Kerry makes the case for energy independence

About a month ago, The Nation’s Ari Berman wrote an interesting piece on the “new” [tag]John Kerry[/tag]. As Berman explained, like [tag]Al Gore[/tag] after the 2000 campaign, [tag]Kerry[/tag] has become more assertive and less cautious after his [tag]defeat[/tag].

In the past few months Kerry has presented a side of himself very different from the one the public saw during the 2004 campaign. Freed from the grip of consultants, the spotlight of the national media and the Republican attack dogs, he is looser, clearer and more compelling. Call it the Al Gore Effect. At the end of a presidential campaign, losing candidates either retreat, keep up the good fight or attempt the arduous task of redefining themselves. Kerry’s both fighting and redefining these days. […]

The notoriously cautious Kerry has gone bold, conveying his views on Iraq and national security through an aggressive schedule of speeches, op-eds and talk-show appearances. Into the void of Democratic Party leadership, he’s speaking for the vocal opposition — even endorsing Senator Russ Feingold’s resolution to censure President Bush.

Now, some might question Kerry’s motivations. He’s obviously expressed interest in running again in ’08, and perhaps, some might say, Kerry’s aggressiveness is geared towards impressing the party’s base and early primary voters, many of whom will be reluctant to give him another chance after he came up short in ’04.

Or perhaps Kerry is doing what Gore did — ignoring the safe road presidential candidates are supposed to follow during a campaign and saying what he really believes. Take, for example, Kerry’s terrific speech in Boston yesterday on [tag]energy independence[/tag].

Decrying political timidity in Washington and denouncing the Bush administration as anti-science and pro-Big Oil, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday outlined a program to combat climate change and move the United States toward energy independence, including mandates to cut consumption of foreign oil.

Kerry decried more than two decades of government inaction to lessen dependence on Middle East oil. Both parties share blame, he said in a speech at Boston’s Faneuil Hall, calling the country’s lack of progress toward energy independence “politics at its worst — ducking the difficult choices, giving in to the big contributors, substituting words for deeds, postponing the reckoning until the day after tomorrow.”

But Kerry saved his harshest words for President Bush, whom he portrayed as unwilling to push the public or special interests to change long-formed habits that have made the United States the biggest energy consumer in the world.

“George W. Bush now says that ‘America is addicted to oil,’ ” Kerry said. “His preferred policy has been to feed the addiction; his attitude on greenhouse gases is to let them increase; his energy alternatives are token; again and again his approach to crisis is to denigrate the environment.”

Carpetbagger regular Hark alerted me to the full text of Kerry’s remarks, and I have to say, they’re worth reading. He stressed the crisis of [tag]global warming[/tag]; he characterized reduction of oil as a national security issue; and he offered to pay for the policy proposals by rolling back tax breaks for the oil industry and recapturing them into a dedicated fund.

It’s a solid, progressive policy that addresses serious challenges head-on. Putting presidential politics and [tag]2008[/tag] aside altogether, Kerry deserves kudos for telling it like it is.

Yep…

If Democrats can’t lead on this issue they might as well not even exist.

So yeah… it is good to see Kerry making a two-fisted sort of speech…

In regards to this:

“… many of whom will be reluctant to give him another chance after he came up short in ’04.”

You can say that again.
And again…
And again…

Can we call that the “Dukakis effect?”

  • “Kerry deserves kudos for telling it like it is.”

    Huh? Seems to me that’s the LEAST we can expect of our would-be leaders. Had he brought up these “issues” back when they were already being expressed by Al Gore, e.g., or had he espoused John Edwards’ working Americans’s “issues”, I might have approved. As it is Kerry’s at least four years behind many, many others.

    When is the Democratic Party going to dump its focus groups, clothing consultants, attitude surveys, and timidty and give us a heartfelt, genuine candidate? As long as we keep on keeping on we deserve to lose and lose big.

  • Kerry has one of the best records on the environment there is. It goes back to his days as Lt. Gov of Mass and through all his years in the Senate. (Where, incidentally, he got better marks as an environmentalist than Sen. Gore did from ’84-’92.) Kerry was trying to file legislation to deal with the erosion and the looming environmental disaster along the Louisiana coast back in 1991. You could look all of these things up, or just carp based on nothing but sour grapes and RW spin.

    I was at that speech yesterday in Boston. Kerry was in the same form at various other times I have seen him, including both before and during the ’04. We, as progressives, can’t have it both ways. We can’t condemn the media for failing to portray Democrats truthfully and then blame the people who were smeared for not controlling the media. Kerry was never the guy that the media told us he was in ’04. I have seen him speak many times in Massachusetts since ’84 and he has always been both a truth-teller and good and engaging speaker.

  • TayTay has it exactly right.

    Kerry talked about environmental issues in every single speech he gave on the campaign trail. If the oh-so-evenhanded media let that go unreported, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    And by the way, here’s what the League of Conservation Voters has to say about Kerry:

    LCV endorsed Sen. John F. Kerry for President in January 2004 — the earliest Presidential endorsement in our 34-year history. John Kerry’s record shows that he understands that the American people need a president who will never roll over to corporate contributors at the expense of the health and safety of the public.

  • Just skimmed Kerry’s speech. Overall, good, but much too dependent on ethanol and flex fuel vehicles. I have seen no firm numbers on the potenial of replacing 30% of our fossil fuel energy with ethanol by 2020, but I am guessing this is probably not feasible from a combination of energy, ecological and environmental factors. I am guessing there will be huge and not entirely benign consequences from a full out expansion of this technology that still has fossil fuel inputs as its base.

    We need to think critically about what have built here. Is it reasonable to try and find alternatives for liquid fossil fuels, i.e. are we perpetuating an inherently unsustainable infrastructure that will fall, sooner or later?

    We need to really think about the possibility of getting 30% of personally owned internal combustion engines off of the road by the year 2020. How can we redesign cities so that people can be happy walking, biking, and riding public transit to meet most of their transportation needs?

    I appreciate the efforts of Kerry and other politicians in recommending these measures, but in many ways they are thinking too much in the box, a box that is not progressive by any means.

  • I can’t understand why Republicans, and the oil companies, do not embrace a massive effort to develop alternative, renewable energy and technologies to reverse global warming. American corporations would be given billions in subsidies and their return on investment would be huge. The development would be a boon to the economy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created, maybe millions. Why this intransigence? And the benefits to the people of this entire planet, and the environment, would be immeasurable. It’s win/win/win for everyone, and nobody wants to do it, save a few like Al Gore, and now John Kerry, and Rep Jay Inslee.

    People can seriously debate wasting a trillion to send astronauts to Mars, just to hit a golf ball and plant a flag, and not even talk about saving our planet? What the hell is wrong with this country?

  • “How about Gore and Kerry in 08???? ” – Joe

    The Frankenstein Twins ticket?

    Thank you, no.

  • re: #3

    Highly recommend reading Sydney Finkelstein’s “Why Smart Executives Fail – and what you can learn from their mistakes”.

    Basically, most large companies are their own worst enemy.

  • Why you people down there in Washington believe anything that comes out of John Kerry’s mouth is beyond me. He’ll say what ever he thinks people want to hear. We up here in New England know what a hypocrite he is when it comes to developing alternative, renewable energy. There is a company that has been trying to build a wind farm off of Cape Code for a couple of years but because political opposition it has been held up. Who are the biggest opponents? John Kerry and Ted Kennedy

  • RE #2

    During the 2004 campaign, Kerry spoke at most rallies about how inventing and producing the alternative fuels needed solved many problems, it reduced dependence on other countries, helped the environment, and created the good jobs we need. In their coverage of yesterday’s speech, the Boston Globe mentioned that many of the ideas were from 2004. (“Some of the themes reprised those the Massachusetts Democrat outlined during his failed 2004 presidential campaign, “)

    Kerry was great speaking of these things, but to see it you had to watch CSPAN coverage of his speeches. If a candidate repeatedly says something and he media ignores it, is it his fault. Watching the exuburant rallies then hearing the MSM coverage was startling.

    As to Edwards’ 2 Americas”, those ideas are standard Democratic themes – he didn’t originate them. Kerry’s plans on Health, education and taxation were better or similar. In fact, Kerry’s plan for energy leading to good jobs is similar to ideas he expressed in 1993 Senate speech on how we need to respond to a rapidly changing economic world. To me, this is one of the best speeches on this Edwards’ stump speech.

    From the Senate record:

    “In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.

    Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.

    Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.

    To this day I’m not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.

    In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.

    From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.

    It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family’s inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.

    Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents’. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.

    Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don’t go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.

    Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.

    Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980’s, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society–the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution–are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.

    You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law’ working downtown.

    Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today’s economy with a clear eye. ”

    The rest of the speech dealt with the complexities of a global economy and what we needed to do to prevent the economic problems we have today. It was not simplistic, but a very thoughtful analysis of the real situation.

  • hdupre,

    You’re not the only one here from Massachusetts. You pick that line on Kerry up from the Boston Globe/Herald? It’s bull.

    Kerry hasn’t opposed the wind farm – he’s stayed out of the fight, actually. That’s Teddy’s fight.
    http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/kerrywades25.htm

    U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who for five years has refused to choose a side in the Nantucket Sound wind farm debate, yesterday slammed a Capitol Hill effort that could doom the turbine project.

  • Comments are closed.