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:

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

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

No Steve No

To:Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer: Please, please don't spend my money on Yahoo. Spend $4 billion per year for the next 10 years building something new and better. This has to now be an ego deal, not an economic deal. If you withdraw the bid, YHOO is a $15 stock. You are too smart for this. Many times the best deals are the ones you don't make. This is one of those times. Don't spend my money on this. Sincerely, gene
1 comment
Read more

So Who Wins?

Every recession plants the seeds for economic advantage in the future recovery. In the very tough 1973-1974 recession, prices fell so low that it enabled the creation of the leveraged buyout industry. With many manufacturing companies in particular trading at 3-4 times cash flow, new market entrants like KKR, Forstmann Little and Dyson Kisner Moran came in and created gigantic wealth for themselves and early investors. In the 1991-1992 downturn, engendered in part by the massive office space overbuilding funded by Savings and Loans (Resolution Trust Co, anyone?) made it possible for telcom and internet start-ups in Austin, San Jose, Northern VA, Boston's Route 128, Dallas, etc. to rent offices at a fraction of the cost had those communities not been overbuilt. And the 2001-02 downturn gave us cheap fiber and bandwidth, and bargain-priced software to feed productivity gains in corporations everywhere. So, where is the upside? At this moment, all that I can project with some confid...
Post a Comment
Read more