Draft Roscoe Discussion Thread w/ Poll

A few posts ago, Dave proposed a presidential run by Roscoe Bartlett in 2008.

By 2008, oil-related issues will be even more on the public's mind than they are now, and people will be desperate for a new perspective. Bartlett would not be towing toeing the Republican party line and would certainly spice up any primary debate. As I said earlier, "There is a precedent of candidates using a presidential primary campaign to give their pet issue air time. If he was in the primary, the MSM would have no choice but to cover peak oil." Peakguy adds, "I think Roscoe could be the Ross Perot of the 2008 Republican Primary Race—injecting an issue that forces others to deal with—something other than the culture wars."

It's three years away, and doing a Google search on draft+president+2008 yields grass roots campaigns for Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Mark Sanford, Oprah Winfrey, Wesley Clark, Gavin Newsome, Joe Biden, Blanche Lincoln, Brian Schweitzer, Barack Obama, etc. Looking at these sites might give you an idea of what one of these campaigns is like.

Is this a good idea? Take the poll...

I think it would be a bit of a publicity stunt in that the objective would be to inform the public about peak oil rather to actually get him into office. However, it could be a great publicity stunt.

Agreed.  He would be a longshot, but there would be press coverage of the issue.
That's exactly my thinking. Nobody expects him to win. Just to show up at the primary debate. Maybe run peak oil commericals in Iowa and New Hampshire.

After all, Bartlett will be 82 in 2008, and I think that he oldest candidate on record was Bob Dole, who was 73 in 1996.

And the road to the White house starts right after the mid-term elections.
Maybe Bartlett's campaign slogan could be "Oil will peak before I do"
Here's why I bring up Ross Perot: He ran twice (albeit in the general election and with significant $$$) talking mostly about one issue - balance the budget. By 1997, Clinton and the Republicans finally did it. I doubt that would have happened without RP.
I wonder if a better analogy is Steve Forbes, who ran in the Republican primary in 1996 and 2000. He was not taken seriously, and to this day, we still don't have the flat tax.
You better hope that's not a better analogy. The whole thing only works if we're looking at Perot as a model for this issue.
We don't have a flat tax, but policy makers address the idea of a flax tax (either to say they're against it, or to say that their plan makes the tax system flatter) when they make a proposal.

If peak oil just got that far--so that anyone who talked about energy policy had to take a position on peak oil and talk about their plan in the context of peak oil--we'd be way ahead of where we are now.

Excellent point pbrewer. Of course both Perot and Forbes had lots of cash. Who's going to bankroll Roscoe's campaign? I hear T. Boone Pickens is rich. Any other wealthy peak oilers out there?
For the record, Pickens is worth $1.5 billion.
Hell, let's just draft Pickens. I mean, we need rich people (Perot, Forbes), so why not?

(I don't mean it. Bartlett is much more my type, even if he's a Republican.)

just to complete the circle...for some reason, I liken Pickens to Perot's Adm Stockdale.

"GRIDLOCK!"  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0500148/quotes

Toeing the line. Not towing.
Right you are, waxwing! Although, according to the Eggcorn database, "Tow the line may well be one of the reshapings that will soon be considered acceptable in standard English."
Well then "eggcorn" is pretty stupid. Toeing the line has a specific meaning derived from lining up for a race. Pulling the line has no sense at all.
Towing a line makes perfect sense - as in using a towing line to pull another vehicle (or ship, in a nautical context), and could easily be used to describe pulling an agenda along.
But toeing the line means staying within the existing agenda, not pulling it somewhere new.

You might as well claim that "it's" is possessive now just because everyone uses it that way.

I sat next to Bartlett's energy assistant during the Peak Oil conference in Ohio.  Bartlett would be WAY too conservative for me.  But his assistant said Bartlett is capable of changing his mind based on a good arguement.  He is very much a scientist.

Another good reason for him to run would be that he is a Republican with stellar conservative credentials.  He could speak to the right wing of the political spectrum.  Center and left types are much more likely to deal with reality free from ideological predispostions.  The right wing needs help.

I think Roscoe needs to start running NOW.

I think that many traditional conservatives are disillusioned with the path the Bush Administration has taken in the areas like government spending and immigration. Maybe Roscoe is the candidate for them!
The nice thing is that if he runs in order to give airtime to the Peak Oil issue, and isn't expected to really be competitive, then his other political positions aren't really relevant.
The only concern I have is that by 2008, Peak Oil may be far more on the radar screen than it is now and we won't be worrying about raising awareness - instead the debate will be all about what to do.
So you think the issue will be:

A. invading Russia through the new Iranian conquest or
B. blockading the Chinese/Japanese Alliance or
C. Drilling in Antartica

Well, if it IS on the radar all by itself, that would be good too, right? (We can start championing him now, and if he wants to get out later because his issue is already out there, then no problem.)
I would just be leary of the neo-conservative/radical vision for dealing for peak-oil. They are either oil men or know oil men so I would be surprised if they didn't have an idea this is coming. Now I certainly don't believe there's some wacky conspiracy theory to turn us all into soylent green, but the directions we go with policy (and as Stuart said at the end of his last summary: "We must not screw this up") could be toward a fascist system or an open democratic one (and beyond that I won't go into the details cause I know you'll all be just waiting to jump down my throat if you arn't already).
Glad to see this thread, I've had to deal with other business all day. I didn't know Roscoe was so old (79) when I made my suggestion. So that got me looking for some other politician that might take up the cause. I see from the events calender at hubbertpeak.com that governor Christine Gregoire (Washington) is talking at a peak oil conference there in Seattle (see page for details). Also, Mayor John Hickenlooper (Denver) is speaking at the ASPO-USA conference in Denver (see same page). I've heard him speak -- he's pretty impressive and he's a smart guy.

But as far as politicians go, my searches for alternatives to Bartlett came up empty. I find this situation absolutely incredible. There's an article in Esquire (October) called The Five Minute Guide: Oil that discusses PO -- 5 minutes presumably being the attention span of the average Esquire reader. This week's Time Magazine has an essay by Matt Simmons. There was the NY Times Magazine article. There's been lots of exposure lately in the hurricane season. I can't turn on NPR without hearing an energy-related story. They were talking about tar sands just the other day. They had a 3 part series on oil and political trouble in the Niger Delta.

And yet, there is only one person in the Congress discussing peak oil. Here we are, (some of) the people, trying to elevate our leaders to a point where they can see what's going on. Somehow, I don't think democracy was supposed to work this way.
Being a Republican is necessary but not sufficent for my endorsement and vote.

Glad he is taking PO seriously and I welcome his participation.  Glad I'm not the only Republican devoting time and attention to the issue.

I could kick Arnold for his lame energy policies here in California - behind the humbug about renewables and conservation is nothing but LNG.

When the Republican Party gets on board, I think you'll have to admit that they are the most capable of actually doing something about it!

Mr Bartlett is a Seventh-Day Adventist.

The second coming of Christ is imminent. Believers should be ready at all times to be removed from earth to be with God in heaven; others will be destroyed by Christ. Righteous Christians who had previously died will be resurrected at that time and taken to heaven. For the following 1000 years, only Satan and his angels will be living on earth. A second resurrection will occur at the end of that period. The righteous will then return to a cleansed earth, and establish the New Jerusalem. The unrighteous who died before the Second Coming will be resurrected and be consumed by fire and by God, along with Satan and his angels. The universe will then be free of sin and sinners. Hell exists as a lake of fire where the unrighteous are "burned up, utterly destroyed, and cease forever to exist". Hell does not exist as a place of eternal torment.

If there is a petro-collapse and he is president, perhaps you will be eating homosexuals--like me--to stay alive.

One has to admire Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, but an adequate political response to Peak Oil will be a long-term struggle.

We all want to repeat some event from the past (another Ross Perot, another Marshall Plan, etc.) but in the era of dwindling energy, we will not be able to repeat the past.  

As Heinberg said in his closing speech at YSO, our society will change in many unexpected ways as Peak Oil plays out.

As one example, consider the rural working class being hit by higher fuel prices, described in the just-posted article in The Nation: Running on Fumes.  A hardcore Republican is already talking government intervention:

Sauget, a tough-looking Republican whose storefront is bedecked with an enormous Bush/Cheney poster and whose display case boasts certificates of appreciation from the local branch of the Army Recruiting Command, is hardly the type you'd expect to hear denouncing oil companies. But ever increasing gas prices have him looking for answers. "I'd urge Congress to put a ceiling on these extreme profits," he states, his face red with anger, his hand in a fist. "Price caps. They've got us by the short hairs, and if we don't turn this around we're never going to get out of this. I support basic Republican ideas, but I've always been of the opinion that you must control the corporations. If the corporations control you, you're in big trouble."

To understand the politics of the coming era, we should study periods of massive social change -- not try to re-live the tranquil period of the last few decades.  
Sounds like he's pulling a William Jennings Bryant on us.
Blaming big business is a polulist move. Bryan was one of the leading 19th century populists:


Who are you guys? Draft Roscoe?
The Professor is going a bit out to lunch the last few years.
I am still surprised that he has been in office this long.
I expect he will be answering for carrying 'The Crown' for Rev. Moon
during his next election cycle. Check it out.