I think technical people too often lack the requisite political skills. We tend to be too honest and to the point. We find it hard to pander to people. For example, if I see a solution to a problem, and it is going to make me very unpopular to suggest it, I am still going to suggest it if it appears to be the best solution to the problem. Hence, I wouldn't get elected, because I didn't pander to the consituency.

Put me in Schumer's shoes. I am going to pound on the podium and say "The problem here with gas prices is because of us, and the way we built our society". I am going to come off sounding more like Kunstler, and that is not going to be a popular stance. The person who gets up and says that the oil companies are the problem, and they have a plan for punishing them and happily transitioning us all to alternative energy is the person who is going to be elected.

RR

i would rather be home with my gold and silver when the populace marches on DC with pitchfolks. Ayn Rand and John Galt - where are you?

India's president is a top scientist so yes he is technical and aware of the preoblems regarding energy sufficency. That was the focus of his speech last independence day - Aug 15th 2005.
However, the Prime Minister who is the head of the executive branch of tehe government doesnt seem to have a clue about it. He was recently talking about laying gas pipelines in the major cities of India (right now distribution of LPG/Cooking Gas is done by oil companies using cylinders). So hence I feel he has no clue. The finance minister who has a very big role to play in policy making is a Harvard trained attorney and going by the statements that he makes regarding growth, credit etc  he also has no clue. Folks feel he thinks of himself as a very "smart economist".