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.
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.
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.
Or, you can join them, freezing in the darkness, waiting for the coyotes...
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...