A new "Manhattan Project:" Energy challenges for the next president

The Brookings Institution held a discussion on energy challenges for the next president of the United States, where Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke about his Seven “Grand Challenges” for the next five years. The 5-year proposal, which he calls “A New Manhattan Project,” includes integration of plug-in electric cars and trucks, carbon capture for coal-burning power plants, cost-competitive solar power, nuclear waste management, advanced biofuels made from inedible crops, green building construction, and fusion energy.

Alexander said that the idea behind the original Manhattan Project, which was implemented during World War II to help America secure a nuclear weapon before Germany, is relevant to today’s energy situation because “it needs to proceed as fast as possible along several tracks to achieve the goal.” Centralized leadership that channels the talent of many great minds, Alexander said, is necessary to the invention of revolutionary energy ideas so that America need not be “held hostage” by oil-rich foreign nations.

While some people feel that election year is “no time for bipartisan action,” Alexander said he “can’t think of a better time” and expressed his support for presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) decision to dedicate this week of his campaign to energy independence discussion. Alexander called Republicans the “party of supply” and Democrats the “party of demand” in reference to their respective solutions to both energy independence and climate change.

Ron Paul on "The Revolution"

Congressman and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul (R-TX) addressed a crowd at a discussion and signing to promote his new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, currently a number-one bestseller on Amazon.com. Dr. Paul, who will continue to run for the presidency despite Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presumed nomination, said the purpose of his book is to “galvanize” the American people and foster enthusiasm about civil liberties and a return to American libertarian principles.


Paul described his main objective as respect for and adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and said that “it’s sad that just obeying the Constitution is a revolutionary idea.” He said he uses the word “revolution” cautiously, and advocates a “nonviolent” one that would restore civil liberties and reduce the influence of the Federal government. He said that Congress and the judicial system “ignore the Constitution” and have allowed the Fourth Amendment to erode over time. After 9/11, Paul said some members of the government “showed cheer” because it represented an opportunity to infringe on civil liberties with measures such as the Patriot Act.

Paul expressed appreciation for young voters, whom he said have grown passionate about preserving the Constitution, and said his supporters have been energized by his “optimism,” which he said means analyzing problems and then seeking solutions. He said the young generation “has to make a decision” about what they want the role of their government to be, and said that he thinks that role is to “preserve liberty, not run our lives, run our economy, and police the world.”

Paul deplored the fact that to oppose war earns the label of a “left-winger,” and said “I don’t think it’s left-wing to say, ‘Why are we fighting a war that was never declared?’” He also said that at one point, his campaign received more donations from military personnel than all other presidential candidates combined. Paul said he thinks “we live in dangerous times,” and that foreign policy occupation will lead to a “crisis” in America. In reference to criticism of former Pres. Bill Clinton as a “nation-builder” during his term in the 1990s as opposed to the current rise in foreign occupation with Pres. Bush’s administration, Paul said that “Americans have very short memories, and Muslims and Arabs never forget anything.”

When asked where he sees the government headed, Paul said he thinks the U.S. is “moving more towards fascism” than lawlessness because of growing governmental intervention in the form of “big corporations,” “secret prisons, and the loss of habeas corpus.” He said he thinks that “the empire will end” because the U.S. cannot sustain its present course and continue to finance its global objectives.

Working families stand to struggle under McCain’s health care plans

Sen. John McCain made remarks on health care reform earlier today in Florida, and a news conference was held this afternoon to analyze and critique the plan with participants Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, Jacob Hacker, author and professor at Yale University, and Karen Ackerman, political director for AFL-CIO.

Hickey said the ideas McCain put forward today would disrupt the health care system, dismantle the employer provided system, and force millions of people who currently get decent health care to have to try to find health care on their own. He said McCain’s plan to tax health care premiums will stop companies from providing health care employee benefits, so that instead individuals must buy insurance on their own. He also said McCain’s reform will abolish regulations that currently exist in some states to hold insurance companies to a standard, so people can instead buy insurance from any program regardless of what state they live in. He said this plan will benefit the insurance industry, but will not address the cost spiral that is afflicting health care in America, nor will it decrease the number of uninsured Americans.

Hacker said he feels Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have proposed good health care plans, but that McCain’s proposal is inadequate to address the interwoven problems of rising health care costs and declining coverage. He said the real problem for most Americans is the risk of losing coverage, or not being able to get coverage if they are unhealthy, and that McCain’s reform does nothing to address these problems. He also said the plan threatens to shift costs from companies and payrolls to American families and individuals, and that the tax credit number is going to be very small.

Ackerman also emphasized that McCain’s health care “scheme” will push people out of employer provided insurance to deal with insurance alone, will make it harder for people with pre-existing health conditions to find insurance. She said the grassroots efforts of AFL-CIO will try to make sure voters across the country know that insurance companies and lobbyists for the insurance companies stand to benefit from McCain’s plan, while hurting working families already struggling to stay afloat.

McCain health care reform puts decisions in the hands of families, not the government

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call to discuss his remarks on health care reform delivered earlier today in Tampa, Florida. Doug Holz-Eakin, senior policy adviser, and Carly Fiorina, RNC Victory 2008 chair, described the health care plan and its goals and proposed outcomes.

Holz-Eakin said McCain wanted to create a plan with better health care at a lower cost, where insurance can move with someone from job to job, and that addressed the fears of people with pre-existing conditions. He said McCain looked, and will continue looking, at experiments by states to find successful health care programs, and he plans to work with Congress to provide funding.

Fiorina said the plan is designed to put patients in control of their health care, rather than doctors, hospitals or the government. She said it allows patients to choose and purchase health insurance from anywhere in the country, and that the competition and choice will drive down costs. She emphasized the transparency of McCain’s plan, and its focus on making sure costs cover treatment and not simply tests and procedures. She said the plan also focuses on prevention and wellness, since many diseases that contribute to the costs of health care are preventable and treatable conditions. She also said McCain believes in drug competition, and that everyone must be covered.

Fiorina said the fundamental difference between McCain’s health care plan and the plans proposed by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama is that McCain’s plan puts the choice, power, and decision of insurance in the hands of families, while Clinton and Obama propose putting the federal government in charge of health care. She also said McCain’s plan depends on the powers of the free market, which will drive the costs down.

Don't baby Obama

By Ellen Ratner
Talk Radio News Service Bureau Chief

After last week's Pennsylvania debate between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, my very good friends on the left were screaming.

ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson were being denounced as traitors, knaves and, in a few instances, things that cannot be mentioned in a family news website. The complaint was that for the first 45 minutes of the debate, the questions were mostly issue-free and centered on Obama's negatives and such matters as his relationships with the incendiary Rev. Wright and ex-SDS weathermen Bill Ayres.

Some on the left say that it was unfair, unbalanced, tilted against Obama and favoring his opponent.

I agree.

I disagree.

Yes, it was unfair; yes it favored Hillary and indirectly, McCain. Yes, it was a radical departure from previous debates.

And yes, it was in Barack Obama's long-term interest that he be subjected to an onslaught of unfair and unbalanced questions, bias and a strong tilt against him.



Why? Because George and Gibson offered Obama a mere light appetizer of what he can expect in the general election. Because Obama had better get used to the big time of opposition research and negative ads, of Republican 527s, of whisper campaigns and anonymous Internet "mail" campaigns. Obama and his people better get used to the fact that once inside the big tent of national politics, he won't be able to declare, as he did at a recent press conference, that "eight questions" about Chicago sleaze ball Ton Rezco are "enough" and just walk off the stage. Taking umbrage doesn't work in a national debate, any more than staring at his watch did for George Bush No. 41.

The old line that, "Life is short, and then you die" is truer about presidential politics than any other endeavor. Just ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry.

I plan to fight like hell for any Democratic nominee. But hell is a notoriously hot place, and all George and Gibson did for the Democrats was raise the temperature to general election levels.

My fellow Democrats take note: We are doing our candidate no favors by babying him now.