The Republican Presidential Candidates' Q&A

I confess to not having watched either party's Presidential candidate joint Q&A appearances these past two weeks. I won't call them debates, because, well, they were no such thing.

It's so early in the election cycle that I just don't really need to spend my time watching so many politicians strenuously try to avoid a campaign-killing gaffe, while providing no new information.

I did catch a few minutes of the Republican Q&A session. The first thing I will note is that, as is so typical in the media, while the Democrats got a network face whose name I forget, but was, statistically speaking, probably liberal, the Republicans got....Chris Matthews, who is also liberal.

Go figure. The Democrats get puffballs from one of their own, while the Republicans stupidly invite the enemy.

Anyway, around about the time I heard McCain reiterate his promise and threat to veto any pork barrel "spending bill," I also heard him weigh in for the line-item veto.

Funny thing, that. Because without the line-item veto, every promise of spending cuts that any candidate in either party makes is meaningless. It's just so much more hot air and 'blah blah blah.'

All of these candidates promise to watch your wallet in Washington, but none of them can actually affect the omnibus pork attached to critical bills that the President will need to sign. Very much like the current Iraqi funding bill. The Democrats, while promising, in the words of 'Frisco Nan, to cut out pork and earmarks, ran ahead and attached as much lard as possible to this ostensibly single-issue bill.

But, back to the Republican Q&A. From what little I saw, and heard in the aftermath, Giuliani apparently didn't send his real self. McCain was blustery and regained some of his years-ago budget-cutting credibility, but still hasn't made up for voting against the very effective Bush tax cuts of 2001-02. Romney apparently gained by coming off as controlled, knowledgeable, etc.

Still, what really pained me was watching so many briefed, canned answers that basically promised everything, and always sounded like the respondent was a saint.

Perhaps in keeping with the newly-wide-open campaign situation, with so much foment by so many, so early, something like the following arrangement would be appropriate.

A pair of moderators, chosen to represent solidly differing party affiliations, would be selected. Perhaps Colmes and O'Reilly, or Matthews and Larry Kudlow. Then a mix of candidates from both parties, or just one party, would be invited. Questions would be invited via email, directed to specific candidates, so that even the candidates' own staffs could send zingers calculated to trip up opposing candidates.

The questions would be queued up and delivered to the moderator of the opposing political stripe, so that the liberal moderator would question the conservative/Republican candidate, and so forth. The importance of the moderator's political leaning would be in his/her ability to ask penetrating, no-nonsense follow-up questions.

This way, viewers would be treated to a sort of bloodless version of gladiatorial combat. The sorts of questions you, as a citizen, would want to ask, could get aired. And someone with a desire to probe the weakest, most fatuous parts of any candidate's responses and positions would be up there pitching them.

Could it get any better? Because, frankly, after some thirty years of voting for Presidents, I'm weary of these kid glove 'debates' and Q&A sessions, where everyone tries hard just to not make the dreaded Gerry Ford "Poland" mistake.

And, these guys and gals all promise things that they cannot actually control. Let's face it- the President can't author legislation, and all of them will promise to 'cut wasteful spending.' Problem is, your necessary program may be her wasteful spending, or vice versa.

Further, many of the most emotional platform planks- abortion, the death penalty, immigration, same-gender marriage- can't really be decreed by the President. The best they can do is maybe alter the balance of the Supreme Court, and hope for the best. Which, by the way, Teddy Roosevelt, were he alive ( or maybe just Bush #41, because he still is), would tell them is no guarantee of success. Oliver Wendell Holmes did an about face on TR, and the latter rued the day he nominated the former to the nation's highest bench.

Despite all the hoopla over various detailed positions on spending, taxes, immigration, defense, etc., about all you can really hope for is to assess character, consistency, managerial effectiveness and leadership potential correctly. Anything else that we, as citizens, get from a President is a gift.

US Energy Diversification vs. "Independence

Saturday's Wall Street Journal had an unusual cornucopia of interesting articles. One of them, entitled "The Mirage of Energy Independence," by Doug Wilson, expressed, with great clarity, some sentiments that I have had for years.

Specifically, Mr. Wilson notes that, with America's energy needs, and the fungible nature of the global energy market, there is no such thing as 'energy independence.' A fall in oil supply anywhere on the globe will raise prices for everyone. Further, if America were to attempt to isolate and develop non-fungible sources of oil, it would, as Mr. Wilson points out, undermine the entire interconnected world of supply chains which have brought global prosperity and individual economy specialization.

As an example of the unintended costs of misguided attempts at energy independence, Mr. Wilson recounts the cost to Brazil of building its ethanol industry. More marginal land has been used to feed the enlarged demand for corn, more fuel is used, because corn as a fuel is less powerful than carbon-based fuel, and government subsidies now abound to drive the whole process. Already, in the US and Mexico, corn prices are skyrocketing, fueling inflation throughout America's food chain, as well as for Mexico, as well.

Instead, Mr. Wilson notes that non-transportation-oriented energy consumers in the US, e.g., utilities, long ago began diversifying into natural gas, coal and nuclear, to lessen their reliance on scarce liquid petroleum from politically-unstable parts of the globe.

For transportation, Mr. Wilson suggests assisting Venezuela and Canada with the development of their respective high-sulfur oil and heavy tar sand oil deposits. Though not within our border, Wilson argues that by developing alternative sources of oil-based energy, away from the Gulf, we increase the choices for our own energy purchases, help other economies grow dependent upon selling us that energy, and lessen the hold that the Mideast has on current global energy security and availability.

In short, energy independence is almost certainly an impossibility, but diversity of supply sources is not. This makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the reality of globally-traded, fungible oil supplies. Even if the US were to become energy-independent, we would still want to be affected by the world price for our own energy. To fail to do so would be to return to an era of indifference and wastefulness in the usage of petroleum-based energy sources.