Governor Sarah Palin was much stronger than I thought she'd be. Problem: I had my bar set pretty low.
She attacked on a lot of fronts with a lot of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I wonder if the McCain camp is hoping to swamp the Obama-Biden camp, the media and the blogs so much with refuting and debunking her speech that they take some time off from digging in her past.
What the heck is with the Harry Truman reference? Do you want to remind us that McCain could croak and you might be behind that desk in the Oval Office? Doesn't strike me as a great image to bring up for you, yet.
What is this about Russia's objective in Georgia being the pipeline? Yes, that is a valid point if you are a pundit or if you are a politician not in the White House or running for President/Vice President. It is a very dangerous thing for the official nominee of a major American political party, to one of those offices, to publicly state in a very public speech. Tread carefully here.
Overall, came across well. Style was well suited for the base that they are aiming for. Chris Matthews said it well when he said that he was not reminded once during the speech of Hillary Clinton. She will not attract those voters. That the McCain camp seems to understand that is all well and good for them.
I thought the loss of the mini-movie intro might have been bad but she acquitted herself well.
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.
I am baffled by the fact that regardless of when I decide to resume making post on current events, the events of the day inevitably draw me to post multiple times, and incessantly, on one given topic.
This occured last year with the Walter Reed scandal and the original Wandering Donkey. Sad to say, I have lost those posts. You may be able to ressurect them on archive.org but I don't have time to.
Now onward to the fact that I am posting at least once a day on the Georgia-Russia crisis. (You may indeed read into the order of the nations in my title.)
In my previous post I asked why Mikhail Saakashvili might be expected to sign a peace agreement with the terms outlined. I responded with, what I thought, to be a well reasoned argument that he should not.
However, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has done exactly that.
The fact that the Georgians have signed a Cease Fire agreement is somewhat significant.
First, I give a number of reasons why this should NOT have been done on my previous post.
Second, and a point I did not consider earlier, is that Russia has not yet agreed to these conditions! WTF was French President Nicolas Sarkozy doing in Moscow? Apparently he was putting together a peace deal that was up to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to shove down the throats of the combatants. I personally thought the Russian side was covered. I guess this was wrong. (I hope you enjoyed your visit to the Kremlin, Nick. I'd love to get such a deal!)
Apparently, the Russians now have to sign this. This is not a big thing if it gives what was told before. This would include the ability of Russian troops to move into proper Georgian territory if it's citizens, troops or integrity were threatened.
Hell, I'd be all over signing that. I don't necessarily think that is the same thing they thought they would be signing two days ago though.
I have a feeling that some sort of switch has taken place.
Time, and the various news agencies will tell.
In the meantime, given the past knowns and rhetoric, Mikhail Saakashvili made a mistake today.
Given that he went to Columbia; I think there is a different interpretation that will come to light.
Russia, cannot win this, despite their overconfident attitude. They lose. The west and Georgia win. Does Medvedev lose credibility? Absolutely! Does it mean change? Probably not.
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.
Seriously, does Senator Barack Obama want the biggest differentiation between himself and Senator Hillary Clinton to be supported a "tax holiday" or not? You're really going to be the 'guy on the other side' of this issue:
Obama really needs to make this a non-issue by supporting ASAP, stupid or not, before it does real damage to his campaign.
Update: Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central says that Howard Wolfson just confirmed on a conference call that Sen. Clinton would be going forward with introducing legislation on the gas tax holiday. As he points out, it is unlikely to even come to a vote in the House with Nancy Pelosi opposing it, but can you really be sure she will still be opposing it next week? We'll see....
Senator Barack Obama is still trying to explain the truth to people:
While, as I have said, the truth is a great idea, putting money, even 25 or 30 bucks, in people's pockets is even better. Barack, we live in a short term society. 'Give me money now' is the mantra. It is why Wall St. works the way it does. Dozens of companies have gotten into trouble in the past because they maximized short term profits to the detriment of long term viability. Dozens more will in the future. They are a mirror of our society. Or, vice versa. Go argue about that in the comments.
But the political popularity of gas-price relief illustrates the uphill climb facing Sen. Obama. After making his plea Thursday at a retirement community in Columbia City, Ind., an older voter asked him why he couldn't support a gas-tax holiday that would be funded by a tax on oil companies, as Sen. Clinton has proposed, because it would offer some short-term relief. "A lot of us are short term," she quipped.
The New York Times reports Senator Hillary Clinton putting the full court press on Congress:
“Do they stand with hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the big oil companies?” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said. “That’s a vote I’m going to try to get, because I want to know where they stand, and I want them to tell us — are they with us or against us?” (Some Clinton supporters and superdelegates in Congress are among those who oppose a gas tax holiday.)
The same article quotes Senator John McCain in Iowa:
“You’d think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it,” Mr. McCain replied. “The special interests, ‘Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.’ Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief.”
I guess the battle lines are drawn. I think that Senator Obama is finding himself on the wrong side.
A ray of hope? Over at First Read, Domenico Montanaro reports that:
Since a gas tax holiday doesn't look feasible, congressional Dems are pushing an alternative that could give some money back to consumers.
And:
“Democrats are likely to propose a temporary ‘windfall-profits tax,’ possibly of 25%, on major oil companies. Companies would be exempt from the tax if they invested profits in domestically produced renewable fuels or expanded refinery capacity or renewable electricity production. Democrats were discussing Thursday how the additional tax revenues might be used, with some advocating rebates for consumers and others backing additional investment in research and incentives for renewable energy."
Now, I am unsure, since I have not really seen it elsewhere, why a 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible. Nevertheless, the whole 'windfall-profits tax' thing would fall right into Obama's lap. While it wouldn't turn the issue around it would at least neutralize it.
Now, if you excuse me, I will continue to search, much like Obama, for why the 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible.
OK folks. As I said yesterday, this whole proposal of a gas tax holiday is stupid. We all know that. Barack Obama knows that. Hillary Clinton knows that. John McCain knows that. Have we settled that?
Apparently not. It will take an awful lot of energy to convince your average American that a gas tax "holiday" is smoke and mirrors but apparently, at least for now, the media has decided to see if they can support Senator Barack Obama in his quest.
The Chicago Tribune correctly pointed out in on Tuesday that Senator John McCain was the one who let the genie out of the bottle. A fact that is mentioned only in passing, while heaping abuse on Senator Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post today.
Now, please bear in mind that I too agree that the whole proposal is an exercise in futility. My reference to the genie in the bottle has a purpose. As I argued yesterday, there are just to many people who will find this idea appealing for it to merely 'go away.' McCain let the genie out and now it isn't going back in.
Senator Obama and, apparently, the media for the moment, are trying to patiently explain to this constituency why this is all a farce. The effectiveness of this strategy will be seen in the not too distant future.
Even the WaPo article has a caveat in it's criticism of the proposed holiday:
Political consultant Carter Eskew, a former Al Gore adviser, said that if he were advising Obama, he would have said: "If you want to oppose this . . . you're going to have to spend a lot of time and energy explaining.
"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,' " he said. "I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions . . . that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous."
This explains, more concisely than I, why I don't think that the Clinton camp made a bad decision here. McCain brought it up. You aren't going to be able to keep quiet about it. Do you, if you are running for president in a close race, support or oppose such an idea? Duh! I think this was a no-brainer for the Clinton camp.
I applaud Senator Obama for his courageousness in trying to patiently explain to the American people that this is stupid. But, in the middle of an economic crisis, I still think the pocket book wins out over logic. He is wasting a lot of energy in a battle I think he will ultimately lose. Not a good idea when you are running for any office, much less president.
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.
