Best ideas are ideology-free

T. Boone Pickens’ plan for energy independence may or may not force Washington
to tackle, rather than talk to death, this issue. But Cal and Bob agree that big
problems require big — and bipartisan — solutions.

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist.

But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in
Washington cannot. They co-wrote the book Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan
War That Is Destroying America

Today: The battle for energy independence.

Bob: It's funny how a crisis focuses the mind. Two months ago, when we wrote about the
politics of energy and the lack of a detailed energy plan, things were bad.

(Photo - Pickens: The Texas oilman and philanthropist wants “the No. 1 issue of the
campaign this year” to be how to win U.S. independence from foreign oil. His solutions:
wind turbines and natural gas / Jessica Rinaldi for USA TODAY)

Cal: Since then, oil has flirted with $150 a barrel but recently settled in near $130, and
the greater economy is paying the price. If there is any good news in this — and you
know conservatives tend to be optimists — it's that politicians are paying attention, and
the phrase "energy independence" has moved from the back page to the front page.
Hardly a day goes by in which either John McCain or Barack Obama doesn't mention gas
prices and the energy crisis. Necessity is, indeed, the mother of strange bedfellows, to
mix a metaphor.

Bob: You're not kidding. One of your conservative heroes, T. Boone Pickens, has stepped
forward to take the lead on energy independence where Washington has failed, even
appearing on Capitol Hill earlier this week. And this man, who has made his money in
oil, said something you rarely — outside of this column, anyway — hear people say:
"This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats."

Cal: Pickens may be the equivalent of Richard Nixon opening the door to China nearly
40 years ago. He offers a comprehensive plan that includes wind farms and natural gas as
two ways to generate cheap and always available electricity. The wind energy would be
used instead of natural gas to generate electricity, and that freed-up natural gas could then
be used for transportation fuel. He envisions cutting oil imports by a third in just a
decade. It will take a thinker like Pickens joining others who have innovative proposals if
we are to move toward energy self-sufficiency.

Bob: He's not the first, nor last, to suggest this. What makes this any different from past
efforts?
Cal: Two things: The depth of his plan and the megaphone that comes with being a
billionaire. Think about it, if billionaire Ross Perot could bankroll a presidential run and
get Americans interested in the national debt, imagine what Pickens could do when it
comes to gas prices and pocketbook (and environmental) issues that affect all Americans.

Bob: Good point. And he's already running print ads and TV spots and has launched a
website devoted to this issue. If Pickens can get Obama and McCain thinking big about
energy independence — as he clearly has — it will be money well-spent.

Cal:Most important is whether he can get the American people on board. What's striking
is that he sees what you and I have been preaching for years now: The nation's biggest
problems are not insurmountable if they are tackled by folks on both sides of the aisle.
Granted, he's a lifelong Republican, but as he told USA TODAY two weeks ago, "This
has to be a bipartisan effort."

Bob: Pickens may be talking about energy independence, but the big problems in our
country today provide a target-rich environment. We don't even need the 3 a.m. phone
call to tell us that. Health care reform and Social Security reform are enough to keep any
president — or should I say, most presidents — up at night.

Cal: President Bush tried to reform Social Security with a sensible privatization plan, but
Democrats would have no part of it. They played the fear card with voters, and where did
we end up? Back at Square One.

Bob: And President Clinton — well, Hillary Clinton — tried to put forth a far-reaching
health care reform in the early '90s, and that effort went careening off a cliff.

Cal: A Democratic-majority Congress assisted by a conservative ad campaign defeated

that effort. We can argue about whether either of those plans was right for the country, but
one thing they had in common was partisan politics. Once partisanship takes over, it's
difficult to undo the negative effect.

Bob: So how can the country use Pickens' wake-up call to move ahead on energy
independence?

Cal: The value in his message will be in talking to all Americans with one voice. Now I
know that in the months ahead, the candidates will air slick commercials about "One
America" and bathe themselves in red, white and blue, but voters already see the
candidates through clouded lenses. Pickens doesn't have that kind of baggage. He's not
liberal billionaire George Soros, after all, who uses his money to divide rather than to
unite people.

Bob: Anyone who can come up with realistic ideas for alternative energy is welcome,
whether from the right, left or center. I have long advocated nuclear power to the distress
of my liberal friends. I grew up next to the first nuclear power plant in Connecticut, and it
was run safely and efficiently. (Some conservatives have suggested that living that close
to a nuclear power plant explains why I'm a misguided liberal! Not true.) I disagree about
the push for offshore drilling and especially drilling in Alaska, but we don't have to agree
on everything to move forward with something.

Cal: That's what I like about Pickens' plan. Like a good offense in football, he wants to
have many options. If the receiver is covered, dump the ball off to the running back out in
the flat. Don't limit yourself. So Pickens says we should use wind and natural gas, but
he's open to nuclear, ethanol and renewables. Conservation? Sure. Do it all. I just don't
like seeing Democrats in Congress repeating the same play when it comes to an energy
plan.

Bob: I agree. That's about as effective as throwing the Hail Mary every play, which is
what the Drill Now crowd — largely Republicans — is doing.

Cal: Another problem standing in the way of energy independence is the NIMBY (Not In
My Back Yard) syndrome. We want wind energy, but not the windmills. We want cheaper
gas, but not the refineries. We want more oil, but not offshore drilling. This is a national
problem, one that requires a national — meaning all-American — solution.

Bob: And as we both know, NIMBY knows no party affiliation.

Cal: So true. When a wind farm was proposed off Nantucket, Mass., Republican Gov.
Mitt Romney and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed the idea, arguing that wind
turbines are ugly and would harm tourism. In January, the U.S. Minerals Management
Service found that such a wind farm would have little lasting impact on wildlife or
tourism.

Bob: One thing we had better be clear on is that all sides in the energy debate are going
to have to get out of the "backyard" mentality. But I'm optimistic, too. That's right, Cal,
liberals aren't all pessimists. We're optimistic realists! The energy crisis may provide us
with a unique opportunity to let the creative talents of Americans come together to find
new energy alternatives, and leave politics out of it. Political leadership may one day
emerge on this issue, but we've been hearing the "energy independence" vow since
Nixon. And as President Bush once said in butchering the original saying, "Fool me once,
shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Or was that Yogi
Berra? You get the point.

Cal: I think you're right about this being a unique opportunity, one of those rare moments
in time when the stars have aligned in a way that a common ground approach to energy
self-sufficiency could work. The public wants this and must demand that our leaders
move forward. The Pickens plan may or may not be the answer to this decades-old
problem, but whether you agree with the details of his plan or not, his approach — one
free of ideology — is a winner.

Bob: Amen.
 Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, July 24, 2008 in Common Ground, Election 2008 - Forum,
Energy - Forum, Forum commentary | Permalink

USA TODAY welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil --
discussions. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be
removed. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register

Comments: (34)
Showing:

Open-minded wrote: 6d 21h ago

Bravo T Boone Pickens !!

Maybe even short-sighted, narrow-minded conservatives will listen to a good ole Texas
oil boy like you...

Recommend3 | Report Abuse

JohnDoe2 wrote: 6d 20h ago

Sign the petition that says: "America must commit to producing 100% of our electricity
from cheap, clean renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, within 10 years."

http://pol.moveon.org/gorechallenge/o.pl?id=13294-8958772-WhpQ0wx&t=3

Recommend3 | Report Abuse

JohnDoe2 wrote: 6d 20h ago

Cellulosic ethanol plants planned in Tennessee, L.A.

Reuters
DuPont (DD) and Genencor, a unit of Denmark's Danisco, said Wednesday that they will
break ground this fall on a 250,000 gallon cellulosic..
LOS ANGELES, 5:30 p.m. July 23 (AP)
L.A. County approves commercial ethanol plant: A proposal to build the nation's first
commercial ethanol production plant using yard trimmings, paper, wheat straws and other
green wastes was approved Wednesday by Los Angeles County .

Recommend2 | Report Abuse

John Q. Public wrote: 6d 14h ago

Thank you T. Boone Pickens and thank you Bob and Cal.

Has ayone made the suggestion that this be a bi-partisan issue? Yes me. Five years go.
But I am most definately a John Q. Public an my very small voice is nt heard very well.
What was, and still is, needed is a celebrity voice.

Is T. Boone Pickens courageous? No. He is one of the crw of the Titanic that knows that
the bow is about to g under the water as the rest of us are stll drinking our nightcap. He
has already scouted out his limited capacity lifeboat.

This is a step in the right direction, but energy independence is not attainable. I guess that
this country must have our boogieman in order to act. Would that this country could act
as grownups though and handle complexity. Energy sustainablity has to be our goal. The
moon, not just earth orbit.

Recommend3 | Report Abuse

sparks wrote: 6d 12h ago

To open minded . Liberals are the most intolerant narrow minded people on the planet no
matter the label.

Recommend2 | Report Abuse

knaug60 wrote: 6d 10h ago

Well, regardless how you slice and dice it, anything short of wind, solar, geothermal, and
hydro-electric power will eventually run out of fuel. It is not so much a question of if we
reduce depencence on non-renewable sources, but rather one of when? and how?

Recommend2 | Report Abuse

diffrunt wrote: 6d 10h ago
in a nutshell: less oil, more alternatives.

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

mutant31 wrote: 6d 10h ago

I certainly agree with Mr. T that we MUST get off the oil t*t and I've been saying so for
about 15 years but, whatever he says about how to do it should be taken with a large dose
of salt. You can bet that he stands to make huge profits if HIS methods are chosen.

As the backer of the Swift Boaters in the 2004 election, Mr. T was partly responsible in a
very ugly way for the oil fix we're in now. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw a
rig.

Recommend | Report Abuse

Open-minded wrote: 6d 9h ago

Sparks:....look up the definition of liberal. It is completely contrary to narrow-
mindedness. Then look up the definition of conservative too.

Also, if you'd like me to list some of the narrow-minded, intolerant acts/beliefs of

religious conservatives, let me know. There are books ....

Recommend3 | Report Abuse

knaug60 wrote: 6d 8h ago

With respect to the usual name calling vis a vis Liberal vs. Conservative, not all Liberals
are "liberal" and not all Conservatives are "conservative". Open-minded seems to have
very little tolerance for public expression of religious belief since he sees the very act of
that expression as being intolerant. Still I find many of his comments in this area
acceptable because they pale in comparison to Patdee's ruinous, supposedly pro-Christian
arguments that do more to discredit the argument of God's love for us than any naysayer
could hope to achieve.

Sparks, if you think open-minded is really really intolerant, I can easily spout off 3 or 4
hard line red-state regulars here who I think are arguably much worse.
Comments: (34)
Showing:

Aviking wrote: 6d 8h ago

I'm all for the wind, although I think the natural gas should be used to make hydrogen,
instead of directly power the cars. That way we move directly towards a hydrogen
economy

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

knaug60 wrote: 6d 8h ago

It is interesting to bring up the Swiftboat issue as a way of discrediting this issue. Nice
deflection, but shooting the messenger is a classic way of saying "I can't argue with what
he says, but I hate his guts". While Mr. Pickens politics grate on me, I will give the devil
his due and say that he makes some very valid points.

While stringing up thousands of wind turbines would help mitigate our use of non-
renewable energy sources of electricity and address the issue of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions [not to mention helping to get rid of all those "annoying" migratory birds], it is
only part of the mix. As to Pickens making money, that's a given. It's what he does. The
only question I have is can the rest of us benefit in some way.

Recommend5 | Report Abuse

knaug60 wrote: 6d 8h ago

Aviking,

If we use methane (CH4) to create H2, what happens to the "C"? If it becomes CO2, then
isn't using hydrogen to power the cars, making them "emission free" a sham? Similarly, if
we use electrolysis to make the H2, I'd ask where the electricity came from. If a coal
powered electric plant, then we are achieving very little in the big picture scheme of
things.

Besides, the assumption of cheap unlimited natural gas has proven a disaster in making
decisions regarding future electricity sources.

Recommend | Report Abuse

Ed in NM wrote: 6d 8h ago
I replied to the Texas flooding and flooding in general below. Here is another thought on
energy independence. I congratulate T Boone for having some ideas, even ones he will
profit on.

Little problems? Think larger. Hydrodroelectric dams create enough power for Las Vegas
and Phoenix. Remember water wheels to grind stone? Moving water through pipes with
turbines at each joint could also create electrical energy. It would be thousands to millions
of generator accomplishing the same goal as one Hydroelectric dam. Here we have plenty
of land where crops could be used in a biofuel program. Crops need CO2 to grow, solve
the global CO2 problem at the same time. There are so many things we can do to solve
much bigger issues if we just see the interrelationships.

Recommend | Report Abuse

Ed in NM wrote: 6d 8h ago
Below ae comments I made on Texas flooding, flodding in general and excess uses of
water. I congratulate T Boone on having ideas, even is he may profit from it.

Little problems? Think larger. Hydrodroelectric dams create enough power for Las Vegas
and Phoenix. Remember water wheels to grind stone? Moving water through pipes with
turbines at each joint could also create electrical energy. It would be thousands to millions
of generator accomplishing the same goal as one Hydroelectric dam. Here we have plenty
of land where crops could be used in a biofuel program. Crops need CO2 to grow, solve
the global CO2 problem at the same time. There are so many things we can do to solve
much bigger issues if we just see the interrelationships.

Recommend | Report Abuse

V. wrote: 6d 8h ago
Two thoughts:

The Drill Now proponants never mention that any oil recovered from the U.S. offshore or
Alaska will be sold on the world market and do nothing to reduce U.S. oil dependance or
subsequently lower fuel prices. 68 million acres are already leased in the U.S. for drilling.
The president's shrill drilling leitmotif is his last chance to boost Big Oil profits and
destroy the arctic.

The bipartisan effort required will be accomplished by men of imagination and ability,
rising above petty politics. I see that Cal couldn't resist mentioning the Right's favorite
straw man, George Soros, completely out of context. Bipartisan? Come on, Cal, let's start
right here.

Recommend | Report Abuse

a flower in hell wrote: 6d 6h ago

Our planet may be running low, but our solar system is full of more useful resources than
we could use up in a million years.

The most important discovery in human history will be faster-than-light travel, and once
it has been achieved, it will make all these big energy and population problems look so
very small.

Of course, no governments really want to see that happen. Without a captive populace,
their power evaporates.

Recommend | Report Abuse

NW Mitch wrote: 6d 6h ago

Bravo T Boone Pickens !!

Maybe even short-sighted, narrow-minded liberals will listen to a good ole Texas oil boy
like you...

Let's keep the perspective balanced....enough blame for everyone

Recommend | Report Abuse

Greg Paul wrote: 6d 6h ago

This shows the real solutions to the major problems in the country can only be solved by
free enterprise and American ingenuity. President Carter stated the Government needed to
"solve" the energy crisis in 1976 and look what the "government" has done in 30 years.
Thank God for men like T Boone.
Recommend | Report Abuse

Open-minded wrote: 6d 6h ago

Knaug60....

I always enjoy your viewpoint and agree with it about 90% of the time. You seem to be a
very intelligent, logical and worldly person. Anyway...

I do disagree with you that I am intolerant of others voicing their religious beliefs in
publc. Why would you think this? I have never stated such. I am an ardent supporter of
anyone displaying any religious conviction in public, anywhere and anytime. If someone
wants to get up on a milk crate with a bullhorn and tell us all that we are going to hell,
that is OK by me. Actually, I see this in downtown Chicago almost everyday and could
care less. I support their right to do this.

I just abhor when religious people want to force their beliefs onto others, esp via public
policy, which is something I say all the time.

A few quick examples:

Blue laws (no liquor sold on sunday): my home state of Georgia recently renewed them
because as Gov Sonny Purdue says..."we cannot allow these people to buy liquor on the
Lord's day". Is he serious?! Yes

Right to die/right to self determination: Since "only God can take life" religious folks
insist that this be kept illegal. The fact that the issue involves a terminally ill person in
great pain who just wants to die in peace with his family in attendance is just too bad.
Liberty? Privacy? Who cares. Not religious people.

Abortion: What can I say here? Because "God creates life at conception" then all
abortions should be illegal, per religious people. And any type of family planning in
general needs to be stopped again, because of their religion. Liberty? Privacy? Who
cares?

Prayer in public schools: Anyone can pray at any time and anywhere, including in any
school. But religious people insist on forcing this into public school classrooms disguised
as a moment of silence. Again, you can pray anytime and anywhere you want so why
force others to be quiet and take up learning time so you can practice your religion?
Again, anyway that religious people can force their beliefs onto others....

Intelligent design/creationism being taught in public school science classrooms along side
evolutionary biology??
Gay issues: Self explanatory really. Religious people use their dogma to back up
discriminatory public policies and outright violence every day..

ETC, ETC

Religious people have always attempted to force their beliefs into everyone else's private
lives

Thanks for the input Knaug!

Comments: (34)
Showing:

JohnDoe2 wrote: 6d 2h ago

America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our oil at a cost
of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

pickenplan.com

Recommend | Report Abuse

Paul Emens wrote: 6d 2h ago

This is all well and good but opposing wind turbines is not always a NIMBY response. In
upstate New York, for example, we have been overrun by wind turbine corporations in
what can best be described as a stampede of Wild West proportions. They come into
counties making promises (which are often broken), cutting deals with local county and
town officials, and appealing to base greed on the part of landowners. Town and county
officials who stand to gain from turbines on their property vote for turbine laws so they
can gain financially. In the meantime local residents pay the price in lower property
values, noise and flicker issues and degraded view lines. Forget the environemental issues
if you want; there are plenty of more personal issues - quality of life issues. In New York,
the state madates alternative energy but provides no standards - so some towns (here's the
greed part again!) actually consider (and pass) standards that allow turbines ON a
property line (rather than set back 2500 -5000 feet, a more appropriate distance).
Recvently the Attorney General of New York has opened an investigation of the trubine
corporations. It's about time! Most government types, prone to running with the crowd,
have not gone to the trouble to make sure the average Joe is protected. Bottom line: 450'+
turbines were not designed to be built in rural-residential areas. They are meant for the
wide open spaces - the Great Plains, the open West, the open ocean. If we destroy the
little guy, buried by greed, we are propagating agreat moreal wrong.

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

Hawkins wrote: 6d 1h ago

How is best measured?
What is goodness?
An ideology provides the test.

Recommend | Report Abuse

The Mick wrote: 5d 22h ago

JohnDoe2 wrote: 21h 15m ago

Sign the petition that says: "America must commit to producing 100% of our electricity
from cheap, clean renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, within 10 years."
---------------------------------------------------------------
A beautiful thought but it's not practical. I would prefer to do what the European Union is
doing: mandating that each member nation must significantly increase the % of non-fossil
fuel electricity with numeric requirements. Solar isn't cheap - though the fact that it will
save fossil fuels is probably worth it. In Germany, where electricity is relatively
expensive, the government pays people more for putting electricity back into the grid
than it charges them for using it from the grid. Consequently, solar panels are practical for
people and 30% of Germany's electricity is from renewable sources.

Recommend | Report Abuse

Copenhagun wrote: 5d 20h ago

I'm as liberal as you can get, yet I understand that Pickens has our best interests in mind
and wants to make a buck while he's at it. While I am not happy with Pickens funding of
the swift boat vets in 2004, if he pulls this off, I can learn to forgive him ;).

Join the Liberals for Pickens Plan on PickensPlan.com and show your liberal support for
T Boone today!

Recommend | Report Abuse

KTrev wrote: 5d 7h ago
McCain or Obama - We need a NEW DEAL for energy independence. The short-term
pain of dealing with this problem has kept both political parties from exercising the
courage to tackle it, even though the long term cost grows every year.

This is a matter of National Security, Economic Freedom, and preservation of the planet
(including the health of every person on the planet).

And by the way-shortsightedness and narrow mindedness is not the province one party,
but both. People of integrity don't waste time with name calling they commit themselves
to solutions that make sense without regard to party affiliation or personal cost.

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

Dandy Dan wrote: 5d 4h ago

We Need to Impeach Congress

We need the ability at anytime to have a “No confidence” vote on Congress. Either they
are all in or they are all out. In a recent Rasmussen poll only 9% of American people
think that lawmakers are doing a good or excellent job.

It ought to be easy for them to work together on the major issues facing our country like
energy independence. Congress is mired in bureaucracy, disorganization, gridlock,
partisanship, ineffectiveness, finger pointing, loyalty to lobbyists, lack of leadership and
no vision for our future.

Congress has missed one opportunity after another to move our country toward energy
independence over the last 30 years. This is a major national security issue and there is
not a “post oil” national strategy.

Congress doing the same old things day after day will not result in solutions to our energy
problems. “Vote the bums out.”

Danny Wyatt
Canton, Georgia

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

dbrain wrote: 5d 3h ago

President Carter laid out a complete energy program to wean
the US OFF FOREIGN OIL He was demeaned and still used as a Republican punching
bag and Peagan torpeded the entire program on behalf of Big Oil...That same program,
built around a European Public Transportation System (vastly improved over the one in
the US, during WWII) and using alternative energies is still the solution...Meanwhile a
gas ration program, also done in WWII would immediately bring down the gas prices
AND the gas taxes used as a subsidy for paving contractors can be redirected into the cost
of a vast PUBLIC TRANSPORT fot the entire country insteat of the concrete sides
terrorizing our nation at road construction sites....Instead of using chewing gum, this
project calls for Pittsburg real steel..!!!

Recommend1 | Report Abuse

Justen wrote: 5d ago

I hate billionares as much as the next struggling middle class guy, but I don't think it's fair
to discredit Pickens just because he undoubtably is going to make a whole new fortune
off it if he pushes it through. After all, *somebody* is bound to make good money off it,
even you believe in an idealized future where we all have our own solar panels and
turbines in our back yards.
If you're not ready to step up to the plate and be that somebody, the least you can do is get
out of the way and let someone else make a dirty fortune doing something that's going to
be good for all of us in the long run.

Recommend | Report Abuse

DeWayne_Benson wrote: 4d 22h ago

I do not find a single answer to calamitous problems of America, and in point of fact trace
our problems back many decades through both DEM and GOP controlled governments.

It is in fact as Reagan himself noted, the government is not the answer to our problem, it
is our problem. The most shallow of investigation proves he was and is still correct, and
what is true of our government being less known than what today Bush had for breakfast.

However today as in year 2006-elections, the government Offices of greatest importance

are not the Presidential, each running around the world to assure Empires. Instead it is the
Congressional Offices and candidates that could solve or resolve many important
problems within America. Not downplaying the American Int'l Check-kiting Petro-
$Dollar.

The Office of gretaest importance is the Congressional candidate (new) that will dislodge
the old-core-hard-core Pork/PAC/Perk representing Special Interest and Foreign Powers.
These Congressional men and woman candidates today are totally censored out of US
Media, I do not believe this is because they are not newsworthy. In fact these people are
dangerous, dangerous to those above the law that make up their own laws, this not
specifically in reference to Bush but what some call our Corp or Shadow government.

Congressional candidates that would unseat the pork in Congress need as much national
coverage and support as those the machine has put in front of us being (only) Presidential
candidates. Citizen's need bombard US-Media to begin telling us who are the men and
women running for Congress that could return a Constitutional-gov of Law to the people.

Comments: (34)
Showing:

DeWayne_Benson wrote: 4d 21h ago

I agree that all three Branches of the US-Government are in vilation of the US
Constitution, there is provision in the US Constitution for the American citizen's to take
this matter in their own hands, should they ever decide to resolve this problem.

The US Congress has no authority to abdicate their war-declaration authority to the

Executive Branch, and if reading the Congressional Resolution that was said permitted
this ability, will be found instead it was an attempt to limit the Presidential "Emergency
War Powers" powers that American citizens seem totally ignorant. A power by the way
again violating the Constitution, the Constitution does not give the Executive Branch
authority to make law. Few know of the Emergency War Powers that would have had to
be in effect because the Iraq-war was begun (before) this Congressional Resolution was
even drawn up.

The Judicial sitting on their comfort during all of this was a direct violation of their oath
to guard and protect the Constitution. This fact and in year 2000 making a new law that
they said was an interpretation, the Judicial has no authority to make new laws.

There is little to be said about the Executive Branch of Office that everyone is not aware,
at present it is a criminal operation in violation of just about anything you can name.

There appears two alternatitives for the citizens of this nation, either wait until these
leader completely destroy the nation, and then starting over with whatever remains, or
use the Constitution to drain the swamp (government) and put in representatives "of the
people."

Recommend | Report Abuse

DeWayne_Benson wrote: 4d 21h ago
Statement...
"Cal: President Bush tried to reform Social Security with a sensible privatization plan,
but Democrats would have no part of it. They played the fear card with voters, and where
did we end up? Back at Square One."

GOOD GOD, are you telling me it is to late to convert my Social Security into ENRON
stocks?

Recommend | Report Abuse

DeWayne_Benson wrote: 4d 21h ago

Statement...
"Cal: Another problem standing in the way of energy independence is the NIMBY (Not
In My Back Yard) syndrome. We want wind energy, but not the windmills. We want
cheaper gas, but not the refineries. We want more oil, but not offshore drilling. This is a
national problem, one that requires a national — meaning all-American — solution"

It never ceases to thrill me how accurate the Bible is, in the end times it will be the Blind
leading the Blind.

Recommend | Report Abuse

qo wrote: 2d 19h ago

Having read through every comment, it was distressing to find not ONE mentioned
conservation, or changes in lifestyle, as ingredients to an overall solution.

- Suburbia. It's toast. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Las Vegas etc, are also toast if they don't
realize this and stop the insane infrastructure investments designed to support a flawed
daily 30 mile migration by millions of people 5 days a week.

- Happy Motoring. Sorry, but America's love affair with large automobiles may still be
alive, but it's definitely not well. The patient just doesn't know it yet.

- Inter-city passenger rail. Not even on the radar. America's poor excuse for a rail system
is shamed by Europe.

Yes, alternative sources of energy are needed. But, they are not a silver bullet.
Recommend | Report Abuse