Part of the Bay Area News Group

Pete Stark, on what the President didn’t say

By Josh Richman
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010 at 2:07 pm in Barack Obama, economy, energy, Environment, Obama presidency, Pete Stark, U.S. House.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, didn’t accompany President Barack Obama to a Recovery Act-supported solar panel manufacturing plant in his district today because he was stuck on Capitol Hill amid a steady flow of bills this week.

But he weighed in this afternoon on what the President did and didn’t say about making clean energy a centerpiece of the region’s and the nation’s economic rebound. Although the president spoke about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an indicator of the nation’s need to wean itself from fossil fuels, Stark noted he didn’t speak about one important facet of that.

Pete Stark“My sense is that what he’s got to deal with is coal. ‘Clean coal’ is an oxymoron, there is no such thing,” Stark said. “I think the tradeoff is nuclear. If we can find a reasonable storage disposal for the waste, then I think we have to become like other industrialized nations, a nuclear nation, and get rid of coal.”

“That’s a major, major change for this country, but I don’t see an alternative,” Stark continued. “He (Obama) doesn’t want to step on any toes, but I don’t think you can do the things he wants to do unless you take a stand. That would be my criticism of the current administration… We’re not moving forward.”

Stark today introduced a Defense Authorization Act amendment that would strike the additional $362 million that a House committee added onto the $9.9 billion that the Pentagon is seeking for a missile-defense system.

“I’d strike the entire thing if I could,” he said. “I think were spending too much on defense, anyway.”

“For years this missile defense thing I think has been a boondoggle, it’s a thing that doesn’t work. They’ve fussed with it at the Lawrence (Livermore National) Lab and it’s just a dream – they can do some stuff short range, but they just can’t hit anything.”

He acknowledged his amendment could have a tough political hill to climb. “The concept here, among conservatives in particular, is that they will fuss over anything we want to spend for Medicare or education or cleaning up the environment – all of that is wasteful – but the minute you mention the military, oh that’s patriotic and antiterrorism.”

This $362 million is money the nation “could spend on a lot of other things, hopefully not war-related,” he said. “Hopefully this will take a direct point at that, hopefully we’ll get enough progressive votes to make a difference.”

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    Always glad to hear what good old senile Pete has to say.

    The man should be in a nursing home.

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    Pete should form a caucus with Dennis Kucinich and two or three other members whose opinions mean nada.

  • JK

    Stark stands for a weaker national defense (“spend too much on defense”), shutting down energy production of all sorts (his weak, “if only” claims are just smoke screens for his true voting patterns), less democracy (“step on toes”), and less healthcare for seniors. He voted to cut $350B out of the Medicare Senior Advantage program. I’m sure he’ll find some way to blame Bush for all those things. Now he supports government bailouts for union retirement plans! Talk about third-world cronyism!

    Stark should be the poster buy for the Republican Party, “The Stark Difference”.