The Obama Phenomena
February 5th, 2008 at 03:43am Mark Noonan
I’m a political junkie of, oh, nearly 30 years standing. I’ve seen a lot of politics in my life; the good, the bad, the ugly - but never, ever in my life have I seen something like the Obama phenomena.
On Monday evening, the wife and I went out to our local eatery and I couldn’t help but overhear the conversation of the people in the booth next to us. I’ve overheard a lot of conversations in my life, but this is the first time I heard Average Joes (and Janes) discussing Super Tuesday and a particular candidate’s prospects. They were wondering how Obama will do today.
As it turns out, the group in the next booth was all black, but that is more incidental than anything of importance - my 18 year old niece supports Obama; white, black and hispanic friends at work are in favor of him…heck, even I and the Mrs have felt the pull of the Obama charm. He’s a nice man, who says all the right things in exactly the right way. For me, of course, this is cross-checked by facts, and there is where Obama comes up short; he’s a very conventional liberal - if he ever has an original idea, I’ll pass out from shock. For all Obama’s talk, the plain fact of the matter is that on policy he’s nothing more than a liberal hack who hasn’t dared show an ounce of independence - but that, also, might end up being incidental rather than anything of importance.
You might recall that in the run up to the 2004 campaign, Democrats took heart from polls showing an “un-named Democrat” doing very well against President Bush. The reason for those polling results, I believe, is that an “un-named Democrat” could be the vehicle of the hopes and dreams of people - there was the reality of President Bush, and the dream of a perfect President…and the dream came out better in polling. Once a real Democrat was inserted into that slot, however, things started to go straight downhill for the Democratic party. The thing about a corrupt party of liberals who try to hide their true selves is that it tends to generate the worst sort of ruthlessly ambitious and dishonest people into positions of leadership; you’ve got to be cruel, ambitious and dishonest to get to the top in the Democratic party - until Obama. Obama, you see, fits into the “un-named Democrat” - he’s the dream candidate; the repository of the hopes and dreams of millions.
Good looking, charming, intelligent and with a grand speaking style, Obama has come across to millions of people as the answer to whatever it is that concerns them - without bothering to check into facts, people are assigning to Obama whatever is on their mind. He’s going to end the war. He’s going to fix health care. He’s going to unite us. Yes we can!
But, yes we can, what? He’s rather thin on details - you don’t just end a war; you don’t just wave a magic wand over health care and make it better; you don’t unite us by saying to at least 90 million Americans that their continued support for the liberation of Iraq was a fool’s errand at best, a crime at worst. Obama is playing blind man’s bluff - and, you know, he just might be able to play it al the way to the White House.
In our media-driven (and, hence, dishonest and cowardly) age, there might be a man who can play the media game and by sheer force of personality and story-line convince a majority of voters that he actually knows what he’s doing. The truth may not matter - and it would take a man of rare courage to point out about a Democratic-nominee-Obama that the Emperor has no clothes - that all his talk is just gaseous platitudes and that if we ever implemented Obama’s policies, we’d make a huge socio-economic mess. In just one for-instance of how vulnerable Obama is in his liberalism - he promises to provide affordable and high-quality child care. For whom? How is “affordable” defined? How does he determine “high quality”? Whence comes the people to staff this high quality child care system? Get down to the nuts and bolts on this guy, and he’ll be another floundering liberal…but, if his narrative is running strong and he’s a nice guy, then the temptation is to be a coward…instead of attacking the idiot idea of providing something as nebulous as affordable and high quality child care, an opponent might merely offer that he wants to promise it, too, but says he can do it better than Obama. Such would be a formula for ensuring a President Obama in 2009.
We’ll have to see how it plays out - I don’t think that either Obama or Hillary will emerge from Super Tuesday with the nomination wrapped up; my bet is a split decision…but, who knows?, one or the other of them might surprise and run away with the whole thing. But if Obama is the nominee, then the whole election will turn on whether or not the GOP nominee will have the courage to challenge, and the ability to challenge without coming off as a mean person. The Obama Phenomena has been fascinating, and it might prove to be more fascinating still.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
93 Comments
1. keefer | February 5th, 2008 at 5:38 am
But, yes we can, what? He’s rather thin on details - you don’t just end a war; you don’t just wave a magic wand over health care and make it better; you don’t unite us by saying to at least 90 million Americans that their continued support for the liberation of Iraq was a fool’s errand at best, a crime at worst.
No substance, Mark, but this works for the lemmings who hate anything GOP…
2. keefer | February 5th, 2008 at 5:51 am
And remember, Mark, the young “voters” who are supporting Obama are, for the most part, either unaware of or don’t care about the issues.
I vote next Tuesday, here in MD. I have a funny feeling that Ron Paul is gonna do well here…
3. Stimpy | February 5th, 2008 at 6:48 am
It’s obvious that people are starved for leadership.
Most of us deal in reality. We see the nuclear meltdown of the United States of America and shudder. WTF happened? How… but…it shoulda…
Go ahead and do your regular “peaches and cream” BS rhetoric about the state of the union.
It’s a mess and out of control. Period. Comprende?
We’re so starved for leadership that we’ll take just about anybody that reflects a modicum of intelligence, and statesmanship. Someone inspirational. Someone to inspire us to hold on and get ready for change. To inspire us to ACCEPT change.
Will Obama lead us out of Bush’s darkness and into the light of recovery? I bet we’re ready to take that chance.
How glorious it will be. To listen to someone who can actually speak American english. Someone who can keep his thoughts together for more than two sentences. Someone who, we hope will put America before rampant corporatism. Someone who now, may be saying things to appeal to the moderates, yet, once in office, make the changes required to return us from the abyss of Bushism.
I remember seeing Bush getting pelted with eggs and boo’s on his inauguration day. Confined to his Cadillac. Good for him. In the bubble from day one.
I see a different inauguration if Obama is elected. I wait in anxious anticipation of who he will pick as his V.P. Can you imagine Wesley Clark or John Edwards? One can only hope.
Obama is not the end all of candidates. Yes, I want an even more outspoken progressive stance from him. But…wait. Wait you weasels. Wait you war mongers. Wait you corrupt elitist bastards.
You’re gonna get all you deserve. All you have earned.
And more.
Bbbbwwwwaaahhhaaaaa..
4. TiredofLibBullShit | February 5th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Just what we need…..
Another “president” who is charming and popular, but will turn out to be an empty suit.
When will we get to the substance? Neither candidate has given any details….it is nothing more that “change….change……change……change…….” ad nauseum.
Can we have more than just blowing sunshine up our ………..?
5. TiredofLibBullShit | February 5th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Stumpy, just another USEFUL IDIOT of the left wing.
Herr Goebbels, Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin would have been proud to have him/her/it as a member of their great uneducated, mindless zombies.
“We’re so starved for leadership that we’ll take just about anybody that reflects a modicum of intelligence, and statesmanship. Someone inspirational. Someone to inspire us to hold on and get ready for change. To inspire us to ACCEPT change.”
Another post with the regurgitating chant of “change” with no substance.
Hmmmm, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were very large on change rhetoric, fooled the so-called “starved” masses and fooled everybody. Now you libs don’t get your panties in a bunch. I am not comparing Obama to either of those. I am comparing the mindless fools that followed these socialists to the fools that are blindly following the socialists of today.
In a word……….Pathetic.
6. Stimpy | February 5th, 2008 at 7:17 am
The use of your toy idiom (ironic isn’t it?) always cracks me up.
Like a kid playing with the box on Christmas.
Hehehe.
7. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Stimpy,
Please leave the platitudes, propaganda and talking points at home and tell us what specific policies of Obamas that you’re excited about. What previous legislation has Obama sponsored that demonstrates his ability to lead?
On his website, he speaks to his energy platform; what specifics in that platform lead you to believe that he is the candidate to lessen our dependence on forein oil? He also speaks to his positions on foreign policy; what specific proposals to you believe he has that will effectively lessen the threat of Islamic jihadism?
8. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I presume you guys know how to visit Obama’s web site? If you do, you’ll find EXTENSIVE policy details- especially compared to either GOP nominee. . .
Look up health care, for instance- Obama goes into GREAT DETAIL about his plan, wheras Romney seems to think that health care in this country is great and would only get better if we ‘let the free market work’. . .
Now, WTF does THAT mean? Does that mean that Romney would allow drug re-importation? He doesn’t say.
He, like Obama, wants to make medical records electronic as a cost-cutting measure. . . but how does government make a ‘free market’ capitalistic health care industry do so? He doesn’t say. . .
The GOP is running scarred because they KNOW that Obama has sizzle AND substance. In contrast, the GOP nominees are lacking in both. In fact, the last Dem debate was criticized for being too ‘wonkish’ and mired in policy details.
The GOP candidates are still mindlessly attacking each other over who’s the ‘real’ conservative- which seems to mean who’s closest to the Bush policies of trickle-down tax cuts and endless Iraq war without any accountability or way to measure progress. . . How do you think that’s going to play in the fall?
9. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am
>>When will we get to the substance? Neither candidate has given any details….it is nothing more that “change….change……change……change…….” ad nauseum.
Again, you may wish to visit the candidates’ web sites. You’ll find that the Dem candidates has LOTS of policy details compared to the Republicans.
I guess that makes sense since both McCain and Romney think Bush has been wonderful and they want more of the same. . .
Still, it’s ironic that both McCain and Romney (and Clinton) have attempted to co-opt the word ‘change’ as a marketing ploy. . .
If you don’t think Obama would be a drastic ‘change’, you haven’t been paying attention. Inspirational leaders like him don’t come around often- Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, MLK, Reagan- just because they were able to inspire didn’t mean they didn’t have substance. In fact, the only way to REALLY make changes IS to inspire the American people. . .
What’s wrong with having an inspirational, dignified, eloquent leader who can get the American people to believe again?
10. Bigfoot | February 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Stumpy, just another USEFUL IDIOT of the left wing.
No, TOLBS, the way to say it is….
Steeeeeempy, you eeeeediot!
(from the Ren and Stimpy show)
Sorry, Stimpy, I couldn’t resist.
Ok, on to substance…
I remember seeing Bush getting pelted with eggs and boo’s on his inauguration day. Confined to his Cadillac.
That’s funny. I remember him getting out of his car, walking down the street, and waving at the crowd.
If he was pelted with eggs and boos, this only shows the immaturity of those protesting his inauguration.
Someone who now, may be saying things to appeal to the moderates, yet, once in office, make the changes required to return us from the abyss of Bushism.
Yes, he will say things that appeal to moderates, and then (if given the chance) try to move us as leftward as possible. Guess what, we’ve seen that before, coming from his rival’s husband. Even though I generally support Bush, I have some complaints against him, but I’ll still take Bushism over socialism any day.
he[Obama] promises to provide affordable and high-quality child care. For whom? How is “affordable” defined? How does he determine “high quality”? Whence comes the people to staff this high quality child care system?
One more question, Mark. At whose expense? Will the bill be footed by the parents of the children in the “high-quality child care”, or by the taxpayers regardless of need? Like liberal programs in general, you can bet that it will be much of the latter.
11. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
coulter,
I have visited Obamas website, often. And his energy policies do not address any immediate remedies. He does not speak to domestic oil exploration and/or drilling instead only addressing bio-fuels and long term solutions; a ten year plan being the most immediate policy. Well many of those plans are already in place.
I want to see a candidate get aggressive addressing short term domestic opportunities including Canadas vast reserves.
Secondly, his positions towards the threat of terrorism are empty. I see nothing of substance that will guarantee the security of America.
So I’ll ask again, what SPECIFIC positions do you believe will keep America strong and lessen our immediate dependence on foreign oil.
12. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 9:33 am
neocon,
There are many specific positions he’s mentioned. One is to increase CAFE standards for cars to 40mpg over the next decade. If we did so, we would not need to import oil from the Mideast at all, which would GREATLY increase our national security.
In fact, the BEST thing we could do for national security is to make gas obsolete. It WILL eventually happen, and whichever country figures out how to do it will REAP THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS for decades! Furthermore, if we pulled our money out of Mideast oil, they would be BEGGING for our business since they would have NOTHING ELSE! We could leave the crazy Islamic aristocracies to fight amongst themselves instead of throwing Americans tax dollars and lives into this abyss.
More domestic drilling is not the permanent solution. Oil is not an endless resource and we don’t have enough in America to meet our needs long-term. Obama supports nuclear power (in the short term), wind, solar, and other alternative energy research. We’ve spent nearly 2 TRILLION on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. . . how far would that have gone towards energy independence if we had a REAL leader?
Or maybe you, like McCain and Romney, think that opening ANWAR will solve all our energy problems? That gas prices will magically come down if we do so? Me, I think the worst thing we can do is continuing the Bush policies which got us into this mess in the first place.
13. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
And one more thing. . . we’ve lost our technological lead. Brazil imports no oil (they use sugar cane derived ethanol), Germany and Taiwan have made HUGE innovations in solar power and many citizens are ‘off the grid’ and actually SELL power back to the utility companies, wind power is much further advanced in Europe as well- including a recently launched GEOTHERMIC SUBMARINE!
Do you not have faith in the American people to technologically innovate? We USED to lead- in no small part due to GOVERNMENT-FUNDED R&D, like the Apollo project. I KNOW you ‘Conservatives’ rail against SOCIALISM, but isn’t it true that no private company has EVER been to the moon? Likewise, if you look at areas in which we DO STILL excel- like MILITARY TECHNOLOGY- that is ALL PUBLICALLY- FINANCED. . . is the military ’socialist’?
14. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I just looked at Obama’s web site and his stance on energy is VERY detailed and lengthy. McCain doesn’t even MENTION ‘energy policy’ under his list of issues and Romney’s site is long on platitudes and short of specifics (for instance, “provide Presidential leadership” is one of them, with no specifics. While he claims he will “Invest in Research”, again there is no specific proposal. Obama says he will invest 150 billion in alternative energy research over a 10 years period (15 billion a year, or what we spend in less than a month in Iraq))
Better make sure your candidate has substance before accusing others of lacking it. . .
15. Brian Gregory | February 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Sorry keefer,
I am a young voter considering Obama, and I’ve spent a huge amount of time observing the process and reading into the candidates’ stands on the issues.
16. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
One of the things I find most fascinating about the Obama candidacy is that, unlike previous Democrats (Bill Clinton comes to mind), instead of running toward the center, Obama has not just run, but sprinted to the left in the last year.
Just another interesting factoid, National Journal ranked Hillary the 16th most liberal senator last year, while the American Conservative Union ranked John McCain the 15th most liberal Republican Senator in 2006.
Personally, and this is probably going to shock some people, I’d rather have a President Obama with a Republican controlled Congress than a President McCain with the current Democrat controlled Congress. I agree with almost nothing that Obama says or stands for, but I don’t see him as the divisive figure that McCain is.
17. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
>>One of the things I find most fascinating about the Obama candidacy is that, unlike previous Democrats (Bill Clinton comes to mind), instead of running toward the center, Obama has not just run, but sprinted to the left in the last year.
It seems like only last week he was being bashed for ‘praising Reagan’ and for not ruling out having Republicans as members of his cabinet. . .
I believe he would try to bring people together to work for the best interests of AMERICA, rather than partisan politics. Just like he did in Illinois, where even political opponents have pretty high regard for him.
18. eric | February 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
coulterfan,
You are implying that Brazil only uses ethanol for fuel. That is simply false. I have family in Brazil and I spend at least a month a year in Brazil. Guess what? The cars I drive while I am in Brazil run on gasoline. Brazil is (or soon will be) a net oil exporter). Brazil has two very large offshore oil fields (the Campos Basin and the Santos Basin) and there is no government interference preventing Petrobras (govt. controlled oil company) from drilling in those areas. The country has oil and is allowing that oil to be drilled. The country produces and uses ethanal, but it is not the only fuel source.
As much as you would like to fool yourself, the U.S. is still a leader in innovation and technology. The number of patents issued by the U.S.P.T.O. has steadily increased over the last few years and the bulk (over half) of those patents are issued to U.S. inventors. I have been prosecuting patent applications for the last ten years and I have never been without work.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/pat_tr06.htm
The U.S. has options when it comes to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear power is a great option, but the enviros oppose it. Coal fired plants with scrubbers on the stacks are a great option, but the enviros oppose them. Drilling in ANWR with the current drilling technology is a great option, but the enviros oppose it.
Solar power is simply not efficient enough. Wind power is a good idea, but the capital outlay is huge and if the wind doesn’t blow, the turbines don’t turn.
As far as your magical “geothermic submarine,” I would like to see more information about it. I googled “geothermic submarine” and the folks at Google have not heard of this latest innovation. I did however find information regarding geothermal springs that were submarine (i.e., underwater.)
This is one of those tricky noun versus adjective situations. Submarine the noun is a vessel that is capable of operating while submerged. Submarine the adjective means under the surface of the water.
19. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
>>Nuclear power is a great option, but the enviros oppose it.
Let’s see what Obama said on the issue: “As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.”
The only problem I see is disposal of nuclear waste. We need to recycle it like Europe does (reducing the waste by 90%) and find a permanent national solution to storing the waste safely.
If you think coal and oil are the FUTURE, we have a disagreement. In the short term we need to increase fuel efficiency, but long-term we need to find other renewable solutions.
There have recently been BIG breakthroughs in solar energy and efficiency coming out of Germany and Taiwan. The ‘geothermic submarine’ is powered by stored geothermic energy captured beneath the ocean in Scandanavia. I will have to search to find the link, it was in a European newsarticle.
The point is that Obama has much more specific proposals than McCain (who doesn’t even MENTION the energy problems facing our country) or Romney.
20. kjstrouble | February 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Mark,
I, like you, have never seen any politician that seems to inspire like Obama. My mother, however, remembers JFK. She says what she sees and hears from Obama sounds like JFK. And that actually scares her, because the Dems have gone so much further left since JFK’s time that we might not “survive” another such president. (Her words).
I want the Republican nominee to be the one who can beat either Hillary or Obama - and so far in the polls that is McCain. If he wins today the next question will be - who would he choose for a running mate? A younger, strong on economics Republican would be my choice. McCain/Romney anyone?
21. SEW | February 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The Pied Piper phenomena, willing children and all.
22. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Wind power is a good idea, but the capital outlay is huge and if the wind doesn’t blow, the turbines don’t turn.
Eric, another dirty little secret is that wind turbines are extremely maintenance intensive. Drive by a big wind farm sometime when the wind is blowing and see how many are not turning because their gearboxes are worn out.
The fact is that, while there are lots of exciting new innovations on the clean, renewable, alternative energy horizon, fossil fuels will continue to provide a huge percentage of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
23. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
This is what I found on Romney’s web site on the energy issue. Does anyone have a better source with more details?
What I have in mind is something like this one from Obama.
24. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Coulter,
Do you know what the words “extensive” and “details” mean? Here is Obama on how he’ll make health care affordable:
That’s it - he’s going to provide “affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles”, but no word on just what is “affordable” or how he’s going to do it. I’m going to provide affordable beer and pizza if I’m elected President…in effect, that is all he’s saying.
25. Brett Michaels | February 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
…blah, blah, blah nothing of substance to offer, just want to be nasty on the blog…
26. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Coulter,
And then there’s the liberal goobledegook:
Which section could be entitled the “Attorney Full Employment Act of 2009″ - if you can figure out what, precisely, all that means then you’re a genius - in fact, it is you who should be running for President. For the rest of us, its a bunch of nebulous, subjective words which open the door to massive class-action lawsuits…which, of course, would be the point given that the trial lawyers who donate so much to Democrats do insist on payment in full for services rendered.
27. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Mark,
Why did you only pick that one line when there is a WHOLE PAGE on his healthcare plan?
Read it here
28. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Here’s what Romney’s website has to say about the health care isssue. Again, does anyone know where I can find more details?
29. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Joe,
Where do you think I was getting the quotes? I’m telling you, the more anyone goes into Obama, the more conventionally liberal he is.
I’ve got more:
Who defines “unjustified”? What is an “abuse”? What is an “exorbitant” amount? Great words of abuse against America’s pharmacutical industry (which is, you know, run by Americans and employs American workers doing jobs in America - in other words, they aren’t “they”, they are “us”, not that you can tell that from liberal rhetoric), but there is nothing in there which tells you anything about what will happen…and given what we’ve seen from liberal-land over the past 20 years, what we might get is a crooked deal with the pharm industry essentially paying protection money to liberal special intersts and only makes a few cosmetic changes in pricing (this is why you don’t hear liberals complaining about Microsoft anymore). But there’s more:
This is the “drive the insurance industry out of health care act of 2009″. It doesn’t ban private health insurance (as the original HillaryCare did) and Obama doesn’t say that everyone will have to be on the national health plan (as current HillaryCare does), but if you force a for-profit company to match a taxpayer-funded boondoggle, that for-profit company will just get out of the business. Implement this and the first effect will be a massive increase in the number of un-insured, who will then scurry into Obama’s plan, bankrupting it in short order and thus forcing its end, or a massive tax increase to fund it…
Ah, fun with liberals…
30. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
What I have in mind is something like this one from Obama.
Rico, you’re kidding, right? Please tell me you’re kidding.
31. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Spook, I’m not passing a quality judgement on Obama’s plan. What I’m saying is that he provides considerable detail so that it CAN be evaluated. I can’t evaluate Romney’s. And McCain’s site is even less informative. That’s what I’m saying.
32. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
On health care though, McCain’s site is quite informative.
33. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Mark:
Can’t you say all “plans” are rather vague?
Example here on McCain’s plan:
34. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
What I’m saying is that he provides considerable detail so that it CAN be evaluated.
But so many of his “details” are either highly debatable or flat out false. I guess if you don’t care whether or not you’re “informed” with the truth, then you have a point.
35. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Stumpy,
your rhetoric (and your head), your party’s rhetoric and propaganda are as empty as your Christmas box. Spare us the talking points and lies.
coulter,
Your candidates may be specific in positions but they lack specifics when it comes to the implementations to achieve their “positions”. Raising CAFE standards to 40MPH to become less dependent on ME oil????? We could also become less dependent on ME oil by drilling and increasing refining capacity here, but they have to cave to the environmental special interests. It has been proven that everytime this standard is raised, car manufactureres have to sacrifice safety to accomplish this and the only way to make up for that safety loss is to design the vehicle to destroy itself to hopefully to protect its passenger. Will this be a realistic solution, just because he says so? Again specific in position, but vague on implementation and realism.
36. SEW | February 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Joe, How about all plans are very vague. None actually have a clue, but all of their plans sound like new, or a ‘change’. Lower premiums, lower copays and full access to MRIs for a stubbed toe. Yea, right. The change will bring early physician retirements and much easier admission to medical school as the qualifications of the applicant pool decreases rapidly. The UK has very few nationals entering medicine. Maybe that’s why the candidates are for open borders, so the illegals can also fill the to come medical void.
37. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Spook: But so many of his “details” are either highly debatable or flat out false.
Such as?
Personally, I have a problem with the “cap and trade” idea. But in his case it is better characterized as “cap and auction”, which has the advantage of dissociating the “buyer” from the “seller”, which has been the fundamental problem with the typical cap and trade process. But to be honest I haven’t taken much time to really understand how it works.
38. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Joe,
All plans are a bit vague - but Obama’s plans, even in their vagueness, give pause to anyone who has the best interests of America at heart. His liberal plans will help liberalism, but they won’t help America - we know this from experience (a thing conservatives always pay heed to); the last time a liberal had grand plans for the future of America (LBJ) the whole thing turned out to be a social, political and economic disaster. We don’t want another “Great Society” boondoggle.
What we’re asking you, however, is just what in Obama’s vagueness makes you sit up and want to support him? We on the right know precisely what we’ll get if the vague Obama plan is put into action - do you know? If so, what makes you think it’ll work?
39. hermie | February 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
As mentioned before, raising CAFE standards doesn’t actually save oil.
Obama could order every furnace maker in the US to make units which burn only 10 oz of fuel a day.
However, the technology for such a furnace does not exist and the costs for research and development would likely drive some manufacturers out of business. It’s like those do-gooders who want to install breathalizers in all cars to prevent drunk driving. Better yet, it’s like the US Congress demanding that light bulbs use only a certain amount of electricity, and the result is we get CFBs which give out crappy light and can be an even worse environmental hazard.
40. Choose.Life.Not.War | February 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Republicans have been so brainwashed into hating Hillary and John McCain EVEN MORE, that they wont know what to do if Obama wins the nomination and faces McCain in November.
They have no marching orders for this scenario.
You think chaos rules the gop NOW ??? just wait til November !
41. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Such as?
Such as:
Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. — (still highly debatable)
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. (this is currently being hotly debated within the climate/meteorology community, especially as it relates to global warming.)
Glaciers are melting faster; (some are, some aren’t, and some are growing)
the polar ice caps are shrinking; (a flat out lie WRT the Antarctic ice cap which just set a new record for ice expanse; and while Artic summer ice melt has some alarmists concerned, it has returned already returned to the same level as a year ago.)
trees are blooming earlier; (I’m not sure of the significance of this other than, if trees experience a longer growing season it would mean they will take more CO2 out of the atmosphere. He makes it sound like a bad thing — is it?)
I could go one and cut and paste everything he says, because it’s virtually all either debatable or false. Obama has simply cut and pasted rhetoric from Algore’s movie.
WRT Obama’s plan:
Obama’s comprehensive plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security will:
⇒ Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts. (ROTFLMAO))
⇒ Invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs. (OK, I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but it kind of depends on where the money comes from and how it’s “invested”.)
⇒ Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50 percent by 2030. (HOW?)
⇒ Reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030 (again - HOW?)
⇒ Make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership. (This is just silly)
42. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
But Mark, to be honest, you are somehow forgetting the reason why people are looking to Obama in the first place. Because the current conservative/Republican administration has had their chance for the last 7 years and totally created a social, political, and economic disaster not to mention a foreign policy disaster that has led to more terrorism.
Your guys screwed up horribly and you want us to give them another chance? You want to dog our guy or gal (obama or hillary) for wanting to try something different. You don’t propose we have another 8 years of Bush style policies do you?
43. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sure generally speaking anything is debateable as long as someone wants to debate it. But just because people are debating it doesn’t mean we should put the brakes on and halt all action that could lead to progress.
44. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
SteaM,
Gotta run for a bit, but the fast response to you is this:
If Obama or Hillary were suggesting something different, you’d have a point, but we tried that from 1933 until 1981 and found it wanting…
45. djp | February 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
In our media-driven (and, hence, dishonest and cowardly) age, there might be a man who can play the media game and by sheer force of personality and story-line convince a majority of voters that he actually knows what he?s doing
This is a perfect description of how GWB won two elections.
46. Sunny | February 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
. keefer | February 5th, 2008 at 5:51 am
And remember, Mark, the young “voters” who are supporting Obama are, for the most part, either unaware of or don’t care about the issues.
Statements like this one by keefer really bother me - especially coming from the “the Iraq War was a great idea” and “our magnificant fighting men and women” statements you made every other day by this crowd. You have no problem sending these young men and women to war (afterall, they volunteered to go), but when it comes to voting, they just do not have an understanding of the issues. I disagree with you. Even those who are not at war and instead are attending school or working are very interested in what is happening in our country. The high schools and colleges are having meaningful discussions as to who are the candidates and where they stand on issues. If you do not have a problem with these young people volunteering to go to war and die for this country, you need to get over the idea that they can’t make informed decisions when they go to the voting booth. I know plenty of adults that do not have a clue where “their canidate” stands on the issues. Does that surprise you?
47. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sunny,
Also, keep in mind that those who are 18-25 in this country, some who are voting for the first time in a presidential election, have true life experience of really only one Presidency. The Bush Administration. The rest is vague memories of Clinton and things they are told or read in history class.
That is powerful. So yes, they are very interested in what is happening because of the horrible things that have come from the last 7 years of the Bush Administration and the “blank check” GOP congress that he worked with.
48. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
coulter,
CAFE standards have done nothing to lessen our independence on oil. We import more oil today than pre-Cafe standards, and in fact we import more refined oil today because of our neglect in building refineries.
So forgive me if I don’t think that increasing CAFE standards will do anything. History has told us it doesn’t.
49. Bruce | February 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Mean old angry McCain will lose to Obama in the debates. Did you see his attack on Romney at the Reagan library debates? Pathetic. He hasn’t got a chance.
And since conservatives will be sitting this election out McCain will be toast.
The only hope we have is Romney.
“Damn You! Damn You All To Hell!” - Charlton Heston “Planet of the Apes”
50. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
So forgive me if I don’t think that increasing CAFE standards will do anything. History has told us it doesn’t.
Spot on, neocon. Actually what happens when mpg improves is that people just drive more.
51. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
But, I might add, it makes Liberals “feel good” that government is powerful enough to force large corporations like GM to make their product perform to a prescribed level of efficiency. I never have been able to find the article in the Constitution that grants that power to the government.
52. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Spook,
It’s not about “feelings”. More and more people are wanting better gas mileage. GM doesn’t want to provide that. Foreign companies provide it on the market and more and more Americans are buying the foreign cars with better gas mileage. GM loses profits, cuts jobs, then expects the government to bail them out. What about airlines? Is the government not bailing them out all the time? What if the government stopped? What would happen?
53. David.B.Schmidt | February 5th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Senator Obama is not as squeaky clean as he appears. Just remember what his political machine did to Jack Ryan (after Ryan really did it to himself) in the 2004 Illinois Senate race when it was looking like there might be an upset.
The scenario I fear these days is the media is attempting to “elect” Senator McCain on the Republican side and Senator Obama on the Democratic side only to turn on Senator McCain in the General Election thereby getting Senator Obama into the white house via a push-pull.
At least Senator Obama hasn’t mandated UHC with the wage garnishing on his pretty path to socialism. Now, if any (or all actually) of the candidates could please define what they mean by “the rich” in dollar figures before they use that phase again—I would be pleased. Pleased, not happy, because I don’t make that much—the Democrats want more of that and I know Senator Obama has me pegged in the uber-rich column already at over $75K.
54. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Well, sleep well tonight because this statement is pure fantasy.
55. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
David Schmidt,
Sure sounds like you have your tinfoil hat on. That damn MSM has this whole election worked out. And they will make it happen.
As for Obama, and “what he did to Jack Ryan”. How about you tell us how you see it?
I’m assuming that you are upset that the Chicago Tribune bringing a lawsuit to open the file of Ryan’s divorce. This of course revealed taht Ryan brought his ex-wife to sex clubs and pushed for sex in public. Of course the Repubs are just so outraged by anything sexual, he withdrew from the race.
So what is it that you say Obama “did” to Jack Ryan? Did Obama force him to bring his wife to sex clubs? I’m confused as to what you are insinuating. Or maybe that is just it. You say crap like this to make it look like Obama did something wrong in hopes that people are too lazy to actually look it up.
What is it with Republicans and sex???
56. Almiranta | February 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
There seem to be certain topics that just bring the lunatic fringe out in droves, and an effort to seriously analyze the Obama phenomenon is apparently one of them.
I don’t know when I have seen such a laundry list of tired out pathetic radical cliches.
The complete lack of factual support for the whines of “darkness” and “the abyss” and “eggs and boos” and so on merely illustrate the blind emotionalism that is the engine of radical Leftism.
They FEEL that everyone hates Bush, that the last 7 years have been years of misery and turmoil, “darkness”, “an abyss”. They FEEL this with every quivering fiber of their passionate beings. And FEELING is morphed into KNOWING—but it’s all based on ephermal emotion, generated by those who know how powerful emotion can be. Particularly negative emotion.
I heard a man remark on Obama, on a local radio station, that he felt like a bug drawn to a bug zapper—he knew that once he got there he was going to be severely disappointed, but till then, he was irresistably drawn to the light.
I am always reminded, when I hear Obama speak and am impressed by his oratorical skills, of the definition of a demagogue:
“: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power”. Demagoguery is almost exclusively dependent on the stirring of strong emotions.
And I AM deeply impressed by Obama’s powerful speechifying, but when he is finished and I look at what he actually SAID, apart from the emotional charge felt while he was saying it, I find little but platitudes and blatant appeals to fear, prejudice, and irrationality.
Look at coulterfan’s post # 8—this is supposed to support Obama’s “plans” yet it merely points out the defects.
cf asks if Romney is going to support “re-importation” of drugs. This illustrates the Left’s simplistic (that is to say, simple-minded) grasp or non-grasp of basic issues. If Obama is supporting the “re-importation” of drugs, then he is a fool.
The reason some drugs are cheaper in some countries, like Canada, is that those countries are not obligated to honor our copyright and patent laws, and they have told the drug companies that if they do not seriously discount their drugs they will just do some reverse engineering and copy them. So the drug companies compromise, and sell them very cheaply.
If these countries were to start ordering those drugs in massive quantities, to “re-import” them into the United States, the companies would just stop selling them at the discounted price. This would mean one of two things: the prices would go up in those other countries to reflect the US prices, and/or that the drugs would be copied in other countries, with no guarantee of the accuracy of the copies, so those who want drugs from other countries would be getting drugs that have not gone through FDA approval, and have very different standards of development and manufacture.
See, it’s always the Unintended Consequences that trip up the simple-minded looking for a quick fix.
Her’s another one: The profits made by pharmecutical companies finance their R&D, which is how they manage to come up with new drugs. Slash the profits, slash the R&D, and see how many new treatments are available. There is a reason most of the new drugs are discovered and developed in this country.
cf offers up another passionate declaration which sums up the firestorm of fervor for Obama: “What’s wrong with having an inspirational, dignified, eloquent leader who can get the American people to believe again?”
Nothing, cf. Nothing at all. There is absolutely NOTHING “wrong” with “…having an inspirational, dignified, eloquent leader who can get the American people to believe again”. I just think you might be a little more specific when you use the word “leader”. There is a huge difference between “leading” people to FEEL something and “leading” to actual ACCOMPLISHMENT—-and Obama has absolutely nothing in his past to indicate the kind of skill and knowledge it takes to be the second kind of leader.
Believe in WHAT? In change? Change from what to what? How? How can a man whose entire claim to “leadership” depends on his abilty to stir emotions actually implement “change”?
Hope? Hope for what? Hope for CHANGE?
For a long time now the radical Left wing of the Demcrat Party has been veering off into an emotion-based belief system which depends on wishful thinking—if only we could give people enough money they would not be poor, if only we could give people “free” health care we would solve the problem of health care, if only Georege W. Bush had used his time machine to go back into prior adminstrations to make sure the New Orleans levees had been built properly, if only if only if only.
Now it is careening off into becoming the party of Magical Thinking–we’ll just say cars have to get lots and lots of miles per gallon and shazaam! they will—and you know what, then “…would not need to import oil from the Mideast at all…”
Wow, that is like, so cool! Why didn’t anyone else ever realize that all you have to do is say it and it will happen? Guess they weren’t “inspirational” enough.
And this really tickled me: “..the BEST thing we could do for national security is to make gas obsolete. It WILL eventually happen, and whichever country figures out how to do it will REAP THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS for decades! ”
I am INSPIRED!!!!! I BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
It is like the Goracle just merged with the Oracle, and now the True Believers and their Magic Fairy Dust can work to make GAS OBSOLETE!!!! Which of course falls in line with Gore’s wish to abolish the internal combustion engine.
I mean, like, all you have to do is BELIEVE, right?
But dig through the emotional clutter and you find two of the most basic tenets of radical Leftism. One is hatred of Bush and its corollary, “We’re Not Him”, and the other is adherence to what is essentially a form of religion in that it is a belief system based on faith and the emotional rush one gets from that faith. In this belief system, the State is God, but you do need those “inspirational” ministers to really get the juices flowing, to keep the energy up, and even to get the collection plates full. And anyone who denies the tone of tent revival fervor in Obama’s speeches is not being very honest/
57. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
What if the government stopped? What would happen?
My guess, SteaM — the free market would sort things out.
58. Almiranta | February 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
If you want an illustration of the word “evangelical” just read the Lefty letters from Obama’s rapidly growing flock……..
59. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
My God Almiranta… just once keep it to 5 paragraphs or less! I fell asleep and drooled on my keyboard before I finished your blather.
I was seriously going to counter-point you, but it was too boring to actually read.
60. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The government is the answer to nothing. Government can only impede or stimulate, but never resolves.
Obamas rhtoric on schools is way off base and frightening. Since when is it the Federal governments responsibility to legislate local school districts? He wants to raise teachers pay, absent accountability. He wants to lower the price of admission to colleges, making them “affordable” (who decides what affordable is?). All will require huge subsidies, yet he hasn’t said where that money will come from. I am assuming he is willing to take from the rich. That seems to be the answer for everything.
61. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Good for you… one sentence? That must be someone posting AS Almiranta and not actually the real one.
62. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I fell asleep and drooled on my keyboard
That explains a lot, Joe.
63. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Sorry, Joe, you just stuck out your chin and walked right into that one, LOL!
64. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
All will require huge subsidies, yet he hasn’t said where that money will come from.
Maybe he plans on using some of the BILLIONS that we will no longer spend on an endless war in Iraq.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
And from the NYT:
65. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Spook,
I don’t blame you.
You can say what you want… but for the love of God someone has to say something about the length of his/her rants.
LOL
66. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
>>I mean, like, all you have to do is BELIEVE, right?
I’m not going to reply point by point to your mindless rant.
Suffice it to say that I was not (and still am not) living in a ‘fantasyland’ where “Iraqis will welcome us with flowers and chocolates”, “Democracy is on the march”, “the war will pay for itself”, etc, etc. . .
Unicorns and magic fairy dust, indeed. . . And I never bought one word of it. And I haven’t even touched on Bush’s “we’re going to Mars” SOTU address. . . how’s THAT going?!?!?
Look, we’ve tried YOUR policies for 8 years now. If liberal policies are REALLY that bad for business, why are the MOST LIBERAL states (California, NY, NJ, etc) the BIGGEST ECONOMIES?
It’s time to try something new, not more of the same. Tax cuts for the wealthy, tax giveaways to corporations, unfettered trade, endless wars, etc has nearly bankrupted this nation. . . and you want to continue on THIS course?
67. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
How do Democrats plan on improving our world standing when the main plank of their platform is to abandon those around the globe in need, specifically in Iraq, and deny them our protection? How do the Democrats plan on securing America when their plans to confron terrorism is to isolate ourselves, yet keep open borders?
How do Democrats plan on lessening our dependence on foreign oil only by increasing CAFE standards, which historically have done just the opposite? How do Democrats plan on combatting Climate Chane when they refuse to impose strict emission regulations on the main violators?
68. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
coulter,
Do you realize that EVERY taxpayer received a tax “rate” cut? Do you realize that American corporations pay more taxes than any other industrialized country? Do you realize that trade increases exports and helps build allies? Do you recognize that the “war” is now a security mission that is now led by the ISF? And do you realize that our current debt is less of a percentage of overall GDP than it was in the 80’s?
69. SteaM | February 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
And here is where I agree with you.
70. Stinky | February 5th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Awww… come on TiredoflibsBS.
Throw your tired toy idiom out there one more time.
Please? It makes you look so smart.
71. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
How do Democrats plan on improving our world standing when the main plank of their platform is to abandon those around the globe in need, specifically in Iraq
Let’s twist that around…. how do Repubs plan on strengthening our world standing when their big belief was to go into Iraq because they had a brutal dictator yet other brutal dictators get a free pass?
Abandon those in need, huh? There are a LOT of countries in need. Why was Iraq first on the list? After 6 years and a trillion dollars, it is time to cut the cord and teach them to stand on their own. Besides, if “the “war” is now a security mission that is now led by the ISF”, then why do we still have 160,000 troops there and the next most is like 150 soldiers from Poland (ok, the poland comment was an exaggeration, but not by much).
72. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Joe,
Someone has to be first, right? Secondly the UN has mandated our continuued presence and the Iraqi government has asked us to stay as well. With an ISF now 300,000+ strong, our deployment could be soon regardless. Other dictators have received passes in the past, but many have paid attention to Iraq and at leat two, Libya and NK, have ratcheted down their ambitions and rhetoric.
I answered your questions. Can you please answer mine?
73. Joe | February 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Your questions…
…the main plank of their platform is to abandon those around the globe in need
I don’t think anyone’s plan is to “abandon those around the globe in need”. The plan is to start weening them off of our support. We are a crutch to them. Start pulling people back. If not out of the country then kepp them only within Baghdad. You people keep saying how the Iraqis are starting to take the lead in fighting, well, let them take more of a lead.
That isn’t abandoning anyone. We are there for support only. We are in the capital only. Then we can start redeploying to Kuwait and stay just over the horizon. If we are needed, we are there. Start now to force them to reconcile politically and step up militarily. I believe this was proposed like 2 years ago!
How do the Democrats plan on securing America when their plans to confron terrorism is to isolate ourselves, yet keep open borders?
Nobody is saying anything about isolating ourselves. We are fully for fighting in Afghanastan where we started the fight, then abandonded them.
How do Democrats plan on lessening our dependence on foreign oil only by increasing CAFE standards, which historically have done just the opposite?
I’d have to look into what has worked historically, but I find it hard to believe that increasing CAFE would cause us to drive more and use more oil. I just find it hard to believe, but I haven’t looked into it. Your alternative is to drill in ANWAR and Canada which, at best, helps us 10 years down the line. This does absoluetly nothing in the short term.
How do Democrats plan on combatting Climate Chane when they refuse to impose strict emission regulations on the main violators?
I assume you are upset because we want the US to do something, but China and India don’t. How about leading by example? How about working on technology to limit emissions and lead the world in it? Talk about a way to create jobs. Hey, all we can do is urge China and India to sign treaties, what else can you do?
So there are my answers to you. Like them or not.
74. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
1.) But that’s not what your representatives are advocating, nor is it what the Iraqi government or the UN wants. So, again how do you propose to strengthen our global relationships when your main concern is leaving the fight?
2.) We are still in Afghanistan, with proposals to send more troops. So that policy is already in place.
3.) We have been saying that same thing for 15 years. Had we started drilling then, we’d have our oil now. So that argument doesn’t hold water (no pun intended). What about building refineries? Plus, we do import more oil now than pre-CAFE standards. It’s a simple fact. CAFE standards have only increased the price of cars.
4.) Policies addressing new technologies are already in place, but the reality is, new energies are years, if not decades, away. Secondly, holding ourselves to a higher standard than those more egregious violators will only hurt our economy and cause Americans to lose jobs. Not exactly a sound policy.
75. coulterfan | February 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
>>…the main plank of their platform is to abandon those around the globe in need
Have you seen this?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp
“ILITARY DONORS FAVOR ANTIWAR CANDIDATES: Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.”
Why do the US military members want to “abandon those in need”?
76. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Spook: Actually what happens when mpg improves is that people just drive more.
Assuming you have cheap gas to put in the tank I suppose that’s true. How long do you think that’s going to last?
In #41 you asked a couple of HOW? questions. I guess you didn’t get past the preamble, because they were pretty well answered in Sections II and III of that pdf file I linked to.
In #56 Almiranta discussed how “Magic Fairy Dust” is the only way to make GAS OBSOLETE!!!! Well, there is another way: use it up. Another way is: find a more cost-effective alternative. In fact, the first option helps the second. And in fact, we’re well on our way to making the first option a reality. Drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf might kick the can down the road a while, but not that long really. In the mean time, other countries will be seeking other solutions. And as they obtain them while we sit on our hands, they’ll eventually sell them to us. That’s not dreaming. That’s a fact.
While we’re on the subject of dreaming, although Romney’s web site is mighty short on details, here’s his vision: “”I want to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative – an Energy Revolution, if you will. It will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the Moon. This will be a mission to create new, economic sources of energy, clean energy. We will license our technology to other nations and of course we will employ it here at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, it will be good for our economy.” It’s a very inspirational message. And I agree with it as far as it goes. But I don’t see much flesh on those bones. And it sounds expensive. Where is the money coming from? Does anyone know?
It’s all well and good to criticize candidates for lack of detail in their policies. But before you do it might be wise to offer something more substantial in its place. That would seem to be the fair thing to do.
77. David.B.Schmidt | February 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Let’s look at it this way. 80% of the MSM is self-proclaimed liberals and when I worked at the “Trib” and one its subsidiaries (S. Florida Sun-Sentinel) most of the employees (approximately 80%) had an agenda to push. Anytime, anyone from the MSM “recommends” or “endorses” anyone or anything—I, naturally, look for the motive behind said recommendation / endorsement.
If you knew anything about Illinois (Chicago in particular) politics, and I only know a little, it is that “dirty” is a pre-requisite it seems. Axlerod (Obama’s version of Rove) took down the liberal Hull (with divorce papers via the Chicago Trib) in 2004 in the closing months of the primary when Hull was ahead in the polls. Later, the Trib reporter who “broke the story” on Hull admitted “the Obama camp worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. That sounds like good reporting to you though doesn’t it — no agenda by a fair reporter. Axlerod (who worked for Obama) was pin-pointed as the original “leak”.
Or the long shot contender Gha-is Askia?
Or De Vellis, LaBolt & Blue State Digital?
Old tricks—that is how I see it. And it was a California court that approved the opening of the sealed documents. Hmmm.
Absolutely nothing—which is exactly what this had to do with the election to public office; however, there are at least two known instances of Senator Obama slinging the nastiest of mud (right up there with the Clintons) in order to discredit opponents on something other than the issues. Multiples more if you really look. I don’t have a problem with it because that is politics—but don’t think Senator Obama is squeaky clean either.
BTW, I always thought it was you progressives that said what happens between consenting adults is all groovy and should be off limits?
78. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Rico,
If we explored domestic alternatives to our oil needs, prices would stablize, and possibly decline.
Secondly, the following may answer your questions about Romneys plan to pay for his plans.
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/curbing-federal-spending
79. Mark Noonan | February 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Coulter,
I guess it depends on how Open Secrets is judging a military person - I searched for Obama using Navy, USN, US Navy, Army, US Army, USAF, AIr Force, US Air Force, USMC, Marines, Marine Corps and only came up with $46,272 for Obama, far less than the $94,000 OS says he cleared…of course, OS could be counting people who work for the Department of Defense and the branch Departments (Army, Navy, Air Force). Also, there’s no way to filter for retired military, active military, reserve military, military spouse or, of course, people who wanted to make it look like a candidate is getting a lot of military support.
80. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
neocon: If we explored domestic alternatives to our oil needs, prices would stablize, and possibly decline.
Is that a loaded statement? In other words, when you say, “if we explored domestic alternatives to our oil needs”, are you including NON-OIL domestic alternatives? If so, then I agree. But if not, then I have to ask… Can you back that up or is that just wishful thinking? Also, weren’t you the one that pointed out that if it’s cheaper to drive, people will drive more? And what happens when we run out of domestic oil? In the mean time I think it’s important to recognize that there’s a world market out there that is thirsting for cleaner alternatives. Heck, even China and India are spending tens of billions of dollars on wind and solar alternatives. But so far they are having to buy them from others. China is attempting to underwrite that effort by (among other things) increasing their production of polysilicon (the raw material used in traditional photovoltaic panels) by 10 fold. They are also ramping up “in-house” production of traditional (silicon-based) PV panels. However, the quality of both aren’t really up to snuff. Not yet. Many times success in bringing new products to market has a lot to do with timing. And there is now, at this time in history, MONUMENTAL demand for clean, alternative energy sources, and lots of folks willing to pay a premium for them. You might think that is based on a myth fabricated by Gore and his boys. I happen to think it’s real for the most part, but even if it’s just a myth that’s fine also. Because either way they’ve created a tremendous market opportunity. And if we, as a nation, don’t get in on it we’re going to be left behind.
By the way, that graph Romney has on the web site page you linked to tickled me. Look at where those lines diverge. Likewise, look at the numbers on the Y-axis and compare them to Bush’s most recent budget request, particularly with regard to defense spending. I’m not suggesting Romney is Bush, but he hasn’t been particularly aggressive in criticizing his policies either. However, it does seem to me that what he says and presents on that page is a big (albeit implicit) slap in Bush’s face.
81. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Rico,
We’re not going to run out of oil. Period. Secondly, newer energies will eventually replace our oil consumption, policies and researches are in place, but it will take decades to transition. If we build refineries and stop importing the more expensice refined oil and begin to use more domestic oil and energy, prices will come down as the expense will not be as great. To think otherwise is to not understand free markets and/or have some corporate conspiracy mindset.
Many people are willing to pay a premium for alternative energy, except elite liberals and their NIMBY friends. Please talk to them. And incedentally, that’s still years away from being a driving force in the market.
Romney has balanced state and corporate budgets. How many have you balanced? How many has Clinton or Obama balanced? So before you criticize Romneys ability, prove to me you’ve done the same. Might be the fair thing to do right?
I prefer results based policies, not feel good rhetoric. Pretty weak rebuttal Rico.
82. neocon | February 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Also, there was quite a bit more in that link other than the picture graph. But at least I know now that your visually driven. I’ll try and come up with more pictures next time.
83. Ricorun | February 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
neocon: We’re not going to run out of oil. Period.
Now THAT’S magical thinking. Whatever else could be said on the subject, I don’t know a soul (except apparently you) that thinks it’s not a question of if, but when. Hopefully I’ll be back at you later. Gotta go vote.
84. Retired Spook | February 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Neo, I remember predictions back in the 60’s that the world would run out of oil early in the 21st century. I believe we have more known reserves now than we did then. Will we eventually run out of oil? Of course; but not any time soon. Same for coal and natural gas. Should we develop new, economical, renewable and clean sources of energy? You bet — and share them with the rest of the world; but in the mean time we need to exploit existing sources of energy to the fullest extent, as well as continue to refine the ways we burn fossil fuels in the cleanest possible manner.
As a side note, I remember predictions, also back in the 60’s, that the internal combustion engine would be obsolete by 1975. Heh, heh — missed that one by a few years. Of course, that was about the time that Chrysler was testing a fleet of turbine powered cars. Wonder what ever happened to those.
85. Ricrun | February 6th, 2008 at 12:30 am
On the issue of peak oil, I don’t know what you guys have been reading, but (for example) accoding to this…
The US General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in March 2007 titled, “Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production.” This report indicates that decline is likely to begin sometime between now and 2040. The United States Association for the Study of Peak Oil indicates that the peak and decline is expected to occur prior to 2015.
Even oil companies are beginning to talk about the possibility of future production falling short of demand. This wouldn’t necessarily be a decline; it might be a plateau or slight increase. Shell Oil says, “After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.”
That article has oodles of liinks to others. Pictures too. Not enough to suit me (lol), but that’s okay — at least there’s lots of words. The guys at theoildrum.com are not exactly dirty stinkin’ hippies. And they didn’t write the articles they reference. In a recent comment on another thread I provided a link to a discussion among three very prominent energy specialists, and their take on the situation was pretty much the same.
I suppose one could argue that because a handful of scientists were wrong before they could be wrong again. But the fact is, it’s not a handful of scientists anymore. It’s the concesus. I realize you guys hate that word, and would prefer to replace it with “conspiracy”. But my goodness, now you have two different sets of continuously strengthening concensuses (or conspiracies) to deal with. Given that, it’s a little hard to accuse those that accept them as being disposed of “magical thinking”, isn’t it? Not everyone on those buses are bozos. I mean heck, even Romney gets it — he’s talking about an Apollo project on energy. Granted, he’s just not very specific about how he’s going to go about it, or pay for it, but it appears he’s on the bus. One of them anyway. Either that or he’s pandering.
86. neocon | February 6th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Rico,
Again, your agenda and myopia are clearly evident. The tar sands and oil shales of Canada are thought to have more reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia ever had. Look it up. And why do liberals use fear based politics?
87. coulterfan | February 6th, 2008 at 9:21 am
>>Neo, I remember predictions back in the 60’s that the world would run out of oil early in the 21st century.
You think that’s a fanciful prediction? What about some of these from 2002-2003..blah, blah, blah in response to something I have no answer for, I’ll just bring up some false, anti-Bush talking points from 2003-2004…
88. neocon | February 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
coulter,
Do you even know what’s going on in Iraq right now? While the Iraqis are banding together, the ISF has grown to 300,000+ strong and assisting and leading the US military in securing their country, you are bringing up four and five year old talking points in an effort to denigrate the efforts of the very people you supposedly care for.
You continue to embarrass yourself. And tell me more about how CAFE standards are going to decrease our oil consumption.
Here is a link you should read that might bring some light into your darkened agenda driven life.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html
89. coulterfan | February 6th, 2008 at 10:06 am
We’re not going to run out of oil. Period. -Neocon
Even oil execs are admitting that peak oil has been reached (or will soon). Exxon, for instance, estimates ’sharp declines’ in production after 2020- which would be ‘early in the 21st century’, would it not?
And since things are going SO WELL in Iraq, I missed when the Iraqis worked out political issues like oil revenue sharing. . . when did that happen?
Oh well, at least we can start a complete withdrawal, since we’re so close to winning and all!
90. neocon | February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
It’s that fear based politics and improving our world standing thing that you guys are so good at…………
LOL
critical thinking just eludes you doesn’t it?
91. Ricorun | February 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am
neocon: Again, your agenda and myopia are clearly evident. The tar sands and oil shales of Canada are thought to have more reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia ever had. Look it up.
Silly boy, “peak oil” isn’t about “running out of oil”. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. It’s about the supply not keeping up with the demand. In that respect, Canada’s oil sands, as abundant as they are, are slow and difficult to extract (read your own reference). They also require considerable resources in terms of natural gas and water. There are also concerns about toxic substances infiltrating groundwater supplies. Also in your reference it mentions that competition from China is becoming an increasing concern. Not just in Canada, either. And finally, I should point out that Canada, friendly though they are, is another country. So the oil sands solution doesn’t help our trade imbalance either. How does that improve our world standing? It seems to me continued reliance on foreign oil will do the opposite.
92. SteaM | February 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
neocon,
Critical thinking just eludes you. Period.
Peak oil is what I believe you are referring to. Peak means a peak in affordable and practical oil reserves.
The statement “We will never run out of oil. Period.” is technically true only in the sense that we will never run out of oil that is stored in the earth, in sands and under the ocean. Some of this oil will be too expensive to get to. Ex-oil company execs have said that there will be no real advances in oil extraction technologies as they have pretty much hit a ceiling and had no new technologies in a many years. If it is too hard to get to, too costly to find, extracty, and refine then it is all but worthless. Might as well leave it in the ground at that point. That is what peak oil means. Once we hit the peak, the top of the mountain, the other side of the mountain could be a slight drop off or a steep one. In the case of a steep one we must find alternative fast. One alternative is to seek out the oil in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd largest reserves in the world. Their oil is the cheapest to produce. As low as $1 per barrel.
Hence the theory of Iraq as a resource war.
93. TiredofLibBullShit | February 6th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Peak oil?
That tired old self-induced issue?
With the drilling resource we have now, that may be true. This “peak oil” garbage is self inflicted.
There are several untapped resources in this country. The libs and their special interests are refusing to tap them.
Peak oil is the cause of poor liberal vision, a myopic view of the environmental special interests. Unfortunately, it will not go away with the present liberal scare tactics and fear mongering.