The race to ruin: Presidential debate recap

If only President Obama's energy policies were as anti-oil and gas as Mittens claims. A good fact check on the candidates' claims is posted today on Huffington Post.

And if only President Obama would frame what progressive policies he does have in terms of the core issue driving the rush towards renewables:

Not once was the term "climate change" uttered during the debate, despite the fact that Obama's energy policies don't make a lot of sense without reference to the carbon problem, and Romney's don't make any sense when one takes it into account. You'd think that would mean Obama, at least, would want to bring it up. Instead, he seemed to be twisting himself into knots trying to come up with other reasons for boosting renewable power and energy conservation.

Not talking about climate change is to ignore the elephant in the room. Most Americans believe in it, and believe it is having an effect on the weather. So why not speak to those folks, President Obama, and tell us you've got our back? It seems so obvious that people would respond to someone presenting solutions to what seems like an overwhelming death spiral, even if those solutions are actually lipstick on the pig of capitalism. (See link.)

This approach– a rational defense of renewables– wouldn't convince us that there's a way out, no matter how many miles per gallon we could drive in 40 years. But it might convince the undecided voters that you aren't a weasel. You know better. Do better.

Third time's a charm.