Skip to main content

Obama: the Content-free candidate

Presidential Race #7

I had written McCain off.

His campaign has seemed dismal to me and not much of a message. Obama has been a rockstar campaigner (note Euro love fest tour).

However, the Democrats' stubborn clinging to an anti-oil, anti-anything practical concerning energy, policy may just be backfiring. We aren't so stupid as to believe drilling in Anwar and on the continental shelf means cheap gas forever; but it does mean we don't have to return to an agrarian society until clean coal, biomass, wind, and solar have critical mass. (I want to scream build nuclear power plants here but I'll likely be dead before the court cases would be settled).

The Obama campaign has been Marshall McLuhan based (the medium is the message) and therefor content-free. This may sound critical but it's not: content-free has prevailed over Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, etc. But it isn't so clear that it will continue to work against a real platform presented clearly and concisely.

McCain is slowly awakening to the fact that this is a real campaign issue. Obama is being too cute on nuclear - "I'll support it when the disposal of nuclear waste is resolved" - that means: "I'll vote for nuclear power right after Barney Frank is named the Pope".

So this obstinacy by the Democrats to facing the first of a string of Republic-threatening issues (Islamic jihad, Social Security bankruptcy, unrivaled deficits, failed public education, etc.) may just be breathing some life into McCain and the Republican Party's lungs.
Of course, the Republicans have plenty of chances yet to blow it....

A platform of (1)real energy programs (not just drilling), (2)win in Iraq, combined with a (3)no-earmarks-pledge might just turn the tide...

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Kim Whitler said…
Not sure I agree -- fully. I listened to Obama's energy speech last week. It was focused on identifying real, long-term solutiona vs. the expedient, "put more money into the hands of the oil barrons" solution. It was more than puffery and had real content. The Dems position is that the oil companies are already have the right to explore land that they aren't exploring. Moreover, Barack indicated that it will still require 7 years to get the oil out of Alaska / etc. In this time, with the right focus /incentives / motivation, we can create renewable solutions. It seems to me that Barack's POV is that we need to for once, focus on the right solution and not get distracted with the expedient, wrong long-term solution. I'd like to see the country be able to do both, but if we can't, than a renewable resource solution is more important than finding new oil.
9:42 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Reasons We Think America is On the Wrong Course

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday. He does a nice job at talk radio. But he was worked up because the CBS News Poll showed that 72% of Americans surveyed think the U.S. is on the wrong track. (When I went to CBS' site, it looks to me like the number is 69%, but that's an insignicant difference). Medved's view is that income for the poorest citizens are rising (recent government data), unemployment is low, stock market is high, no cold war, so why so pessimistic? Here are my answers: Several of our young men and women are being killed every day in a war that we are getting sick of. The deficit is some unimaginable, staggering number that my generation is imposing on my children. Social Security is bankrupt and both Congress and the Administration (both previous and current, and both Republican and Democratic) are unwilling to face the issue. There are virulent infectious agents in hospitals that are resistent to essentially all antibiotics, and the drug co...
2 comments
Read more

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...
10 comments
Read more

Romney/Thompson dream ticket?

The role of Fred Thompson in yesterday's SC primary is as murky as his next step. Did he divide the religious vote and thereby hand Huckabee a loss? Or would those votes, had he not been there, have gone elsewhere? My instinct is that more of those votes would have gone to Romney or McCain than to Huckabee. Fred comes across to me as the thinking person's conservative: thoughtful on positions, a sense of history, a Federalist, serious about the war on terror and prepared to take the long view on it. His addresses have content, not sound bites - which may, unfortunately, be a drawback in 2008. Mitt is quickly seizing the stage as the most knowledgeable in the field on economics, growth and job creation. With a war still consuming dozens of billions, it isn't clear that the race will be won on voters' views of candidates job creation prowess. However, he gives off as much energy as Fred seems to absorb - Mitt's electron shell could power Fred. So, Mitt may be drawi...
5 comments
Read more