- This sentence doesn't work: "With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers"...unless the antecedent of "ourselves" is "the U.S. and our allies," which doesn't seem to be what she intends in this instance. Russia's control of oil flow to Europe is a strategic issue for the U.S., but it has little to do with America's dependence on foreign oil.
- She says, "But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all," presumably to imply that Obama's energy policy is nothing at all. In fact, it is remarkably similar to what Obama suggested in his acceptance speech. The U.S. is lucky to have so many potential leaders committed to robust reform of its energy policies.
- Pushed for full funding of the "150 account," the international affairs budget, which Fontaine says is an expression of U.S. leadership in the world, of our soft power and moral position.
- Cosponsored the $50 billion version of the Pepfar bill and has been a supporter of Pepfar from the beginning.
- Strongly supports the Millennium Challenge Corporation, along with clear benchmarks.
Bill McInturff is now giving a presentation at the Humphrey Institute on the polling that we previously posted on.
One of the most striking things he highlighted were the convergence of views by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on international concerns (slide 5 below). "American's Dependence on Foreign Oil," "The Global Economy and Trade," and "Terrorism" were in each group's top three. This bodes well for building consensus to move forward on each. This is true for "America's dependence on foreign oil" in particular, which was listed as the top priority by twice as many voters (33% vs. 67%) in July 2008 as in September 2007 (slide 3 below).
Day two at the Humphrey Institute's symposium has begun. Bright and early, we're discussing the "Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next Administration" with Edward Alden, Kim Holmes, Michael Levi, Benn Steil, and Richard Haas.
Holmes (from Heritage) is taking unfair (and untrue) shots at the UN, saying that it has depreciated value for the U.S. because of our limited influence there. I think it's pretty clear that the U.S. has tremendous influence at the UN (even beyond the fact that they hold one of five veto spots in the Security Council). If the U.S. is not getting the results it needs, it's because its representatives are not engaging enough. That includes paying our dues in full, as is included in the Republican platform (Mark will write more on this later).
What is interesting is that Holmes has a laundry list of UN accomplishments on his Heritage Foundation bio page, including:
At a panel on the future of U.S. foreign assistance, Oxfam President Raymond Offenheiser just pulled out an One Day 1 type suggestion that the next president develop a National Foreign Development Strategy (like the National Security Strategy) soon after entering office. Such a strategy doesn't currently exist.
I thought I was on the ball when I emailed my colleagues at On Day One to suggest they get a video from Offenheiser. Already done. I should be more plugged into On Day One, so should you.
I'm sitting in on a very enjoyable panel on Climate Change and Energy Security hosted by Reid Detchon from the UN Foundation and featuring J. Michael Davis, former Assistant Secretary of Energy under Bush 41; Robert McFarlane, former National Security Advisor to President Reagan; George Pataki; and R. James Woolsey, former CIA director under Clinton.
Piece of advice, if you get a chance to catch a panel hosted by Detchon (excellent dry wit) or featuring the others, particularly Woolsey or Davis, you should.
My battery's dying, so I'll have to upload some more thoughts later, but the first thing that struck me was how the ideas of those on the panel very closely match what I have heard being said about or by Obama recently.
Despite the paring down of the Republican National Convention due to Hurricane Gustav, there will, at the very least, be a full slate of discussions at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, and I'll be here to cover it. Stay tuned.
I just want to highlight the fact that Obama said this last night:
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.The desire to truly repeat Kennedy's call to reach the Moon within a decade has long been a dream of politicians, actual and fictional. The end goal, in this case, is undeniably admirable (and politically savvy). It is somewhat broader than Gore's call for clean electricity within the decade and more clearly beneficial to our economy and foreign policy than Bush's call to reach Mars. As Obama says, it is securely at the nexus of economic, foreign policy, and environmental concerns. (I would also add humanitarian.) I'm sure I don't need to rehash to this audience why such an action helps us reach major goals in each of these areas. Only time will tell whether Obama will be able to do so. It is a major challenge. As Governor Schweitzer so entertainingly laid out on Tuesday, we currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil output and only 3 percent of the reserves. His strategy?
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.The $150 billion is a good start. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll see more details.