Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch, a 501 (c) 3 non-partisan, non-profit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act
You almost have to admire the bumbling bravado, even if the timing was bizarre.
With his ratings in a tailspin, the president disrupted the first night of the important networks "sweeps" to talk to the nation about gas prices—on the same day that ExxonMobil reported first-quarter profits had jumped 44 percent (roughly the amount gas prices have gone up).
After viewers suffered through cynical commercials extolling ExxonMobil's paramount interest in the environment and the nuclear industry's undying devotion to clean air, the president, adorned with martial red tie, launched into his spiel.
"I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a president who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people."
And yet, for the energy portion of his news conference, the president did exactly that.
Business Week writer John Carey pointed out this week that recent presidential rhetoric on energy has closely mirrored recommendations of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who warned late last winter that Republicans needed to "retake" the energy issue or risk becoming the equivalent of an abandoned oil well. Last night was no exception.
Luntz identified several key "positive" themes for Republicans, including energy independence, the power of innovation and new technology and the importance of balancing new supplies with conservation.
The president has obviously been well-coached on the Luntz language, as evidenced by last night's performance.
A few examples:
Luntz recommendation: "Americans loathe the idea of being dependent." So stress "reducing our dependence" on foreign oil.
Bush: "To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy..."
Luntz: Emphasize that the nation's energy problem "has been years in the making, and it will take years to solve."
Bush: "This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in this country. And it's going to take us awhile to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy."
Luntz: Stress the concept of using "technology" and balance it with talk of "conservation."
Bush: "We must better use technology to become better conservers of energy…we need to be better conservers of energy."
Luntz: In hawking the idea of drilling in Alaska, say that "using modern techniques, only a very small area will actually be impacted by the development." And use the word "exploration" rather than "drill."
Bush: "ANWR is 19 million acres of land. Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million to be able to explore for oil and gas, so we can have oil and gas produced here domestically."
Despite regurgitating all the focus-group mumbo-jumbo, the president offered no real plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Though praising the House-passed energy bill (loaded with tax breaks for big energy companies like ExxonMobil), he conceded it "is certainly no quick fix" for higher gas prices. (The Energy Information Administration reported that an earlier, similar version of the legislation would actually increase gas prices.)
Interestingly, the president neglected to mention one concrete suggestion he had floated in a speech the previous day: the slick idea of turning military bases into refineries.
Perhaps, as CNN reported, the Pentagon itself was blindsided by the trial balloon. Or maybe because White House advisers just concluded the idea was just too off the wall.
After all, building a refinery isn't like putting up the big top in Carnivale . It's hard—and expensive. A group in Arizona is moving forward with a plan to build a new refinery at a projected cost of $2.5 billion (and that's before the cost overruns).
The real reason oil companies haven't built any refineries since the 1970s is that they've historically made small margins on refining, and they've found it profitable to make sure that there isn't a glut of fuel on the market.
Recent profit statements suggest the industry strategy is working pretty well for them, though not for hapless consumers.
ExxonMobil, for example, is reportedly sitting on $30 billion in cash. And analysts say the cash total will continue to climb. Rather than planning new refineries, the company said Thursday that it would start buying back some of its stock—a way to bolster the stock price.
Like other big oil companies, ExxonMobil opposes the one sure-fire, unmistakable way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil: requiring better gas mileage. (One big reason we are having today's pinch at the pumps is that cars and light trucks actually get worse gas mileage on average than in 1987.)
Unfortunately, the president is not about to break ranks with the oil industry on this issue. And it is a pity. Once again last night, he demonstrated he can be bold. Just not bold enough to require even a few more miles per gallon.
How effective was last night's news conference? A sign of potential trouble for the president is that three of the four networks cut him off and resumed normal programming before he had finished. Even Bush-friendly Fox abruptly cut into Bush's answer of the final question to shift away to Paris Hilton and The Simple Life: Interns.
|
Catch me every Monday at 7AM and 4 PM PST ~
TRUTHTALK
on Conscious Talk Radio
| |
|
KYCY 1550 AM SAN FRANCISCO / WED 9 - 10 AM
& SUN 10-11 | |
