NEWS: Obama v. Kennedy...

See the report here.

Now that President Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh, an easy target for a hyper-liberal, it seems that he is aiming his guns at Sen. Ted Kennedy regarding the construction of an off-shore "wind farm," designed to provide a "clean" energy source.

"Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project. "

Two democrats entrenched in a political over the environmental impact of a wind farm. Our president wants clean, alternative energies. Senator Kennedy claims that the wind farm will damage sean and animal life and that it will cost tourism and jobs. At least one of these gentlemen remembered to check whether there would be an effect on people, even if it was an afterthought.

"Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. "

If the report is accurate, then we will spend barrels of federal tax dollars financing and subsidizing the construction of an energy source that, presenlty, accounts for a whopping 1% of our energy reserves. If we are lucky, then maybe we can get it up to 20% in a little over two decades. Of course, in that amount of time, our population will have likely grown enough to require 10-15% more electricity than we currently use (I am guessing - please provide reliable figures if you read this and have them).

So we have two democracts arguing over the environmental costs of building a wind farm that will likely do little to address the current energy demand, and we are supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh (according to President Obama - see our earlier news post here)? I highly suspect that Rush would say something of the tune of, "Wind power is nice and clean, but what are you doing to create jobs and solve the existing energy demand? I mean, the current recession may be over in 20 years by the time wind power has an effect, if it has one at all."

And Rush would be right, hypothetically. Why are we arguing the environmental impact of a project that will cost plenty of tax dollars while providing very little benefit to the Americans who paid for it? Why are we not curtailing government spending on ventures that do not address our present economic crisis? I love animals and sea creatures, but they do not get priority status over people surely? At least Kennedy made a good point: jobs could be lost.

So, if I have to choose sides in this liberal debate, then I have to side with the senator. After all, it is his state. Were he not suffering from a brain tumor, I doubt President Obama would be crossing Senator Kennedy on a fight the man has been waging for nearly a decade. This proves something to me that I saw during the election season: Barack Hussein Obama is an opportunist. There's nothing especially wrong with being an opportunist, but when the opportunity you are seizing is precipitated by the possibly fatal illness of a long-time ally, surely you should at least consider the principles of loyalty and fair play? The logic I see being followed is this: Senator Kennedy's malignant brain tumor spells out a strong possibility that he will soon drop out of the political spotlight, so why should BHO care that he owes his present success, at least in part, to Kennedy's support?

Loyalty. It is a concept of which our president has no grasp. He abandons his allies when they are of no further use to him or when it will profit him to do so. Senator Ted Kennedy now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The message here is clear: President Obama will accept your support, but do not expect to get so much as a cookie for it.