Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ River stage: 33.9 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
|
Emerson, Palin and the politics of energy
Posted Friday, January 4, 2008, at 1:56 PMRead comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
At last week's Cape Girardeau Area Chamber of Commerce First Friday Coffee, U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson pivoted her prepared remarks neatly from agriculture policy to energy.
The importance of developing alternative power sources was stressed: wind, hydro, nuclear, even ethanol derived from algae. But the need to drill for oil in areas of the United States currently off-limits was her central theme. No matter the source, achieving energy independence from nations inclined to oppose America Russia, Iran, Venezuela and the list goes on was underlined as critical to America's well-being. Peppered with a question by a local businessman about his kids who like national wildlife areas as they are, Emerson placed her faith in "technology" allowing oil exploration with a small footprint. "The technology has changed dramatically from what it was even 20 to 30 years ago," she said. She could have also made the point that not all areas currently off-limits for drilling are desirable places for backpacking and sightseeing: drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for example. With the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, ANWR promises to be an issue in the presidential campaign. Palin has supported drilling in ANWR. "Of the 20 million acres up there, we're looking at 2,000 acres as a footprint. Smaller than LAX (Los Angeles International Airport). With new technology, with directional drilling, maybe that footprint [will] shrink even more." Both John McCain and Barack Obama have voiced opposition to drilling in ANWR, although McCain has recently suggested he's open to new information. Energy is already a big issue in this year's national political campaign. Along with the hot topic of health care costs, gasoline prices impact everyone on a daily basis directly through consumer gas purchases or indirectly through higher energy-related production and distribution costs. Perhaps that's the reason "Drill, baby, drill" was a chant heard throughout the Republican convention. On my way back to the office from the chamber event, an independent political pollster on the radio talked about the most effective TV ad of the long political season. "It wasn't the 'Who do you want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 o'clock in the morning' ad," he said. Nor was it any of Senator McCain's recent ads poking at Senator Obama's "celebrity." "Both of those ads got a lot of positive spin in the press, largely because they came out just as other factors were changing the election." The most influential ad, according to this analyst's tracking methodology, has been McCain's ad touting the need for more oil drilling. "That ad moved the needle in our tests more than any other." Perhaps Emerson's nonpartisan talk about agricultural and energy issues carried more of a political message than most people realized.
Emerson is a savvy politician and an engaging speaker. Known to be a bit of a maverick herself, she brings an arsenal of facts to her discussion of the issues. At the chamber breakfast, she was also asked to evaluate the convention speeches by the candidates in both parties. Seeking to avoid being political, she said nice things about each (although Joe Biden's convention speech wasn't one she saw). But she recounted a phone call from her daughter, Tori, who was at the Republican convention, about Palin's address: "Tori said she had never seen someone so comfortable giving such a big speech." I would agree with Tori. Palin nailed the speech with a rare confidence and grace. If she performs as well in the vice presidential debate and throughout the campaign, she will be a political force in America for a long time, whether McCain is elected or not. And the post-convention bounce for the Republicans, pushing them above Obama-Biden for the first time in the daily polling, indicates that her presence is already playing a significant role this year. Jon K. Rust is publisher of the Southeast Missourian and co-president of Rust Communications. E-mail: jrust@semissourian.com. Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Jon K. Rust is publisher of the Southeast Missourian and co-president of Rust Communications. He serves on the board of directors for the Associated Press. A native of Cape Girardeau, he has lived and worked in New York City, Boston, San Francisco and Moscow, Russia. He and his wife have one daughter with a second expected in mid-April.
Hot topics Hello, Katya(  0 ~ 11:15 PM, Apr 25)
A case for preservation tax credits
Basketball and forecasts
Thanksgiving, God and America's bounty
Dreaming big in Cape Girardeau
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Hip hip hurray Jon on your interesting analysis on O'bama and McCain's campaign "attacks" and media reporting. (I particularly found your Looney Tunes interjection funny). Good perspective, fair,balanced, discerning and insightful. Wish they could have a fresh face like you on the national media talk shows or writing scene. Maybe you could set an example for some of the old timers I watch or hear that have allowed their personal bias cloud their reporting.
Since my lifestyle does allow for me to listen and read national media on a daily basis, I'm sad to see the national press slowly drift away from the standard of objective reporting. They are losing credibility and respect at a record breaking speed. (Example: Charlie Gibson's disrespectful interview with Sara Palin).
I live by Fort Bragg and am reminded of the freedoms our country fights for in a real way. Freedom of speech is a wonderful freedom. Although we have a right to speak our mind within reason (not slandering, etc.), there are consequences to what we say or write. I believe that the press is walking precariously on the cliff and might teeter off if more accountability isn't provided for them and it needs to come from within their own organization. I hope Sean Hannity is wrong when he says that we are watching the death of journalism. To borrow religious terminology, maybe the press needs to humble themselves and repent and return to the basics of objective reporting.
Hip hip hurray Jon on your interesting analysis on O'bama and McCain's campaign "attacks" and media reporting. (I particularly found your Looney Tunes interjection funny). Good perspective, fair,balanced, discerning and insightful. Wish they could have a fresh face like you on the national media talk shows or writing scene. Maybe you could set an example for some of the old timers I watch or hear that have allowed their personal bias cloud their reporting.
Since my lifestyle does allow for me to listen and read national media on a daily basis, I'm sad to see the national press slowly drift away from the standard of objective reporting. They are losing credibility and respect at a record breaking speed. (Example: Charlie Gibson's disrespectful interview with Sara Palin).
I live by Fort Bragg and am reminded of the freedoms our country fights for in a real way. Freedom of speech is a wonderful freedom. Although we have a right to speak our mind within reason (not slandering, etc.), there are consequences to what we say or write. I believe that the press is walking precariously on the cliff and might teeter off if more accountability isn't provided for them and it needs to come from within their own organization. I hope Sean Hannity is wrong when he says that we are watching the death of journalism. To borrow religious terminology, maybe the press needs to humble themselves and repent and return to the basics of objective reporting.
Hip hip hurray Jon on your interesting analysis on O'bama and McCain's campaign "attacks" and media reporting. (I particularly found your Looney Tunes interjection funny). Good perspective, fair,balanced, discerning and insightful. Wish they could have a fresh face like you on the national media talk shows or writing scene. Maybe you could set an example for some of the old timers I watch or hear that have allowed their personal bias cloud their reporting.
Since my lifestyle does allow for me to listen and read national media on a daily basis, I'm sad to see the national press slowly drift away from the standard of objective reporting. They are losing credibility and respect at a record breaking speed. (Example: Charlie Gibson's disrespectful interview with Sara Palin).
I live by Fort Bragg and am reminded of the freedoms our country fights for in a real way. Freedom of speech is a wonderful freedom. Although we have a right to speak our mind within reason (not slandering, etc.), there are consequences to what we say or write. I believe that the press is walking precariously on the cliff and might teeter off if more accountability isn't provided for them and it needs to come from within their own organization. I hope Sean Hannity is wrong when he says that we are watching the death of journalism. To borrow religious terminology, maybe the press needs to humble themselves and repent and return to the basics of objective reporting.
Sarah Palins speech??? Write me a speech, give me a few hours to practice, post it on a teleprompter as I deliver it, and I, as well as most educated people, could do as well as any politician. I will be impressed when someone writes and delivers their own speech.
Sarah Palin spoke with rare confidence and grace?! I must not have heard the same speech as the esteemed publisher. The speech I heard sounded contemptuous, smug, and failed to seriously address energy policy, or any of the other grave issues that face this country.
Indeed, John McCain's choice of such an inexperienced, divisive ideologue as a running mate will only fuel the partisan rancor he promises to resolve.
I wish some folks at the paper knew how to close their italics tag.
I thought Palin did a nice job with her speach but I did think it was a bit canned. She is definitely a breath of fresh air so to speak.
Additional drilling in these areas initially considered off limits is certainly worth entertaining. However it is important to remember that oil companies will only drill if the oil is of a good enough grade and the cost of bringing that oil to the market will be profitable enough to do so. In that end Emerson is correct in the absolute need to decrease overall dependence on oil.
The true War On Terror should be fought on becoming energy independent. We have done nothing but "sell the rope to countries who hate us with which they intend to hang us."
The drive to 'drill here, drill now' is yet another simple-minded suggestion offering an illusory solution to a serious problem.
Some reason needs to be imposed on this stupid bandwagon argument. First, remember that the U.S. produced 3% of the global oil output and consumes 24%. Increasing our production will have virtually no effect on world oil prices since these are driven by supply and demand - and we are not the only ones demanding. Note also that pump prices did not drop 30% when the price of oil dropped that much - but they sure go up when oil goes up. Pump prices are rigged by Big Oil. Furthermore, Big Oil promotes OPEC - which controls global oil production - and OPEC has just cut global oil production claiming the oil problem is overproduction. Big Oil, making record profits from the pocket books of suffering Americans, is supported by John McCain and the Republican Party. They want oil profits to stay up. No coincidence that John McCain eaccepted three quarters of a million dollars from Big Ol for his campaign. It is Big Oil that has promoted regulating Iraq's oil production for decades, and even now favors central control of Iraq oil to restrict production. Big Oil, supported by McCain - Emerson and their party, now argues they want to drill offshore. The only reason is that they know this will absolutely not lower pump prices; it will just further fatten the profits of oil companies. McCain and Emerson are not on your side, they're clearly on the side of Big Oil and continued profits - and Amercians be damned.
Furthermore, as McCain and Emerson both know, in order to address climate change, by the time any significant amount of oil flows from the offshore wells the U.S. must be largely weaned from oil. So, the best case for offshore drilling will be that it worsens climate change - what used to be McCain's issue until he sold out to the Republican platform. The worst case is that it will just lead to more of the same insults from Big Oil - no change in gas prices, huge oil company profits, polluted oceans and beaches, and dead wildlife.
I have had enough of politicans creating and then pandering to American fears. It reminds me of exactly the kind of lies, distortions, chery-picking, deceipt and deceptions that took us into Iraq, and it is being promoted by exactly the same right wing lunatics. Get a grip, America, look at who is feeding you these lines about offshore drilling - it's the same folks who give tax breaks to the rich - and want to do it some more; the same folks who have destroyed our international reputation - and want to do it some more, the same folks who have destroyed our environment for short term profits - and want to do it some more. Don't fall for it yet again. Aren't 8 years of this garbage enough for you?