Do you know why the BSN/ADN debate is so pointless? The issue has been fundamentally polarized by the ANA.
Do you know why energy independence is not a short term realistic goal? The issue has been fundamentally polarized by the left.
There was a thread, about religious leaders calling for the same thing. If you recall, I said THERE, some months ago, that energy independence is something that COULD be sold to conservatives, who are by nature, security hawks and understand the threat to security that oil dependence entails.
But, the LEFT doesn't WANT conservatives on board this issue. It's a wedge issue for them. What they WANT is for conservatives to FIRST convert to liberalism in order to have a seat at this table.
And THAT is why the issue wasn't effectively advanced beginning in 1972, when it SHOULD have been.
I'm on board this concept, but, I won't sell out my political beliefs to do so. Make it a non-partisan issue, and I'll take my seat at the table.
But, as it happens, the very quotes you make to stick the point are from . . . .drumroll . . . moveon.org. I rest my case. Now, if George Soros wants to get Bob Perry (ala Swiftboats campaign) on board and make a joint statement, then we might get somewhere.
Here's the problem. I doubt that George Soros CARES about this issue MORE than he cares about using it as a political weapon for his cause. In fact, the facts speak for themselves: It IS a political issue MORE than it is a pressing issue for the left. I just don't see him and those like him making the concessions that will actually move the issue along, in a non-partisan way. And, since the LEFT polarized the issue to start with, they'll have to divorce themselves from the political rhetoric of it all first.
If George Soros and his moveon.org wants to make a real statement about energy independence, he should use his considerable media clout to both declare it a non-partisan issue AND to seek real across the board consensus.