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
13 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Visualize a clock. Moderates at noon, conservatives at 3,
radicals at 6 and liberals at 9.
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.
I would be 11:55
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!
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.
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.
RE: Joe
A thrid pary would suffice, we could call it the Centerist or Common Sense party.
Hear, here. You run, I run, and bring common sense back to the country.
Post a Comment