The Washington Post, D.C.'s premier Villager rag, gave space to Reason.com and Reason magazine's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch on Sunday. The resultant article is a nasty hitpiece on President Obama weaving a thread equating him with Jimmy Carter….
Like (President Jimmy) Carter, Obama is smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when America's best-known peanut farmer was installing solar panels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
"nonstarters"? I mean WTF, in spades. Carter's alternatives-to-oil energy plan was the smartest energy plan ever set forth by an American president. The proof? 30 years later we're using Carter's playbook to move towards using more alternative energy sources, like solar and wind. The Reason writers, from the get-go, sacrifice their credibility for the sake of being snide assh*les.
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.
That was an accurate assessment by Carter in 1979. And by the looks of things in 2009, it is still accurate today.
But who cares about truth or accuracy or even basic fairness, when bashing former and current Democratic presidents is the only objective?
As taxpayers with children and hence some small, almost certainly unrecoverable stake in this country's future (not to mention that of General Motors, Chrysler and AIG), we write with skin in the game and the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.
Haha. I always find it amusing when assh*les attempt to be humorous. It's oh-so-f*cking-funny that America has spent the last 30 years managing middle eastern affairs with the barrel of a gun because silly, silly Carter's energy programs were scapped by Warrior Ronnie and his Junior Bush ideological spawn. Funny stuff….when thousands of Americans get killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis butchered, at least partly because of our worsened state of oil dependency.
Yep,….funny stuff…"busting out the 1970's cardigan." Wouldn't want to have any sensible approaches to problem solving that don't include using all our latest military-industrial-complex weaponry…now, would we?
But wait….there's more…
"…there's no question that Obama's massively ambitious domestic agenda is at a fork in the road: One route leads to Plains, Ga., and early retirement, the other to Hope, Ark., a second term and the revitalization of the American economy."
Why is there, "no question?" Because assh*les say so. Conservative assh*les have only one goal in mind with every approach they take when Democrats are in the majority. Put Republicans back in the majority. And so it is with these Reason assh*les.
See?….Obama will either be a one term president, like the solar-panel installing, truth telling, cardigan sweater wearing Carter….or he will do what corporate whores want him to do, triangulate with the conservative dark-side forces, like Clinton did. To hell with what the American people want.
The Reason assh*les fail to set forward even one GOP'er name who might arguably challenge Obama in 2012. No matter…..because it's 1993 all over again….
After Bill Clinton bit off more domestic policy than even he could chew, leading to a Republican rout in the midterm elections of 1994, the 42nd president refocused his political intelligence on keeping his ambitions and, as a result, the size of government growth, limited. Though there is much to complain about in his record, the broad prosperity and mostly sound economic policy under his watch aren't included.
This shouldn't be a difficult task for Obama. As a political animal, he has always resembled Clinton more than Carter. This might help him avoid the Carteresque pileup he's driving into. Far more important, it just might help the rest of us.
Because of Ross Perot's presence in the 1992 election, Clinton won with a low 40's percentage of the vote. Obama won with 53%. Clinton had no mandate, Obama does. In addition, there's an imminent conservative problem in the Congress. Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and will most likely add a few more in 2010. The House makeup, if it changes at all in 2010, won't give the GOP the majority.
None of that matters to assh*les. To assh*les, addressing decades-old problems with sound government solutions approved of by a majority of Americans is only driving the country into a "Cartesque pileup."
Did I mention that these writers were assh*les?
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
My favorite part, Reverend:
"Carter's alternatives-to-oil energy plan was the smartest energy plan ever set forth by an American president. The proof? 30 years later we're using Carter's playbook to move towards using more alternative energy sources, like solar and wind."
You are making this fellow's point for him–Obama is Carter Redux, if we are lucky.
My favorite part is a tossup… there's the part where the Rev gets irate over writers using snide humor to belay real points (pot, kettle, black).
Then there's the part where he infers that there's another option for Obama than being a one term or two term President. I guess Rev really did back Zelaya's attempt.
Actually, I think Rev's blog should be renamed "Assh*le Attempting to be Humorous"
Drill, babies, drill.
Carter's problem was that he soured relations with people he needed to implement his vision of where to take the country. They then thwarted his efforts. I believe that Obama is trying to placate the military/intelligence wing of government to assure their cooperation. His appointments of Gates and Panetta are assurances that it will be business as usual for Defense, NSA, and CIA.
Carter recognized that our reliance on foreign sources for our energy needs was a strategic weakness which needed to be addressed. Had his attempts not been derided and dismantled we would have a much better world today. We would likely be the leading provider of non-oil energy technology and products. But more importantly, we would have been able to escape the loss of men and money spent in maintaining access to oil. As it is, we are now even at a greater strategic weakness.
If there's scads of money and a new major industry to be made of green technology, why didn't anyone jump on it in Carter's day? Did the 'military/intelligence wing' threaten all the interested entrepreneurs?
The fact of the matter is Carter is an ineffectual idealist who isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Sad to say, but I'd still take him over Obama.
Sad to say…larry isn't nearly as factual as he thinks he is.
Alternative fuels and conservation began under Carter. Anyone who disagrees either wasn't there….or doesn't know what they're talking about. Reagan brought Big Oil INTO the White House and dismantled all of Carter's pilot programs. Anyone who knows anything…knows that.
Carter was the most intelligent president in modern American history, Walter Cronkite concurred.
Neo-cons are "ineffectual idealists", larry, not Jimmy Carter. If Carter were an "ineffectual idealist", we wouldn't be fully implementing his 30 year old energy plan now. Carter was simply way ahead of his time and, in essence, too good of a man for the presidency.
frank said it best.
I'd think the most intelligent president in modern American history would figure out a way to get his programs some traction and get re-elected. The fact that Obama is trying to implement his energy plan could mean Carter was ahead of his time, or it could mean Obama is more an ideologue than a realist.
If Carter's programs held so much promise we'd have seen corporations–probably the oil companies or big utilities–making big money off them by now.
The answer to larry's question is that Carter's alternative energy proposals were not economically viable in Carter's day. They also would NOT have been able to produce nearly enough energy to replace oil and coal. That's why they never came into fashion. Had there been a legitimate benefit and market for Carter's ideas, the private sector would have implemented them long ago. That's simply a fact. Technological advances since Carter's time are all around us.
Fast forward to today. Work on alternative energies has been ongoing ever since Carter's time, even though the Reverend seems to think otherwise (incorrectly). And solar and wind STILL cannot replace oil and coal, and they are STILL a more expensive and more inefficient means of energy production. I say this as someone who wants to convert to other means of energy than oil and coal, as someone who is concerned about the environment. Still, facts are facts. We could have converted a lot of our electricity to nuclear, which is the one clean energy source capable of replacing coal, but no, our Democrats have been blocking that for three decades, just as they have been blocking oil and natural gas production, just as Obama is blocking coal production along with oil and gas. It's freaking retarded thinking until we have legitimate energy replacements in place and ready to go. It's also economic suicide.
So now Obama wants to convert to plug-in electric cars. Okay. Consider this – the cheapest plug-in electric car about to come onto the market is the GM Volt. It will cost about $40,000, according to what I read in Car and Driver magazine last month. GM is still trying to work out some major issues with the Volt. That's the cheapest plug-in. It will go 40 miles on it's electric battery and then will need to be recharged for 7-8 hours. The other higher end plug-ins are all priced in the $80,000-$100,000 range.
Who can afford to buy these vehicles ????? Who will WANT to buy a lesser, more inconvenient vehicle at a much higher price ? And even if people do all start buying these very expensive vehicles, what will the effects of all the increased demand for electricity be ? Will we overwhelm our power grids ? Will there even be any net power savings with all the added burden on electricity ? It's easy for Obama to go out there and making a soaring generic speech, but we have reality to deal with. To say Obama is short on details is a kind description of his speeches. He doesn't provide any details, just mandates, whether they are immediately achievable or not.
In summary, things are a lot more complicated that the Reverend's simple-minded 'Reason=assh*les, Carter=genius' tripe. Such characterizations are an insult to everyone's intelligence.
"If Carter's programs held so much promise we'd have seen corporations–probably the oil companies or big utilities–making big money off them by now."
Not when's it easier and more profitable to just gamble on oil futures.
King rambles on…but does not answer why Reagan dismantled any government-led efforts to reduce our dependency on oil. Now, our dependency is exponentially worse.
I'm sure King recognizes that, currently, we can be sujected to $6, $8, even $10 per gallon gasoline which would bring our American economy to an end.
Apparently, that's just how market forces work.
The Carter program was to subsidize alternative energy providers so that their programs could mature and develop the necessary technology. Reagan killed this program, relegating alternative energy to the margins. Mr. King calls for nuclear energy but fails to mention that it would not be economically viable without government support. Without the government, nuclear facilities would not get financed. Without government, the cost of disposing of the waste and insurance would doom nuclear energy to the same margins as other alternative energy.
The idea of expanding alternative energy technology is not to eliminate oil, but to make it merely one of a panoply of energy choices.
Well said, as always frank.
The idea that the government, whose job conservatives tell me is to lookout for the national defense, should allow the private market to dictate the terms surrounding the national security issue of energy……is incomprehensible to me.
Would private entrepreneurs have gotten America to the moon before any other countries?
In some areas of life, government initiatives are the only way.
But frank, nuclear energy is still a VIABLE replacement for coal. It can produce massive amounts of energy. Solar and wind cannot, and they must be subsidized as well. If we have to subsidize something, how about we subsidize something that WORKS. I'm not against solar and wind, they have their place in the energy pantheon, but to act like they can replace oil, coal, and gas is a flight of fancy, don't you think ?
Rev, this isn't about conservatives vs. liberals. I know you see absolutely everything through that narrow distorted prism, but this is about logical vs. illogical means of mass energy production. And btw, you ignored every single point I made in my last post.
When it comes to issues where private industry will not venture their cash, government is the only institution that can demonstrate leadership, the only institution with the economic gravitas to change the equation.
Conservatives, apparently, do not agree with that evaluation and insist on private business solutions to all problems……except defense spending, naturally.
The most difficult step in a long journey is….the first step.
Hey King, after reading frank and Rev's posts, can you give me a little "atta-boy" every time I type something… we are on the same side, which is apparently all it takes.
Attaboy, pdt. You da man !!!
heh, heh.
That's right, Rev. The private sector can't develop anything on it's own. Big Brother must hold it's hand for anything at all to get done.
Except for airplanes, automobiles, light builbs, televisions, telephones, computers, cell phones, and almost everything other modern innovation, which all came from the private sector.
But Al Gore did invent the internet. There's that.
And guess who builds all that high-tech military equipment we have ? If you said "private industry," you win a cigar.
Red herring.
I never said the private sector couldn't develop anything on it's own. They do it all the time.
What I suggested was when the private sector has a conflict of interest, when monopolistic control of an industry would be threatened by alternative methodology they could not control……they stick with the monopoly.
I may criticize big corporate industry too much…..but you trust in them way too much.
Mr. King,
Don't you feel a sense of irony in using a forum that government "invented" to argue against the government's position? Of course, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, as he has been slandered with. He rightfully claimed to have been an enthusiastic supporter of funding the military progenitor of the internet.
Almost all of the innovations you cite as coming from the private sector have also been the beneficiaries of significant government spending.
I also find it ironic that you cite an industry which builds a product unavailable on the free market exclusively for the government in an environment where any competition ends with the rewarding of the contract, as an example of "private" industry. Seems more like a captive industry with the question begging as to which is the captive.
I mentioned the nuclear industry's reliance on government aid in financing and indemnification. They are also reliant on government for disposal of the toxic waste. Even if one assumes that it can be disposed or stored in a repository, the cost is still prohibitive. Compare the amount of energy created by 1 lb of nuclear material to the costs and the amount of energy required to maintain its waste in perpetuity.