NYT climate change editorial with a positive JK reference

[karynnj]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01tue1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The editorial is on how all the Democrats have committed to working on climate change, while of the Republicans only McCain has. Here is the JK reference:

"In 2000, when Al Gore could have made warming a signature issue in his presidential campaign, his advisers persuaded him that it was too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters. For similar reasons, John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site."

My first response was anger - as Kerry did speak of this every day - and the NYT even covered at least one major speech dedicated to it! (It's not Kerry's fault that Nargourin and Wilgoren didn't think it was worth mentioning.) Then I stepped back - remembering wise advice here last week. The fact is they are crediting Kerry with ambitious plans on both energy and climate change. This is better than where the left blogosphere was when the Kerrys' book was first mentioned. It also depends on the meaning of "much" in their last sentence - Kerry himself has said they wrote the book because many of these issues didn't get much visibility in 2004, in spite of the many environmentally themed events and his speaking of it every day. It's also true that they are unwilling to say that it will do much in 2008. Gore has said that the goal of all his work of the last few years was to make it an issue someone could run on - it's a bit sad that it didn't happen when you had a candidate with a long record on this - as was the case in 2000 and 2004. (What's scary is that McCain may have the best record on this of those running.)

Anyway, before I convinced myself that this was more positive than negative - because I hate the "handlers" theme - and here it just wasn't true - I wrote this as a LTE which I doubt will be chosen.

"In "The One environmental issue" you state that, “John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site.” Kerry spoke of his ideas in every stump speech, as was seen on CSPAN. No 2008 candidate has given a speech on this issue that is as compelling as Kerry's stump speech or his major speeches. His positive approach said that funding research to develop alternative fuels and more efficient technology would not only help deal with global warming, but lead to cleaner air and water, thus better health. It would create new good jobs, helping the economy and would make us less dependent on an unstable middle east. In 2004, the media was uninterested and gave the issue and Kerry's speeches little coverage. Bob Schieffer did not ask a question on environment or energy in the domestic debate."

They have a 150 word limit - and my husband helped my pare it down to the limit.

[TayTay]

1. Wow, that is a great LTTE

I hope the NYTimes does publish it. Excellent post and nice job on that letter.

[karynnj]

4. Thanks - the advice from last week was, of course, yours.

The NYT gets so many letters it is unlikely that they will choose it. I have been really disappointed that none of the 2008 candidates appear to have seen how appealing Kerry's approach was. I loved that it was such an optimistic way of arguing for fighting on this issue. The appeal was as all American can do as you can get. We really have to fight this and using creativity, ingenuity and science is the way to do it. (I love Kerry's often said comparisons of the downsides of being wrong on whether we have to do things - in reality he makes a pretty good case that the resultant quality of life benefits alone make it worthwhile.

Last summer, I heard HRC speak in Iowa (on CSPAN). She started to speak of the side benefits of making the effort on climate control. My thought, another thing she's copying from Kerry. But then she spoke of the jobs that could be created - and gave the examples of growing more corn for ethanol and installing solar panels. Aside from the fact that the corn for ethanol was pandering (or she really needs to hear Teresa or someone explain this), look at the difference. Kerry's was far more inspiring, exciting and forward thinking - his new jobs were creating hew fuels, new technologies and new products - and selling the intellectual property and the products.

[beachmom]

2. Great LTE, Karynnj. I, too, didn't know how to react to that Kerry mention

in that op-ed. I am glad you posted this, and explained how this was a positive development. I hope they print your letter.

[wisteria]

3. Great letter. I hope they print it. n/t