Obama's "New" Politics

[Rohirrim]

Smells same as the "old" politics.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=2

[W*GS]

Doesn't surprise me. The odor from the Chicago political machine wafts all the way over here sometimes...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd like to hear someone ask him point blank what he plans to do about high gas prices in the near term (I don't want to hear the usual platitudes about how we need to break our dependence on foreign oil and transition to alternative energy sources - no sh*t, Sherlock.)

[Rohirrim]

More technicalities and parsing from Obama.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519

[cutthemdown]

I'd like to hear someone ask him point blank what he plans to do about high gas prices in the near term (I don't want to hear the usual platitudes about how we need to break our dependence on foreign oil and transition to alternative energy sources - no sh*t, Sherlock.)

I'm not sure what a President can do to control fuel prices. One man can not control suppl and demand. What the next president can do is increase domestic production by opening up more fields to be drilled.

[kappys]

I'd like to hear someone ask him point blank what he plans to do about high gas prices in the near term (I don't want to hear the usual platitudes about how we need to break our dependence on foreign oil and transition to alternative energy sources - no sh*t, Sherlock.)

Basically the big stick of a windfall tax is about the only option that congress and the president really have against modern corporations.

[peacepipe]

No canidate is going to be perfect,but I know we're going to be screwed if McCain gets elected. I was a hillary supporter early on but will not have any problems supporting Obama considering the alternative this Nov.

[Pseudofool]

Those who questions Obama's change message are the same who probably question liberal ideology altogether. Which is fine. The makeup of Obama's cabinet, his priorities in policy-making, a large majority Dem congress will all make Obama a pretty effective first term president, whether you agree with his policies or not.

I think it's pretty foolish to think "change" in government can happen quickly or be percievable at the public level. It's going to take time, even if Obama gets elected in a landslide.

It's really shameful patriotism, if you ask me, that more people aren't rallying around the first real "leader" to run for president in forty years, because of cynicism, ideology, or just plain conservative selfishness.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Basically the big stick of a windfall tax is about the only option that congress and the president really have against modern corporations.

That would be a great start.

Concrete steps to police corruption, e.g., price gouging, supply manipulation, etc., should be the next immediate step.

[W*GS]

It's really shameful patriotism, if you ask me, that more people aren't rallying around the first real "leader" to run for president in forty years, because of cynicism, ideology, or just plain conservative selfishness.

You've drunk so much Obama-aid that you're impugning the patriotism of those of us who disagree with his ideology.

I thought only right-wing neo-fascists dared called others unpatriotic, but apparently that particular disease has infected at least one member of the left, namely, you. Drop the "Pseudo" from your handle, in the interest of accuracy.

[W*GS]

That would be a great start.

Concrete steps to police corruption, e.g., price gouging, supply manipulation, etc., should be the next immediate step.

And when those things don't work?

Follow Chavez and nationalize the oil industry?

[Inkana7]

And when those things don't work?

Follow Chavez and nationalize the oil industry?

We still have one?

[Pseudofool]

You've drunk so much Obama-aid that you're impugning the patriotism of those of us who disagree with his ideology.

I thought only right-wing neo-fascists dared called others unpatriotic, but apparently that particular disease has infected at least one member of the left, namely, you. Drop the "Pseudo" from your handle, in the interest of accuracy.Tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't expect a libertarian to detect irony.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Does W*GS have anything left in the tank besides the same old "any government regulation of big business = socialism" straw man?

Even Rush Limbaugh has more game than W*GS.

[mhgaffney]

Tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't expect a libertarian to detect irony.

Pseudo,

You are mistaken about W*gs. He is not a libertarian. He is a nothing. Meaning: a nihilist. He doesn't believe in anything.

Another way of phrasing it would be to describe him as a born again atheist.

He is best ignored. (This infuriates him because he lives to insult others. Ignoring him drives him crazy.)


MHG

[mhgaffney]

I'm not sure what a President can do to control fuel prices. One man can not control suppl and demand. What the next president can do is increase domestic production by opening up more fields to be drilled.

Have you been asleep these last 25 years?

The transition to an abundant clean energy alternative should have started in 1981 under Reagan. Carter tried to get things rolling -- I give him credit for this -- but Reagan reversed the incentives and programs started under Carter.

The question today is -- even if we do the right things, is it too late? Can we even make the transition at this late date? It takes 30-40 years to get there and a huge investment in money, brains, research, infrastructure and leadership.

So where is the leadership?

Clinton had a huge amount of credit with voters to get started -- but he blew it. Clinton should have used his bully pulpit to persuade, cajole and if necessary brow beat the auto industry -- to make energy efficient cars -- but Clinton turned out to be a spineless wimp. No strength of character. A zero.

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. Energy conservation has to be at the top of the list.

Even today -- at this late hour -- our so called leaders don't understand this. They think the solution is to militarily occupy (or control) the oil producing nations in the Mideast. In the process of making war they have squandered trillions of dollars that should have been spent on the transition to a clean and abundant alternative. Bush and Co. essentially flushed trillions of borrowed money down the toilet -- and what do we have to show for it?

Trillions in national debt.

Have you checked the price at the pump lately? This is the direct result of neo con policies -- and if you want more of it -- then vote for McCain. He's your man.

MHG

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Have you checked the price at the pump lately? This is the direct result of neo con policies -- and if you want more of it -- then vote for McCain. He's your man.

MHG

That's correct.

Follow the money:

Selected Industry Total to Candidates


Total to these candidates: $3,141,343 (Dems 31.6% and Repubs 68.4%)

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2929/oiles5.jpg

METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Wednesday, May 21, 2008.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=E01

[BroncoBuff]

I wanna know ... how did an Oil & Gas lobbyist manage to slip Ralph Nader 200 clams? ???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wanna know ... how did an Oil & Gas lobbyist manage to slip Ralph Nader 200 clams? ???

It's called "impression management," brah. ;)

[cutthemdown]

Have you been asleep these last 25 years?

The transition to an abundant clean energy alternative should have started in 1981 under Reagan. Carter tried to get things rolling -- I give him credit for this -- but Reagan reversed the incentives and programs started under Carter.

The question today is -- even if we do the right things, is it too late? Can we even make the transition at this late date? It takes 30-40 years to get there and a huge investment in money, brains, research, infrastructure and leadership.

So where is the leadership?

Clinton had a huge amount of credit with voters to get started -- but he blew it. Clinton should have used his bully pulpit to persuade, cajole and if necessary brow beat the auto industry -- to make energy efficient cars -- but Clinton turned out to be a spineless wimp. No strength of character. A zero.

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. Energy conservation has to be at the top of the list.

Even today -- at this late hour -- our so called leaders don't understand this. They think the solution is to militarily occupy (or control) the oil producing nations in the Mideast. In the process of making war they have squandered trillions of dollars that should have been spent on the transition to a clean and abundant alternative. Bush and Co. essentially flushed trillions of borrowed money down the toilet -- and what do we have to show for it?

Trillions in national debt.

Have you checked the price at the pump lately? This is the direct result of neo con policies -- and if you want more of it -- then vote for McCain. He's your man.

MHG

yeah but I'm getting ready to buy a huge diesel pusher to pull my boat that has twin v-8's. I don't want to conserve I want to have fun and enjoy life. There is plenty of oil left no reason to not use it up. We should drill every last drop and in the meantime look to what fuels we will use in the future.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We should drill every last drop...

That's the last thing in the world Big Oil and its proxies in Washington want to do.

They hated $1.00 gas during the Clinton administration.

Restricting supply = more profit.

That's how they see it.

It really is that simple.

[Sim Pilot 4.0]

I'm not a political type of person but here are my 2 cents. The price of gas would not matter much if we had fuel efficient cars. Something to ponder is the question of why is it still acceptable for cars to only average 30 miles per gallon. That has been the standard for about 20 years now.

Why not give a massive tax break to the Automakers if they develope cars that average over 70 miles per gallon... This would nullify the rising prices for driving. Trucking has to be considered also.

[cutthemdown]

That's the last thing in the world Big Oil and its proxies in Washington want to do.

They hated $1.00 gas during the Clinton administration.

Restricting supply = more profit.

That's how they see it.

It really is that simple.

You and I won't be able to agree but we can agree that it is supply and demand that fuels the price of oil. We just disagree at why these shortages of gas occur when in fact there is plenty of oil. I can agree to some extent that it is big oil companies and national oil companies that manipulate the price. Hell why drill for more oil when you can just sell what you are already pumping at twice the price.

Also another big problem is that big oil and shipping have invested billions into supertankers to haul oil all to America. Now people are telling big oil look for domestic oil and deliver it to us cheaper.

[BroncoBuff]

That's the last thing in the world Big Oil and its proxies in Washington want to do.

They hated $1.00 gas during the Clinton administration.

Restricting supply = more profit.

That's how they see it.

It really is that simple.
Yup. That's why Big Oil is yawning over the Bakken field. Right now they're making the biggest profits in the history of profits. So why would they spend resources for something that will merely drive supplies up and profits down? There's no upside.

NOW is the time to give tax breaks to automakers for implementing alternative fuel / higher mileage vehicles. Tie the incentives to keeping jobs in America, and it's a win-win deal. Unlike previous alternative vehicles, consumers will flock to them now with gas prices heading skyward. THAT'S when Big Oil will increase supply and lower prices ... hoping to lead consumers back to the gas guzzlers. They're like tobacco companies manipulating nicotine levels.

[W*GS]

You are mistaken about W*gs. He is not a libertarian. He is a nothing. Meaning: a nihilist. He doesn't believe in anything.

Hardly. Of course, you believe aliens landed in Roswell. 'Nuff said.

[W*GS]

Does W*GS have anything left in the tank besides the same old "any government regulation of big business = socialism" straw man?

You're the socialist here, remember. I have proof.

In any case, I've never said that any regulation is socialism. You're the one setting up the straw man by claiming that I have.

Can you ever write anything about me without bald-faced lies?

[Bronco Jamus]

I'm not sure what a President can do to control fuel prices. One man can not control suppl and demand. What the next president can do is increase domestic production by opening up more fields to be drilled.

The President cannot control the oil market. Obama surely can't, which is why you won't hear anything about him doing anything at the pump. The only thing we can do from a congressional perspective is to lower the state, local , and federal tax, and get MORE refining space.

[Bronco Jamus]

And when those things don't work?

Follow Chavez and nationalize the oil industry?

It's funny to me because it's true. This is about the only thing the governemnt can do to really get a handle on the market in this country. But niether Obama or McCain is going to have to worry because the crude market is going to come back in and prices are going to go back down.

[BroncoBuff]

NOW is the time to give tax breaks to automakers for implementing alternative fuel / higher mileage vehicles. Tie the incentives to keeping jobs in America, and it's a win-win deal. Unlike previous alternative vehicles, consumers will flock to them now with gas prices heading skyward. THAT'S when Big Oil will increase supply and lower prices ... hoping to lead consumers back to the gas guzzlers. They're like tobacco companies manipulating nicotine levels.
The idea that Big Oil might have been manipulating prices downward to drive up sales of trucks and SUVs the past 10 years seems unlikely ... but it's a strangely compelling idea - that they manipulated the market like tobacco manipulated nicotine levels to keep users hooked.

[yavoon]

I'm not a political type of person but here are my 2 cents. The price of gas would not matter much if we had fuel efficient cars. Something to ponder is the question of why is it still acceptable for cars to only average 30 miles per gallon. That has been the standard for about 20 years now.

Why not give a massive tax break to the Automakers if they develope cars that average over 70 miles per gallon... This would nullify the rising prices for driving. Trucking has to be considered also.

Ten years ago oil was 10 dollars. There is no alternative energy that competes with 10 dollar oil.

[yavoon]

The idea that Big Oil might have been manipulating prices downward to drive up sales of trucks and SUVs the past 10 years seems unlikely ... but it's a strangely compelling idea - that they manipulated the market like tobacco manipulated nicotine levels to keep users hooked.

This rabbit hole is getting pretty damn deep isn't it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

McClatchy: Former Bush donors now giving to Obama 6/1 (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39067.html)