Subscribe by RSS
Gone seems to be the days of the 2004 election where terrorism was a top issue. New polls out show economic issues along with concerns over energy policy seem to be the most important issues in 2008. Thus, the reason both Obama and McCain are pandering heavily on each issue.
Report from Yahoo News:
WASHINGTON - Like two rival filling-station owners across the highway in long-bygone price wars, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain keep putting up flashy signs and offering new incentives in hopes of attracting customers battered by $4 gas prices.
McCain is offering a summer break from the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax, and holding out the promise of more offshore drilling to help you drive more cheaply to the beach. He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors to generate electricity. On Monday, he proposed a $300 million government prize to anyone who can develop a superior battery to power cars of the future.
He may even wash your windows.
If you pull into the Obama station, he’ll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy package to the Kennedy-era space program.
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and for apparent congressional paralysis.
Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation’s addiction to foreign oil.
This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches.
In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.
Yet energy experts and economists — and even some of the candidates’ own advisers — say none of their signature proposals will have any impact on $4 gasoline or $130 a barrel oil in the near term, or even the intermediate term.
Is it open season for pandering?
“I think it is. This is a real pressure point for people every day, everytime they fill their tanks. Therefore, politicians can’t leave it alone,” said Fred Greenstein, professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University.
Video report from the Associated Press on some of Obama’s statements:
Video on McCain announcing his $300 million prize to the person who creates more efficient battery technology:
Recent polls have shown, and of course I can’t find them at the moment, that terrorism is way down on the list compared to 2004. This probably bodes well for Obama, however, McCain has been making himself no stranger to the issues surrounding gas prices and economic policy.
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
I do like McCain’s throwing one of the problems into the free enterprise ring offering the $300Mil prize. Left to the American people and our ingenuity, I truly believe we can make a difference. And if McCain wants to reward someone for that, that’s cool with me. Where are all the Ben Franklins and Henry Fords of our century? Not on staff at GM, I’ll betcha.
It is said that North Dakota’s wind energy alone could potentially supply one-third of the nations overall energy consumption.
It would be costly, but evidently not that costly in terms of the money McCain is proposing for new technology… I think it’s somewhere close to $30 mil to build and operate the necessary wind fields.
I don’t think they should stop using or mining coal, but right now information on the wind technology is having trouble reaching the public and the government because of coal company lobbying. I understand the coal industries worries, but overall our politicians should be looking at these possibilities and options. There are already wind-energy fields set-up there, so government research would be less costly (because it is highly unlikely they will do anything based off of independent research that has already been done).
And like it’s stated in the above article, these are not quick fixes, but we need to start somewhere. New energy technology should be a huge issue this election. We’ve seen what a government run by the big oil interests has done. Now we need to find government officials who will start us on the path of ENERGY OPTIONS.
And I think we have those great engineering minds that Babs is talking about, but we need to watch out for who is buying out their ideas and keeping them silent in pursuit of their own personal profit.
“And I think we have those great engineering minds that Babs is talking about, but we need to watch out for who is buying out their ideas and keeping them silent in pursuit of their own personal profit.”
Exactly, Whobody. Maybe a $300mil prize will stop that.
Whobody,
Wind is a clean energy, but there is a significant downside. Have you ever driven between San Diego and Palm Springs? The wind farms have absolutely destroyed the landscape. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use wind, but these are things that need to be considered.
I like the idea of the government offering money if private citizens can be innovative, not simply demanding results with guidelines and standards.
Put the green on the table, in the form of cash that is, and let the private sector go to work. I can see MIT college students in a lab drawing up plans as I type.
That’s what I’m talking about Nate! We just don’t see Americans stepping up to the plate anymore, maybe this will put a little curve in that road!
Babs, we don’t see Americans stepping to the plate with ideas b/c of the government and its liberal agenda. Here in New York small businesses can’t afford to draft ideas when they’re forced to shut their doors b/c the taxes are astronomical. That is why concrete ideas seem to be coming to out of Universities that are state and federally funded. It doesn’t seem right that the Universities receive money to fund there “ideas” but individual companies do not. Most of the time a good idea is lost in the paper work and bureaucracy of finding a investor. I think the government needs to ease up on regulation and policy so the private sector can invest in American ideas.
Agreed, CG. So you approve of this one thing on McCain’s agenda?
Stalin,
That’s well and understood. My point wasn’t that wind farms are the ultimate answer or that they are a ready for prime time player. It’s more of the fact that these ideas are smothered by our current energy producers quest to maintain a stronghold on our dependancy (and I want it understood that any of the above is not a shot at the coal industry or any other as a whole, because I feel they are necessary and employ great American men and women). As a intelligent, advanced nation, we shouldn’t be so limited. We need energy OPTIONS, and our government needs to be open to looking into new technology. It’s amazing that innovation in alternative energy has been, and often still is, considered taboo or an irrational conception of a “liberal” counter-culture.
It’s not a quick-fix because these ideas are not without flaws. I mentioned wind energy, because the estimate that North Dakota’s wind energy alone could provide one-third of our nation’s energy requirement is staggering. I think if that is possible, more people should be interested in how to make that happen efficiently.
It’s not like coal, oil, natural gas, etc.. are without flaws as well. I don’t think you’ll find a flawless solution to our massive energy dependency, but with intelligent options and new ideas being seriously considered, our current energy producers won’t have us (as consumers and as a country) by the balls.
Who
I agree with everything you said except that alternative energy is a liberal counter culture. Conservatives want sound solutions to the energy crises as well, they just have to make sense.
Stalin, did you catch the energy interview this morning on Fox & Friends with Gov. Richardson? I thought I was in the Twilight Zone. He began by saying, of course, how much he was in support of Obama, then when asked his opinion on the energy issue and drilling, he opened his mouth and McCain came out. He sited McCain’s views on drilling and alternative energy almost verbatim as his own. I can’t help but wonder if he knows who he’s campaigning for. *ROFL*
Stalin,
I disagreed with it being shown as a counter-culture issue, and said it is absurd to think that.
You misunderstood that statement’s purpose:
It is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN merely a liberal counter-culture issue… but it has been, in the past, PORTRAYED as such by these big energy companies and their lobbyists to dismiss these ideas as radical.
I’m opposed to the way “liberal” and “conservative” are even used as personal and policy labels. The labels are too often used as a DISTRACTION to lump people on to different sides of an arguement, when the actual issue at hand and solution proposed is one of concern to all people from many different mind-sets. It’s too often we don’t compromise due to fear of be labeled wrong in our political leanings. Just the way many self-professed “conservatives” would run from anything that might get them called “liberal” and vice versa. While the tendencies in preference may be correct on average, these labels are used as a hinderence to free and open thought, discussion and compromise.
And of course conservatives want a sound solution that makes sense. It would seem that anyone would want a solution to make sense… no matter what label you put on them.
Who,
There are those who want solutions to make sense, but they just don’t. We need people that can look through the rhetoric and politics to make decisions based on sound science and economic policy. For example, Obama doesn’t think that drilling domestically will bring down the price of oil. No it won’t happen overnight, in fact it will take years, but you don’t skip kindergarten just because you’re not going to have to worry about college for a while. That is bad economic policy. Whether you are talking about building nuclear facilities, refineries, oil rigs, wind farms, solar fields, etc. the demand for cheap/clean energy will drive the market and drive innovation. Did you know that the Empire State Building was built in 410 days? It was built that fast because of competition and the race to be the tallest building. Imagine if we took this American ingenuity and put it to work on the energy crisis.
http://www.politico.com/n.....11342.html
Bush’s third term?
Enough with the Bush’s third term, Frank. It doesn’t work anymore.
Stalin,
I agree with you. I think American ingenuity already has produced some great innovative ideas, but they get silenced by big energy companies’ stronghold on our politicians.
We need to find other options than just drilling for more oil. We cannot keep pandering to these oil companies. We’ve already seen what 8 years of oil company sympathizers have done while in our highest political office. Bush told us that as an oil man himself, he would keep American fuel prices low and drive down the already escalating price. Wasn’t gas $1.39 when he entered the office?
Foreign Oil Dependency –
2001 - - 52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel consumption is imported
2008 - - 60.38 % of U.S. Liquid Fuel consumption is imported
About the drilling… what about the land that the oil companies are just sitting on? You mean to tell me that they’ve drilled up all the oil in the domestic land they already have? We’re supposed to just give them more access so they can just sit on that too? We would just be giving these oil companies more of a stranglehold on us. I really doubt that these American oil companies are doing everything that they can for American citizens. We cannot start giving them more access until they prove they will do what it takes to give people affordable fuel.
I think it may have been $1.46 when he actually entered office as president and $1.39 as the year began.