Wednesday, April 20, 2005

A Letter From Barack Obama

I recently wrote a letter through Government Guide to my US Rep Janice Schakowsky and Senator Barack Obama concerning the drilling in ANWR. I just wanted to express my view that there was really only about a year and a halves worth of oil up there and that it wasn't worth the risk of another Valdez type disaster. I went on to state the obvious that the real problem isn't dependence on foreign oil, but dependence on oil.
The response I got back from Schakowsky seemed to be your typical cookie cutter response that was tailored to the subject but addressed nothing specifically.
I then got a letter back from Obama that actually looks like it was typed up as a direct response to my letter. Although I doubt it was he who actually typed it, it does appear that someone actually put some personal effort into it, and didn't send out the prewritten response that you would expect.

I may be wrong, but I still like what he has to say. He's got my next vote.

Dear John:
Thank you for writing to convey your concern about the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I appreciate reading your comments on this important issue.
I agree that drilling in ANWR is not the answer to solving our countries energy problems and believe our country needs a more balanced national energy policy that promotes conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. Specifically, I support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, promoting the use of biodiesel and ethanol and creating incentives for private companies to explore the possibilities of other forms of renewable energy. By relying more on energy conservation and shifting our countries goals toward exploring and expanding viable sources of renewable energy, we can develop a more sound energy policy that also preserves our planets natural resources.
I am particularly troubled by the tactic of the proponents of drilling in ANWR to include this authority in the annual congressional budget resolution that is not subject to filibuster. I voted to remove the ANWR provision from the budget resolution, but unfortunately that effort was defeated by a vote of 49 to 51. I can assure you, however, that this fight is not over, and it is my hope that in the final analysis we will be able to reverse this ill-advised action.It is unfortunate that the past Congress failed to reach agreement on a common sense, balanced and comprehensive energy bill. I look forward to debating this critical issue as the 109th session of Congress continues.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator

16 comments:

Sandi said...

Makes one understand why the Democratic party sees him as a rising star. I for one applaud him on his choice of letter writers and hope that they are truely expressing his beliefs.

wanda said...

It makes me so angry when I take the time to do exactly what politicians tell us to do (write/call your state representatives ect) only to have them respond with their one-size-fits-all pre-printed, stamped signature letters. It not only leaves me frustrated but wondering if anyone of any significance even read my letter.
Whether he wrote/dictated the response himself or not, it appears Obama was at least aware of it.
The idea of Americans being conservative when it comes to anything other than politics, is almost laughable.

Audrey said...

Well, I know when I used to work at the Mayor's office there was someone in charge of responding to all of the letters written/phone calls received. Hardly any ever got to the Mayor himself.

This letter seems to have been a template response to an issue that has received a lot of intention. In my previous job, this was how we would answer constituent questions directed toward the Federal government. So, in sum, I would say that the Senator's Rep is sending you a template based on how he voted on this issue, and/or similar issues.

Audrey said...

attention - proofread, Audrey, proofread!!!!

Boiled Owl said...

Toad.

When you showed up on my kids' blog the other day with your report on rats, I instinctively swooped down and consumed you, not knowing your political persuasion.

Now that I see where you came from, I would give your body back if I could, but all I have left is this little pellet that I coughed up from my craw.

You can have it back now if you wish. Sorry.

Be careful posting to a creative site where artists and jazz musicians are cuttin' heads. You gotta have pretty good chops to hang for long.

Later Toad.

p.s. Your head tasted best. Kinda like foie gras.

al_fresco said...

Toad.

I like your blog. I've been hanging out here for about 30 minutes now. You do not disappoint.

It is nice to have someone chime in from the "outside" only to find that they are more on the "inside" than you may have realized at first.

I was just reading from the Crazy Left Wing Liberal Causes post. Fun stuff.

I like the idea of a third political party. Turns out, however, that's not a revolutionary idea. We have independents and libertarians to prove it. But you're right about the donkey, the elephant and the COPS watching dipshits (guilty).

I've often reflect on how divided we Americans have become over a mere matter of semantics.

I agree that Democrat and Republican don't mean the same things as Liberals and Conservatives. In fact, I'd venture to say that the liberals and the conservatives might want to get their own animals. Perhaps a Badger and a Wolverine would be appropriate.

At any rate, I hope you'll forgive Owl for having you for dinner. Next time, maybe he'll offer you a nice plate of flies instead of making you the main course.

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to join us anytime you like.

Thanks for croaking in.

BTW - When toads lick each other, do they get high?

Boiled Owl said...

Sometime you might want to hear about the circular model of the political spectrum. Great treatment of it by William Erwin Thompson in his book "The Edge of History."

Toad734 said...

RE: Al

I could live with 4 major parties better than 2. However, I think an odd number such as 3 would suffice.
Think about this:
Besides abortion, what are the major differences between someone like McCain and Lieberman? You have guys like Powell, McCain, Schwarzenegger, who have more in common with guys like Lieberman, Bayh, and Gephardt than they do with their own party members such as Bush, Frist, and DeGay.
I say you just give up on abortion, it's legal, always will be, move on, and you have a moderate centrist party and you leave the Kennedy's and Hillary Clintons and the Frists and Bushs to be the radicals of their parties and you can then call the Republicans the Religiouscans and call the Democrats Bleedingheartocrats and you know that if you hate fags, want lower taxes for rich people and more guns for all the churches, you vote for the Religiouscans and if you want higher taxes, free drugs, and more welfare you vote for the Bleedingheartocrats. All the normal thinking people in this country, which there still are some, will have moderate rational people who only try to follow and enforce the laws of our Constitution and not the Bible or some other form of Idealism.

Boiled Owl said...

Visualize a clock. Moderates at noon, conservatives at 3,
radicals at 6 and liberals at 9.

Boiled Owl said...

Now notice how everyone seems to be moving toward 12 and 6.

Left and right-wing radicals have more in common with each other than with any moderate of any persuasion.

If you look up the definitions of communism and facism (left and right-wing radicals respectively) you'll wonder why the two ever fought a war with each other (WWII). On the other hand, if you look up the definition of liberalism, you just might still find America there.

I agree that we should drop the Dem/Repub monikers.
Let's just call a spade a spade and get on with it.

But if you want things to stay exactly as they are, that would make you a conservative.

They made this bed, by the way, so there's a certain justice in the fact that they're now having to sleep in it.

Toad734 said...

I would be 11:55

Boiled Owl said...

Most people are born into an arc on the wheel. Their positions range from say 8:00 to 2:00. The more narrowminded the person, the more specific their position on the clock. Most cover a range, depending on the issues.

The magic happens as one matures (consciousness evolves) and is able to empathise with virtually every position. "Comes full circle", so to speak."

But I'll leave the story of that magic for a later post. There is enough to ponder in what I have already given to keep us going for quite a while. Check your clocks folks!

Hoosier said...

At first I wondered what it was about this guy that people of both parties seemed drawn to, and now I think it's that he has common sense and a sense of honor. Two things rarely seen among politicians.

No wonder it took me so long to fiure it out.

Joe Wiess said...

John,
You should call yourself a scholar and simply enjoy it. Your site is insightful, and makes for a lot of thought.
Isn't it funny how the Far right and the Far left are so much alike? I think that most people are in the middle and just want to live in peace.
You'll find that other than a few ideas of my own, I agree with you on almost all you've said.
Why do you think so many people turn off Rush Limbaugh and Air America? What we need are more independants in Washington, then maybe something would get done.

Toad734 said...

RE: Joe

A thrid pary would suffice, we could call it the Centerist or Common Sense party.

Joe Wiess said...

Hear, here. You run, I run, and bring common sense back to the country.