http://66.169.67.188:8010/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=20020415100752284
What does everyone think about this? Is Gore gearing up for a stab at 2004?
He certainly doesn’t beat around the bush in making his point, if you catch my drift. However, this was given in front of a democratic audience…
I agree that it sounds like he is looking to make another go at it. It is in fact, one of the stronger speeches I have heard from Gore and I wish people would have heard more like this during the 2000 campaign. I don’t think he said one thing that I disagree with.
Of course, on conservative radio yesterday, they were all commenting on the fact that he was sweating during the speech. I guess if thats the best you can come up with…
If they don’t like sweat, why’d they nominate Nixon?
I think Gore is testing the waters. He has nothing to loose and everything to win. With Bush’s approval rating no other Democrats have really dared to openly take the pot shots that you have to if you are going to be a serious candidate. Al was mostly written off by the press as a has-been after the Bush v. Gore case
IMO Gore only has a shot if no other democrat mounts a credible campaign. I give the inside track to Daschel but he has been eerily quiet (oddly enough Jeffords’ Defection may have hurt his chances since he now has to lead rather than play sniper–see Newt). Davis was looking good but (right or wrong) he has spent far too much time whining and running attack adds against a republican challenger during the GOP primaries doesn’t look good.
Oddly enough, Carlson seemed almost overly critical on crossfire last night, making me wonder whether the boy doth protest too much.
Anyway, I found this relatively interesting:
Isn’t this from the Republican playbook, including that hot-button phrase “special interests”?
But if we go on:
I’m not an expert on American politics, but this redefinition of “special interests” intrigues me. Not so much as a rhetorical trick (it doesn’t differ much from the “populism vs. big business” bit that Gore played in the last election) but because post-Enron it might actually play in a way that it never could back when Republicans owned the phrase. A redefinition of that phrase and a reconstruction of all the things it’s connected with would pull a major weapon out from under the Republicans.
Then again, maybe people still think of “welfare queens” when they hear “special interests”. Guess we’ll have to see if there are real repercussions from the news that Enron and other businesses have played fast and loose with the truth.
Wow.
Heh. If ANYTHING should hit them, this should. Wanting to go after Iraq-but not wanting to end dependence on fossil fuels…
Can’t have it both ways…
Actually we can, but we have to use the resources we have here in the US while we develop new technologies. Those resources include the oil fields in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. We can also reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil through continued trading with Russia.
Of course ANWR and the Gulf aren’t permanent solutions, but they do reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we can both deal with Saddam and give ourselves breathing room to continue working on other technology.
First of all, Saudi Arabia and other countries have already offered to make up the difference in the oil that Saddam witholds so ANWR isn’t quite as necessary as the republicans would like one to believe. Also, had the administration been in favor of the new fuel efficiency standards that they so vigorously opposed, it would save far more than ANWR which will not be available for another 10 years. But we can’t do that because Ari tells us that smaller cars would be unsafe. Thanks for looking out for us. :rolleyes:
If the current administration cared AT ALL about making us less dependent on foreign oil, there is a lot they could do. But that wouldn’t sit well with all of those financial contributers to the Bush campaign.
Looks like Gore and Spiritus Mundi share something in common (besides the fact that they recently spoke to people in Florida).
“The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Or something.
Guin, that was a good thing for him to say, no doubt, but it is a shame he said it right after poo-pooing on nuclear energy, something I really think we should move forward on.
ANWR is a decent resource like Hussein is a decent leader. :rolleyes:
As long as oil prices stay low, there is no financial reason barring governmental brute force for anybody to invest in (or even simply switch to) alternate technology. If the government wants to wean the economy off oil, wouldn’t the logical way to do it be to let the price rise and use federal funds to deal with switchover or research costs?
“Smaller cars unsafe”. Peh. Larger cars are more likely to get in an accident, it’s just that you’re better off being in the larger car if the accident does happen,which leads to a nice little “arms race” between people buying bigger and bigger SUVs. Ah, the Prisoner’s Dilemma… gotta love it. Especially when it’s used as an apology for ludicrous policy.
ISTM that Dems and pubbies are both hypocritical. Both decry dependence on foreign oil. One side ignores CAFE standards; the other side ignores ANWR. Of course, we could use both.
Regarding Guinastasia’s point about more funding for alternative energy sources. I’m not sure which of these alternatives really has a good shot at producing a major share of the country’s energy. Under today’s technology, nuclear is the only one, and that has its own problems.
Politically, there are pros and cons for Gore to focus on new sources of energy that do not exist – which he hopes will result from research. Hopes and dreams don’t pollute, but they don’t make cars run, either.
Given the resistance to oil drilling and to nuclear and given the limited value of other alernatives, the US is effectively moving to more use of coal, by default. 
with all due respect, December, they aren’t equivalent. One carries significant external costs due to the environmental hazards inherent to the project, and is a temporary solution at best. The other’s only external cost is the cost of switching to more efficient technology, and is much more long-term. You can subsidize the cost of switching. You can’t subsidize back dead cariboo.
(By the way…I have no idea why this concept that Nuclear is problem-free somehow became popular with some people here. It’s got strengths and weaknesses like any other source of energy, and the controversy over Yucca isn’t exactly conjured up out of thin air. Nuclear makes for a handy talking point for republicans, but regurgitating those talking points doesn’t do much for the eradication of ignorance. Far from it.)
Hmm… not necessarily aimed at you, december, as you acknowledged that Nuclear has problems. Just something that I’ve noticed.
Um, nuclear-wouldn’t there be a potential for a Chernobyl?
Potential? Yes.
The potential is always going to exist that poor decision making and lack of an efficient chain of command will cause a catastrophic failure to a power plant that is undergoing a test under circumstances that it should never be load-testing under.
Chernobyl was caused by horrible decisions made by the plant engineers - decisions based on bad information. They had no idea at the time they began testing the reactor that the plant was supposed to output more power that day than they had thought when they originally scheduled the test, and as part of the test they turned off key safety systems that would’ve alerted them to a problem before the reactor melted down.
That accident was a pooch-screw of human error, which makes it one of the great cases (along with the Challenger) to study in engineering ethics.
The possibility does exist that such a screwup could happen again. It is, however, considered to be an extremely small level of likelihood that those conditions will ever meet up again in a single plant.
Demosthenesian: So, which causes more environmental damage: Increasing CAFE standards, or drilling in ANWR? Think carefully before responding.
Most people who advocate higher CAFE standards really don’t understand what effect they have. They apply the simple equation of “higher average MPG = less fuel burned”. But is that the case? And are there any other side effects? An economist thinking about CAFE might point out the following:
[ul]
[li]Better fuel economy = less cost per mile. Which means people will drive more. Which equals more pollution, and not as much gas savings as you’d think.[/li][li]Higher CAFE standards = less new cars purchased. That means more people will continue to drive older vehicles which pollute more and get even worse gas mileage. It will also cause economic damage in the auto industry.[/li][li]If CAFE standards DID result in an overall decrease in gasoline usage, the net result would be a lowering of oil prices, which would stimulate oil use in other areas. Lower oil prices would also make driving cheaper, resulting in more driving overall, even among people driving belching gas guzzlers (ESPECIALLY them, because lower gas prices has a bigger effect on their cost-per-mile).[/li][li]Higher CAFE standards translates into smaller, lighter, less crashworthy cars. That means more auto injuries and fatalities, which puts a further strain on the economy.[/li][/ul]
Now, it’s probably true that raising CAFE standards will result in lower overall oil consumption. But at what cost? And how much will the reduction be? The problem with trying to control oil consumption with increased CAFE standards is that you are playing with only one variable in a complex economic formula.
A MUCH better way to lower oil consumption is to raise taxes on fuel. That solves the problem of people not buying new cars, or driving more, and it solves the problem of lower oil prices stimulating consumption in other areas.
So why aren’t the Democrats advocating higher fuel taxes? Simple: Because higher taxes punishes the voters, while increased CAFE standards hides the punishment to voters by shifting the burden to auto makers, which in turn shift it to the voters. But that allows the politicians to hide.
>> Um, nuclear-wouldn’t there be a potential for a Chernobyl?
Um, not really. The design of American and European plants is totally different and much safer than Chernobil. I understand the type of accident which happened in Chernobil could not happen in western plants due to their different design. I am not an expert so I hope someone who know more about nuclear plant designs can expand on this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
An economist thinking about CAFE might point out the following:
[ul]
[li]Better fuel economy = less cost per mile. Which means people will drive more. Which equals more pollution, and not as much gas savings as you’d think.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I don’t really buy this one. Gas prices in my area, like most, have gone up about thirty percent over the last several months, and I haven’t noticed any fewer cars on the roads.
[quote]
[ul][li]Higher CAFE standards = less new cars purchased. That means more people will continue to drive older vehicles which pollute more and get even worse gas mileage. It will also cause economic damage in the auto industry.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Considering that most people don’t drive their vehicles until they fall apart, I don’t know about this one either. Most of the people I know are in the “It’s been three/five/seven/however-many years since I bought this car, better get a new one” camp.
[ul]**
[quote]
[li]If CAFE standards DID result in an overall decrease in gasoline usage, the net result would be a lowering of oil prices, which would stimulate oil use in other areas. Lower oil prices would also make driving cheaper, resulting in more driving overall, even among people driving belching gas guzzlers (ESPECIALLY them, because lower gas prices has a bigger effect on their cost-per-mile).[/ul]**[/li][/quote]
So even if people use less gas, they’re going to use more gas?
[ul]**
[quote]
[li]Higher CAFE standards translates into smaller, lighter, less crashworthy cars. That means more auto injuries and fatalities, which puts a further strain on the economy.[/ul]**[/li][/quote]
Have auto injuries and fatalities decreased over the last few years, when gigantic SUVs, which supposedly sacrificed fuel economy for (among other things) crashworthiness, became more popular?
More money spent on fuel stimulates consumption in other areas? I’m not seeing it.
Let’s face it – Americans are addicted to cars. My insurance company refuses to believe that I have no primary vehicle, my co-workers try to give me rides home on a near-daily basis, and there is no legal way to walk into my local mall (no sidewalks or shoulders on the one entrance that can be reached by crosswalks). People are going to drive unless you give them an alternative and raise gas prices to about ten bucks a gallon.
Well, maybe not a Chernobyl, but aren’t there at least some potential dangers? (Maybe I’ve watch the Simpsons too much).