too much trust of BP from the White House on this mess. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how committed he is to their accountability.
<
p>It has been a growing feeling for a while, but I just don’t trust Obama to do the right thing anymore. Frankly, I don’t even trust him to even try to do the right thing. (On some issues, like the war and terror and detentions, he has been an unmitigated disaster and really damn scary.)
<
p>I wish Obama had offered a much bolder plan that he could then back off from, instead of offering a less expansive vision that he will still back off from anyway. Incremental pragmatism seems to be the goal of this White House rather than a means to an end.
howland-lew-natick says
I thought he looked weak. Gestures and body language not in time with the teleprompter words. Whoever is in charge of the Executive Branch, it isn’t the President.
<
p>As for who’s in charge of the oil spill, it looks like BP runs the show. They play the music that makes the politicians dance. Isn’t BP one of the biggest political contributors?
<
p>Is Las Vegas giving odds on how long the spill will continue?
howland-lew-natick says
An example.
mark-bail says
NPR interviewed immediately after the speech?
<
p>The only thing she didn’t mention was Obama’s birth certificate?
christopher says
…is will the President’s actions back up his words. So often he decides it’s time to say something. He says all the right things and we all say that’s why we voted for him, but then nothing. His health care address to Congress is another example. We all cheered when he said he would call out the lies, but we didn’t hear much from him again. It takes more than one speech; he must pound the bully pulpit day after day until both friend and foe alike realize he means business on these things.
tedf says
When the President started to talk about our dependence on oil, the political cowardice that has kept us dependent on it, etc., I thought he was building up to an announcement of a major new legislative agenda–for instance, major tax hikes on fossil fuels, a Manhattan Project for R&D on fusion power, etc. I think the speech was that kind of occasion, so I was sorry that the President mostly stuck to exhortations on this topic that we’ve heard before.
<
p>TedF
stomv says
but ain’t no way he’s in a position to do either between now and Nov 2010.
<
p>Pricing carbon (tax, cap’n’trade, etc) doesn’t have the votes in the senate, it’s messy, and we’ve got an election coming up where “jobs now” trumps good policy, period.
<
p>Spending money triggers deficit hawks, who migrate to other climes during Republican presidents but somehow are always in town when a Democrat wants to spend money on building up society instead of blowing up someone else’s society.
<
p>
<
p>Obama is kind of pinched on this one.
tedf says
Well, I’m a deficit hawk, but there isn’t much I wouldn’t put on the chopping block, including “third rail” issues, for R&D on energy independence.
<
p>TedF
stomv says
The reality is that R&D isn’t going to get us there. It’ll help, but it’s too slow and problems like this (300 million users, each using energy in many different ways) can’t be solved quickly with R&D.
<
p>Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on mass transit? Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on energy retrofits? Would you be willing to spend massive amounts of money on power grid infrastructure and continued/expanded subsidies for renewable electricity?
stomv says
since you are a hawk, I’ve got some ideas on how to pay for all of that. I’m no OMB, so I have no idea what the order of magnitude on all these suggestions are, but here’goes, in no particular order (and recognizing that we don’t have the political will to do a damn one of ’em):
<
p>1. Raise the federal gas tax, one cent. Each month. Indefinitely. Frankly, it’s subtle, but would have the long term impact of shifting us toward higher MPG vehicles without coming down hard on those who happen to have a lower MPG vehicle at the moment and won’t be in a position to change immediately. 1/3 of our carbon footprint is oil, and a big chunk of that is imported. Higher MPG is part of the solution, and sustained higher gas prices induce higher MPG.
<
p>2. Carbon tax / cap and trade with 100% of allowances sold at auction. Price energy correctly and watch as people figure out how to get more with less.
<
p>3. Change the Schedule A mortgage interest rate deduction. Currently, all interest paid on a loan under $1M is tax free. I’d change that (on all folks who buy after Jan 1, 2011 or whatever) to something like: (1) calculate (1000 + 100*num_dependents). (2) divide 1 by the square feet of your home. (3) that fraction of your mortgage interest is tax free, still subject to the $1M limit. I don’t mind subsidizing somebody’s home ownership, I really don’t. I don’t mind subsidizing a kitchen, a bathroom or two, and bedrooms. I do mind subsidizing their indoor car parking, their home office, their bonus room, their man cave, their other den, etc. Bigger houses consume more energy directly in the form of heating and cooling and lighting, but they also lead to more oil consumption because they beg for sprawl — a lower housing density which means that folks drive farther to get there, and they’re less likely to walk or bicycle because things are too far.
<
p>4. Reduce some farm subsidies. America’s overconsumption of meat is partially fueled by farm subsides which make beef cheaper than bell peppers. End result: lower physical health and farming practices which over-consume fuel. As a side note, it also prevents the importation of sugar from places which grow it efficiently, resulting in corn syrup here and less opportunity for ethanol.
<
p>
<
p>We can cut spending, increase taxes, or buy on credit. If you don’t want to to the third one, you gotta do one of the other two. Getting off of fossil fuels and/or imported fuel is going to require both spending and taxes in my view.
tedf says
The answer to your question is a qualified “yes”. I don’t profess any expertise on these issues, but it seems to me that energy efficiency measures (of course, mass transit in particular has benefits other than energy efficiency–I take the train to work every day!) are the medium-term goal; the long-term goal has to be new sources of energy. Wind? Yes. Solar? Yes. My own favorite–fusion? Yes.
<
p>Of course, I think that we ought to do this in a fiscally responsible way, so I agree with much of what you write below about how to pay for it, particularly increasing taxes on gasoline and carbon. I haven’t made up my mind about the mortgage interest deduction–I will say that one way potentially to solve the problem, though one that would cause some pain, is to stop patching the AMT every year. I agree with you in part about farm subsidies–I think we should subsidize more efficiently, which means less subsidies for cattle and other meat products, but I happen to think it’s important for us to ensure that we retain the capacity to produce enough food to feed the nation even in the face of lower labor costs abroad (of course, I would say the same thing for key strategic industries like steel and oil, but I guess I lost that battle a long time ago!)
<
p>TedF
hoyapaul says
Frankly, I think it was a mistake for Obama to give in to the chattering media hounds who insisted that Obama “look like he’s taking charge” by making an address to the nation. It wasn’t a terrible speech, but it was far from great.
<
p>For one, it seemed awfully disjointed to me. The first part focused on past and current efforts to deal with the spill itself, which was good but needed to be fleshed out more. I don’t think people have a appreciation about how difficult it is for the government to mobilize to address an environmental disaster of this magnitude caused by gross corporate negligence a mile down in the ocean. It’s not an easy fix, and Obama could have made the details of the situation more clear.
<
p>While I certainly applaud the need to achieve a clean energy future, I don’t think it was particularly useful to talk about it in this speech. The fact is, anything Obama says about clean energy at this point is overshadowed by the fact that millions of gallons of oil continue to leak into the ocean. This isn’t to say that Obama shouldn’t use this crisis as an opportunity to push for cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels. He should. But the opportunity to do so is after the immediate danger is mitigated by actually stopping the flow of oil.
<
p>Obama should have focused on like a laser beam on (1) explaining the leak and its disastrous environmental consequences; (2) what the government is doing to stop the leak; and (3) why the drilling moratorium is necessary until we can ensure that the sort of gross corporate negligence witnessed here doesn’t happen again. Talking about clean energy while the immediate crisis continues may sound great, but gets us no closer to actually enacting new legislation.
tyler-oday says
Obama could have seriously energized his youth supporters again by getting angry and pushing harder than ever for cap and trade legislation as well as seriously commiting to finding good, feesable, reusable fuels. Mr.President you can not lose the youth and based on what’s happening at my school, You are falling fast. We cannot afford to lose our majorities this fall or else this country will fall apart again. Show show leadership and get to work
<
p>Do Something about the Gulf and Stick It To The Republicans for once!
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Shouldn’t it be just “Do Something about the Gulf for once!”
<
p>FDR didn’t say do something about Pearl Harbor and stick it to the Republicans. We needed a team effort. JFK didn’t say let’s go to the moon and stick it to the republicans.
<
p>Isn’t this disaster such a magnitude that politics should be taken out of it?
<
p>We have a calamity approaching our shores and nothing and our president is failing in protecting and mitigating the damage.
<
p>I’ll hang up and listen off line for any comments you may have.
tyler-oday says
They don’t want to work with Obama. They flat out hate him, hate him, hate him. If he wanted to have free pizza for the country, they would call it a hit against small businesses. I don’t want their help anymore and I don’t think he should even try working with them anymore. He should just push Dems hard to vote YES or reconcile with the Progressive members of Congress and if they don’t the party shouldn’t offer them any help when a big scary Primary opponent knocks at their door. I think that Obama should stay down in the Gulf until the problem is fixed and prove his real commitment towards energy independence to the American public not to us progressives. If the GOP is willing to drop this absolute crap about socialism, birth certificates, and slow responses then we can talk about compromises but first we need to stand up to stupid and make sure this Novermber we make their party powerless and make the effort to get rid of every single one of them. This spill wasn’t political until the GOP made it that way
somervilletom says
I think what Ernie is trying to say is that adding “and Stick It To The Republicans for once” hurts far more than it helps. I don’t read Ernie’s comment to mean that we shouldn’t stick it to the Republicans, I take it to mean that we shouldn’t TALK about it. JUST DO IT.
<
p>Look, think about the audience for all this.
<
p>1. Die-hard Republicans are going to oppose what he does and whine about what President Obama says, and aren’t ever going to support, contribute to, or vote for President Obama anyway. Other than sticking a finger in their eye, your suffix (“and stick it …”) accomplishes nothing. It won’t change their behavior or ours.
<
p>2. Moderate Republicans (an endangered species) might support what President Obama proposes, unless President Obama frames it in a political message that is offensive to them. Your suffix drives away the few moderate Republicans who are left, and yet gains nothing in exchange.
<
p>3. Independents might enthusiastically support President Obama’s proposals as proposals. Your suffix will absolutely turn them off.
<
p>4. Moderate Democrats enthusiastically support President Obama proposals, yet feel that your suffix is gratuitously hostile. They are likely to criticize his “excessive partisanship”.
<
p>5. Die-hard Democrats will love the proposal and love the suffix. They’d love the proposal anyway, and eagerly add the suffix themselves if President Obama leaves it off.
<
p>So the net is that President Obama should forgo the political posturing and get on with the management/recovery plan — which he shows every sign of doing.
tyler-oday says
kirth says
Climate bill architects Kerry, Lieberman vote against repealing oil industry tax breaks
<
p>
howland-lew-natick says
Isn’t it all about getting the best for the corporations? The more servile politicians you can line up, the more you can win. Just keep the money flowing.
<
p>“A tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government.” –Spiro T. Agnew
liveandletlive says
with a disappointing end. I thought it was very weak, and pretty much a repeat of what we’ve heard on every important issue since Obama too office.
<
p>
<
p>Haven’t we been talking about this for decades? Hasn’t every idea already been floated out and talked about?
<
p>He’s not sure what a fossil-fuel addiction free country looks like. A vision from Obama would have been nice. “There will be solar panels on every rooftop, and wind farms or solar farms in every state. Clean energy will be a low cost and easily accessible way to heat and light homes.” You know, a vision, in such a way that the average American can see how they can incorporate clean energy into their lives. Instead what we got was this:
<
p>”a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”
<
p>Oh yeah, the profit motive. How to take this? Does he mean profitable for companies that produce the clean energy products. Like how profitable? Billion dollar profitable?
Or does he mean profitable for small businesses who would like to reduce their energy bill to bring home an extra couple of hundred a week/month. It makes a huge difference depending on which one he is talking about. Because if this is going to become another way to increase costs for the working/middle class/small business owner in order to facilitate huge profits for certain companies, it will definitely solidify my opinion of Obama as a leader of not the free market, but the leader of some other yet to be named new economy, started by the Bush Administration.