« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Leading US past Bush failures
Bush Failures May Force McCain, Obama to Make Like FDR in 2009
The next White House occupant will inherit the deepest housing recession in a generation, growing fears of bank failures, a sinking dollar, $4 gasoline and an economy bleeding jobs. He'll confront wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting tensions with Iran and the U.S.'s flagging international reputation.
Historians say the economic and foreign policy crises in Bush's wake will present either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain with the biggest challenges to a new president since Herbert Hoover left office during the Great Depression.
...
The list of problems facing the nation means that campaign promises -- Obama's universal health care, middle-class tax cut and immigration overhaul, or McCain's corporate and individual tax reductions and energy-independence plan -- will likely be put on hold while the president focuses on more immediate concerns, especially the economy.
Advertisement
Comments (4)
I disagree and see Obama acting on several fronts right from the start. he's just that kind of guy.
July 21, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is more frightening than clean coal, but again, it will be hard for a politician to argue against anything that promises to keep the lights on:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/7/17/amy_goodmans_new_column_dont_drink_the_nuclear_kool_aid
July 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO to nuclear power. Enough of this insanity. Let's see: we can invest in solar, wind and geo-thermal -- all of which are health risk-free -- or we can believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that human error can be safeguarded against, by government regulation.
Bill McDonough, a leading green architect, said in the May'08 Vanity Fair: "A regulation is what we call a license to harm; a government-issued permit to industry so that it can dispense destruction, sickness and death at an acceptable rate."
July 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm as liberal as liberal gets, and I believe that ignoring the nuclear option would be foolish. But I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy.
Do the cost-benefits analysis of nuclear, figure out how/if it can be made safer and cleaner. Maybe it factors in, mabye it doesn't.
But imagine for a second you're Mike Ditka, and you're driving a school-bus full of the-entire-world and it's headed for a cliff. Do you run over the baby panda, or the pregnant lady if it will save the school-bus?
Maybe there's a better option; but a diversified portfolio is always a smart bet.
Wind and solar, while clearly a part of the solution, MAY not get us all the way. And if we run out of energy, life will change for the worse for billions of people - so I'd prefer that we diversify our energy portfolio, including nuclear, while we figure out how to transition off oil
July 22, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment