In A Word: Quagmire: Could John Edwards be the man to change the country?
Gerald Eisman
September 05, 2007
John Edwards is the third Democratic hopeful in the top tier of candidates for the office of the president. He’s reached that position because of name recognition (he ran as Kerry’s mate) and some of the changes he promised. His outlook at this point is far from bright, but he plods along with high optimism.
Just like all other candidates, however, his mouth is full of promises that one man cannot keep, all of which require money which our treasury no longer has the wherewithal to supply. He sees the flaws but offers no concrete ideas on how to fix them, a tendency shared by all the candidates of both parties. He smiles when occasion requires one and scowls when a scowl will garner attention.
So what is it, exactly, that the voting public should be looking for in the primaries and why would they want to vote for John Edwards over all the other hopefuls? This is the dilemma facing voters today. Who is best qualified to hold the office stands out as the thinking man’s first priority. Those non-thinkers (lemmings – followers of another’s mind) who vote as told don’t count as they might cast their vote down the sewer.
Should a Senator be voted into the highest office? In my humble opinion, perhaps, depending on how much experience the Senator has in governing. This is a commodity that very few Senators have. Senators are deeply into the act of debating and legislating laws, developing compromises with the House so the differing opinions on the laws may be satisfactorily resolved, then presenting the bill to the president for signature.
A lot of votes will be earned, others barely thought out. Back in ’52, the New York Times did a piece on why people voted and for whom they cast their ballot. One of the respondents clearly thought out her vote. She puffed out her chest and said, “I like Ike!” so she voted for Eisenhower for president. When asked why she settled on Ike her response told a prophetic tale. “Because he has such a fine name,” was her answer. The woman in question’s last name was … that’s right, you guessed it, Eisenhower.
And what does John Edwards stand for? An end to dependence on foreign oil would be one of his loftiest goals. To hear him say it, we need to end our nation’s dependency on fossil fuels, our contribution to global warming is too great and needs trimming, and we must learn new ways of conducting our international business operations.
Edwards says he will provide $1 billion a year to help U.S. automakers advance and apply the latest technology, which includes biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, ultra-light materials, and drive train improvements. These resources will be financed from the New Energy Economy Fund and also help manufacturers meet higher fuel economy requirements. With a strong ethanol industry that includes cellulosic ethanol and hybrid and electric technology, American cars and trucks can be virtually petroleum-free within a generation.
This is all well and good, but once more I ask, exactly where is the money coming from to bring about this miracle. More to the point, who will he get to convince those automobile moguls to change their way of thinking? I wonder if Mr. Edwards remembers how difficult it was to get the auto industry heads to improve the mileage on cars to where it sits today. When the subject is broached, they cry poverty and profess the inability to get mileage higher regardless of the fact that two of the biggest manufacturers of autos in the world have already done so.
Electricity demand is projected to increase by 1.5 percent a year between 2008 and 2018, on average. Edwards called for a national goal of meeting this demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity. As a result, power use would be 15 percent lower by 2018 and renewable energy would increase as it would have a better opportunity to gain market share. Increased efficiency includes managing (reducing) peaks in demand and modernizing the electric grid and is largely achievable with current technology.
All this and more would candidate Edwards do for the nation, but, and it’s a big but, why does he think he will be able to convince the moguls that they would need to cooperate and spend billions in retooling or cutting back or even (curse the luck) investing in equipment that would aid it the change? Talk is cheap, but good ideas that come out of talk is dear, expensive, and time consuming. Convince them and the battle is almost won.
Just like all other candidates, however, his mouth is full of promises that one man cannot keep, all of which require money which our treasury no longer has the wherewithal to supply. He sees the flaws but offers no concrete ideas on how to fix them, a tendency shared by all the candidates of both parties. He smiles when occasion requires one and scowls when a scowl will garner attention.
So what is it, exactly, that the voting public should be looking for in the primaries and why would they want to vote for John Edwards over all the other hopefuls? This is the dilemma facing voters today. Who is best qualified to hold the office stands out as the thinking man’s first priority. Those non-thinkers (lemmings – followers of another’s mind) who vote as told don’t count as they might cast their vote down the sewer.
Should a Senator be voted into the highest office? In my humble opinion, perhaps, depending on how much experience the Senator has in governing. This is a commodity that very few Senators have. Senators are deeply into the act of debating and legislating laws, developing compromises with the House so the differing opinions on the laws may be satisfactorily resolved, then presenting the bill to the president for signature.
A lot of votes will be earned, others barely thought out. Back in ’52, the New York Times did a piece on why people voted and for whom they cast their ballot. One of the respondents clearly thought out her vote. She puffed out her chest and said, “I like Ike!” so she voted for Eisenhower for president. When asked why she settled on Ike her response told a prophetic tale. “Because he has such a fine name,” was her answer. The woman in question’s last name was … that’s right, you guessed it, Eisenhower.
And what does John Edwards stand for? An end to dependence on foreign oil would be one of his loftiest goals. To hear him say it, we need to end our nation’s dependency on fossil fuels, our contribution to global warming is too great and needs trimming, and we must learn new ways of conducting our international business operations.
Edwards says he will provide $1 billion a year to help U.S. automakers advance and apply the latest technology, which includes biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, ultra-light materials, and drive train improvements. These resources will be financed from the New Energy Economy Fund and also help manufacturers meet higher fuel economy requirements. With a strong ethanol industry that includes cellulosic ethanol and hybrid and electric technology, American cars and trucks can be virtually petroleum-free within a generation.
This is all well and good, but once more I ask, exactly where is the money coming from to bring about this miracle. More to the point, who will he get to convince those automobile moguls to change their way of thinking? I wonder if Mr. Edwards remembers how difficult it was to get the auto industry heads to improve the mileage on cars to where it sits today. When the subject is broached, they cry poverty and profess the inability to get mileage higher regardless of the fact that two of the biggest manufacturers of autos in the world have already done so.
Electricity demand is projected to increase by 1.5 percent a year between 2008 and 2018, on average. Edwards called for a national goal of meeting this demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity. As a result, power use would be 15 percent lower by 2018 and renewable energy would increase as it would have a better opportunity to gain market share. Increased efficiency includes managing (reducing) peaks in demand and modernizing the electric grid and is largely achievable with current technology.
All this and more would candidate Edwards do for the nation, but, and it’s a big but, why does he think he will be able to convince the moguls that they would need to cooperate and spend billions in retooling or cutting back or even (curse the luck) investing in equipment that would aid it the change? Talk is cheap, but good ideas that come out of talk is dear, expensive, and time consuming. Convince them and the battle is almost won.
Print
Email
