In Congress, Rep. Ford has consistently supported legislation to reduce the U.S. addiction to oil, and he sees the opportunity before us. "We need to go back to the kind of big ideas and bold thinking that made this country great," he says, "We need to create this generation’s moon shot by becoming energy self-sufficient by 2025."This reminds me an awful lot of Ed Bryant's frequent proposal during the GOP primary (which the CTFP thinks was a cakewalk akin to the primary of the Democrat Party). From a weeks old Commercial Appeal story:
Saying he believes oil prices will continue to rise, Bryant also renewed his call for a project -- as strong he said as World War II's Manhattan Project and President Kennedy's push for a moon landing -- that would "commit America to developing and (mass-)producing alternative-fuel vehicles in five years."I knew that Ford, Jr. was going to try and sound like a Conservative during this campaign but an impersonation of Ed Bryant is a surprise.
I wonder if he can do a good W.C. Fields?
I can't find the actual op/ed online, but Ford, Jr. has it at his website . . . hey, it may have originated over there from the way it reads.
9 comments:
Ned, Bryant wasn't sounding like a Conservative when he suggested a Manhattan style project. True believers in "Conservatism" believe that the Free Market will solve all of life problems.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Reagan
Regardless of how Bryant was sounding, Ford, Jr. is now sounding like Bryant.
And this flashback more or less eviscerates Ford, Jr.'s accusations that he was the only candidate for U.S. Senate talking about issues, particularly about energy policy. The MSM was devoting so many inches to the meme that the GOP had a sordid primary that they missed the policy discussions.
But Reagan's tongue-in-cheek aside, even Conservatives acknowledge that gov't can play an important role in solving certain problems--such as an energy dependency that arguably threatens our national security. Hey, maybe Republicans aren't as doctrinaire as we're made out to be . . .
"Hey, maybe Republicans aren't as doctrinaire as we're made out to be . . . "
Ned, that's kind of cute coming from a guy who paints all Democrats [Lieberman excluded] as extreme leftists out to sell out our country to the Islamofascists. Also, seemed like Republicans in the Bryant and Hilleary camps were being doctrinaire when they attacked your knew friend Corker for not towing the Special Interest line.
"But Reagan's tongue-in-cheek aside, even Conservatives acknowledge that gov't can play an important role in solving certain problems"
You're absolutely right. Conservatives will gladly sell out their belief in smaller government if they think it will hurt them at the polls. That is why you have seen an increase, rather than decrease, in discretionairy spending during the years when Republicans control all three branches of Government.
Conservatives will gladly sell out their belief in smaller government if they think it will hurt them at the polls. That is why you have seen an increase, rather than decrease, in discretionairy spending during the years when Republicans control all three branches of Government.
Well, you know how us moral relativists can be.
(But you'd a thunk that Bush would get some credit from the Left for letting Ted Kennedy write his education bill.)
Re. a belief in "smaller gov't," I guess you're ignoring my assertion that energy dependence is, in this context, arguably a national security issue. Seems to cut against your "expediency/unprincipled" argument.
Lastly, we likely have a different understanding of the word "doctrinaire"; I am proudly staunch when it comes to the rather simple question of opting for a candidate who claims that abortion is morally wrong (except in certain politically-sensitive situations when it isn't morally wrong) and someone who agrees with me on the issue. And, I can't speak for any other Republicans who didn't support Corker in the primary, but I think it is part of the process to draw distinctions which favor your preferred candidate in the primary, and then--generally speaking, support the party's nominee in the end.
But re. Dems and Islamofascism, I have to admit that I see too many on your side of the aisle who cannot allow that Bush's efforts to fight the GWOT could be properly/honorably motivated or that political potshots undermine the effort to defeat our enemies. Frankly, I'm concerned when I observe the rhetorical lengths to which some will go in an effort to score a political victory.
Oh, and this story still demonstrates that (a) Ed Bryant was talking about energy issues throughout his campaign, and (b) Rep. Ford, Jr. is now echoing Bryant's proposals.
If it makes you feel better to think that Democrats are following Bryant's lead on this issue...you go right ahead. Then again, Bryant was copying John Kerry on the idea of a Manhattan Project for energy. So maybe Kerry took a trip to the future, saw Bryant's losing campaign, and decided to copy that line from him.
Yeah, and Bryant was discussing energy policy during the GOP primary, and Ford, Jr. is now echoing Bryant's proposals.
Cool, so Ford is echoing Bryant who is echoing Kerry who is echoing some speech writer who is echoing some policy wonk who is echoing their second-cousin Bill who blurted out Manhattan project over a couple Manhattans at some bar in Washington.
No.
Ford, Jr. is fraudulently blowhardish for saying that any and all opponents won't talk about issues, and that none of the GOP candidates have the ideas that he--the model of a new generation of leadership--has.
Well, considering Bryant is no longer a candidate, he's kind of right. Regardless, whether Ford is echoing Kerry via Bryant or not...what matters is what the candidates in the race now are talking about.
Post a Comment