Energy Independence: The Roux in the Stew
Thomas Friedman's column in today's New York Times addresses the centrality of energy independence as a priority for both national security and winning elections. Friedman interviewed Democracy Corps' James Carville on the topic, and got this savory spoonful of political wisdom:
It should “not be part of an expanding litany, but rather a contracting narrative,” explained Mr. Carville. “It can’t just be that we are for a woman’s right to choose, and education and energy independence. This is the thing we need to get done above and beyond everything else.” People should associate “energy security” with Democrats the way they associate “tax cuts” with Republicans, he argued. “This is not something to add to the stew — this is the stock.”
Carville and DCorps' Stanley Greenberg have more to say in the column about energy independence as critical for our national security and a leading priority with voters. All of which adds up to a huge advantage for Dems, especially given the GOP's shameful track record on auto mileage standards, alternative energy and energy conservation.
Comments
Notice that Carville uses "energy security" and not "energy independence" which is both impossible as long as sources of energy are fungible commodities and unhelpful as a framing device for progressives who don't want to reinforce the autarkic, we-can-do-it-all-alone frame of the neocons in power. This is the kind of distinction that TDS could do much to explain and support... please do...
Posted by: Heather Hurlburt | October 16, 2006 02:02 AM
Go over to RedState and read the blog by Newt (yes that Newt) in which he basically says the same thing as Friedman. If Democrats don't make this issue one that is identified with them, Republicans will not be that far behind.
Posted by: Dstopak
|
October 17, 2006 11:07 PM