Obama and Romney Sidestep Energy
A friend writes:
Is it only my imagination, or did Obama fail to defend body blows on clean energy last night? I thought he gave a horrible performance on energy issues! Very, very weak. Are you planning to comment on your blog?
Yes, it was discouraging.
Part of me excuses Obama because, 24 X 7, he’s actively managing the most important single entity on the planet. His opponent, admittedly a smart guy, can spend all his waking hours sharpening his tongue. But regardless, Romney did a terrific job. My congratulations to a master in his craft.
The other part of me suggests that Obama, whose expressed energy policy is “all of the above,” (i.e., that we need to pursue clean coal, gas, nuclear, and renewables in all their forms) really deserved exactly what he got. His lack of clarity and leadership in a critical time makes his position only slightly less ludicrous than Romney’s.
It’s a symptom of the political zeitgeist, based squarely on Big Money, where real integrity is pretty-much entirely absent.
As you know, I applaud Obama for having rescued the U.S. from the “drill baby drill” mentality that he inherited from his predecessor (whose name is no longer used in polite company — nor any other, as far as I can discern). But the state of our current political discourse has most certainly sunk to a new low.
In the period that precedes each election Tuesday, the Ghost of Democracy Past is paraded out in front of us in an effort to convince us that We the People have some legitimate participation in our government. On cue, the ghost returns silent to its grave each election Wednesday, at which point we go back to living under the brutal pounding of the will of the aforementioned Big Money.
Sorry, but it’s hard to take this theater too seriously.
Debate aside, since the pundits are beating the details to death much more thoroughly than I ever could, you bring up an interesting concept as regards your comment on the “drill baby drill”. What is the administration view of increasing domestic production, gas or oil, in the context of the administration’s views on alternative energies? As is easily demonstrated, permitting is now higher than the prior decade. Is there a phased approach to this? Any approach to this?
Obviously the economy and unemployment are exceedingly important. But the future of the planet is even more important and both Romney and the President completely ignored that.
The actual purpose of the debate was for each participant to maximize the likelihood of winning the presidential election. Accordingly, they endeavored to act in such as way as to maximize that opportunity. Since both felt that mentioning climate change would not be beneficial to them, and might in fact be detrimental, they did not mention it.
One would suppose that a function of leaders is to lead. However, often they do not lead, but instead, tell people what they think the people want to hear rather than what they should know and understand. In a sense, they are like the car in front that is not leading but is actually being guided by the turn signals of the car behind.
In general, people get the “leaders” that they deserve. When people neglect to study and understand the issues, they get leaders who do not act in the best interest of the people.
To Arlene:
Often people talk about the production of gas and oil. However, we really should not since we are not producing gas and oil. Thus, it would be better to talk about extracting gas and oil since that would emphasize the fact that there is a limited supply.
Agreed. Extraction is a better word than production. My questions remain – what is the overarching strategy if there is one?