No energy in Obama energy speech
But Obama is responsible for what we learn from the mega-leak and how we correct the problem for the future. Toward that end, there is one word to characterize his performance thus far: blah. This is not the kind of man you would like with you in a foxhole, for whatever purpose and in whatever war. And he is not a man of any great original mind or creativity. He doesn’t even play one on TV… anymore. That’s over.
When I said his speech was frightened, I meant that the cliches he assembled, or his speech writers assembled, were defensive in nature. He didn’t propose anything specific. He took no risks. The rumored carbon tax was not in evidence, as if he and his advisers knew it would be a non-starter in today’s economic climate.
Also not in evidence was the most serious solution to the problem -- nuclear energy. We had the usual palaver about solar and wind, but no reference to the energy source employed so successfully by the French and the Japanese, the one source that could change the situation with some rapidity. Obama probably didn’t want to mention it because his left would be offended. Again, frightened.
Still, he managed to recite that litany of “clean” energy sources, following the by now nauseatingly familiar Rahm Emanuel dictum about never missing a good crisis. No mention, of course, of the studies that indicate wind energy causes more environmental damage than it cures. Or that solar would require we cover half the world with panels in order to generate sufficient electricity to power society. This isn’t about science. It’s about pose.
No mention either of what every one of us, if we are being honest, knows: No oil. No modern life.
On Tuesday evening, Obama didn't walk the walk. He didn't even talk the talk.
Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/6/16/no-energy-in-obama-energy-speech