If John McCain Will be President Bush’s Third Term, Then…
May 19th, 2008 at 09:49am Mark Noonan
…Barack Obama will be Jimmy Carter’s second:
Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
And from Jimmy Carter on July 15, 1979:
I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense—I tell you it is an act of patriotism.
It takes a Democrat to figure that the solution to our problem is to give up…to start conserving rather than unleashing the productive ability of the American people. Obama doesn’t like us to use his full name, ’cause that is unfair politics…ok, for me Obama is now James Earl Obama. He should like that much better.
While Jimmy Carter was wringing his hands and lecturing the American people about taking the bus and obeying the speed limit, Ronald Reagan was plotting a reborn American economy which would have the freedom from government regulation and taxation required to adjust to the new energy realities…and as we still live in the economic house Reagan built, even the monstrous increases in oil prices - prices which killed the US economy under Carter - have failed to push us over into a Carteresque “stagflation” recession…Obama proposes more handwringing; and John McCain? He proposes actually doing something about it…increasing our energy supplies, including the construction of 20 nuclear power plants. McCain = Do Things. Obama = Worry About Things.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
31 Comments
1. Danish Artist | May 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
So when liberals give up their 2nd & 3rd homes, limos, private jets, 5000+ sq. ft. homes, fleets of SUVs and start acting the way they want to force us to act, then MAYBE I will take them seriously. They should lead by example - ALL OF THEM!!!
This carbon credit crap does not count - they are still CONSUMING that energy and planting a tree does not increase the energy supply.
Until they lead by example, they should STFU!!!
2. SoulRubba | May 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Deleted - off topic, bogus e mail address; comments from cowards are not welcome.
3. SoulRubba | May 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Deleted - off topic, bogus e mail address; comments from cowards are not welcome.
4. Dexter | May 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“Tell that to Mr. John McCain and his 8 houses.”
Mr. McCain isn’t asking Americans to sacrifice their comforts and warmth of their homes, unlike Elitist Earbama.
5. Sidetrack | May 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Deleted - off topic.
6. extramedium | May 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times” - the market is going to sort those things out regardless of what either candidate says.
“It takes a Democrat to figure that the solution to our problem is to give up…to start conserving” - why is conserving “giving up”? We Americans have been on binge of consumption for at least two decades, and a correction is certainly not out of order. I would think that as a Catholic, you would favor restraint over preserving our consumerist ways.
“including the construction of 20 nuclear power plants.” - good idea. We can follow Europe’s lead on that one.
7. CanadianObserver | May 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Mark…..It takes a Democrat to figure that the solution to our problem is to give up…to start conserving rather than unleashing the productive ability of the American people.
———————————-
I find it disheartening that you view the act of conservation in such a negative light, Mark; whereas, you have no hesitation in promoting unmitigated greed and the destruction of the natural environment.
8. OhioOrrin | May 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
per the saudi oil minister, global supply n demand of crude is in balance.
he further noted that anything above $80/brl is pure speculation.
9. Sidetrack | May 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“McCain = Do Things”
He was a ranking member of a party in power from 1992 to 2006. Where is the Repug DO list? You mean to tell me the cons actually to active steps to make $4 gas, a war without end, housing foreclosures and a dollar about to get less respect than a Mexican peso a reality.
Specifically where is McCain’s Do Things list that he hasn’t since flipped flopped on?
10. bagni | May 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
mark the third:
the uranian users are confused again? sorry…
you humanoids have ridden earth and put her away wet way too many times this last couple o hundred years
why wouldn’t you want to figure out how to be more efficient in the use of her natural resources?
it would be tough to deny the u.s. just uses too much of many things…..?????
11. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The issue is not conservation…it is MANDATORY conservation. Most Americans are smart enough to conserve for their own economic benefit, however most are very resistant to having the government tell them how to run their lives.
12. gotbrains? | May 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“Obama proposes more handwringing; and John McCain? He proposes actually doing something about it?”
Yep, McCain does propose to do something about about it:
hmmmm, McCain sounds just like… Obama and Carter. Ouch - those are some pretty damning statements by McCain against the Bush administration. Could it be that the environment, the need for conservation, and the need to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels are things that go beyond partisanship?
13. Richard of Oregon | May 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Now what American comes to mind when you think of gas guzzling, overeating, and home energy costs? Al Gore! that’s who, but how do we get him to stop. More government regulation, that’s how. Problem solved.
14. Pain | May 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
On Karl Rove did he or did he not say you are sure to lose big in November if you keep playing the guilt by association/ talking points /screaming liberal game? How is the statement Obama made in front of 75 000 people like what Carter said in the midst of one of the greatest economic slumps since the Great Slump? It is a little early to be grasping at straws is it not? When is the next special election?
15. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
5. Sidetrack | May 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Amen.
Noonan,
Face it you rightie blokes had your run and you wanted something that was too far for your grasp. An America that wants to give up its pleasures to become a country driven by the patriotic and moral issuances of organized religion. Once that was on the table as the only alternative in ‘06 most got up and left the buffet. It was fun when they got to blow things up far away from the US but when faced with actually having laws take away their private pleasures it was NO SALE. It was merely a case of the economy catching up with you before you could gain “victory” in Iraq and install enough judges to pull it off. It was actually close in retrospect and if the economy hadn’t gotten worse McCain might have gotten a term before it all went pear shaped and rotten.
1. Danish Artist | May 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
That breeze you feel is the pendulum swinging past you on the way hard left. And there is that debt you owe for being so nasty in 2005 and 2006 in the Congress. You get a pass on Impeachment but you are going to get the business end of the Reaper in the Congress in 09 and 10.
And as the economy kicks back over in the fall of 2009 and bright and cash flush Holiday Shopping Season™ comes in 2010 will be looking just as bright as 1997 did during the Clinton years of unbridled prosperity. All you have to do is put the working capitalists back in to replace the Theo-neocons.
11. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
My guts ache from laughter at how many on the right who want to tell people what to do in most so called moral cases and cannot be told that they are greedy. When someone mentions cutting back on waste or consumption immediately that is mandatory. It is always the bloody sky is falling when right wing comfort and superiority is threatened. If that is not clinging I have no idea what is!
Somebody put me a number forward of how many seats you are going to lose in the Congress 40? 50? 60? More?
12. gotbrains? | May 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It is a well known fact that the more a candidate for president runs away from the policies of the sitting president the greater a chance he has to lose. That snowball gets bigger everyday with Bush’s aprrovals hovering around 25%.
Anyone willing to wager that Bill Clinton could not beat George W Bush in an election right now?
16. CanadianObserver | May 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Most Americans are smart enough to conserve for their own economic benefit
11. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Yes, but then again you have folks like Mark who thinks conservation is a four-letter word.
If more people thought as you do, phnx, and would conserve, even if just for ecomomic reasons, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, it just isn’t so.
17. djp | May 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Actually GWB has turned into Jimmy’s third term:
1) Rampant inflation - check
2) Economic stagnation - check
3) Previously unseen commodity price increases - check
18. Mark Noonan | May 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
…and not one liberal to defend Obama…just attack President Bush…
19. Mark Noonan | May 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
CO,
Conservation never works - you have to make more of what you need, not conserve what you’ve got…you start conserving and all you’re doing it putting off the day of reckoning…build what you want…human beings have this ability to develope new things, as long government stays out of the way…
20. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“When someone mentions cutting back on waste or consumption immediately that is mandatory.” Cavalor
Mention all you want, that’s no problem. However, the IMPLICATION of Obama’s position is that he will make conservation MANDATORY as in GOVERNMENT REGULATION!! I hope he campaigns on that promise. He will win all the left wing/moonbat bastions in the US, but he will loose the election in a landslide.
CO, my point was that Maslowe’s hierarchy of needs has altruism (for example: saving the planet from global climate change) at the very top…when all other needs are satisfied. And even then its not an imperative. Economic reasons come well before altruism. Do I conserve…yes, when its not inconvenient. I believe that is the view of most Americans.
Making the assumption that conservation is in the interest of the country, the question for government is how to get people to change…the carrot or the stick?
A leftist position is to use taxes (the stick) to change behavior. Make it painful and they will follow. A better approach would be to provide incentives (the carrot), tax breaks or tax credits. whcih position do you think would be most popular?
For some strange reason, leftists always insist that pain, suffering and sacrifice be involved in any solution. I wonder what Frued would say about that? It reminds me of the Shi’a self flagellation marches, except the left is interested in flagellating everyone else. Absolution from the sin of over indulgence and proflegate use of resources can only be had through pain and suffering.
And leftists say the environmental movement is not a religion. HA!
21. Dennis | May 19th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“Conservation never works…”
What a pearl of wit and irony from the self-identified paragon of Conservatism. I always have contended that Noonan and his ilk suffer from a crisis of definitions.
22. CanadianObserver | May 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Do I conserve…yes, when its not inconvenient. I believe that is the view of most Americans.
#20. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Well, at least you are making some sort of effort, phnx, no matter how small.
23. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Dinnis is that you old woman?
Still living in the anarcho-syndicalist commune? Where you take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. And the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more…
24. bongoman | May 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Oh that’s rich coming from a blog that specialises in attacking Obama - look at the tag cloud on the right and note the size difference between Obama and McCain.
Blogs for Victory or Blogs against Defeat?
25. bagni | May 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
markservation
us interstellar idiots are bewildered again
your blurb that started wtih ‘conservation never works’???
was really weird
example?
does that mean the airlines are dumb
cuz they are now flying a few mph slower
so they can save thousands in profits?
oh…i get it
just make more jet fuel
or better yet earthlings can make something better?
like new and improved super frajalistic jet fuel?
another example?……why save money?
just make more
or print more like the fed is famous for?
mark……pull it together
us black hole buddies are worried about you
26. ViralNexus | May 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.”
Are you f’ing kidding me?! He just said we need to develop new technologies- in lamens term, use the innovation of the American people to improve the rest of the world. You people are retarded. And what is this crap about don’t conserve just make more of what you need. Are you crazy Mark or just completely senile?! So instead of investing in alternate fuel technologies you say just destroy ANWR so we can produce more fuel? Instead of investing in alternate energy sources to cope with our energy demands we sould just build more coal power plants and pump more natural gas? Instead of recycling products to make new products we should just build more landfills and mass produce more non-recyclable products. You are to much Mark, far to much.
27. Mark Noonan | May 20th, 2008 at 12:37 am
bagni,
Lets clarify by saying that conservation, if its your only or main tool, is doomed to failure. You must develope what you’ve got and use it as efficiently as possible…telling us to turn off the air conditioning is a bit of liberal nonsense…
28. Brett Michaels | May 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mark Noonan | May 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
CO,
Conservation never works - you have to make more of what you need, not conserve what you’ve got…you start conserving and all you’re doing it putting off the day of reckoning…build what you want…human beings have this ability to develope new things, as long government stays out of the way…
Mark,
How exactly do you plan on making more water in Las Vegas?
I respect you, but it’s statements like the one you just made that really calls into question your intellectual capability.
29. Brett Michaels | May 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Danish Artist | May 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Until they lead by example, they should STFU!!!
EXACTLY! So when are you guys on here going to join me in the Corp?
30. Some Assembly Required | May 20th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
19. Mark Noonan | May 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I think nature tells us differently here. I’d recommend looking into how Bears survive during the winters. Conserving seems to work perfectly for them. Or how about those frozen foods you have in your freezer? Tinned cans in your cupboard? Your savings account? All prime examples of how we are completely dependent upon preserving and conserving things for ‘a rainy day’. So why can’t this system not be incorporated into how we get our energy?
27. Mark Noonan | May 20th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Man, your saying conserving will not work on it’s own by using efficiency as an example. Are you kidding me? Just one question, what would you propose we do when the Worlds Oil supply runs out? Or would you just place that burden on your children when they reach their thirty’s?
Buildings which are air conditioned have peak energy uses throughout the day. Typically first thing in the morning, lunch time and just before dinner time. The most demand on the system (energy required) is during these times. After supper, demand is reduced significantly. This energy is conserved which increases the buildings efficiency while creating less demand on the grid.
Or how about Geothermal heating and some forms of solar (Granted Solar would require a fairly substantial storage facility). These systems Conserve (store/save) energy when it is not required thus increasing building efficiency while decreasing cost. Not to mention these facilities can operate completely off grid. In fact, in some cases they produce an excess of energy which they can sell back to the power companies. Also, these facilities receive modest tax breaks and we all know how fond you are of those.
New buildings should all be LEED certified IMO. Sure there are some cases where it may not be viable but these buildings incorporate NEW TECHNOLOGIES to increase EFFICIENCY and CONSERVE Energy. With the price of Oil and Natural gases rising it would be ridiculous not to invest in alternative energy. If you really want to completely destroy your party, I say keep up the good work. At least you won’t be branded a ‘Flip Flooper’.
31. cam | May 30th, 2008 at 2:01 am
All right, I’ll bite. Does anyone know what Obama’s energy plan is? While he does not lead with nuclear, he includes the use of safer nuclear technogies to generate the energy needed for our economy to thrive. Much of his policy is based on making current technologies safer and more efficient thereby reducing the amount of energy needed to produce the same output. The reason that Obama supporters attack Bush on his policy on energy is that, with the magic man making such derisive comments about conservation, this administration made little effort to promote conservation which could have at least reduced the demand for overseas oil and thereby made the country more secure. It doesn’t take long to realize that with the two oil men in the White House, the price of oil would increase despite the promise to jawbone the Saudis into increasing supply and lowering price.
At least if the next administration proceeds as though we take conservation seriously one of two things can happen, both good. First, with a lower demand for foreign oil, there will be a short term downward pressure on price. Second, with a serious R&D effort directed at new technologies and conservation the long term downward pressure on price will lead to lower prices for oil, all things being equal.
Even so, one cannot ignore the elephant in the room. With growth in India and China increasing exponentially, the demand for energy and resources will push all major players in the world economy toward conflict. In the mean time, China stands by mostly watching as we spend ourselves into oblivion on needless wars with plans for more. At some time in the not too distant future, China will be able to challenge our military superiority and there will be little we will be able to do. At that point, our best option will be to use our best negotiators to reach agreements with our most difficult adversaries. At that point, it would be very helpful to have some practice at diplomacy. Further, it would be useful to have developed as strong allegiance with likeminded allies who can help us achieve our foreign policy objectives. So, instead of continuing with knee jerk belligerency of this neocon cabal it is time to embrace diplomacy and conserve our military resources for the times when it is truly needed. So, once again, it will be our ability to be more efficient, out ablility to conserve, whether it be energy or other resources including our military resources and a willingnes to work with others not the instinct to bomb our way out that will lead to the best outcomes for our country and the world as a whole.