Kerry is anti-SUV in that he gave a talk to an environmental group lambasting them. Cite? Can’t give you one.
Anyway, if you are for higher average fuel mileage, then it doesn’t make sense (to me) to drive a vehicle that gets such poor mileage unless you absolutely need it. There’s no way for Detroit to get higher average miles unless they sell smaller, lighter cars. Given that people don’t want those, it’s not exactly fair to blame Detroit for the nation’s gas guzzling ways. They make what people want. If people want Geo Metros then that’s what they’ll make.
Sure, maybe there is something they could do to make an SUV get slightly better mileage, but moving a 4500 lb SUV is going to use a lot of gas, no way around it. So if Kerry is consistent and non-hypocritical, he will do everything he can to save gas. That means no powerboat. No flying in a hair dresser on his wife’s private jet to give him a “touch up” before an interview (he did this and it probably used a couple thousand gallons of fuel). Etc. etc.
It helps politicians make their case if they walk the walk and not just talk the talk!
Not that his points about fuel economy don’t have merit even though he is a hypocrite. It just helps his case if he is not.
Tell me [b[Sam**…how much fuel does Air Force One use when it’s taking Bush on all of his campaign jaunts. At least Kerry pays his own way. Bush campaigns on the taxpayers back. Not that you would care. You don’t pay the taxes.
I’m not talking about using the plane for campaigns. This is a private jet, which the Kerry’s use all the time to jet themselves around the world for fun.
Also, Bush is not a hypocrite, because he’s not the one lecturing people about their consumption habits. Bush’s family has been known to drive a mighty big powerboat as well.
I just can’t stand hypocrisy - especially the hypocrisy of wealthy people telling those who are just getting by how they should be living their lives, when those wealthy people consume to excess like the Kerrys do.
But did he “lambast” SUV users, or the fact that auto makers are using them as a loophole for fuel economy restrictions?
I’m not convinced that would help politically. Most of us don’t want to conserve. We don’t want our President telling us to make sacrifices, even if he were setting an example himself.
Besides, it’s not likely he’ll lose many environmentalist votes to Bush, especially over something this trivial.
It’s pretty sad the media (and we, I guess) are focusing so much on the personal lives of politicians. Personal choices have very little to do with their political decisions. I hear Bush’s Crawford Ranch makes extensive use of alternative energies, but that’s not exactly reflected in the Bush administration’s policies.
Could you give a cite where Kerry has lectured people about their consumption habits? Or explain why increasing the automobile fuel economy standards counts as such?
As I have already stated, the only reason Kerry & SUV’s are an issue is that he tried to deny owning one (not to mention multiple SUV’s) for political gain in front of an environmental crowd.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what type of vehicles either have as long as they don’t lie about owning them. Yea, it’s a nit-picky thing, but it just tells me a little about character.
Dear god, how exactly does one need to drive to accomplish this? I routinely manage 35-36 MPG from here in the People’s Republic to South Denver, no problem, on a 1992 Saab 9000 CD. 165 horsepower, 3800 pound car, just by using the accelerator smoothly. Honestly, if people would just alter some minor points about the way they drive, it would be a piece of cake to improve mileage by 10-15%. I guess that I cycle a lot, so I put a good deal of effort into not stomping on the accearator, and just coasting up to red lights rather than speeding up to them and stomping on the breaks; often the light will change anyway, so you end up both getting through faster and avoiding paying to reaccelerate.
I know that when the WSJ first reported on the Hybrids, there were freak enthusiasts that could push their gas mileage well above the EPA stated averages, particularly on highway (not interstate) driving well into the 60’s and above. They would do things like take off their shoes and drive in socks for better sensitivity on the gas pedal, and install accelerometers on the dash to maintain a very constant speed on flat sections.
I wonder if there would be some way to install a switch on a car that would change the way that the accelerator worked to automatically smooth out driving or automatically use cruise control or something. Maybe just resting with very little pressure on the gas pedal would tell the car to maintain its current speed automatically?
I really don’t see why 36mpg city driving should be unrealistic. My 81 Rabbit diesel gets over 40mpg city, and it’s two-decade-old technology. It’s for sale, too. Anyone want it?
Gorsnak, I said fleet average. As in, the average for the entire line of cars, weighted by production. Now, if you think that your Rabbit solves every possible driving need for all people, more power to you. Love to see you fit a four kid family into one, though. Or plywood.
The SUV ‘light truck’ loophole does have to be closed, though.
But Americans want big cars; they don’t care about gas mileage. So given the size of vehicle it’s hard for Detroit to manage a high CAFE. Gasoline engines can only be made so efficient. To get higher engine temperatures and thus higher efficiencies, you need different materials, etc. This was tried (ceramics) and didn’t work well. Or you could use lighter material like aluminum (this is done somewhat in engines). But overall, if you have a car that weighs say 5,000 pounds, then it’s not going to get 35mpg.
Railing about Detroit’s cars not getting good enough gas mileage is just a trick. It’s not Detroit’s fault (for the most part); it’s the US public’s. They are jerks for buying more than they need…it aggravates the unstable situation we’re in. But they see the price is $1.50 a gallon and they’re willing to pay it and that’s all they think about. A politician can’t rail against them w/o appearing to be a jerk; you mustn’t insult people you want to vote for you - instead insult “Detroit”.
Now given that Kerry is for higher CAFE (unrealistic; see above), then morally he should be doing everything he can on his own to CONSERVE OIL. That means maybe selling off the family private jet or at least not using it so much (not for things like flying in a hairdresser at a cost of thousands of gallons of fuel). Maybe finding other forms of leisure other than recreating on some huge gas guzzling boat.
Hypocritical? YOu bet!
So how about George Bush? Well, his solution to the dependence is “drill more”. I think it’s shortsighted and ultimately foolish, but that’s what he says. Foolish? In the short run, no, but long run we need another plan.
I actually like Kerry’s idea of making gas taxes 50 cents higher. I’d be for making them $1.00 higher if it would be “revenue neutral”, ie a cut in taxes for people (say a 2% cut in tax rate for first 10K you make that is taxable), so it would basically be refunded.
There’s also the law of unintended consequences again. If you make the CAFE standard so high that auto manufacturers are forced to build small, low powered, uninteresting cars, you’ll just keep people from trading in their old gas guzzlers and buying new. Since older cars also emit much more pollution and are much less safe, you’ll also hurt road safety and emissions.
ANd if the super-high CAFE standard makes the cars more expensive, you’ll prevent low middle class people from buying new.
Well, yes. But if we had done this years ago, those used cars “trickling down” to the less wealthy would be those efficient cars. The SUV was manna from heaven for the auto industry, one more shovelful of horseshit and the buried pony was revealed. All that was required was for a supine and corrupt Congress to cut them some legislative slack, to carefully define the SUV in the fashion most desired by GM et. al and bingo! the skies open up and rain money on the deserving.
And don’t get me started on the tax relief offered to purchasers of SUV’s! Makes me want to bite a big, bleeding chunk out of the nearest legislator!
P.J. O’Rourke has it just right: A Parliament of Whores.
While your faith in the American public to think beyond “shiny object” approaches the levels of my contempt and is thus admirable, please define “uninteresting”
Sam and I remember the halcyon days, when hormone addled young men rolled up cigarette packs in the arm of thier T-shirts (white, unencumbered by political and sexual messages…) and spoke glowingly of hemis, Hurst trannies, fuel injections, a time when you could pull the carboratuer and, on your Mom’s kithcen table and with but simple tools, fuck it up beyond all recognition.
When you could race the engine beyond specs, subject the transmission to entirely unwarrented stress, and by such mean abuse your tires in an orgasmic display of POWER!
Not I, admittedly. I was reading a book, most likely, and could only gaze longingly at the bold display of raw testosterone, and reflect mournfully that surely they, the blessed, were simply awash in willing maidens, flinging themselves in wanton abandon at the possessors of the sacred Mustang (cunningly modified to look a bit more like Steve McQueen’s Shelby…)
Limbaugh’s list looks a bit suspicious. Why would he own so many old cars – including one that is 19 years old?
I don’t “approve” of SUVs. But I can understand that people who live in areas where there is a lot of snow actually need them.
Further, I am listed as part owner of a Jeep Cherokee. It is my husband’s car. He picked it out and paid for it. I had no input whatsoever – not even a comment to the patronizing salesman who wanted to know what color I wanted. :rolleyes: I have never driven it and don’t want to. I am not responsible for the choices that my spouse makes.
Maybe the same is true of Senator Kerry. After all, isn’t his wife a Republican?
I noticed that one of the front page stories in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette today was that the Kerry (and, gee, to some small extent Theresa Kerry Heinz) estate is worth one billion dollars. It seems to me that one of the new lines of attack on Kerry is going to be that he is too wealthy.
Odd, it seems to me, that he should be attacked for this. And for being consistently liberal in his voting record.
Seems this confusing mish mash of an attack strategy would be taken only if you had nothing else to work with and were running scared.
