McCain desperate?

[not_so_new]

In case enough people have not said it already.....

McCain:
Pro-Energy

And Obama is "anti energy" perhaps?

Pro-Growth

And Obama is "anti-growth" perhaps? And as Puppycow said, you might want to do a little brushing up on your history. I suggest that you find the extra reading time by staying away from the GOP Kool-aid stand for a while.

Free Trade

And McCain is going to help the banking mess without "regulation"? McCain even said the word "regulation" multiple times in his speeches on the subject... well after he said that the fundamentals of our economy are sound.

Obama:
Anti-Energy

Nope, sorry... just anti dependence on foreign oil. You know, the thing that most experts say is the biggest problem with our national security today.

High Regulation

It's a balancing act that most intelligent people see.

Less regulation gets us things like the S&L crisis and low and behold the current mess we are in now. Too much regulation stifles growth. The economy grows better with Democrats and more bailouts happen with Republicans so who is better at striking that balance?


We pay now with more regulation (MAYBE hurting CEO's and shareholders *that is up for debate*) or we pay later with government bailouts (hurting the whole economy, all citizens and tax payers including the CEOs and shareholders above), take your pick.

Protectionist

Riiiiight... got ya. Put them party affiliation blinders on much do ya?

 

[FaisonMars]

He is being cautious about nuclear and for bloody good reason. So we have the fuel to haul corn from Kansas to Seattle to sell around the world, but if it glows in the dark, who wants it?

Nuclear is not a transportation fuel... it's used to make electricity. No greenhouse gases (or atmospheric emissions of any kind, other than heat). But, you end up with concentrated waste that is toxic for millennia, and mining for uranium is dirty (and most of it is in other countries, we'd have to rely on imports of uranium ore).

Regrettably, there are a lot of misconceptions about nuclear power, but it is a piece of future sustainable energy.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba508/

 

[corplinx]

Corplinx, good contrast.

However, why are Social Issues the weakest category for a president? It seems like the chief executive is in a unique position to wield social policy influence.

Have there been any presidents who have made social issues a primary presidential category, or area of performance? LBJ, maybe?

Well, presidents don't really have the power to make people accept other people. For social progress, a congress has to at least get the bill on his desk. This congress is worthless.

Mind you, I think gay discrimination will be mitigated first by the progressive states and then federal action will be inevitable on making the marriages of one state recognized by all under equal protection.

Barack Obama has been admirable for criticizing his own and other black churches for being intolerant of gay people. I wish McCain were the same but he is a person raised in a different time.

If Obama would drop the fortress mentality on trade/economics and break with ideology based energy policy lobbies, my vote would be clinched.

Likewise, if McCain adopted a more libertarian attitude towards social issues, I would proudly vote for McCain.

The way I see it now is, you can vote for Obama and have an even worse energy crunch, pay more goods/services, possibly pay more taxes, but gay people _might_ get more freedom.

Or you can vote for McCain and get a sound energy policy, a continuation of Clinton trade policies, possibly a new boom cycle from corporate tax cuts, but gay people probably won't get any more freedom.

We're all adults here. Let's be honest. We're coming home from Iraq no matter who gets elected. We simply can't pay for socialized medicine until something dramatic happens with the Federal budget _and_ we see reforms that make medical care less expensive before government picks up the tab. I don't see real health benefits until at least an Obama second term.

The pragmatic reality is that McCain is currently the better candidate for the country as a whole. Obama might be better for a few demographics if the congress suddenly finds a spine, honesty, and courage. And how likely is that?

 

[FaisonMars]

The pragmatic reality is that McCain is currently the better candidate for the country as a whole. Obama might be better for a few demographics if the congress suddenly finds a spine, honesty, and courage. And how likely is that?

I disagree with you (I think Obama's energy, foreign policy, and economic plans are better, and I am also afraid of what judges McCain might appoint), but if you are right, what happens if/when Sarah Palin becomes President?

 

[corplinx]

I disagree with you (I think Obama's energy, foreign policy, and economic plans are better, and I am also afraid of what judges McCain might appoint), but if you are right, what happens if/when Sarah Palin becomes President?

Then once a month the nation gets told how stupid, stupid, stupid we are for another year or two until she just starts crying all the time?

 

[BenBurch]

Nuclear is not a transportation fuel... it's used to make electricity. No greenhouse gases (or atmospheric emissions of any kind, other than heat). But, you end up with concentrated waste that is toxic for millennia, and mining for uranium is dirty (and most of it is in other countries, we'd have to rely on imports of uranium ore).

Regrettably, there are a lot of misconceptions about nuclear power, but it is a piece of future sustainable energy.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba508/

Agreed. And I used to BE a an engineer in a nuclear power program. Nuclear is fixed site electricity. It can extend to rails only with the large expense of electrification of the right-of-way, and does not easily extend to any other transport medium. Nuclear is useful in some places, especially in Northern states which have dark winters and uncertain winds. However, much of the country can be dealt with by solar, wind, wave, hydro, tidal, and ocean-thermal systems, backed by petroleum turbine load-levelers.

If we are aggressive, we can manage that in ten years.

Much as I would love to see 3000 new 500 MW nuclear plants built, the lead time is much too long right now to get many online in time, and we just don't have the heavy manufacturing capability in the USA any longer to make the larger components. Now, I would LOVE to see research towards smaller plants with entirely new technology that would be able to be built and commissioned in much less time, and I believe Obama will get that ball rolling. McCain only envisions more copies of the immense PWRs of the 60s.

 

[corplinx]

Nuclear is not a transportation fuel... it's used to make electricity.

You mean like all those HEVs use? And is the key component of a fuel-cell vehicle tech as well?

As we move transportation to the grid for its real power source more and more, we will need more power. Nuclear, wind, solar, whatever. The private sector is already making so much wind/solar progress that I doubt government is necessary. There are new announcements in wind/solar efficiency weekly. This is a tech that doesn't need a trillion dollar government investment.

We need wind for when the wind blows, solar for when the sun is shining, and nuclear for when we don't have either. I think McCain and Obama both get that. I just thinking Obama is intentionally waffling to appease the radicals.

 

[FaisonMars]

You mean like all those HEVs use? And is the key component of a fuel-cell vehicle tech as well?

Yes... eventually transportation will become electric, but it isn't at the moment. I hope that plug-in hybrids catch on quickly (and Obama supports incentives for these), but in all honesty, I suspect that ethanol-based fuels are going to take off faster.

As Ben points out, manufacturing is a problem, but our sticky-tape-and-string electrical grid is a much bigger obstacle right now towards distributing clean electricity all over the country. Home power (like PV panels on roofs) can play a minor role in helping solve this problem, but really we need a complete overhaul.

The private sector is already making so much wind/solar progress that I doubt government is necessary. There are new announcements in wind/solar efficiency weekly. This is a tech that doesn't need a trillion dollar government investment.

Obama wants to put $150 billion towards renewable energy investment.

I do think it's interesting that people who say "the market will make it happen" still tend to favor subsidies to oil companies. Let's revoke all of those leases to oil companies to drill on public land (the latest news is that they paid for those leases with sexual favors and drugs), and let oil companies buy private land for drilling. Isn't that what Daniel Day Lewis had to do?

We need wind for when the wind blows, solar for when the sun is shining, and nuclear for when we don't have either. I think McCain and Obama both get that. I just thinking Obama is intentionally waffling to appease the radicals.

The American Southwest is soaked in solar energy (we could get all of our power from a square patch of land 100 miles on a side in New Mexico, and solar thermal plants can store energy so that they work even when the sun isn't shining). The Northeast, upper Midwest, and Northwest are soaked in wind energy (there's enough wind in the Dakotas to power the whole country). The West also has a lot of hydrothermal and geothermal. Solar and wind power makes energy out of thin air, we just have to reach out and grab it.

I agree that both Obama and McCain are playing to their bases with regard to the part of their energy plans that they choose to highlight (Obama: renewables, McCain: drilling). The difference is that Obama's plan is the future, McCain's is the past.

 

[FaisonMars]

McCain only envisions more copies of the immense PWRs of the 60s.

Good point... Arizona has only one nuclear power plant, but it's a monster... a 3 GW pressurized light water reactor built in 1958. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesaz.html) We should be moving in the direction of smaller, foolproof, pebble bed reactors spread around the country.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Obama wants to support development of alliterative energy while using a windfall tax to help lower gas prices.

Such as super solar, wonderful wind, and gee-whiz geothermal!

 

[corplinx]

I agree that both Obama and McCain are playing to their bases with regard to the part of their energy plans that they choose to highlight (Obama: renewables, McCain: drilling). The difference is that Obama's plan is the future, McCain's is the past.

You keep saying that, but at the moment Obama's plan is just McCain-lite.

 

[Upchurch]

Of course McCain is desperate. He's been desperate most of the campaign. Why else would he have picked Palin?

 

[corplinx]

Of course McCain is desperate. He's been desperate most of the campaign. Why else would he have picked Palin?

Because she looks like the chick you imagine when you have a "quickie in the copier room at work" fantasy?

 

[Upchurch]

Because she looks like the chick you imagine when you have a "quickie in the copier room at work" fantasy?

No, because she is an appeal to:

• disappointed and irrational "We have to have a women in the executive office no matter what her actual political positions are" Hillary supporters
• Crispy Conservative Christian voters who aren't too sure about McCain.
• those who want to vote for a historic ticket (despite the fact the Democrats already ran a woman VP back in the '80s)

If it weren't for picking Palin, McCain would have been dead in the water. Heck, he's still dead in the water on his own if you look at his speech attendance when Palin isn't there.

 

[not_so_new]

No, because she is an appeal to:

• disappointed and irrational "We have to have a women in the executive office no matter what her actual political positions are" Hillary supporters
• Crispy Conservative Christian voters who aren't too sure about McCain.
• those who want to vote for a historic ticket (despite the fact the Democrats already ran a woman VP back in the '80s)

If it weren't for picking Palin, McCain would have been dead in the water. Heck, he's still dead in the water on his own if you look at his speech attendance when Palin isn't there.

Ann Coulter joked (but could have been somewhat serious, you never know with that one) about voting for Hillary during the primaries because McCain was just a Democrat anyway and Hillary would lead the country better than him.

Her quote at the time was "let's wait and she who his running mate is."

Wanna make bets as to who Coulter is voting for now?

Yes, Upchurch is 100% correct, that is exactly who McCain was targeting with his pick. It was a hail-mary that got caught at the 5 yard line. If it takes him in for a touchdown is still up for debate but it did make the game a whole hell of a lot closer.

 

[FaisonMars]

You keep saying that, but at the moment Obama's plan is just McCain-lite.

Well, that assessment reveals your opinion about the importance of investing in sustainable energy.... I strongly disagree, and I hope most of the voters in Nov. do, too. Otherwise we're going to lose the innovation edge in solar and wind, and in the future we'll have to buy clean energy technology from Europe.

Unless you are saying that sustainable energy is important, but that you think that Obama is less like to support it. The campaign policy statements and McCain's record on voting against renewable energy suggest otherwise.

 

[corplinx]

Well, that assessment reveals your opinion about the importance of investing in sustainable energy....

You speak as if that isn't a part of the McCain plan or that we haven't been making these investments in the previous administration.

We need action. We need deployment. And we will of course have further research.

 

[Richard Masters]

Well, presidents don't really have the power to make people accept other people. For social progress, a congress has to at least get the bill on his desk. This congress is worthless.

Mind you, I think gay discrimination will be mitigated first by the progressive states and then federal action will be inevitable on making the marriages of one state recognized by all under equal protection.

Barack Obama has been admirable for criticizing his own and other black churches for being intolerant of gay people. I wish McCain were the same but he is a person raised in a different time.

If Obama would drop the fortress mentality on trade/economics and break with ideology based energy policy lobbies, my vote would be clinched.

Likewise, if McCain adopted a more libertarian attitude towards social issues, I would proudly vote for McCain.

The way I see it now is, you can vote for Obama and have an even worse energy crunch, pay more goods/services, possibly pay more taxes, but gay people _might_ get more freedom.

Or you can vote for McCain and get a sound energy policy, a continuation of Clinton trade policies, possibly a new boom cycle from corporate tax cuts, but gay people probably won't get any more freedom.

We're all adults here. Let's be honest. We're coming home from Iraq no matter who gets elected. We simply can't pay for socialized medicine until something dramatic happens with the Federal budget _and_ we see reforms that make medical care less expensive before government picks up the tab. I don't see real health benefits until at least an Obama second term.

The pragmatic reality is that McCain is currently the better candidate for the country as a whole. Obama might be better for a few demographics if the congress suddenly finds a spine, honesty, and courage. And how likely is that?

In other words: McCain - no substantial change; Obama - questionable changes in healthcare and trade.

I was going to laugh at your post, but I see what you are saying.

 

[Upchurch]

We need action. We need deployment. And we will of course have further research.

%&$# YEAH!

Screw planning ahead and making informed, wise decisions! We need to do anything as long as we do it right NOW! Who cares if it doesn't make any sense and is ultimately counterproductive?

(Say, is this the "Bush Doctrine"?)