After winning re-election, President Bush missed an excellent opportunity to promote energy independence.  The next U.S. President still has a chance to pull it off.

The timing has never been better to promote nuclear generation of electricity in the U.S. 
Liberals and conservatives both want energy independence for the U.S.  Everyone prefers renewable energy sources.  The media and politicians have already concluded that reducing man-made carbon dioxide is the best way to stop global warming.  Even Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, is now working to promote the use of nuclear energy(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html).

For the people who would normally be against expansion of nuclear generation of electricity, the possibility that global warming is human-caused is a foregone conclusion.  A very strong case can me made to this group for using nuclear power to generate electricity in place of burning fossil fuels.  This is a great time to talk up nuclear energy in the U.S.  But the "slam dunk" comes from France.

How are the two related?  The global warming crowd also fervently believes that the U.S. is nothing if the French don't like us.  Well, they actually believe that being liked by the rest of the world defines us as a nation.  But since the rest of the world is a mess right now, this group would probably settle for being liked by Europe.  Want to win Europe's affection?  Start with France.

According to Fareed Zakaria in his Newsweek cover story, we have many fences to mend and it is very important to do it soon (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/).  Let's start by asking France for help with our nuclear energy program.

It's known that France generates about 80% of it's electricity through the use of commercial nuclear reactors.  French engineers know how to do it correctly and safely and we should humbly ask for their help.  Furthermore, the French are defenders of the environment so we would be partnering with "greens".  This approach fights global warming, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and promotes international cooperation.  We generate good will on our way to generating electricity.

President Bush could have done this as soon as he was re-elected.  The next president - Republican or Democrat - can still do the right thing for politically-correct reasons.

Sample source for 80% number cited above:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum2.html

In his New York Times column on June 12 (http://iraqwarit.blogspot.com/2007/06/brooks-immigration.html) about the immigration bill, David Brooks starts with a positive message.  He points out that the the immigration issue is really non-partisan, is not driven by racist or nativist attitudes, and is not tied to economic insecurity.  So far, so good - an apparent refutation of name-calling tactics being practiced by the President and by Senators who support the bill.

But then Mr. Brooks offers a straw man proposal: the disagreement is due to a division between Americans who are "cosmopolitan" and those who are "rooted nationalists".   He seems to think that a complex, high-minded dichotomy will make us feel better about the immigration bill than the simplistic attacks we experienced last week of being called racists and bigots.  As he puts it, "People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation."  Let's see - think locally, act cosmopolitan.  Try the Persian restaurant but make sure that its in your neighborhood.

What is really a simple debate about the rule of law and the responsibility of elected officials, Mr. Brooks calls a culture war.  He says that, "...the immigration debate is part of a newer culture war...between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they’re destroying the best compromise they will get."

The cosmopolitan vs. rooted nationalist straw man is academic and not worth debating.  Mr. Brooks could have filled his column with virtually anything since his main point - the column's final sentence - is indefensible and illogical.

People against the immigration bill don't want and don't need a compromise.  There is no need to compromise when 70% of the American public agrees on what needs to be done.  It's assumed that compromise must be reached because a "comprehensive" bill has been created with bi-partisan support by politicians but the American people don't want comprehensive reform.  In fact, they don't want reform at all.  They want something very simple from their elected officials: secure the border and enforce existing laws.