The Candidates
Barack Obama, McGovernite:
“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.
I don’t even know where to begin.
Suffice it to say that the thought of an Obama presidency is absolutely terrifying. And that’s why I don’t care how large his crowds are in Washington or Oregon or how close the vote is in Colorado or Nebraska. What I do know is this: the types of Caucasian voters who normally vote Democratic in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will be Barack Obama’s worst nightmare in November. And that’s where the electoral votes are.
You liked what you saw last Tuesday in West Virginia? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
What don’t you like about it Dave?
McCain & Obama are very similar when it comes to climate change, and Michigan in particualr will just have to cope.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Obama ‘08
“Sub-compacts, dieting, and no AC”
Just what Americans want a President that sticks them in tiny cars, puts them on a diet and takes away their Air Conditioning.
The modern liberal is kind of like a medieval flagellate except they prefer to punish poor people for their eco-sins.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
What don’t you like about it Dave?
I don’t want Barack Obama telling me how to use my thermostat.
I don’t want Barack Obama telling me how much I can or cannot eat.
I definitely don’t want Barack Obama ceding the authority of the United States to other nations.
It’s one thing to say that something has to be done about climate change. It’s another thing to have an express desire to make America weaker, less sovereign, and to lower her quality of life.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
There is no good outcome to this election. In essence it’s a rear-guard maneuver, at best. But you’re right about one thing, Dave: The thought of an Obama victory is terrifying.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
So the idea here is that saving the planet is an electoral loser, because people aren’t prepared to make sacrifices. (btw, Do poor people have larger cars than rich people, egs?)
I think its a bad idea for the GOP to be on the wrong side of the global warming debate. Fortunately McCain isn’t. Being on the wrong side would be an electoral millstone for generations. (”a decade ago, the other side weren’t interested in protecting your future”)
May 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
…What the…
May 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Wanna make sure that the McCain brand of global warming thought doesn’t become GOP orthodoxy?
Stick Lieberman on the ticket.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
#4 is why the base will vote for McCain no matter who his running mate is.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“It’s one thing to say that something has to be done about climate change. It’s another thing to have an express desire to make America weaker, less sovereign, and to lower her quality of life.”
I don’t get this. Why will smaller, more efficient cars make America weaker & have a reduced quality of life?
And surely America should be a good global citizen by leading the rest of the world in the fight against global warming?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Boy, we must be wired differently because I’ve already given up my car for my bike, and I feel the better for it. And because of the high price of certain foods (such as bread, milk, and eggs) I have also cut back there and I suspect millions of Americans have done likewise.
Maybe many of you are still living at home or are in school and have a meal plan, but people who work for a living and have to put food on the table understand what Obama is talking about.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
#4 & #8 is why people like Mark Warner don’t run for President. Obama is being demonized, and on the other side so is McCain. Its sad, particularly for McCain after all his years of public service…
May 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
The Obama quote sounds just like Jimmy Carter. It’s not forward-thinking, which contradicts Obama’s main theme.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
PabloZed, what on Earth does your #10 have to do with what Obama was talking about?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Jaype, yes poor people tend to have less fuel efficient cars.
In my neighborhood f@t @ss Oldsmobiles, Chevys, and Fords clog up the sides of the road.
The poor people who do own SUVs tend to have them because they have a lot of kids.
My wife owned a stretch station wagon (1980’s SUV) because she had 6 kids living at home.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Alex,
Several people have said that America’s lifestyle is based on the willingness of China and others to loan us money and for OPEC to send us fuel despite a falling dolllar (which translates into higher oil prices). Even though I don’t drive I am feeling the pinch of those higher oil prices in the cost of other things, such as food. That can’t last is what Obama is saying. We need to work toward energy independence, not just for global warming but to preserve our lifestyle.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
In 14 I meant my mother. My wife was talking at me when I typed.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
McCain must not get into a debate with Obama where Obama is the future and McCain is the here and now. That becomes a very hard narrative to break.
e.g. McCain is old, Obama is young.
McCain supported a short term petrol tax freeze that would do nothing long term, Obama opposed it, focusing on long term initiatives to reduce dependence on oil.
McCain wants a status quo in Iraq, Obama is looking forward to other military needs (respond to Iran, Afghanistan, etc)
McCain wants to do nothing for global warming that would cost us now, Obama is prepared to have short term pain for longer term benefit.
I’m not saying its right, but if that narrative got entrenched the election is over.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
#17: Great point.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
egs (#14) point taken. So Obama would be unwise to render current cars illegal if they were fuel inefficient. Not that he would (I don’t think).
Instead, all new cars have to meet certain targets, and slowly they will filter through the market into used cars…
May 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Several people have said that America’s lifestyle is based on the willingness of China and others to loan us money and for OPEC to send us fuel despite a falling dolllar (which translates into higher oil prices). Even though I don’t drive I am feeling the pinch of those higher oil prices in the cost of other things, such as food. That can’t last is what Obama is saying. We need to work toward energy independence, not just for global warming but to preserve our lifestyle.
When you find this magic substance that can replace oil, let me know.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
By the way, I think it’s time to take down “Deroy Murdock’s Rudy Giuliani Archive” on the right side of this site.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
As disappointed as I’ve been in some of DaveG’s recent posts, I agree wholeheartedly with this one. While McCain may recognize climate change (a perfectly reasonable position), he is not so tone-deaf as to scold Americans for eating too much and putting the heat too high. Perhaps Barack Obama should sell that 1.65 million dollar house of his, buy a house half the size and cost, and donate that money to environmental research or something.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Nearly 30 years ago, Carter tried to feed this country the same conservationist crap with this 1979 classic:
“We have learned that ‘more’ is not necessarily ‘better,’ and that even our great nation has its recognized limits,â€
I’ll continue to drive my gas guzzling Sequoia with one hand on the wheel and a double quarter pounder with cheese in the other, and keep my AC at home set at 69, running 24/7…nearly 365…and if you think I’m going to stop living my life as I see fit, well…That’s not going to happen.
Now Barry, GFY and have a nice day!
May 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
#17 That is what the whole appeasement dust up was about from Obama’s perspective.
#20 That magic substance may be hydrogen, wind, solar or some combination. Its the technology that eludes us, but the idea is to invest now.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Aron, you’re obviously not from the religious wing of the Republican party…
May 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Aron,
A diet of quarter-pounders (the very thought of which makes me want to vomit) suggests we won’t have to worry about you driving that gas guzzler for too long.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Keep our homes at 72 degrees? Aren’t these the same libs who yell “get out of my bedroom”?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
#27: Nice one.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
PabloZed,
In truth, it’s probably been a couple of years since I ate one of those…and yes, I agree, as one who has seen Super Size Me…the though of a steady diet of double quarter pounders is pretty nauseating…it just sounded good while I was on my Dennis Miller-lite rant. I do, however, drive a Toyota Sequoia, and in Miami, the AC is always on.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:03 am
LOL. I hear ya. I live on a swamp (DC) and the a/c is on 24/7 during the summer, but I did park my car over a year ago and have not driven it since.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:09 am
This is where environmentalists get it wrong. We should do something about global warming but there’s nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with people using energy at the expense of the planet. What’s wrong is people using energy at the expense of the planet (a classic negative externality in economics) without paying for it. Our goal should be to figure out the extent of the negative externality and incorporate it in the price of goods.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
On #23. As a fellow driver, I really would prefer if you put two hands on your wheel.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I wonder what temperature Obama keeps his home at.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
How exactly will Obama use the power of the presidency to lower people’s AC and change their diets? Is this really want the leader of the free world should be worrying about?
Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am
alaska jake, judging by your name, i bet Obama’s 72-degree home mandate is pretty popular in your neighborhood –provided of course that barack pays your heating bills.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Jake,
The government already advises us to conserve energy by lowering our thermostats and there is also a president’s council on fitness plus the surgeon general. So any complaints can be freely made to the current president.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Aron, you might want to check out ‘The Bottomless Well’. Excellent book.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:40 am
“…and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”
This is AMERICA! There is NOTHING (except giveaway money) that wecan to and other countries are going to say OK!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:58 am
I’m a democrat and even what he says scares the living crap out of me. he straight up sounds like a commie.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
E Doggg. . . haha well a few months back when it hit -30 here (and -55 in Fairbanks), I was fine setting my thermostat at 62!
PabloZed. . . Advising is one thing. But Obama’s quote “that’s not leadership, that’s not going to happen” tells me he wants to go beyond such current advisory councils. He can advise me to lower the temp, but until he pays my bills he has no business going beyond simple suggestions.
For the record, I’m against even an advisory role for the president. Deciding how warm my apartment is does not fall under any understanding of the president’s Constitutional powers.
Does anyone else see the humorous irony in declaring a global warming crisis while telling us to lower our thermostats? Wouldn’t global warming solve that problem?
May 19th, 2008 at 2:24 am
An Obama staffer needs to tell Barack about swamp coolers –and FAST. What good is it if my neighbor adheres to Obama’s arbitrary 72-degree rule when I can cool my house with a swamp cooler at 70 degrees with half the electricity?
One wonders if Obama will publicly flog Gore for heating his grotesquely enormous swimming pool with 20 times the energy it takes to heat my home.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I’ll say it:
Thank.
God.
For.
The.
Filibuster.
Obama is going to have all sorts of wacky ideas that won’t pass Congressional muster. Thank Jebus.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:33 am
42, provided there are 40 Republican butts in the Senate next year. And thank God that McCain helped preserve the minority in the Senate while you’re at it.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Yes, while we’re at it, lets wear thicker sweaters in the winter too! Sweaters with flag lapel pins of course now that they’re finally en vogue with Obama.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Hmm… 72 is exactly what my thermostat has been stuck at for the last two and a half months… ever since I moved into this apartment…
May 19th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Would this have legs?: Bitter thermostat clingers for McCain
May 19th, 2008 at 3:50 am
LOL…Please take down Murdock. I don’t if there is another poster with as little respect from me.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Isn’t 72 how old J/Mac will be as at November?
He’s smart that Barry.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:59 am
LOL. I don’t think this one is about McCain’s age (unless he starts saying fossil fuels and McCain in the same sentence).
May 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I really do hope the Obama supporters keep up with the age jokes into the fall. Nothing says “likely voter” more than a bloc of scorned seniors.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I assume that Obama will be rationing his family’ meals from here on out, using public transit and no AC in his mansion during the summertime. Guess he also forgot about those people who had to go without heat during the winter in Tony Rezko’s slums, he probably just forgot because he was too busy getting moved into his Mansion that Tony helped him get.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Does anybody believe the standard of living in this country is growing ? Be serious. It’s growing for BP and EXXON CEO’s and Auto execs who farm their jobs ( and labor costs )to Mexico. It’s not growing for anybody else. Many of these economic issues will determine who wins in November PLUS an increasingly important VP pick for both candidates. Polls of OBAMA vs McCain will really be affected by the VP picks this year.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I agree Craig. My standard of living as been stagnant (if not regressing) in the past few years. My income has been flat but prices of everything are rising. I’m still ok, but seniors on fixed incomes are struggling. I was in the grocery store not along ago and an elderly woman asked me to tell her the expiration date on a half gallon of milk. After I told her she just blurted out “I don’t know how I am going to make it if prices keep going up.” And gas prices will be approaching $5/gl this summer.
To be fair, though, no one has a solution to rising oil prices. A decrease in tensions in the middle east would help greatly, however.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Heres another take on it…I don’t think it really matters because at the rate of demand for all these new “American” things and the resources that allow them to exist, I think our standard of living is going to decline anyway. In a way the environmentalist are going to get their way but through the market instead of government intervention.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
PabloZed
Several Hedge Fund managers last year had income in the BILLIONS. I’m not kidding. They made this money from you and me by shorting oil futures and adding .50 - .75 / gallon to gas prices. One way to abruptly change gas prices is to temporarly “freeze” the futures market by government / Presidential intervention. Yes, I know, we shouldn’t mess with the market. That’s what Hoover said too. Look what happened to him. If Bush dumped 100 million barrels of oil on the market tomorrow from the SPR, he would cost these speculators billion and add enough “uncertainty” to freeze the futures market without unduly damaging the strategic petroleum reserve.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
My favorite part in italics:
O, great Democratic Messiah, why should our nation care what “other countries” think about our individual consumption, spending, and saving patterns? If they’re that full of disapproval, why do they continue to buy or T-Bills?
O, Bama, please tell us why we must level our playing field to European standards so as to put our domestic companies at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors by dint of government fiat.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
To be fair, though, no one has a solution to rising oil prices. A decrease in tensions in the middle east would help greatly, however.
I wish people would stop pretending that we get most of our oil from the Middle East.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Does anybody believe the standard of living in this country is growing ? Be serious. It’s growing for BP and EXXON CEO’s and Auto execs who farm their jobs ( and labor costs )to Mexico. It’s not growing for anybody else. Many of these economic issues will determine who wins in November PLUS an increasingly important VP pick for both candidates. Polls of OBAMA vs McCain will really be affected by the VP picks this year.
Here come the protectionists that don’t understand trade issues!
Wait, that’s a little redundant…
Let’s try that again…
Here come the protectionists!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Craig,
Another way to do it is to raise the margin requirements on oil traders. I don’t like the idea of opening up the SPR because its for emergencies not just economic hardship (although it would certainly cause the price of oil to drop, but for how long).
One more point about oil. I was considering McCain and Obama’s opposition to drilling in ANWAR and off the coast of Florida. Regrettably, we are not having that debate since they agree, but I want to hear more about exploration in the US.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Face it, Alex. What will matter in the future is what other countries think, not reality.
Our Dear Leader Barry will travel the world asking others what they think we should do, down to the last man, woman, and child. He’ll set up a global opinion liaison office at the UN and at EU HQ in Brussels to seek permanent feedback on what we do.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Alex,
I am a protectionist when it comes to the American economy. When you have exported all the good paying jobs to other countries, under the guise of various trade agreements, there will be no incomes adequate to even buy the newly cheapened imports and we will have reduced our standard of living closer to the developing world, China, India, etc. Go to any store and buy something Made in the U.S.
I do understand trade. I made a 40 year career in International business. I also know many American politicians and business people are DUMB when it comes to dealing with foreign marketers and governments. For example,
There is a FCPA ( Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ) which prevents US businessmen from bribing foreign government officials. Then, there are lobbyists and business PACS which encourage us to bribe our own government officials. Meanwhile, the internationalists, who know trade issues, have our business people competing with companies who are partially owned by governments who officially bribe foreign governments ( Facilatative Payments )
May 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I’ll say it:
Thank.
God.
For.
The.
Filibuster.
Obama is going to have all sorts of wacky ideas that won’t pass Congressional muster. Thank Jebus.
As I’ve always said, people will probably be thanking McCain for the Gang of 14 if/when Obama starts nominating Supreme Court justices.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Craig,
I do not understand trade as well as you obviously do and neither do most Americans. But as you said, I certainly see factories packing up and leaving our industrial states and going to Mexico and Asia. This fattens CEO pockets but crushes middle America.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I do not understand trade as well as you obviously do and neither do most Americans. But as you said, I certainly see factories packing up and leaving our industrial states and going to Mexico and Asia. This fattens CEO pockets but crushes middle America.
No. It upgrades the American economy by weeding out obsolete manufacturing jobs and making products cheaper for the everyday consumer. The winners are whiny American companies that don’t want to enter the modern economy.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
PabloZed,
The problem is that businessmen rightfull are concerned about their labor costs competing against foreign companies in India and China with MUCH lower labor costs, absent health care costs, absent insurance, lax work place standards, etc. They tell us they have to export the jobs to stay competitive. That’s because there are no levelers in the international markets. These trade agreements, like NAFTA, are inherently unfair to American workers because they are skewed to our trade ” partners.” If you follow the internationalist argument, you would bring back slavery. Foreign markets with NO labor costs would be the ideal, right ?
How about global trade agreements with INTERNATIONAL minimum wages. Let’s have a trade agrrement standard which says you have to pay workers the equivalent of $ 4 / hr. plus a minimum level of benefits, regardless of where the work is done. It would certainly dampen the rush to export jobs
May 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“I wish people would stop pretending that we get most of our oil from the Middle East.”
What does it matter? Arab nations determine the production -and in turn the cost- of oil.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
PabloZed wrote: “One more point about oil. I was considering McCain and Obama’s opposition to drilling in ANWAR and off the coast of Florida. Regrettably, we are not having that debate since they agree, but I want to hear more about exploration in the US.”
PabloZed,
That’s not actually true, and therein lies the exasperating inconsistency in McCain’s position. He told O’Reilly that he’s adamantly opposed to drilling in ANWR, likens it to the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, and in his very next sentence, says: “I will try to make it more attractive for Florida and California and other states to have drilling off of their coasts.”
May 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Craig, its good to see that someone on here finally understands trade. Its a complex issue, one that Romney had a complete understanding of, and I’m still hoping he will be a part of the solution. Alex, you’ve been reading too many books written by people who don’t have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. The current situation on trade is extremely unfair to the American worker and to the American companies that would love to stay here, but under the stupid agreements find it hard to do.
The national security implications of having an economy not based largely on manufacturing is astronomical. You can’t bomb anybody with emails..you can’t fly anyone with planes when our enemies quit selling them to us….you can’t have an economy selling cheeseburgers to each other. You people who have never worked in a manufacturing environment seem to not comprehend how vulnerable we would be if we don’t maintain our own capabilities.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Interesting Aron, I missed that on O’Reilly (but I often find it hard to pay attention all the way through his show). The problem with McCain’s statement is that Florida and California are opposed to drilling. GW Bush apparently made a deal with Jeb to not drill off Florida. So while I am glad he is open to some drilling, I would like to hear about it in more detail and not just on Fox.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
You guys - - all of you on this site, need to start taking your heads out of your asses if you want to win the presidential race by talking more about THIS ISSUE (an obama presidency) rather than continuing to whine about social issues, like gay marraige, etc etc.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
McCain backs incentives to boost offshore oil
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0753783620080507?sp=true
May 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
There are two trillion barrels in the oil shale of Utah and Colorado. It became economically feasible when the prices got to $70 bucks per barrel. Three companies are currently moving forward to develop the most efficient means of processing this into petroleum products. If you don’t know how much two trillion barrels is, just realize that it is more than is contained in the entire middle east.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
illinoisguy, totally agree. One of the things that helped this country during WWII was turning the automobile plants into airplane and ammunition’s plants. It was being largely self-sufficient. We are losing that more and more every single day due to corporate greed and unfair trade laws.
Personally I would love to see huge taxes for overseas investment and a loss of tax incentives for companies that invest overseas. Stop offering government services to help companies move businesses overseas. My boss’ son works for the government helping people invest in China. Why? Why not use that money instead to help small businesses get started, especially in the inner-city or poor rural areas?
People talk about protecting America, well we can’t if we can’t keep ourselves supplied in times of need.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
#73 - Exactly, if the American people knew what all we are doing to outright encourage companies to leave America, they would be outraged!! GRRRRR!!!! It makes me mad too!! Why do we give incentives for our companies to invest overseas? Why do we provide Government services to help companies move over seas? Its nothing short of being idiotic. Mitt Romney fully understands this! If McCain will put him in charge of this, we can fix it. The Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois jobs are only moving overseas because the playing field is not even for the American worker, and because we outright encourage companies to leave by our tax and tariff policies, and allowing trade agreements to be completely unfair. Its sad, I mean really sad, to see more people on here don’t realize whats going on! This is supposed to be the Republican party that understands business, and from most of what I read, we have a bunch of ignorant liberals on here who think of themselves as econ conservatives.