I just read that Kerry is in the Pacific Northwest today and continuing to hammer Bush on gas prices and energy policy. With fuel so expensive, the Cheney case still before the Supreme Court, and the Iraq situation still tenuous at best, the interconnected issues of oil supply, dependence on foreign sources, resource usage and national security will remain on the front burner between now and November.
Kerry is probably doing the politically smart thing by letting Bush twist in the wind and simply offering himself as an alternative not as bound to Big Oil or a messianic foreign policy. But once he wins, that won't be enough to move the debate forward. While elements of the Bush/Cheney plan remain stalled in Congress, I think it's time to propose something radical that will bring both political and policy benefits Kerry's way: a great compromise with the right-wingers that would open the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), and any other areas where local opinion supports it, to oil exploration--in exchange for a substantial CAFE increase, sustained and substantial commitment to alternative energy sources, and a broad plan to win energy independence within 20 years.
I know that ANWR is something of a sacred cow among liberals, and a rallying point for Democrats of all stripes (even Holy Joe Lieberman sounds like one when he talks about it). But I keep coming back to the fact that Alaskans themselves have expressed a preference for exploration there, in polling on the question. That resonates with me. And while any environmental damage there would be tragic, if this were the bargaining chip that could increase fuel efficiency requirements and really move us off the dime and toward energy independence, that would make it more than worth it to me. Finally, I have to admit a weakness for "big ideas" that fly in the face of any key interest group--like it or not, there are a lot of voters out there who see the Sierra Club and other environmental lobbies as perhaps well-intentioned but too extreme. I think Kerry would win some points for political courage by taking one position they'd likely disagree with.
What do you think?