Why he won't get my vote....
cma...@hotmail.com
threatening to tax the crap out of them, driving the price of gas to
$5 a gallon but he has no problem handing taxpayer money to farm
conglomerates while they make record profits because it helps out his
pocket book? Seems a bit hypocritical.
Has anyone else noticed the articles in Time Magazine and other major
national publications in the last two weeks saying the Dead Zone in
the Gulf of Mexico this year will be the largest ever, the size of the
state of Massachusetts? The largest hypoxic zone in the world caused,
almost exclusively, by the shamelessly environmentally destructive
farming practices that Obama is wholeheartedly backing. Enjoy the
read.....
FROM The Washington Post:
Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric
By Alec MacGillis
Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this
election season, Barack Obama's campaign may want to settle on a more
consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-
based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in
weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but
lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food
prices.
Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter
of ethanol -- he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration's
2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the
grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms
of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research
projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois,
the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama's support
for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary
Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New
York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years
been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in
the 2000 Iowa caucuses.
Today, in a New York Times article on Obama's support for ethanol,
Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's new economic policy director, is
quoted saying that Obama's stance on the issue was based on the
merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national
interest. "That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and
will continue to determine his policy going forward," Furman said. The
article continues: "Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or
bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state
that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, 'He wants to
represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on
what's best for the country.'"
It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign -- except
that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a
few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press
conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was
remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: "Look,
I've been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois ... is a major
corn producer," he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about
reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw
ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way
to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food
prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.
Furman came on board the campaign only this month, so it is
understandable if he is not entirely on the same page yet with the
candidate. The fact is, though, that Obama's record in the Senate has
been very clearly influenced by what he viewed as the needs of his
Illinois constituents, particularly those in "downstate" Illinois,
where Obama has pointed to his popularity as proof that he can win
over voters in more rural and conservative areas. Obama is supporting
the new farm bill, which McCain also derides as wasteful, because he
believes it will help farmers in his state; he backed last year's $14
billion Water Resources Development Act (also opposed by McCain) after
making sure it included money to upgrade locks on the Illinois and
Mississippi rivers) and he backed huge subsidies last year for
liquified coal -- a highly controversial technology that would be a
boon for Southern Illinois mines -- before backing away from the idea
under fire from environmentalists.
Scott Alister McKinley
Your point is well-taken about Obama and corn-based ethanol. To my
mind, it's been a series of three or four very disappointing weeks
from the Obama camp. He 1) stands by corn-based ethanol when every
credible source I've seen says that it is not signicantly more "global
warming friendly" (as opposed to, say, Brazil's sugar-based ethanol
economy);
2) he ended up on the wrong side of an infuriating Democratic
capitulation on FISA;
3) his nebulous stance on NAFTA has left me wondering whether he will
succomb to protectionism when it comes to international trade;
4) he came out against the Supreme Court decision which overruled
La.'s death penalty for child rapist's (I'm entirely against the death
penalty)
5) his campaign absorbed some top people from Hillary's group and
almost immediately began engaging in attack-first, ideas-second
campaigning which relies on empty slogans and thinly disguised
name-calling; and finally,
6) he has lacked any credible alternative to McCain's gimmicky
proposals on our energy problems.
To be honest, I think he's really lost his way in the last month. He
needs to get away from cameras and start campaigning on the ground,
touring areas hard hit by Republican policies and remind himself who
he's in this race to help.
On the other hand, it's ridiculous to think that any of the above
makes McCain a credible alternative. I'll take a stumbling Obama over
the guy who
1) can't keep Sunnis and Shi'ites straight,
2) has no intention of making any serious adjustments to Bush's
foreign policy and conduct of the Iraq War,
3) doesn't seem to understand that our support of Perez Musharref in
Pakistan was completely devastating and that a massive diplomatic as
well as military adjustment is needed in Afghanistan,
4) who, by proposing off-shore drilling, has demonstrated that he
either does not understand why gas is expensive, or even worse,
doesn't care because he'd rather implement policies that fool the
American people rather than help them, and
5) who, by the way, is very very wrong on abortion, taxes on the
highest tax bracket, the role of the Supreme Court, the balance of
powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches and on
America's role in the United Nations.
Just some thoughts.
Scott
Randy Cresap
possible." Every successful candidate has to make concessions in
order to be electable, particularly on low-priority issues.
1) I don't buy his corn ethanol argument, and think that it's more or
less a handout to the midwest, but I can chalk that up to his need to
win Iowa to get the campaign started. His campaign would have been
dead in the water if he hadn't supported corn ethanol. So his
support of it is a given fact that it's pointless to worry about.
His argument about corn ethanol being a transitional fuel -- until
other ethanols are available -- is a valid argument, even if I think
it's total bunk. The US doesn't produce enough sugar to make sugar
ethanol. The additional price pressure of ethanol refining would
raise domestically produced sugar prices so high that it'd put local
growers out of business in the face of imported sugar. It happened in
Louisiana in the 70's-early 80's.
2) On FISA, Obama is a legislator. You have to accept compromise to
get a bill passed, and one amendment to a bill that you largely
support doesn't mean you support the amendment. Obama could not vote
against the bill b/c all during the general election, people would be
painting him as weak on security who doesn't want ANY surveillance of
terrorists, even with the judicial review. The retroactive immunity
fight for telecoms is symbolic only. As I understand it, it doesn't
involve prospective immunity. The immunity provision is more
important than the rest of the bill only in the national media b/c
it's a sexy story that the democrats have played up to highlight how
much the neocons have ignored constitutional rights.
3) On NAFTA, the issue itself is both very divisive and unclear. He's
smart not to take a firm position because it would only alienate half
the voters.
4) The death penalty? the president has absolutely nothing to do with
the death penalty. Nothing at all.
5) The attack-first, ideas-later philosophy I don't like, but we're
also in a 2-3 month dead period before the convention. Obama can't go
out setting forth all these positions that will give the Republicans
months to attack him on - he has to keep his head low, not say much,
and avoid taking a position. Ideas will come at the debates and
post-convention runup to the election. Frankly, between Democrats and
Republicans, ideas can only hurt. He's ahead, people hate Bush and
are ready for change -- if the election becomes solely about ideas,
he's in trouble. The current aggressiveness is there b/c of the
timing, and also b/c McCain's best argument is to paint Obama an
idealistic "wimp," particularly after the CLinton campaign. The only
way to avoid being typecast is to be mean for a little while.
6) Once again, on energy, why put something out that people can attack
if it can only hurt you at this point?
It's a long time until the election. Obama, who is in the lead, is
just trying to get to the fall without losing it. That's just smart
politics. It's no ivory tower. What's important is not any single
issue, but the totality of issues.
Erik Miller
get a bill passed, and one amendment to a bill that you largely
support doesn't mean you support the amendment. Obama could not vote
against the bill b/c all during the general election, people would be
painting him as weak on security who doesn't want ANY surveillance of
terrorists, even with the judicial review. The retroactive immunity
fight for telecoms is symbolic only. As I understand it, it doesn't
involve prospective immunity. The immunity provision is more
important than the rest of the bill only in the national media b/c
it's a sexy story that the democrats have played up to highlight how
much the neocons have ignored constitutional rights.
Retroactive immunity is VERY important in this case. Should Congress grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms, it would set a precedent that the president has the ability to write "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. If businesses receive an order from a law enforcement agency that looks questionable, they should be demanding to see some sort of warrant or court order before carrying it out.
If the FBI or IRS calls up my bank and says to freeze and liquidate my account, I want the bank's reaction to be: "Show us the court order so this guy doesn't sue us into oblivion," rather than "OK, we'll get immunity anyway so don't mess with the FBI." The Executive Branch of our government has to follow the rules of the law, it doesn't get to set them. Holding everyone involved, including the businesses that failed to stand up for their customers, accountable for this debacle is much more than symbolic.
Neither McCain nor Obama has impressed me much on this issue, but I object to the idea that this fight is only symbolic,
Erik
Randy Cresap
fact that it is necessary to retroactively legislate immunity implies
that there's no immunity for that conduct going forward. Every
corporate lawyer for a telecom will be requiring the warrant from now
on. Whether or not telecoms can be sued is more about highlighting
the moral stigma on those companies than anything else -- and I doubt
that any court decision is going to make people change their minds
about what they already think about the telecoms. And I just don't
see telecoms doing risky things on the fractional chance that there
will be a legislative immunity bill in the future covering their
present conduct since this issue surfaced, when they can safely avoid
liability by demanding a warrant.
In another setting I'd like for the telecoms to be tagged, and maybe
I'd file suit myself, but unfortunately it's not worth the political
cost given the little there is to gain.
Brandon Downey
the Bush administration) are brought to justice would be great, but
unfortunately I can't say that a rational political calculus would
favor that over everything else, particularly when portions of the
Democratic party have been bought and paid for by the big telcos.
I agree with Erik though, but for a different reason. Obama was on the
cusp of creating a new narrative in American politics. It goes
something like this:
"We are stronger _and more secure_ as a nation when we are a nation of
laws, that protects the rights of both our citizens and its enemies.
Doing less is not what America is about."
We saw the beginnings of this narrative in Obama's speeches on
Guantanamo, and then again when he came out in favor of the Supreme
Court's defense of habeas corpus for Guantanamo inmates. It's an
exciting narrative, because it rejects the dichotomy of 'Your security
or your freedom: pick one' that the Republicans *and* the Democrats
have bought into. Instead, we heard that granting more FISA powers
(which this bill allows for) was somehow 'necessary for national
security', and that it was worth sacrificing even the dregs of justice
for the illegal wiretapping of the Bush administration for. And, most
tellingly, we got 'Just trust that I will put in place checks when I
become President' as a lame excuse for this stance.
I'm a realist -- I'm still excited by Obama's chances when it comes to
ending the Iraq war, and fundamentally reforming our crazy broken
foreign policy, but his stance on FISA was (I think) neither the
correct stance, nor the most politically advantageous one.
Randy Cresap
going to pass with or without his vote, the only smart thing to do was
to make it a non-issue for the fall election, particularly since it's
such a tough issue few as would argue that some wiretapping powers are
necessary, but the argument is rather about the types of checks on the
gov't power. I always get upset at republicans who attach amendments
to troop funding bills that ensure their defeat by democrats just so
they can say "the democrats voted against giving our troops body
armor" -- this is the same kind of thing with the FISA bill, in my
view, and Obama isn't playing that "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" game.
I'd say Obama's trying to walk the fine line between playing the game
and being the game (as some would argue Clinton was doing). I think
he gets out of the FISA vote with his fundamental vision of the US
intact, and the disagreement is over the mechanics of the politics of
how to create that vision, and not the authenticity of that vision.
Some may disagree and feel like he's becoming a Clintonesque "anything
to win" candidate. I am actually heartened, since he's proving to be
a skilled politician as well as an inspiring idealist, and he's
showing the savvy necessary to beat McCain.
The fact is, that no legislation or practical political position
pleases everyone. Simply by making a vote you're making everyone
upset about something, since every piece of legislation is a
compromise with pluses and minuses. That's why legislators never get
elected president -- because no effective legislator can be completely
consistent with his or her ideals. If they are, they're no better
than PR stuntmen, accomplishing little in fact, but getting in the
news solely to register their opinions.
Just my 2 cents.
Chris Macaluso
love,
mac
Why should Gulf Coast bear oil-drilling burden, risk?
By FRANCES COLEMAN
Published on: 07/03/08 Mobile — I haven't got anything against the residents of Florida and California. They seem like friendly folks.
But as a resident of the central Gulf Coast, I have to ask: Where do they get off insisting that their beaches should be protected from the evils of oil and gas drilling and production?
 |
| Frances Coleman is editorial page editor of The Press-Register of Mobile. |
The rigs provide jobs, tax revenue and assorted other economic activity in the four states. And, of course, they provide oil and gas for the whole country.
In fact, the federal Minerals Management Service says the Gulf of Mexico accounts for about 25 percent of domestic crude oil production and about 15 percent of the nation's natural gas output.
Imagine what a pickle the United States would be in if it weren't for all that drilling. Four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline would sound like a bargain.
Alabama has been well-acquainted with offshore drilling since the late 1970s, when energy companies began tapping natural gas reserves in waters near Gulf Shores and historic Fort Morgan. During those 30 years or so, there have been no major accidents associated with the drilling operations — no lives lost, no beaches despoiled, no tourism industry damaged.
Accidents are always possible, however. Drilling is a dangerous and environmentally challenging business.
We on the Gulf Coast don't like to think about rig or refinery explosions, pipeline leaks or oily beaches, but we understand that even with the best safety measures in place, such things could happen.
What we don't understand is why we are expected to shoulder all the environmental and economic risks of exploration and production, while other coastal states — California, Florida and the entire Eastern Seaboard — get to say "no, thank you" to offshore drilling.
They are supported by a federal moratorium that dates back to 1981, when lawmakers from the East and West Coasts rallied to protect their pristine beaches, delicate wetlands and prized wildlife.
Nobody rallied to halt or lessen the amount of drilling off the Gulf Coast. Are our beaches, wetlands and wildlife somehow less pristine, less delicate, less to be prized?
Where's our guarantee of an uncluttered view of the horizon?
There isn't one. From numerous vantage points, Gulf Coast tourists and residents can see drilling rigs in the distance. God forbid that somebody in Palm Beach or San Francisco would have to endure a similar sight.
Funny how people in other coastal states don't mind using the refined products generated by Gulf of Mexico exploration: gasoline, home heating oil, diesel fuel, plastics, fertilizer, even women's pantyhose.
I guess if you don't have to look at rigs and platforms or run the risk of an environmentally destructive accident, then you don't have to worry about what might happen down on the Gulf Coast. It's not your shoreline, wetlands or tourism industry at stake if something goes wrong.
I might sound like a stereotypical dumb redneck if I were to suggest that the states that won't share the risks associated with offshore drilling shouldn't share in the rewards of oil and gas production.
So I won't suggest it.
But do pardon me if I can't help but take a teensy bit of pleasure at the sight of Floridians and Californians coming to grips with the fact that the Gulf of Mexico can't produce enough oil and natural gas to keep fuel prices low enough to suit them.
As we in the coastal South like to say when hard times befall other folks, bless their hearts.
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:04:13 -0500
> From: rtcr...@gmail.com
> To: hol...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Holiday's] Re: Why he won't get my vote....