# Republican Candidates on Energy and EVs



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

This author, between a few barbs, does seem to convey most of the factual positions of the candidates. I'll rate the summary a B-, the downgrade primarily because she just couldn't resist a few slants.

What follows are highlights of the slanted or inaccurate quotes, and of journalistic techniques employed that were particularly non-objective."At the same time, energy independence will aid America in becoming an economic and military superpower."​This one just seems plain ignorant. We are, and have been, the only economic and military superpower for over 20 years. Energy independence will allow us to keep that status, not gain it... The fault here is one of fact; but so glaring that it also seems to have a purpose to paint Romney as a war-monger."Mitt Romney is taking the safe road when it comes to his stance on alternative fuels. That safe road is saying that America’s dependency on foreign oil is bad and needs to stop, the solution for Romney is not set in stone, nuclear power or natural gas whatever works. What this does for Romney is not pigeonhole him within the alternative fuel markets. *However, it is also not a clear plan.*" 

<bold from original, not added by me>​"Taking the safe road" is clearly meant to imply lack of position, ignoring the most likely conclusion that he just thinks it's the smart road. While some candidates do favor targeting a select group of solutions with tax cuts and / or incentives; just as certainly rejection of that notion is a clear strategy as well.

Interestingly, the author does not seem to take shots towards Gingrich, who has published a clear treatise of his positions on the matter.

Paul is accurately described (without direct barbs) as a Libertarian. However, with Paul the scrupulous lack of any comment at all seems notable all the same - and then she pedantically explains the political premise of Libertarianism, as if it is some concept from the moon that no one ever heard of. One suspects that was her intent...

With Santorum, he again characterizes the "all of the above" approach as "politically safe," again implying that it is a non-position and therefore "lacking in leadership."

Stuck in the middle and unrelated to any of the Candidates' positions, the author manages to stick in one catch-all backhanded anti-Republican remark, saying:"The underlying factor for Romney is not that EVs are bad and that there is no market for them, as some other Republicans have said."​Ah, yellow journalism at its finest. If we follow the link, we find an article about a single Congressman who owns a Chevy dealership and who points out some simple economic facts - that there is no significant market for the Chevy Volt; that it makes no economic sense for his car dealership to stock the car because it is far less profitable than other Chevys; and that the government's "investment" in the Volt has been a failure when one evaluates it against the stated goal of "creating green jobs." Based on these factual statements, the Congressman is vilified as "another one of those Republicans against EVs..."

But the author's parting comments are the most disturbing."If nothing else, it is important to know where the Presidential candidates stand on America’s energy future. If anything will define this nation in the coming years, it will be the looming energy crisis. Whoever is elected President in November needs to have a clear, concise plan, but it is up to voters to figure out who truly has America’s best interests at heart."​Really? Why should the President be telling us what to do about energy at all, rather than simply encouraging us to use our entrepreneurial spirit to find new answers? Aren't we smart enough and resourceful enough to figure out that we need energy and find ways to get it without the nanny-state government's help? It is the ultimate insult to each and every one of her readers - for it leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the author thinks we are all to stupid to feed ourselves without the government telling us its time to eat...

Thus ends my critique of the author's slanted "summary"....


----------

