Fun With Framing

Bob Krumm must've just read George Lakoff's book on framing, because he is quite enamored with Fred Thompson's energy plan...not necessarily the plan itself, but the title of the plan on the website, "Energy Security."

We must elminate our dependence on foreign oil, but we can’t do that in the simplistic way that Democrats offer, which is to just set carbon consumption goals, spend billions of taxpayer dollars, and wish the problem away. And we must extricate ourselves from the Middle East, but not in the Paul-Kucinich way, which is to simply pretend that we have no foreign policy interest there even while we enjoy a huge economic benefit from the oil we use from the region.

Only one such candidate recognizes this reality. It is evident in how he frames the issue on his webpage. He doesn’t call it “Environment” or “Global Warming” or “Energy Policy”. Instead it is Energy Security. And that candidate’s name is Fred Thompson.

So what is Fred Thompson's plan? Invest in "renewable and alternative fuels" and "advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency;" or as Krumm would call it "spend billions of taxpayer dollars". But what is most interesting about Arthur Branch's plan to bring security to our energy, is that he supports the goal of reducing carbon emissions:

And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to...

...Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Interesting, why the hatred of Co2 but not for the idea that it contributes to climate change? I haven't heard any arguments that we are in danger of suffocating the planet due to Co2 emissions...so if climate change is, as Krumm calls it, at best "overstated" and at worst "total bunk," why bother spending one penny on reducing Co2 emissions? Sounds to me like Fred Thompson may actually believe in global warming (hence his desire not to raise his hand at the Iowa debate) but won't admit to it publicly because the voters he is trying to attract have the intractable belief that the composition of our atmosphere doesn't effect the temperature of the planet.

Now, Krumm tends to think that Democrats have ignored the foreign policy implications of our energy plan...apparently, he was sleeping through the 2006 Senate election when Harold Ford Jr. expressed his love for the Soy Beans to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. It was also a Democratic Governor in Montana who expressed interest in the Federal Government investing in coal liquefication to take advantage of our own natural resources. In fact, Democrats have been saying for quite sometime that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil for the sake of our national interest; the difference being, they can walk and chew gum at the same time, therefore they also speak about the need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels altogether...one of the big reasons being global climate change.

I recommend Bob check out the Democratic plans on energy which are far more in depth and explanatory than the paragraph from Mr. Thompson:

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards