Anyone heard the "fast track alternative" to imported oil of Obama's ? Does it sound like politics as usual?

Question

No CHANGE in sight for this one - just more political double talk if you ask me............ but maybe I'm overlooking something

Close examination seems to show his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the next decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound "fast" to me, plus there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

Opinions............

Answer 1

ten years is reasonable.a politician who gives u any less time would just be lying through their teeth and digging their own graves

Answer 2

OK - the link for this (as quoted by the questioner) is:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146638

If you proceed to the end of the article, you'll find this update:

>>  Update, July 17: This article originally described the ad as saying that Obama "has fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. After this article was posted, some readers contacted us to say that "fast-track" should be read as a verb, giving the ad the sense that Obama's $150 billion proposal would merely speed up research and put alternatives on a fast track.

We agree the phrase was probably meant to be a continuation of the previous sentence: "As president, he'll rebuild our alliances ... and fast-track alternatives ..." We have rephrased our story throughout  to reflect that. But whether intended as a verb or a modifier, we judge the term "fast-track" to be misleading, creating with words, and the accompanying pictures, the impression that Obama could quickly replace imported oil with wind and solar power and yet-to-be-developed fuels. <<

>> We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not endorsing Obama's plan either.<<

I support Senator Obama, and I think that the real meaning of his original statement is accurate and hopeful (perhaps overly optimistic), but I also think the wording of this ad is a bit misleading.

Of course, Senator McCain is not immune from using complete falsehoods in his ads:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146210

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145160

Nine of the twelve false ad claims described on the first page of FactCheck.org's website are falsehoods perpetrated by or on behalf of the McCain campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/