On Friday afternoon, I got an email from John Dicks congressional campaign. I've been getting them from time to time and had been wondering when the next one would be sent out.
Dicks is one of four Democrat candidates in Florida's 9th congressional district, trying to gain the chance to run against Gus Bilirakis in the fall. The other three candidates are Bill Mitchell, Michael Van Hoek and Anita De Palma.
As I wrote in my last diary regarding the FL-09 race, Dicks is supposedly the best poised financially at current to challenge Gus Bilirakis. That's part of the reason why I had wanted to hear from his campaign... in order to hear what he has planned and such. This email left me wanting, and led me to another voice on the issues, which I will go into detail about below the fold.
Dicks email had the populist overtures with regards to gas prices soaring at current in Tampa Bay and across the country:
This won't surprise you! Business Week reports that gas prices continue to climb and that the national average price per gallon is 16 cents higher than it was two weeks ago. Click here to read the article.
To help you find the cheapest gas in your area, I've posted a widget on our Blog that provides a guide to gas prices pulled from the internet based on whatever zip code you submit. Check it out by clicking here.
If you're curious about gas prices and how they've climbed, you can review historical prices by clicking here. The numbers come from the Energy Information Administration, which provides official energy statistics from the U. S. Government.
You'll note, for example that last year, in January 2007, when our current Congressman, Gus Bilirakis, was first sworn in, gas was $2.24 per gallon. One year later, it was $3.04. That's a 36% increase in just one year!
It's time for a change!
Granted, we're hearing those words about change a lot already this election season, but Congress really does need to focus its attention on things that affect both our economy and our security. Ending our reliance on overseas oil and becoming energy independent would be a good start!
Time out, time out...
"Energy Independence". Yeah, that's vital, that's important... But isn't that also code word rhetoric? I mean we have also heard those on the right declare that we need to reach energy independence, but their solution in this is to drill our way there. More oil rigs in more places, etc.
This got me concerned... Because I'm not going to want to get behind someone who believes we can drill our way out of our oil problems. That's a big risk especially concerning Florida and our tourist based economy here.
Dicks web site does not contain a separate on-the-issues type page or white papers, but jams all positions (including energy - as cited below) on his About page:
* We are enriching countries run by terrorists and evil dictators who get rich off of soaring oil prices. We pay $3 per gallon when we fill our tanks because pork barrel politicians ignore innovation and fail to encourage the development and use of alternative energy resources to end our dependence on foreign oil. Their inactivity not only drives up prices, but it makes us less safe. It’s not just about high gas prices; it’s about security here at home!
I also ended up emailing Mr. Dicks and asking him to elaborate on his policy goals, just to make sure he wasn't indeed using code words in order to appeal to the red majority in FL-09 and the general before he's even appealed to the Democrats and won his primary contest. I asked if he was alluding at all to drilling our way out of our dependence on foreign oil in the immediate while researching other energy sources for the future...
I waited all weekend to hear back from him for a clarification. Joe Farrell, a member of John Dicks staff, responded with a non-answer on the drilling question:
Thank you for your response. Mr. Dicks believes in changing the status qou energy policy that focuses on oil dependecny. Mr Dicks would like to foster an atmosphere the encourages energy alternatives. It is unclear what will be the silver bullet, but encouraging more research and development for ethanol, wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. will help us reach the goal of breaking our addiction to oil.
Research and development are vital goals, but it doesn't say what will be done on the immediate, nor his stance on more national drilling to supplant foreign oil (in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico). Though he does use another keyword ("Breaking our addiction to oil" -- I've been left less sure of things.
Meanwhile, Bill Mitchell has only a short blurb on his issues page that addresses energy in general:
ENERGY POLICY
We must develop alternatives to oil. We must protect our consumers against price gouging by the oil companies.
For three years Bill was part of a special FTC team that investigated and litigated against big oil. He received a merit promotion for his work.
Anita De Palma's campaign hasn't been around that long, and her web site shows it -- stressing her credentials but having little to nothing else.
It's Michael van Hoek who had the response and elaboration I was looking for on his web site. While John Dicks touched on the problem/solution and Bill Mitchell only alludes to things, van Hoek takes it on:
From Mike van Hoek's site:
Our Country's Dependence on Oil
The time has come for our country to end our outrageous dependance on oil. And not just foreign oil...oil. I'm told that we consume millions and millions of barrels of oil each week, and that our consumption continues to grow. Not only does our excessive use of this fuel add to our Earth's environmental concerns, but our continuous need for this finite resource causes us to establish partnerships of convenience with other countries and regimes which operate counter to our own values. I think this is wrong.
If you are old enough, I'd like you to think back on the 1960's. At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik program. Remember how freaked out everyone in the U.S. was? I was very young, but I can still remember the mood.
I recall that President Kennedy announced that before the end of the decade, the United States would place a man on the moon. I recall that I didn't quite understand how reaching the moon was going to benefit society, but it seemed really cool. And it would really stick it to the Soviets if we were able to string together the technology and the will to do it. And so we set out to do it.
Back then, flying to the moon was a notion that went far beyond the ability of most people to fathom. But, you know what? This country marshalled it's brightest and best resources, and, by golly, we sure 'nuff went to the moon! Do you remember those days? Now, I'm old enough to remember watching Neil Armstrong stepping off the Lunar Excursion Module and taking that giant leap for mankind! What was at one time inconceivable had become a reality.
So here we are, and it seems inconceivable that this country could possibly end it's dependance on oil. I think it's time for this country to marshall it's best and brightest resources, and make a commitment... a real commitment... to develop alternative fuels that are renewable, that do not endanger the environment, and that get us out of bed with oil rich regimes that are our friends only because we need their oil. And dig this...
Corporate America continues to outsource American jobs overseas, leaving entire towns without industry. Great American workers now idle so that corporate giants can take advantage of cheap labor elsewhere. Isn't it time for us to start investing in corporations that are committed to developing alternative energies? Imagine a new Industrial Revolution, powered by American industry, funded by American investors, and staffed by American workers. It's already starting!
As your Congressman, I will not support any legislation which includes the exploration or drilling for additional oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico or the Florida Everglades. I will. however, support legislation which revives American ingenuity, puts Americans back to work, and ends our dependence on oil.
It's time, don't you think?
Now that is a response to the issue that resonates with me. In fact, van Hoek has more responses and more elaboration on issues than any of the other candidates, as well as talking about them much more personally.
Of course, text on a web site or in an email does not qualify or disqualify any candidate, but it does give you a better perception of who the candidates are and what they stand for through the substance they provide.
It's very early in the congressional campaign season and it's a crowded battle in FL-09. But in this early going -- simply looking into this one issue and finding a trove of responses (or lack there of) from the candidates, it shows a distinction between who is running and how they will campaign - and potentially serve in the US Congress.
Updated to fix a broken link pointed out by Alice in Florida... And Bad Spelling by me :p