If you didn't get to see, and you didn't if you weren't watching C-Span, here is the video of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. If you've never experienced him, you owe yourself the treat!
Isn't he a kick in the pants! I've loved this guy ever since I first started hearing him on the radio with Ed Schultz.
I was actually rather impressed that he only gave a glancing mention to coal degasification and carbon sequestration. He is a really big proponent of those technologies. Of course, Montana has some sizable coal reserves. He understands that the average American probably doesn't understand this stuff quite yet and now is not the time to get into a detailed explanation.
I was quite happy that that we actually did some McCain bashing in this speech also. Still not doing it enough or as consistently as I or James Carville or Paul Begala or Josh Marshall or even Pat Buchanan would like, but it's better.
As you can see, another good speech, during prime time, that the networks just plain aren't showing. Stupid.
The first ad is the "Hands" that is airing during the Olympics:
Nice. Refreshing. Positive. Makes me actually not hate this election. Amazing.
And now, to paraphrase (or more precisely, to quote) John Cleese, for something completely different:
Now here is something that I actually disagree with the Barack Obama on. Vehemently. Of course, it is only airing in Nevada. If you asked the average non-Nevadan what his position on Yucca Mountain is, you would probably get a shrug.
I can only assume we are to leave the waste in the rapidly filling containment pools that they are currently in indefinitely? Perhaps we shall wait until a foolproof way to launch the waste into space toward the sun in a space vehicle that cannot possibly fail during launch and spread radioactive waste across the Atlantic Ocean and beyond before we deal with the problem. Indeed he has NO long term plan. From a letter to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, and I want to explain the many reasons why I've held that view.
In my state of Illinois, we have faced our own issues of nuclear waste management. There are some who believe that Illinois should serve as a repository for nuclear waste from other states. My view on this subject was made clear in a 2006 letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. "States should not be unfairly burdened with waste from other states," I wrote. "Every state should be afforded the opportunity to chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner that makes sense for that state."
That is a position I hold to this day when it comes to both Illinois and Nevada.
After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, or at a designated facility in the state where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science.
In the meantime, I believe all spending on Yucca Mountain should be redirected to other uses, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country and exploring other long-term disposal options.
There is no doubt that this is a difficult issue. But I believe our approach must be based on sound science above all else. I do not do the bidding of any special interest or industry, including the nuclear industry, which has a major presence in my state.
In my own campaign, I have not accepted donations from political action committees or Washington lobbyists. In fact, I've often taken positions at odds with special interests. When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois, I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.
All Nevadans should know that as president, I will bring to this issue not just independent judgment and careful deliberation, but a personal appreciation that comes from my own experience of living in the back yard of hazardous nuclear materials. The safety and security of Nevadans and all Americans requires nothing less.
Barack Obama
WASHINGTON, D.C.
You see. NO long term plan. Just let's not put in all in one safe place. 50 different not as safe places is much better.
Continuing on, we have our most recent ad:
Not bad. A little negative early on. Got a little less negative as it when on.
I would like to see Barack Obama's campaign hold fire on the "George W. Bush Guns" until the final weeks of the campaign. You know the "Do you really want another four years of George W. Bush?" stuff to push the undecided independents, if not into his column, at least out of John McCain's column.
Using this stuff with nearly three months left will lessen the effect it might have at the end. Obama isn't desperate yet is he? If his campaign is, well, that is a real problem. I personally think they are just unintentionally desensitizing people by using this stuff at this point.
Overall the commercials are definitely less negative than that which his "I won't go negative" opponent's campaign has been spewing of late. Still, I would like to see more of the "Hands" type commercials.
Of course, that's what we all say. What we actually respond to is the negative. Or at least that is what all the research shows. I wish they were less correct.
I am, on the one hand, glad that everyone seems to be finally understanding the implications of diverting such a large amount of our corn crop into ethanol production. The New York Times has a story about fertilizer shortages and the interconnected effect of that combined with the fact that money people in developing countries are eating beef (which needs a LOT of grain to be raised) and the use of corn for ethanol production.
The Washington Post has a story mainly concerned with the effect of diverting so much of our corn production to ethanol. The effects of this policy have been wonderful for the farmer. They have never seen such sustained prices for their crops. It is not so hot for the end user, however. It has raised prices on other grains (as farmers plant corn instead of wheat, soybeans, etc.), all types of meat (all of them need a great deal of grain to be produced) and as a result helped cause riots around the world as food prices rise as a result of the buffer our former overflow of grain being taken away.
Of course, mandating that ethanol production hit 15 billion gallons/year by 2015 was one of the more popular parts of the energy bill signed earlier this year. It was particularly popular with people such as Sen. Chuck Grassley(R-IA) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), in many subjects unlikely partners, but not in this. Anything that helps raise corn prices is in their constituents interest.
What is amazing is that ethanol has, at best, a net neutral effect, especially at low levels like the 10% mix that some stations use right now for standard production gasoline. Just check the GasBuddy forums on any of their local sites. These people know their MPG. They also know that their MPG drops when using an ethanol blend (it isn't as volatile as regular gas and therefore doesn't provide the same power per gallon.) Some actually claim this dip alone results in them burning more regular gasoline per mile when running an ethanol blend than when they run straight gas! (BTW, many small engines are incompatible with ethanol blends according to these boards, they will run fine for the season, but as they sit during the off-season, they corrode. Anecdotal, but I'm not taking a chance.)
Here's a snippet from the Washington Post article:
Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol "exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits." By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
So, read the articles. Draw your own conclusions. Then do what you think best. Me? I'll be avoiding ethanol, at least until they start using switchgrass to produce it instead of corn. Agree or Disagree, your comments are welcome.
That seems to be the gist of Robert Novak's column today. It criticizes some of the moves that Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has made recently in light of how many view him as an ideal choice for Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to make for his running mate.
What Novak really does in this column is demonstrate how far the powers that be have strayed from even much of their own base on environmental issues. Perhaps the Haley Barbours and Rick Perrys of the world have issues with clean, renewable energy as a threat to the economies of their states (which it really isn't BTW.) but most Republicans are on board on this issue, particularly in the mid-west and the mountain west.
Has Bob noticed that red state Montana has a Democrat as governor? That would be Gov. Brian Schweitzer. He is an extremely popular Democrat in what had been assumed is a solid red state. One big reason? His stance on the environment and clean, renewable energy. Just try to get the guy to stop talking about ways to convert and/or burn coal cleanly and to safely bury the resulting carbon dioxide.
I find the last paragraph of the column the most telling:
"We loved Ronald Reagan, but he made some compromises along the way," Pawlenty said, adding, "We don't have a big enough party to be throwing people overboard." Presumably, that also means coal and oil interests.
Obviously, to Bob Novak, this means the Republicans can't afford to lose the coal and oil interests. To Tim, this means compromise with the budding environmentalists in the Republican party is necessary to preserve unity.
As far as I am concerned, if Bob Novak wants to throw the already disaffected libertarians of the mountain west, who also happen to be largely more environmentally aware than he suspects, overboard, than I, as a Democrat, will be happy to welcome them off that sinking ship and work out compromises with them.
