6 Comments

• 1. Joe  |  September 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Meanwhile… foreclosures still going on. Gas is still sky high. Jobs are going overseas. Two wars still costing up billions.

  But it matters who reads the teleprompter better.

  Look… everyone can read well off a teleprompter (except McCain apparently) and I understand your beef is that the Dems said Palin can read well. Fine. Are we done with this topic now?

  When do the actual issues get discussed?

• 2. Geoff  |  September 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am

  Joe, just because I and others highlight the Obama campaign’s hypocrisy and/or absence of self-awareness on a comparably minor manner does not mean the important issues are not being discussed. They are being discussed, and would have been discussed even more had Sen. Obama followed through on his original openness to join Sen. McCain in town-hall discussions throughout the country focusing on the issues.

  Sen. McCain constantly discusses his plan to increase energy supplies in this country that will lower prices, to reform the tax code to a point where companies don’t have to send jobs overseas to save money, to win in Iraq and Afghanistant to prevent having to fight future wars on those same grounds in the future, etc., etc., etc.

• 3. Joe  |  September 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  Sen. McCain constantly discusses his plan to increase energy supplies in this country that will lower prices

  You left off….. in 5-10 years.

  “Drill Now!” is not a “plan”, it is a slogan. Best case, oil starts getting extracted in 3-5 years.

  As for that oil that is extracted…
  Oil companies have one goal… make money.
  Any oil that is extracted (regardless where it comes from) goes onto the worldwide market. So it is traded at the going rate.
  Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard anything from McCain saying that any oil pulled from US shores is to stay in the US.
  Also… the amount of oil extracted will be such a small fraction of the worldwide total, the additional oil won’t drop prices much, if at all. If they do cause prices to drop, we are talking some 5 yrs down the line.

  The 45 new Nuclear Power plants, if we start building right this second, won’t be done in what… 15-20 years for just one???

  Disadvantages of nuclear power generation:

  –The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10′000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
  –High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.
  –Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.
  –During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
  –The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
  –The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

  For his tax code “reform” to stop jobs from going overseas…

  McCain Voted to Keep Tax Breaks for Companies That Reimport Foreign Manufactured Goods. McCain voted against a bill to tax multinational companies on income from foreign factories when goods are shipped back to the United States and to require companies to notify employees and give a reason before they move their jobs overseas. Essentially, he voted to reward companies that ship jobs overseas with a tax haven. (S. 1637, Vote 83, 5/5/04)

• 4. Geoff  |  September 8th, 2008 at 2:28 am

  Nothing doing there, Joe. Even if the American-extracted oil enters the broader world market it will still have an effect in that it will increase supply and relieve pressure on increasing world demand.

  And it gets a little old whenever liberals answer suggestions that we drill for more oil or start constructing nuclear plants that it will take 2-3 or 5 years or what have you. You said that 2-3 or 5 years ago, and if we had increased and diversified our energy supplies years previous –when we should of, instead of succumbing to hysterical environmental concerns — we wouldn’t be in this mess. We need to start moving now and get these energy supplies online ASAP, enough with the “it will take time” excuses for doing nothing. Besides, there are many reports and bits analysis out there that indicate it will not take nearly as long as you indicated to develop these new drilling sources. And the risks you speak of with nuclear power aren’t to the extent you claim (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MmI0YjZiNjk1ZjZlODAwY2I4MzRiYzA0ZmE4MTE5MjI=)

  In regards to keeping jobs in America, it isn’t too taxing a bit of logic to realize that lowering taxes on corporations — as Sen. McCain proposes to do — will make it less expensive to do business in America and reduce the incentive to ship jobs overseas. Your candidate’s and your party’s answers certainly are not the solution.

• 5. Joe  |  September 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  You said that 2-3 or 5 years ago, and if we had increased and diversified our energy supplies years previous –when we should of, instead of succumbing to hysterical environmental concerns — we wouldn’t be in this mess. We need to start moving now and get these energy supplies online ASAP, enough with the “it will take time” excuses for doing nothing.

  Hold on for a second.
  When Democrats complain that the Iraq war shouldn’t have ever happened, Republicans say “Well we are there now, so let’s do it right”.

  So….. regarding what we should have or shouldn’t have done about energy 5 yrs ago, isn’t important. What is important is where we are NOW.

  So do we spend the money and time on drilling where it is a finite resource, arguably does damage to the environment and is really unknown as to how much is there and what it would do to the cost of oil?
  Or do we take that same money and time and concentrate on coming up with a better source? Something that is cheaper to produce and is easily found/made?

  Drilling is a partial solution. I’m not (and Obama and the Dems are not) against drilling. Everyone says to go on and drill. The issue is that drilling is not going to solve anything. It may ease things ever so slightly, but it is not a solution. It should be but a small part of the overall solution.

  “DRILL NOW” is nothing but a freaking bumper sticker slogan. That is all we’ve had for 8 yrs is bumper sticker slogans and nobody questions it.

• 6. Geoff  |  September 10th, 2008 at 2:05 am

  You may have a point in your Iraq war comparison, Joe, but even if you do that doesn’t change the fact that here on September 10, 2008 there is no earthly reason we should not dramtically increase domestic drilling, along with every other form of energy production imaginable such as solar, wind, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, what have you. But you and most Democrats discount the speed with which we can get that increased production online and in the effect it will have. At the very least it will have much more of an effect much sooner than many of the potential sources of energy Democrats have hung their hats on.

  The problem with your assertion that Sen. Obama and Democrats are not against drilling is belied by the fact that Democrats in Congress have not done anything whatsoever to move on increasing domestic oil supplies when they have had the opportunity. All they need do is remove the Congressional ban on offshore drilling to open up greater production and they have not.

  And frankly, we’ve had far more bumper sticker slogans from the left over the past eight years than the right.