. . . until the New Hampshire primary.
Six years ago, "It's the economy, stupid" was the banner that hung in Bill Clinton's campaign HQ. It was there to remind the campaign staff and the voters what the central issue of the day was.
If there is to be a banner in the office of the victorious 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate, I'd suggest that it read, "It's energy, stupid." Energy policy could--and should--be the Unified Field Theory of the 2008 election. It touches foreign policy, the environment, the economy, tax policy, education policy, trade policy, and just about everything else the government does from running the post office to running the war in Iraq. In the right hands, energy could be the centerpiece of a highly cogent, successful campaign.
Manufacturing jobs heading south? We can make the domestic non-fossil energy industry bigger than the auto industry.
Balance of trade trending deeper into the red? The U.S. should be building and exporting solar panels, geothermal generation units, wind farm components, fuel cells, high-capacity batteries, hydrogen transmission and storage equipment, ethanol plants, biodiesel technology, ultra-efficient appliances and homepower rigs. At the same time, we can reduce what we spend to import oil and natural gas.
Environment in trouble? We can cut our emissions of greenhouse gasses by switching to renewables.
Foreign policy in shambles? Reducing our dependence on energy from unstable, hostile and oppressive governments will allow us to conduct foreign relations in a way more truly consistent with democratic values and American interests.
Losing our edge in education and innovation? A huge investment in math and science education will revitalize U.S. technical education and allow us to regain our lead in these fields.
It was with these thoughts in mind that I was especially interested in Chaoslillith's excellent comparative piece on the Democandidates' energy proposals. I was not surprised to see that as in other areas, John Edwards has the most detailed and comprehensive plans out there. Richardson's ideas are also impressive, if not as fleshed out as Edwards's.
My wonky side is attracted to candidates who spell out in specific detail what they intend to do. I recognize, though, that in laying out policy proposals for health care, taxation and energy in such detail, Edwards is opening himself up to criticism from other candidates who have not offered plans of their own for analysis. Maybe Edwards should start calling his opponents Hillary "No-Plans" Clinton and Barack "No-Plans" Obama. He might also draw the analogy to the occupation of Iraq: see what happens when we elect a President who has some vague, general ideas about what he wants to do but no carefully thought-out plans for how he's going to do them?
This article gives information relating to the natural health education. It also give details about hat in laying out policy proposals for health care, taxation and energy.
"http://www.naturalhealtheducationcenter.com/natural-medicine.html"
Posted by: jain | March 30, 2007 at 04:35 PM