Skip to main content

Last night, Jon Stewart covered Obama's speech and also noted a lack of specifics, though that should hardly be any kind of dealbreaker for us here.  But I want to focus on his second segment, where he produced some sobering and damning video of the President promising to end our addiction to oil, and proposed specific ways to go about it.

What makes the video so sobering and damning?  Because the President Jon shows in the video is actually EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since Nixon.  Yes, folks, EVERY single one of the last eight presidents promised to end our oil addiction.  Yes, even Reagan and Bush.

STEWART: We are an unstoppable oil dependency-breaking machine!  Unfortunately, the machine runs on oil.

Video below the fold.

Here are the clips he played of our last eight Presidents, all talking about getting off of oil and becoming energy independent, mostly from State of the Union and Oval Office addresses to the nation.

Barack Obama: "For decades, we have known the days of cheap and accessible oil were numbered....  Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny." (June 15, 2010)

George W. Bush: "This country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." (January 31, 2006)

Bill Clinton: "We need a long-term energy strategy to maximize conservation and maximize the development of alternative sources of energy." (June 28, 2000)

George H.W. Bush: "There is no security for the United States in further dependence on foreign oil." (August 18, 1988)

Ronald Reagan: "We will continue supportive research leading to development of new technologies and more independence from foreign oil." (February 18, 1981)

Jimmy Carter: "This intolerable dependence on foreign oil..." (July 15, 1979)

Gerald Ford: "...new stand-by emergency programs to achieve the independence we want..." (January 15, 1975)

Richard Nixon: "We will break the back of the energy crisis.  We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to meet America's energy needs from America's own resources." (January 30, 1974)

This is not something new.  Every President says he will, and every President has thus far failed to do so.  Now, Jon doesn't get into the details of why this is.  You know, things like the powerful influence of the oil lobby in Congress, and the like.  But given all this, Jon asked this question.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me eight times... am I a fucking idiot?

But here's the thing.  Jon then asks which president has done the most to help our environment.  And closes the argument with a brilliant dig at the ignorant Tea Partiers.

Which brings us to perhaps the strangest aspect of this sad, somewhat Groundhog Day-ish saga.  Of all these 8 men of incalculable power who tried and failed to get us off of oil, ONE stands head and shoulders above the others, as far as actually doing something for the environment.  Who?  I'll give you a hint.  What's got four fingers and resigned in disgrace?  This guy.  (points to picture of Nixon)

He created the Environmental Protection Agency.  He signed the Clean Water Act of 1972.  The Marine Mammal Protection Act.  When the Cuyahoga River was on fire in 1969, he put it out with his own urine!  But even Nixon couldn't get us off oil.  And this was a guy who, by the way, was not afraid to bend the rules to get things done.  Couldn't get it done!  Because, you see, it turns out Nixon had one major fatal flaw.  No, not delusional paranoia coupled with living in an ethical netherworld, no.  You know why Nixon couldn't get this done?  

NIXON: We will establish a new system of high quality health care available to every American in a dignified manner and at a price he can afford. (January 30, 1974)

Because Richard Nixon was a Communist.

So there are forces at work here more powerful than any President.  You could make Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich the President, and we STILL wouldn't be able to get off of oil.  I think we need to recognize what those forces are, and do what we can to change it, because we are only fooling ourselves if we think Obama can simply bully BP and the other oil companies or wave a magic wand into getting us off of oil.  Frankly, as Jon showed, no President has that power.  A dictator would, but I don't think we want to go there.

We can start by pressuring Congress to pass the climate change bill, and push them to make it as strong as possible (which can still get enough votes).  Yeah, it's not going to be everything we wanted.  Yeah, some will call it a corporate sell-out, just like they said about the health care bill.  But we have to begin somewhere, and no, this CANNOT wait another year or two or three or forty.  Any of you who think we can get a bill that will force the oil companies out of existence are not thinking rationally.  They will stick around, and they will throw up every roadblock and obstacle they can against us to fight meaningful reform.  They'll be firing their own "junk shot" at us.  We will have to fight them tooth and nail every step of the way.  Are you guys up for the challenge?

Originally posted to BruinKid on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:00 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, amk for obama, RLMiller

    Far too many here are not though. They're going to stay home or not help in the mistaken belief that this will somehow make things better.

    Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

    by Whimsical on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:04:47 AM PDT

    •  Turn Out is in the Democrats control (6+ / 0-)

      If they take a stand on the energy bill, regardless of how it turns out, they will bring every environmentalist to the polls.

      This is the point everyone seems to be missing here.  If the thing standing in our way is a filibuster, then make the filibuster actually happen.  Let us see that Democrats are committed to once in for all addressing the energy problem.

      We want to fight for our ideas, and we want our representatives to get into that fight on our behalf.

      •  The more the Dems paint Repubs as the friends (7+ / 0-)

        of Big Oil, the more it'll help turnout for us.  We have the chance.  Instead, this site is consumed with stupid meta wars.  I'm frustrated.

        Hey BP! A person's a person, no matter how small!/twittering RL_Miller

        by RLMiller on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:28:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Under the Senate rules... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, bay of arizona

        ...filibusters can't actually happen.

        I thought we'd gone over this during the health care debate.

        The way the filibuster works now, you need 60 yea votes - 3/5 of all Senators - to end debate. All the Republicans have to do is not show up (with the exception of one Republican to object to unanimous consent), and they've effectively shut down all business in the Senate.

        That's not how it used to work. Back in the day of civil rights legislation, you needed 2/3 of present Senators to end debate. That meant that if you wanted to hold up a filibuster, you had to keep your people there. Cots in the cloakroom, etc.

        The current filibuster isn't so dramatic. If Harry Reid "made them filibuster," it would look like 1 Republican in the chamber continually objecting to unanimous consent to close debate, and the rest of them could very well be at Disneyland. That might be good political theatre for the wonks, but it's a far cry from an old-school all-night-session filibuster.

        What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

        by mistersite on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:41:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm so sick of this line (0+ / 0-)

        Turn out is entirely within each individual's control.

        If they decide that what THEY feel is important outranks the actual welfare of the country then the consequences of that decision rest entirely on THEM, and not the Democrats.

        Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

        by Whimsical on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah at this point I don't care who gets it done (5+ / 0-)

    ...as long as it gets done.

    Hell if President Palin gets it done I will put a shrine up on my wall for her.  Of course, to survive in today's GOP, you need to not do anything for the environment and hate government action, so that's not happening anytime soon.  

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:06:05 AM PDT

  •  "Broken promise to end oil addiction" (20+ / 0-)

    Really?  Really?

    He's already being judged to have broken a promise because he hasn't single-handedly ended our societal addiction to oil after about 16 months in office?

    Really?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:07:58 AM PDT

    •  Yeah I didn't get that (5+ / 0-)

      Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

      by soms on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:08:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  its a typical headline these days (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soms, xsonogall, amk for obama, Oh Mary Oh

      misleading, because the President in Question was Nixon in the skit.  And the thrust of the diary is actually supportive of the current attempt to end oil addiction.

    •  The thing is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      no one person can end "our addiction to oil." They can provide cheaper, safer, cleaner, alternatives but even then "our addiction to oil" isn't going to end immediately.  How long will it take for 300,000,000  people to turn to other energy sources?  Perhaps if Nixon had pushed toward that goal and every President thereafter had pushed toward that goal we wouldn't be in the position today.  

      What I find so insidious about Stewart's shtick is that somehow the President gets lumped in with all the Repug predecessors who actively worked against ending "our addiction to foreign oil".  I recall the OPEC oil embargo and waiting in line for gas.  I had just gotten my driver's license and one of my jobs was to take my dad to work and go sit in the gas line.  The opportunity to "end our addiction to foreign oil" happened then.  Everybody was looking for smaller cars and people were some kind of pissed off over having to sit in gas lines.  Of course, once the embargo was lifted, everyone went back to the good ole days and Ronnie made sure that the oil industry got lots of incentives to drill baby drill.  

      The message people may take away from the Stewart shtick is that the President is no better than all his predecessors and the fact that an energy bill is stalled in the Senate is all his fault.  Yet this President and perhaps this Congress (given the current polls) is the best chance we have of getting some kind of energy regulation passed.  Rather than lumping him in with all the Repugs who collaborated with the oil industry to make our "addiction to foreign oil" ever more intense, why not encourage him and go after the coalition of NO! and Conservadems in the Senate who are holding this legislation hostage.  There is much Stewart could do to move the conversation forward and put pressure on the Senate.  He has chosen, for whatever reason, to focus on the President.  

      •  No... (0+ / 0-)

        the message I took away from that was that it's foolish for people to think Obama can get us off of oil if he just gives more speeches or twists more arms.  No President can do it without a literal army of average citizens behind him every step of the way pushing on Congress and pushing back against the corporations that will be fighting us at every turn.

        Jon showed the futility of all of this over the last several decades.  If you took that he was saying Obama is no better, then you were watching a very different clip than I was.

    •  Has Obama ever promised (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      such a thing?  No.  Nobody has promised to end oil addiction.  The political class's references to the problem are all coded in terms of "foreign oil," as if domestic oil didn't promise us the same climate-change hell the foreign stuff did.

      Nope, we're still in the land of the blind leading the blind here.

      "How long? Not long..." -Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:51:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's Yes We Can, not Yes He Can (0+ / 0-)

      When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
      Replace Brian Willams with Jon Stewart and I think we have a glimpse of what the President's response would be.

      In the meantime, I am collecting funds to prevent yet another one of our best Talking Heads from being stricken with Talkingstraighoutmyassisitis.

      Until there's a cure.

  •  This is the best thing I have read here. (14+ / 0-)

    We can start by pressuring Congress to pass the climate change bill, and push them to make it as strong as possible (which can still get enough votes).  Yeah, it's not going to be everything we wanted.  Yeah, some will call it a corporate sell-out, just like they said about the health care bill.  But we have to begin somewhere, and no, this CANNOT wait another year or two or three or forty.  Any of you who think we can get a bill that will force the oil companies out of existence are not thinking rationally.  They will stick around, and they will throw up every roadblock and obstacle they can against us to fight meaningful reform.  They'll be firing their own "junk shot" at us.  We will have to fight them tooth and nail every step of the way.  Are you guys up for the challenge?

    Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

    by soms on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:10:34 AM PDT

    •  seconded. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soms, xsonogall, Oh Mary Oh

      BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
      I want a no-drama Obama, not an emobama.
      Check in your vuvuzela before you login.

      by amk for obama on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:14:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Congress, not Obama, is for sure the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      real impediment to progress.

      However, it would be nice to see Obama running around with his hair on fire (so to speak) on this issue - just daring Congress to defy his (and presumably the majority of voters) wishes.

      Instead he praised Congress's totally lame assed climate change bill as "strong and comprehensive"

      Thus, I have to conclude that he's really not any more part of the solution than congress . . .

      •  Would running around with his hair on fire (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        produce any tangible benefit?  Sure it would be awesome entertainment, but the only relevant question is whether it would work.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A post it note dated... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bay of arizona

          ...from 2009 indicating an interest in looking into deep shore drilling would have sufficed. . Indeed he wouldn't even need to have moved on actually changing rules, just some proof he had the right judgement would give him the required breathing room.

          the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

          by Salo on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That was a take off on Richard Clark's (0+ / 0-)

          description of how the Clinton Administration thwarted terrorist attacks.  Which, just to be clear, was a good thing.

          It was not meant to be taken literally.

          •  Thwarting terrorist attacks and advancing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soms

            comprehensive legislation aren't the same kind of task.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the problem with "our" side (0+ / 0-)

              we refuse to take advantage of the opportunities thrust our way.

              •  It's easier to defeat the Taliban than it is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soms

                to defeat the oil/coal industries in the Senate.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:32:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? nobody wants to defeat the Taliban (0+ / 0-)

                  they're much more valuable as a boogeyman to keep our wars going.

                  In any event, it would be nice to have Obama propose an open ended war on fossil fuels, like Bush did for terrorism, and dare Congress to defy him.  If nothing else, it would have made it clear for all to see whose side everybody was on.  It certainly could not have made things worse than they are now.

                  •  Well, it would be nice until he lost the war. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soms

                    Then what?

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:48:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He's a clever fellow, he'll be able (0+ / 0-)

                      to find alternative employment.

                      The current situation - him opting not to fight the war at all essentially ensures that the planet (as we know it today) is going to lose the war.  So right back at you with the "Then what?" - if you 're old like me you won't be around to see that (but today's kids will, for sure!).

                      But to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to shed any tears at the prospect of Florida being entirely under water!

  •  What a week at The Daily Show! (5+ / 0-)

    First, the comparison of Obama the candidate and Obama the President regarding torture, the rule of law, transparency, whistle-blowing.  Then last night's great presentation of eight presidents on the need for alternative sources of energy and ending our dependence on "foreign oil".  I hope sometime to read about the people who do the incredible research that must go into finding those clips.

  •  I saw the segment... (7+ / 0-)
    ..althought it was a virtual ripoff of a previous Rachel Maddow segment, I liked the way Stewart drove home how our most sociopathic president is also the president that actually did something about the environment (Nixon).

    If that's not America in a nutshell then I don't know what is.

    Mr. president, I request unanimous consent that the panther not be teased.

    by wyvern on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:13:38 AM PDT

  •  You have to love the hypocrisy... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bay of arizona, eXtina, Oh Mary Oh

    ... Of the congressional hearings too. Cross examining the BP execs! Horse gated bolted guys.  You let yourselves go slack on a war fought for oil rights and allowed deep drilling to happen too.  You let America turn into a vast suburban wasteland dependent upon gasoline to drive your obese useless hides around to buy cheap plastic toys at walmart.  Now pay the price. America is already toxic.  

    the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

    by Salo on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:19:34 AM PDT

    •  they were the ones in a position to write (0+ / 0-)

      stricter regulations, and enforce them. Now they are all 'shocked' that there were no regulations, that walruses on the Gulf Coast were going to be protected, and that no one can stop it.

      And they wonder why Americans hate the Congress.

  •  On Tuesday, Congress voted to extend (6+ / 0-)

    Big Oil's tax credits. If they can't vote against Big Oil in the midst of this crisis, when there is absolutely no better time, when can they?

    How do we make them?

    •  ugh....did it pass the senate too? (0+ / 0-)

      Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

      by soms on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:23:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You call them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bay of arizona

      And tell them if they want your vote in November, they need to give you their vote now.

      Call your Representative and Senator, regardless of party.  Make it clear that this is a deal breaker.  If there isn't a bill on the President's desk by November, you will be voting them out.

      •  Both my Senators voted for it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, bay of arizona, soms

        http://www.senate.gov/...

        Alphabetical by Senator NameAkaka (D-HI), Nay
        Alexander (R-TN), Nay
        Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
        Baucus (D-MT), Nay
        Bayh (D-IN), Nay
        Begich (D-AK), Nay
        Bennet (D-CO), Nay
        Bennett (R-UT), Nay
        Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
        Bond (R-MO), Nay
        Boxer (D-CA), Yea
        Brown (D-OH), Yea
        Brown (R-MA), Nay
        Brownback (R-KS), Nay
        Bunning (R-KY), Nay
        Burr (R-NC), Nay
        Burris (D-IL), Yea
        Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
        Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
        Cardin (D-MD), Yea
        Carper (D-DE), Yea
        Casey (D-PA), Yea
        Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
        Coburn (R-OK), Nay
        Cochran (R-MS), Nay
        Collins (R-ME), Nay
        Conrad (D-ND), Nay
        Corker (R-TN), Nay
        Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
        Crapo (R-ID), Nay
        DeMint (R-SC), Nay
        Dodd (D-CT), Nay
        Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
        Durbin (D-IL), Yea
        Ensign (R-NV), Nay
        Enzi (R-WY), Nay
        Feingold (D-WI), Yea
        Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
        Franken (D-MN), Yea
        Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
        Graham (R-SC), Nay
        Grassley (R-IA), Nay
        Gregg (R-NH), Nay
        Hagan (D-NC), Nay
        Harkin (D-IA), Yea
        Hatch (R-UT), Nay
        Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
        Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
        Inouye (D-HI), Nay
        Isakson (R-GA), Nay
        Johanns (R-NE), Nay
        Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
        Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
        Kerry (D-MA), Nay
        Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
        Kohl (D-WI), Yea
        Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
        Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
        Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
        Leahy (D-VT), Yea
        LeMieux (R-FL), Not Voting
        Levin (D-MI), Yea
        Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
        Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
        Lugar (R-IN), Nay
        McCain (R-AZ), Nay
        McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
        McConnell (R-KY), Nay
        Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
        Merkley (D-OR), Yea
        Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
        Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
        Murray (D-WA), Yea
        Nelson (D-FL), Yea
        Nelson (D-NE), Nay
        Pryor (D-AR), Nay
        Reed (D-RI), Yea
        Reid (D-NV), Yea
        Risch (R-ID), Nay
        Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
        Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
        Sanders (I-VT), Yea
        Schumer (D-NY), Yea
        Sessions (R-AL), Nay
        Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
        Shelby (R-AL), Nay
        Snowe (R-ME), Nay
        Specter (D-PA), Yea
        Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
        Tester (D-MT), Nay
        Thune (R-SD), Nay
        Udall (D-CO), Nay
        Udall (D-NM), Nay
        Vitter (R-LA), Nay
        Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
        Warner (D-VA), Nay
        Webb (D-VA), Nay
        Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
        Wicker (R-MS), Nay
        Wyden (D-OR), Yea  

    •  Turns out that big oil NEEDS to make (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bay of arizona, eXtina

      billions of dollars in profits so they can pay out billions of dollars in claims caused by their negligence.

      Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

      by Greasy Grant on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:32:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Promises (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Presidents may promise to end our dependency on oil, but nothing will change unless WE give our promise too.

    So far I've seen nothing to indicate Americans are willing to make sacrifices to end their reliance on oil. They STILL cling to the fantasy of more cheap oil.

  •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet

    this is very good.

    Like many, I've been waiting 35 years for someone to do something about this. In ninth grade (1974??) I was in a class debate, arguing the point that we needed to develop alternatives, because shortages would continue.

    It's been pretty depressing to see the problem kicked down the road for all these years. That is part of the frustration with Obama not appearing more serious or detailed. Will this president push harder than the others? Or is this more hand-wringing as BAU marches on to a nasty crack up?

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:47:52 AM PDT

  •  There needs to be the will (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pattym922, BruinKid, Livvy5

    to get off of our oil addiction.  A nation-wide will in fact has to be present in order for that to happen. That nation-wide will simply is not there today.  Until that time, it ain't going to happen.

    •  A excise tax of $1 to $2 on a gallon of gas might (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madmsf, bay of arizona

      persuade us. Usually when commodities become "hard to get," the price goes up.

      BTW, where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

    •  I agree completely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madmsf

      And I wonder if this will be the moment when the pain of our addiction becomes greater than the satisfaction we get from it.

    •  The American people have been unwilling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madmsf

      to believe this is happening to us.

      I began college in the Carter years.  I attended the seminars on solar energy and we bought small fuel effecient cars and heard we had to change.  A whole lot of the country was convinced it was a conspiracy and killed the messenger turning on Carter and mocking him for the next thirty years.

      Not only did the Reagan years blot out any reality about energy but we moved to the SUV - Hummer generation who seemed totally unaware of the issues.

      Every war we have fought since Reagan has had to do with energy and resources.  I believe the only reason Obama had allowed more study of offshore drilling is because of national security.  It is serious.  This issue could take down our country and our planet and Americans have to start owning it. Not just the president. Not just Congress.  The people.

      And yet even now, with a whole blown in the bottome of the sea I saw Candy Crowley a couple of days ago suggesting Obama is being insensitive and political to tie this crisis to energy policy.  They have decided this is a liberal vs. conservative issue.  Conservatives let you drive what you want. Liberals worry about non-existent global warming and lost resources.  It has to change.

  •  Great clip (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid

    Thanks for posting, BK.

    But I really wish you had written a tired, fluffy meta diary that accomplishes nothing instead.

    The best way to save the planet is to keep laughing!

    by LaughingPlanet on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site