A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

The mid-term elections are not just about which direction the country may be headed. They are also about whether voters are able to set aside their visceral emotions and evaluate the issues and the candidates in a fair way.
 
Let’s take the race for the U.S. Senate in Delaware where the Democratic candidate Chris Coons is facing off against the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell: I’m leery of anyone who cannot definitively say how they have earned their living for the last decade much less anyone who is unable to pay the debts they owe to their schools, mortgage companies, etc… At 41, O'Donnell has nothing to show.
 
Being in the U.S. Senate is about having achieved something -- not about reciting favorite party quips and smiling for the cameras. In the case of O’Donnell, she has professed an expertise in constitutional law as the basis for her qualifications to be a U.S. Senator. After all, she had spent a week at a conservative think tank memorizing platitudes. 

But she must have forgotten much of it. In a televised debate, she didn’t even know what was in the First Amendment, much less the 14th that relates to due process and citizenship and which has been integral to this national election. Now, most Americans can’t name the amendments in the constitution but most are not running for the U.S. Senate and saying their primary qualification is their constitutional expertise.
 
For the record, my 4th grader knows what’s in the First Amendment -- as did nearly every elementary-age kid at the local bus stop.  By extension, developing energy policy is complicated. It requires serious thought.

Certainly, the anger that permeates American politics is understandable. A prolonged recession has caused confidence in the country’s most integral institutions to be undermined. People are fearful for their livelihoods and for the futures of their children. 

But that angst should not convolute their thinking to such a degree that they embrace the least qualified candidates who have the iffiest ideas. Change will come this November. But let’s hope it’s not the kind in which we become ashamed.

1797 Views Comments 11 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Ken, I share your concerns. But the truth of the matter is that we, the electorate, are basing our decisions on highly polished images of the candidates. Images massaged and refined by experts in the field of PR, marketing, or whatever, backed by heavy advertising and substantial funds. And then, when the elected candidate fails to come up to our expectations, we bitch and moan.

The moment a candidate says, "I will do this" or "I will do that" without having first examined the books, in a manner of speaking, I back away. And yet, I don't think it would be negative if a candidate did add the caveat "depending on what our predecessors have left us", even though the PR folks would undoubtedly frown on such an approach.

Politics: the art of manipulating a third party into doing something he or she would not otherwise have done.
# Posted By Alan Belcher | 10/21/10 3:41 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Alan, you know what this whole situation in Delaware reminds me of? Did you ever see the movie with Robert Redford in which he is running for the U.S. Senate. He wins. And the movie concludes with his remark, "What do we do now?" Ken
# Posted By Ken Silverstein | 10/22/10 9:29 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Is this really an appropriate venue for partisan advocacy? Perhaps you could find an energy issue to discuss wrt the election.
# Posted By James Carson | 10/22/10 2:44 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Granted your post doesn't stay on the energy topic the relevance is that whomever we put into office will have some say and influence over the US energy policy. So choose wisely.
# Posted By Mal Calristein | 10/23/10 7:51 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Exactly Mark. Not intended to be partisan at all. I try to walk a neutral line. But as this blog as stated before, things get accomplished if lawmakers are able to cross the ailse and work with the opposition. In O'Donnell's case, she vilified her primary opponent who would have walked away with this election in Delaware. Why did she scorn him? Because he had the audacity to work with the party in power. Now, her political party will reap what it sows: She will get thumped in the general election. This purity test just won't fly with most. But in the event they can pull off victories in the general election -- some of the Tea Party members very well might -- at least put up ones who are able to think analytically and to asks difficult questions, not those who just repeat whatever their leaders have told them.
# Posted By Ken Silverstein | 10/24/10 7:14 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I beg to disagree with James Carson's comment. This venue is absolutely appropriate to energy, along with many other areas of American endeavor. Ken Silverstein's choice of example is surely based on the subject's notoriety, known to a wide audience, rather than an attempt to promote a particular political party.

Ken's post clearly draws attention to the dangers of failing to discriminate between fact and fiction, or between reality and fantasy, or between truth and untruth. Decisions based on flawed data and half-truths are unlikely to be good ones.

We have the obligation to get things right, the first time around; there is simply too much at stake to do otherwise.
# Posted By Alan Belcher | 10/24/10 8:09 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I may have overlooked some of the stated objectives of the Tea Party, but I am fairly sure that fixing our failing infrastructure is not the core of their agenda. If your elected officials do not support the repair and expansion of all aspects of the american infrastructure - VOTE THEM OUT.

Or, you can join them, freezing in the darkness, waiting for the coyotes...
# Posted By William Norquay | 10/25/10 2:53 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I stand by my criticism. There is nothing whatsoever in the post that pertains to energy. It is nothing more than a partisan rant and a waste of my time to read it. I expect more from 'Energy Central Editor Posts'.
# Posted By James Carson | 10/30/10 10:46 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo The First Amendment is a beautiful thing.
# Posted By Ken Silverstein | 10/31/10 6:32 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Hey guys, I will just share to you the benefits that we can get in Solar Power Generator. Look at this article, wwwsunpowerportcom. All of the informations, benefits you can see in the article. Grab it now guys. :)
# Posted By knickick bernardo | 12/5/10 1:35 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Because this site kept saying I couldn't comment on your article "
New York Sheds Light on its Fracking Plans", I had to come here instead to comment. I take exception with your statement regarding the southern tier "Those landowners are generally in favor of shale gas exploration while other parts of the state are adamantly opposed." There have been numerous people from the southern tier, getting lawyers now, trying to fight fracking. If the landowners you are referring to are large landowners , yes, they do want it. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are generally in favor because a lot of people down there DON'T WANT IT EITHER. I would like to comment on your other statement"New York State has banned fracking until it can gather more facts on whether it pollutes local drinking water supplies. " New York hasn't BANNED fracking, it has had a moratorium on it for almost four years thanks to former Governor Patterson. We New Yorkers WANT A BAN. This statement of yours "Despite some lack of transparency, the shale gas industry generally has a good track record. It should be permitted to expand production but under the watchful eye of both federal and state regulators." is laughable. New York State presently, in it's 2013 budget employs only 15, that's right 15 inspectors for all the potential gas drilling operations that will flood into NYS if our Governor allows it. With all the "regulations" in the world and I've read many parts of the SGEIS, which is so flawed, NY DEC should throw it out and start all over again because the industry was apparently helping draft it. So much for transparency. The gas industry does not have a good track record. Where are your sources on this? Here is one site that can explain the greenhouse emissions problem with extraction of Natural Gas and that is just one little part of the whole extraction process. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/02/138802...
# Posted By jill obrien | 1/7/13 8:33 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox

Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent EntriesRecent Entries
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.