Mr. Obama has had a surprising and disappointing year. On the positive side, along with his advisers, he DID stave off a potential depression . He has also improved our image abroad. He should have kept his focus on the economy, and only when a recovery was obvious to one and all, then taken on the thorny issue of health care reform. But his priorities and positions have, regrettably, become skewed. He has turned his back on many of the campaign positions and promises which got him into the White House. So why would I vote for him again? Instead, I plan to be part of any movement to challenge his reelection plans. Specifically, any credible challenger
in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary will get my encouragement.
His "green" energy policies leave a great deal to be desired-what's with his new, pro-nuke stance? $54 billion to promote new nuclear power plants? Has he discovered a safe way to store toxic radwaste, a substance that remains deadly for 250,000 years? What about the very real danger of giving terrorists more "fuel" for their attacks? There were ample reasons for the 33 year U.S. moratorium on new nuke construction projects; how ironic that a liberal democrat has now authorized eight billion for new plants in Georgia.
Even George Bush didn't dare to enact such a foolhardy energy plan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
P.S.: Obama better not try to add any more nukes to Illinois, we have too many already.
ReplyDeleteIf he does, I will organize some stiff opposition.
In Illinois, the legislature in Springfield
ReplyDeleteseems to be moving toward lifting the moratorium we've enjoyed here for years on any new nuke plant construction. This is extremely ill-advised! Illinois already "boasts" more nukes than any other state, we don't need more.
What is it going to take for people to make rational, scientifically-based decisions which
affect our security AND energy future?