The New York Times has a complete, uncut version of the presidential debate, including even the introductory monologue by Jim Lehrer to the live audience telling them how to behave during the debate. I listened carefully to the whole thing – after all, the selection of a Commander in Chief is important to serving members of the armed forces.
As you might suspect, however, I listened and watched particularly closely when the candidates spoke about their energy policies. The topic came up on several occasions, but I was a bit disappointed with the way that the moderator kept trying to move the topic some other direction just when the interaction got interesting. Since the primary topic of the debate was scheduled to be foreign policy, I thought that Jim Lehrer was making a big mistake. After all, energy policy and foreign policy are directly and inextricably linked. Here is a clip highlighting the energy policy exchange during the debate.
There is no doubt in my mind which candidate’s spoken policy has the highest potential for making a real difference in our energy supply and cleanliness challenge, but there is just a shade of doubt in my mind if the spoken policy is the complete policy.
After all, the current administration has talked a lot about nuclear power, but even after eight years there has not been a single groundbreaking for a new plant. I am interested in your interpretation and thoughts.
P. S. – Why is it that the bailout number and the Pickens promoted number for our foreign oil habit happen to be exactly the same – $700 Billion? My inquiring mind wonders at the coincidence.
