I can totally understand why he’s mocking it. It’s old news. The best strategy Obama’s got is tire pressure? Yeah, that’ll save America. It’s like telling people to eat more vegetables and wash their hands before eating. We’ve been told these things for decades, and decades, and decades. Do Obama followers really believe he’s come up with some new genius energy policy? “Properly inflate your tires, I’ve got a committee studying the rest.”
McCain, on this issue, is being realistic. Solar & wind are nice & all, but we still need oil. He’s being honest. He opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, so if he says we should drill off-shore, I think he’s got the cred for me to listen to his ideas.
From here, you can read what he says about conservation. It’s part of the total package but hardly something to base your energy policy on.
Is that what you think the sum total of Obama’s energy policy is? If I pointed you at a page that explained it detail, would you read it? Or have you made up your mind, and to hell with the facts? You went on the offensive when someone suggested McCain’s policy did not include alternative energy or conservation, but now you are doing the same thing to Obama, painting him as a candidate with a single, narrow energy solution. Hmm, what is that tactic called? Hypocrisy.
Hey, McCain’s policy was quickly reduced to raping the environment while Obama was being “sensible.” Fair is fair. I’ll probably vote Obama BTW, but I don’t dig the rose-colored glasses Obamists seem to wear.
Where’s Obama going to get more oil? McCain is acknowledging we’re going to need it despite Obama’s calls for inflating our tires. Where does Obama propose we get more oil?
McCain has a strategy that involves getting oil and doesn’t involve invading and occupying other countries. What’s the big O’s plan? Oh yeah, you said it yourself, “inflate your tires.”
I’m 43 years old and I can’t remember anyone ever not telling me to properly inflate my tires. I’m sorry if McCain thinks that suggestion is to laugh, but I do too.
Obama is trying to say gently “We’re going to have to suck it up and use less oil.” Since tuning up and keeping tires properly inflated is a comparatively painless and quite effective way of doing that, obviously it’s going to be near the top of the list.
Conservation is the only “quick fix” we’ve got to current high prices. As I understand it, drilling and refining is operating at capacity. Even if we (or anyone else) were drilling more, we couldn’t refine it any faster to bring the price down. But, of course, neither candidate can come right out and say “America, you’re going to have to get off your lazy asses and start walking or riding bicycles; you’re going to have to start paying taxes to fund public transit.” Not in an election year. Americans know it, but they don’t want to accept it, and they won’t tolerate hearing it from a candidate. Obama is slipping in the conservation stuff the only way he can without getting himself slaughtered in the election.
According to the energy policy on the Obama website (which you have already read, right?), how about we start with the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which oil companies have already leased and are not producing oil?
The fact that Obama does not advocate restricting existing oil leases does not make him an advocate of oil addiction. John McCain is in favor of increasing our oil addiction. The choice is clear.
Let’s face it, the best oil fields in the US have already been tapped. The experts have calmly explained that opening up new oil fields, “Would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030”, and a pretty trivial effect after that. Cite.
I’d have thought that the renewed activity in this thread meant that there was a continued debate over McCain’s proposed anti-crime approach. Instead, what I see is McCain partisans busily changing the subject, to the candidates’ energy policies, or their Iraq policies.
It’s got to be easier to win that argument over Iraq in a thread that people who might be chomping at the bit to debate Iraq aren’t opening because it isn’t an Iraq thread. And it’s got to be easier to win that argument over the candidates’ respective energy policies who might be chomping at the bit to debate energy and climate change aren’t opening because it isn’t an energy thread or a climate change policy thread.
I dunno, RTF: I don’t think this thread is really about crime policy.
The thread is about sloganeering driving the policy process. The surge consisted of a change in military strategy, which nobody disagreed with, and a temporary 10% increase in troop strength. That last part came out of a Dec 2006 AEI paper by Robert Kagan, which called for a rather larger change in troop levels.
Some thought that the 10% change was too small to make a real difference. But it was adopted by the Bush administration to blunt support for conventional diplomatic processes as put forward in the Baker plan, also in Dec 2006.
Anyway, things have gotten better in Iraq --for various reasons, and note that the fatality decline started even before Dec 2006 and that the surge was in place only by June 2007-- so now McCain wants a Surge For All Seasons. The crime aspect is particularly ridiculous, but the campaign has also called for surges in economic and energy policy.
Good point though. Still, I think a serious discussion on McCain’s crime policy would belong in the Great Debates.
In defense of the McCain campaign my skim of McCain’s crime policy page doesn’t reflect those sentiments too well. So I think the septuagenarian was just talking out of his posterior.
But does it matter when policy is made from the gut, rather than from a mix of factual, legal and practical implementation considerations? Does professionalism matter? Or should we trust in wishful thinking and modern conservative intuition, rather than a detailed study of the underlying reality? Honest observers of the past 7 years and readers of Dilbert should have a clear answer to that.
I guess, in the most general sense, that this whole thread is basically a pitting of McCain for applying the word “surge” to every possible policy position to get a little of The Surge’s (perceived) success to rub off.
It’s not like it’s an original practice, though; witness the original title of “drug czar”, established by Congress in 1982, which has since spawned hundreds of government czar/tsarships, even beyond America’s borders.
Politicians like buzzwords. Politicians will use buzzwords. Politicians do not care if their application of buzzwords is ridiculous, repetitive or irritating - see “War on Terror”*, “War on Poverty”, “War on Drugs”, “War on Christians”, “War on Global Warming”…
*Apparently this was first used to describe British efforts to crack down on Jewish militants in the then-protectorate of Palestine.
Ok, but though we get a new War on _____ and a new blahblahGate every 5 years or so, it’s a little more unusual to have 4 of them thrown at you within a couple of months by the same politico.
Overuse of a cliche indicates a weak mastery of the language. But here, I think that McCain and his staff simply have not grasped the underlying policies particularly well. The idea that we should apply Iraqi military tactics to our inner cities – without adding qualification – reflects a campaign and candidate that grasps at straws. I’m not surprised that this balloon didn’t make it onto McCain’s web page.