RSSBush on oil
Feb 02
Similarly to my reaction to a speech by Bush about a year ago, The Bush Speech – Energy, I was happy to hear part of his state of the union speech focused on energy. I also liked what has become the tagline, that “America is addicted to oil.”
Focus on Oil Praised, but With Caveats
Now, trying to be fair, although I know I’m not as fair as Fox News, I would like to show some mild appreciation of this.
To anyone who may be suprised by this, I’ll answer the questions in advance:
- Do I think Bush is really committed to the cause yet? No, although I do think he believes in it. I don’t think any politician has the guts since a major overhaul of energy policy would be risky politically.
- Was it a wily political move intended to woo moderates and quiet the left-wingers? Probably.
- Will this speech accomplish anything? Not by itself, although I guess some good news is slightly-increased funding for research areas.
What it comes down to is this: there is a lot of value in a Republican president (or any, for that matter) admitting the US has a problem with oil. Every single person already knows it, but this public acknowldgement will make future policy changes easier. I’d like to know if Clinton ever made similar statements.
I would honestly forget everything I currently think of Bush if he would be the president who decided to make energy reform his legacy. Bold steps are going to be taken some day, by someone, and the sooner the better. If Bush went headfirst into alternative energy and conservation the number of people he’s already killed would pale in comparison to the number that might be saved from dying in the wars for oil of the future if no one acts now.
But, alas, we still need to wait for that person. Who’s that Nader guy again?
Feb 02, 2006 @ 15:01:02
Oh, come on. Now I know you’re a hopeless optimist. Have you forgotten what it’s like to live in the US? Have you forgotten how easily and willingly the population can be misled?
Do you honestly think that Bush’s speechwriter put that line in there because Bush believes in it? Bush is pro-Oil and pro-Corporate. He wants continued dominance of oil because it enriches his political allies, at home and abroad. He was careful to make vague promises and set distant deadlines for change, so he wouldn’t have to do anything about it. It was lip service to the moderates and liberals in the audience who would be voting in 2006.
It’s like Samuel Alito choosing his words so carefully that Republicans knew he was anti-Roe and moderate Democrats could convince themselves that he was almost pro-Roe. Bush wanted a soundbite that would increase his approval rating. He knew the SotU audience would be a broad cross-section of the populace, and chose his words to mislead in all the right directions. He told you exactly what you wanted to hear.
Feb 02, 2006 @ 15:28:46
I don’t entirely buy that. The easiest thing, politically, Bush could have done is not even mention it. He could drive around in a huge Hummer, idle it all day while he’s in the whitehouse, then in the evening order the bombing of some other country for oil – and this wouldn’t affect him politically. His base would cheer him on.
I think there’s more risk with what he did of a bunch of hicks saying “We use too much oil? What the F is this guy talking about? I can get all I want for $2/gallon. Idiot.”
But, maybe I’m wrong…
In either case, as long as I get the outcome I want, why do I care what he actually believes? If it really has become politically attractive to take action about energy reform, and he’s trying to exploit that, I’m cool with it.
In the end I don’t think we know what any politician really thinks. They’re all exploiting some “issue” by pitching themselves as the only one who can solve it. Maybe they did believe it at the beginning but after a few years that’s irrelevant. Their political life becomes tied to those issues.