John Edwards and Barrack Obama in 2008? Getting off foreign oil helps our national security, AND saves the environment? Bush supports new hybrid technologies and math and science education? This week Mike and Greg discuss their opinions and hesitations on upcoming political issues.
Mike: I love the talk show Meet the Press. Tim Russert is a great interviewer, and one of my favourites in the business. I even listen to episodes in podcast form. I am relistening to a recent one with John Edwards
Greg: Let’s see- John Edwards?
Mike: Yep. It’s a pretty interesting 2nd half of the podcast.
Greg: I watched the tail end of that interview, so I’ll have to go back and listen. Edwards reminds me of JFK. I love to hear him speak- kind of idealistic. I’m rooting for an Edwards/Obama 2008 ticket.
Mike: Yes. I saw the very end yesterday as well and wanted to hear the full interview. That would be a great presidential ticket. Never thought of that matchup but it makes perfect sense. Maybe more so than John Kerry and Edwards.
Greg: I think they (Obama and Edwards) share a similar tone and message that could really redefine the Democrats; refocus on honesty and social justice.
Mike: It’s a matchup that is not as alienating as some of the other moderate democrats because social justice, I think, is a good angle to approach for the democrats. Edwards and Obama have so much to offer in that aspect to help the Americans w\ education, farm aid, healthcare and re-emphasize the domestic issues issues that are currently being ignored. However their weaknesses will be perceived as foreign diplomacy but then that has been Bush’s as well.
Greg: Well, Clinton didn’t have much foreign experience either being a governor… Obama has been going to Iraq.
Mike: And I thought Clinton was great at foreign diplomacy, especially his Middle East progress (which has since gone to hell under new leaderships).
Greg: I think they can probably mount a successful foreign policy bid by emphasizing energy independence and education… They’re domestic issues that have international effects. People are freaked out about India and China, so a big push for math and science education domestically could go a long way with voters. And energy independence is somewhat of a cure-all. According to Thomas Friedman at least. But yeah, I agree. Clinton has the magic skills, man…all around. It’s fascinating to watch him redefine himself as a humanitarian… he’d be a perfect secretary of state.
Mike: I agree. He should run Hillary’s staff when she runs. What is interesting about ditching foreign oil, was once seen as a way to get more money for domestic oil companies…Now it is seen as a terror issue of security… while energy efficient cars are now seen as a way to decrease our dependence on oil for security and cost while bush doesn’t really speak about how it helps our environment…its an interesting approach.
Greg: I think the Geo-Green approach is just dying for someone to embrace it… I mean it’s a win win situation political. Strong on terrorism, strong for the domestic economy, strong on the environment. I’d just love to see someone come out with a nationwide challenge- get people excited about this stuff; create a huge program to help develop new technologies, support people going into engineering careers that will develop technologies for this new economy. Basically an entire political platform could be built off of that.
Mike: It’s funny that Jimmy Carter was so right on about this 25 YEARS AGO!
Greg: I know. Too bad we didn’t do it then. Did he have the terrorism viewpoint with energy independance?
Mike: I think he did during the energy crisis and during the Intifada and the Iran stuff…he saw our involvement and over-consumption of oil as a potential threat.
He also has been a great diplomat and humanitarian since his presidency, but relatively hated during his time because of his handling of the problems he inherited from the Nixon\Ford era. He and Clinton just got short ends of sticks historically for their legacies because of Republican opposition. (and sexy scandals)
It would really be amazing to see a mass movement towards technology and science as a means to a better global society…I just kinda worry about the capitalist ethic getting in the way of solid progress. It’s great for those who can afford it and it makes these companies money which will fuel economic growth, but what happens to everyone else? Does it further stratify the socio-economic gap or will new innovations make these things more affordable to mass society?
It’s hard to phase out old automobiles for example for hybrid technology when there are so many who will not be able to afford to make the jump.
Greg: That’s a good point, but on the flipside, I would argue that as more educational opportunities are created for people to go into math and science, then we bring more people who might otherwise not have gone to college into the middle class where they can afford the new cars. Of course- things never quite work as easy as that, or as simply.
Mike: I definitely agree… Education and math and science in particular will help in so many ways to better our society and help people move into the middle class…this is something that will be vulnerable though depending on what type of administration is in power. Education is something that is such a key, but taxes are always cut for this (as you know)…US wants better education but doesn’t want to help pay for public as a way to help others (hence the school vouchers).
Hopefully Bush’s move will light a fire to help fast track some action on this and change our perception…He is doing to fight terror, but really it helps the economy and social issues too…very different approach, and strange coming from the Bush administration, but ultimately good. Its hurts my head to agree with Bush on something for once. His motives are different but, it still works. If he pulls it off. Unless the capitalist Repub bastards f- it up for us.
So what do you think? Email us at [email protected]
Coming up NEXT WEEK: Mike & Greg take a crack at the unwieldy world of local music.