Good for the Christian Coalition

graham ad

I enjoyed seeing the above ad in the paper today on a number of levels.

  • First, it’s good to see Lindsey Graham getting props from any corner for his courageous stance on energy and climate change. It’s ridiculous for such a sensible course to have to be considered “courageous,” but we live in a world in which if a Republican does something sensible (that is, if he endorses the Energy Party platform), and he does it with a Democrat, folks in his party want to ride him on a rail.
  • Second, I always like it when political actors, whether they are individuals or groups, step outside the boxes that the arbiters of our simplistic yes-or-no politics would put them in. Having the Christian Coalition endorse this isn’t shocking, given that many conservative Christians these days are embracing our obligation to act as stewards of this planet God put us on — but it’s gratifying nonetheless. (Of course, this ad didn’t stress the environmental part, just the energy part, but they could have picked any number of other Republicans to praise for favoring drilling for oil. A statement like this is a tacit endorsement of all that Sen. Graham is trying to do with Sen. Kerry.) We’re talking about an organization that has a fund-raising appeal on its Web site that says “Will You Stand With Us As We Stand Against The Left?,” nevertheless spending money to praise a senator who’s being pilloried by the right for working with the “opposition.”
  • Finally, I’m happy for my friends at The State that they landed a full-color, almost-full page political ad. Too many of those dollars go to TV.

5 thoughts on “Good for the Christian Coalition”

  1. Doug Ross

    Hasn’t the “hydrogen power (Currently being developed at the University of South Carolina” referenced in the ad been basically debunked as the wrong technology?

    This article in The State seems to imply that the chance of hydrogen being a key alternative energy source is slim.

    http://www.thestate.com/biz/story/700829.html

    Here’s a key fact from the article:

    “• $19 million in hydrogen’s share of the $48 million Horizon 1 research building and parking garage in USC’s Innovista research campus — a building that remains empty because it lacks about $20 million to finish it, in part, because of budget shortfalls.”

    Too bad USC invested in empty buildings instead of research. Empty buildings don’t create too many jobs.

  2. Kathryn Fenner

    Doug– I hear you may have a point on hydrogen technology, although I do not know any more than what I read on that.

    Sometimes you’re VHS and sometimes you’re Beta.

  3. Doug Ross

    The true test of Senator Graham’s “courage” will be if he supports a bill that DOESN’T include funding for hydrogen cell technology if it is considered an also-ran in the alternative energy initiative.

    Cynical old me thinks the Senator’s support is probably tied to how many dollars he can bring to USC. The old quid pro quo that politicians use to stay in office.

    I’d love to be proved wrong.

  4. Brad Warthen

    Actually, Doug — what is generally said is that, unless somebody thinks of some great workaround that no one has thought of, hydrogen is not likely to be an efficient, cost-effective source of energy for transportation. It is generally regarded as having more potential to power other things.

    But people keep building hydrogen cars because of the wow factor. A hydrogen car grabs the imagination more readily than does a hydrogen-powered scoreboard.

Comments are closed.