Conservatism Today: It's like Obama's energy policy, but without the illogic. Or the harm to the U.S. economy and its people. OK, so it's nothing like Obama's energy policy.
UPDATE: Looks like the McCain camp made a video on it:
This is the issue McCain should be killing Obama on. The difference between McCain's and Obama's attitude on energy is best summed up by McCain supporter Rick Gorka's comments here at the Monterey County Herald:
"Sen. McCain is putting forward a plan of action, whereas Sen. Obama has been the Dr. No of energy, refusing to take a stand to help out Nevadans," Gorka said.
I've never read the Monterey County Herald before, but on a side note, there ought to be a job opening today at the Herald after the idiotic headline someone placed on that article. The article is all about Obama saying 'no' to any form of energy that isn't made out of something that we should be eating instead. But some copy editor decides to slap on the headline, "Obama views nuclear power as an option," as if to imply that he isn't the joke of a presidential candidate that he would be if he thought nuclear was a bad option. Then we read the first line.
Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would not take nuclear power "off the table" as a possible energy option, but blasted John McCain's proposal to build dozens of new reactors in the U.S.
So, he views it as an option, but blasts anyone who proposes we use it? That may be considered viewing nuclear as an option, but not as a good option. This is the message this hack headline writer got out of this piece? And I can't find full-time employment (if I wanted to) in the newspaper industry?
Then Obama has an argument with himself over his own idea. I wish, just for fun, I could listen in for awhile to the voices arguing inside Obama's head.
The senator also said he remained open to supporting "clean coal" as a potential alternative to polluting fossil fuels.
The comment raised the eyebrows of environmental activist Scot Rutledge, who told the candidate the term was commonly used by the coal industry for a production process that is not considered clean by many in the environmental community.
He asked Obama to pledge not to use the term.Obama didn't directly agree to the pledge, but said Rutledge had a "fair point."
"If the technology is not there to sequester the coal — and, right now, frankly it is not where it needs to be — I don't think we should be creating new coal plants with old technologies that are, at best, going to be obsolete," Obama said.
We're supposed to trust this man to negotiate with our enemies when he can't hold on to a position when he's countered by the vapid comments of an environmental moonbat?
Meanwhile, John McCain is all in favor of nuclear energy, as the Heritage Foundation reports.
In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we’ve waited so long that we’ve lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, as other nations understand. One nation today has plans to build almost 50 new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26 major nuclear stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people — a population of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China, Russia, and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don’t we?”
Now, I don't like this habit of saying "if someone in another part of the world does something, why shouldn't we" as McCain does here. But if it's a good something, I suppose I can overlook it.
Sure, his oil policy may be a contradiction wrapped in an enigma covered with pixie dust wishes, as the Denver Post points out:
The Arizona senator has endorsed a policy that would allow individual states to decide if they want to allow offshore oil drilling. While some might, others probably would not. McCain tries to get around this problem by saying he would offer to share offshore oil revenues with states that would allow drilling. His proposal is more of a hope than a promise.
The senator is a bundle of contradictions in other areas, as well. He wouldn't mind oil rigs off the coast, but he still wouldn't allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a place so remote almost no one would see them.
But given the competition, that's still far superior to this:
Obama's policy proposals are almost mystical. He supports the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gases by a breathtaking 80 percent over the next 40 years. He would achieve this target by what might be called a "Goldilocks" approach to energy. The nation would somehow use the "just right" balance of conservation, biofuels, wind power and solar energy to make up for any reductions in oil consumption. Nowhere is there a mention of nuclear energy or the role it might play in the country's future.
Nor is there a hint of increasing oil supplies. The message is plain: If the nation turns this fall to Obama, he will figure out a way to provide for the nation's energy needs without resorting to more oil exploration or the requirement to build more nuclear power plants. It also should be noted that nowhere does Obama acknowledge that this nation's population will increase by 100 million or so energy consumers before midcentury.
We're choosing between an imbecile and a man with no clear ideology underpinnings. It's enough to make these diatribes daily, and necessary for my sanity.
Recent Comments