Every once in awhile, a television commentator comes up with a phrase that sticks.
That was the case the other day when one of them noted that John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, had missed out on “this whole hope, change thing.” She was referring, of course, to the central theme of the Barack Obama campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee.
Until very recently, the McCain campaign and the Republican Party have been unable to do much in response beyond mumble in obvious frustration.
Thankfully, that is about to (forgive the expression) change. The GOP has finally found a way to answer the Obama chant, “Yes, we can.” The uncomplicated response? “No, we can’t.”
A nation divided into two groups — one shouting “Yes, we can” and the other “No, we can’t” — will at least force the two sides into finally explaining what all the shouting is about.
The Republican National Committee has taken the first step in creating a website called “Change we can’t afford.” At long last, the RNC has a response to this “whole hope, change thing.” The committee will continue to add up the costs of the various Obama proposals and tally the effects of proposed Obama tax increases and try to make the case that Obama is one change the country can’t afford.
The truth is that it is the congressional Democrats who have — perhaps unwittingly — helped to crystallize party differences on several key matters affecting the nation’s economy. They staged a brief and wholly unsatisfactory debate last week in the U.S. Senate on climate change. Before hastily withdrawing a measure billed as crucial to the very future of “the planet,” it was obvious that the party leaders were victims of bad timing. Oil prices were sharply rising, and with gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, no one outside of the Senate was very much interested in regulatory schemes that would further increase the cost of all forms of energy while producing minuscule reductions in worldwide levels of greenhouse gases.
This week, Senate Democrats initiated a debate on whether to impose a “windfall profits tax” on the nation’s major oil companies. In bringing up this subject now, they are betting that Americans will overlook a number of pressing concerns — such as how to increase oil supplies, or at least stabilize prices, and instead take delight in what amounts to “punitive action” against one of the economic sectors crucial to the nation’s future.
By debating a windfall profits tax now, the Senate Democrats can avoid addressing the much more urgent matter of locating and highlighting the congressional failures that have clearly made the nation more dependent on foreign oil.
The lawmakers’ past failure to develop domestic oil reserves, whether off-shore or in the Arctic; the failure to develop nuclear energy; and the failure to build new oil refineries in the last three decades are just three of the items on the “congressional failures list.” No wonder the Democratic senators want to talk about “big oil” or “corporate greed.”
Sooner or later, however, these other topics will have to be addressed, and childish though it may seem, the adoption of the “No, we can’t” chant is the beginning of that important political process.
Al Knight of Buena Vista (alknight@mindspring.com) writes twice a month.
