The Post has the goods on something I've been barking about for a long time: Obama's mutually exclusive energy positions. Most recently he voted against an amendment in the Senate energy bill that would have provided huge subsidies to liquid coal after having sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have done the same. One problem Obama's going to find in his quest to bring all elements together to change the politics of our country is that, in many cases, the desires of one interest are directly oppositional to the desires of another and a side must be chosen. In a zero sum situation like liquid coal--where if environmentalists win, the coal industry loses, and vice versa--the idea of a unified politics isn't really possible, nor does it actually make any sense.
Comments