Best McCain ad yet

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Like I already said. I don't think that the party has demonized gay people or abortion supporters. Some members certainly have, but the majority have not. Surely you can find someone somewhere that said something negative. At large, no they have not. They have said that they don't believe the behavior is right, but that's a far cry from party leaders calling gays "fags" as you call them, or abortionists "murderers". Maybe the kooks who hang out at clinics do, but those are our versions of the dems who lay down in front of convoys blocking supplies that throw feces at returning soldiers. Neither behavior is correct.

The R deliberately brough the marriage issue into the public discourse because they knew it would fire up the religious crazies. If you chose to call that anything other than demonizing one group for political gain, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd likely buy -- are you really that naive or blind to these tactics?

Again, this is party that has fought to keep laws on the books that would put people in prison for private sexual activity. Yet, you made excuses for that as well.

But, if you want to blindly support that by wishing on a some star that it is not what is going on or somehow attempting to negate the actual activity by noting it was not as extreme as the most extreme activity, then you go right on ahead with that delusion. Just don't don't try to sell that BS around here.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Groan! How many independant recounts has Bush won now? Last count was about 3.

In the recounts, he actually won by a larger margin.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/me...count_4-3.html

There are also similar stories in the NY Times.

Anyway, the court just decided that a third recount would have done irreparable harm to the Bush campaign. Also, Gore lost the previous two recounts . . . .

Once again and pay attention this time -- no one is talking about the recounts immediately after the election. They are talking about the state wide recount done much later. Please see the 100 other arguments about this for reference

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again and pay attention this time -- no one is talking about the recounts immediately after the election. They are talking about the state wide recount done much later. Please see the 100 other arguments about this for reference

Bub, YOU weren't paying attention. The other arguments were from left wing conspiracy sites. Why bother? I am talking about the same recount, bozo!
Here's another few articles for you to not read. This is a state recount after the election. It still shows Bush won, even if a hand recount had been conducted as Gore was asking.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A9679C8B63

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a36841071.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312100915.asp

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/foo...rald_ap_1.html Here's one that argues the other side, but it's all, "I feel like there were more votes" with no proof.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...01/ai_n8933254

[strandinthewind]

I am talking about the Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes," which proves Gore won under any standard.

Here is a bunch of info. on it http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Note - I use that cite because the info is conolidated there.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am talking about the Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes," which proves Gore won under any standard.

Here is a bunch of info. on it http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Note - I use that cite because the info is conolidated there.

Funny how this site seems to know more about the results of the consortium recount STUDY (it was a study of the recounts, not an actual recount) than the papers who reported their own results. Again, if you look at the other crap on this site, it is twisting news stories and it presents conspiracy theories.

[strandinthewind]

Paris responds

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Paris responds

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!

I did see that, but again..... Drilling had been proposed from the mid-1990's on by Republicans and it was shot down by democrats every single time. So, what's your point? That the democrats were stupid and didn't allow drilling so we have high gas prices? We'd still be at under $2.00 a gallon and not dependant on the middle east if it weren't for your party.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I did see that, but again..... Drilling had been proposed from the mid-1990's on by Republicans and it was shot down by democrats every single time. So, what's your point? That the democrats were stupid and didn't allow drilling so we have high gas prices? We'd still be at under $2.00 a gallon and not dependant on the middle east if it weren't for your party.

How exactly did you derive the $2.00 a gallon figure when, again, the R Dept. of Energy said, at most, the effect of extracting the US' oil and refining it into gasoline would be at $0.10 a gallon and it would take 20 years to get that benefit, regardless of whether we drill now or drilled then. Do you refute this fact or are you deliberately ignoring it by trying to say (with no logical basis) that D's are responsible for $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon gas now? What facts support you in any way given the Bush Administration's $0.10 figure?

Of course, you do not seem to mind that the R party routinely deceives the American public be implying immediate benefit from drilling in the US, when no facts support that case. In fact, you have repeatedlty perpetuated that lie here.

It seems to me that if getting off of our dep. on foreign oil was truly your desire, then you'd be for alternate fuels, like wind power. Anectdotal evidence demonstrates that can work because:

1. It is working;

2. It is far cheaper than oil exploration and refinement;

3. The supply is limitless, and;

4. It would create many new jobs to implement and maintain.

Where is the losing side of this proposition?

Once again, I say take all the oil out of the earth now, today. The sooner we do that the sooner we are rid of the blight of the oil lobby.

In any event, from now on, when you raise this assinine and incorrect "drilling now will reduce gas prices" argument, I will direct you to this and the like 500 other threads where you were proven wrong but just can't seem to face the facts and admit it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

All this means is that he says one thing one place and another one somewhere else. I never said he was consistent. In fact, I've said that he changes his view depending on who he is talking to and what time of day it is. Clearly his view has not been consistent. If you ask your average Obama parishioner or Obama worshipper, you will hear that they believe he will pull the troops out. Don't you recall his promise to do it within 18 months, when the generals were advising against it? Your statement is laughable.

No.

I asked you to support that Obama has said the 18 month time line was absolute, etc. You cited that speech. That speech does not support that. Again, and for the last time as this post will be referred to in future rebuttals - Obama has consistently said the safety of the troops comes first and superceded their withdrawal. Once again, if you evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Gay people currently have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. I can't marry a guy either. LOL! I don't care why a lot of Republican's did that. I didn't support it then and I don't support it now. I already said I agreed with you on the gay marriage issue. There is no reason to bring it up. I'm sure you don't agree with the dems on some issues too. Just because I don't agree with the party on gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly switch parties. It isn't a big deal to me.

LOL - you have gone from the R's would never do that and did not do that to "I don't care why a lot of Republican's did that."

And, it is not a big deal to you because your rights are safe and you are not being shunned based solely on a religious ideal, an act prohibited by the First Amendment of the US Const. and the Const.'s of every state.

Here is a cool quote demonstrating the framer's intent on religion and govt. mixing:

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed (emphasis supplied):

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Sounds to me like Thomas Jefferson likely would be appalled by the R's religious stance

[strandinthewind]

McCain's response to the Paris Hilton video:

“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
___________________________

Of course, once again McCain distorts the truth my inaccurately quoting the source.

Hilton said (emphasis supplied) :

“We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!”

That is not the same as what McCain is for, which is unlimited drilling http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm

Also - McCain's site implies Obama's tire pressure suggestion to save gas is inaccurate. Once again, McCain's innuendo is misleading and false as this article explains (emphasis supplied) :

Monday, Aug. 04, 2008

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

By Michael Grunwald

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...829354,00.html

_______________________________________

Again, if it works, why would the R party and its mouthpieces lambaste it as laughable. It would save more fuel than drilling for untapped American oil could possibly provide. This is a page directly out of Rove's "repeat the lie until people believe it" playbook.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Paris responds

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!

Best political ad ever.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

McCain's response to the Paris Hilton video:

“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
___________________________

Of course, once again McCain distorts the truth my inaccurately quoting the source.

Hilton said (emphasis supplied) :

“We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!”

That is not the same as what McCain is for, which is unlimited drilling http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm

Also - McCain's site implies Obama's tire pressure suggestion to save gas is inaccurate. Once again, McCain's innuendo is misleading and false as this article explains (emphasis supplied) :

Monday, Aug. 04, 2008

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

By Michael Grunwald

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...829354,00.html

_______________________________________

Again, if it works, why would the R party and its mouthpieces lambaste it as laughable. It would save more fuel than drilling for untapped American oil could possibly provide. This is a page directly out of Rove's "repeat the lie until people believe it" playbook.

Again, Strand, you are quoting a source without reading it. McCain has always supported Cap and Trade, which IS limited drilling by definition. Hilton's plan is much the same as McCain's, which is go for everything all at once. No one said the tire guage plan doesn't work, but it won't save us the 3-4% Obama is saying. That would only be the case if EVERYONE's tires were underinflated. Most people either have newer tires that don't need inflation or they inflate them regularly. Doing that saves as much as 3 or 4 mpg, which is not the same as 3-4%, unless we're still ALL driving cars that get 10 mpg. Basic math here.

Also, reducing urban sprawl is part of why we have the housing mess. More houses means cheaper houses, simple supply and demand here. The average wage is $47,000.00 and the average home prices is $380,000.00, hardly tenable. People were stretching themselves ridiculously thin to buy homes, then when their cheap rates expired, they couldn't afford them. Again, your DNC policy of no expansion will lead to further problems. We forget that major national problems start locally with local regulation. We have urban sprawl regulation here in Washington, which is why only the richest can afford homes near cities. The same house near seattle goes for $600,000.00 or more (I mean a 3 bedroom rambler) that you could buy in Houston for less than 100K. I'm currently buying a house an hour outside seattle and it is still $311,000.00 for a house I could buy in Texas for $125,000.00.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Again, Strand, you are quoting a source without reading it. McCain has always supported Cap and Trade, which IS limited drilling by definition. Hilton's plan is much the same as McCain's, which is go for everything all at once.

McCain's plan says (emphasis supplied) :

Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm

I do not see any limits in the phrase "John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use" or anywhere in that paragraph.

Moreover, his statement "[t]here is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities" is 100% against the DOE's report for a possible 10% 20 years from now. Moreover, it completely ignores the wind power used in much of the country, which is working and vastly cheaper and more sustainable.

Why doesn't McCain embrace that idea? Instead, he touts nuclear energy, which, though clean as far as production, has the possibility for terrorist attacks, which would contaminate huge areas whereas knocking down a wind machine might kill something on the ground in the immediate area

As for the cap and trade, McCain says this (emphasis original) :

Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?

A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap-And-Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" - financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture - to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time

.

I am unsure how that plan is "limited drilling by definition," esp. given the fact that he says on the same page that "The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." But, I agree that eventually, it will reduce drilling assuming the alt. stuff takes over. But, that is different than Hilton's statement "[w]e can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!"

Therefore, McCain's statement that Hilton adopted his plan is untrue and misleading.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

No one said the tire guage plan doesn't work . . . .

Under the "Obama Tire Gauge" link on http://www.johnmccain.com/ -- the following picture appears



res ipsa loquitor

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

but it won't save us the 3-4% Obama is saying. That would only be the case if EVERYONE's tires were underinflated. Most people either have newer tires that don't need inflation or they inflate them regularly. Doing that saves as much as 3 or 4 mpg, which is not the same as 3-4%, unless we're still ALL driving cars that get 10 mpg. Basic math here. .

No, that is not what most experts say, including, once again, W's Department. of Energy, which estimated that drivers can improve gas mileage by as much as 3.3 percent by keeping car tires property inflated. The agency also says the impact would be immediate, resulting in savings of as much as 12 cents per gallon. New oil drilling could also lower gas prices, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts it would take seven to 10 years to get new oil out of the ground. Moreover, according to W's Department of Energy, "every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S." Survey information from W's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tires.

Other voices supporting the tire gauge idea:

-- Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Connecticut, who in 2001 argued against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying that "increasing the fuel efficiency of replacement tires for our cars to the same level as those sold on new automobiles will save drivers $90 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the tires and will save the U.S. more than 70 times the amount of oil we might find in the refuge.'"

-- Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made a public appeal to state residents to take steps to keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated to maximize energy efficiency. "We all do have the power. Let's not wait for government," Schwarzenegger said. "Energy prices are not going back to the good old days."

Here are some blurbs on how the tire pressure thing works:

The majority of US drivers do not consistently monitor the tire pressures in their vehicles. The 2000 TREAD Act, which requires automakers to gradually provide tire pressure monitoring systems for vehicles sold in the US will correct this problem for new vehicles. This law does not impact the problem in previously deployed vehicles, which have a turnover time of 20 years. A solution is provided here to address under-inflated tires on the current 220 million vehicles and the concomitant wasted energy due to increased rolling resistance in the US automobile fleet. This communication reports on a preliminary study of tire pressures in randomly chosen vehicles, which were undergoing oil changes at a combined retail/auto-care facility. The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d07e195e91c93a

With gas prices now hovering around $3, smart drivers care. Savvy consumers are seeking to increase fuel economy and the life of their tires by paying more attention to those rubber objects that are attached to their vehicle . . . .

Nearly ninety percent of drivers don't check their tire inflation properly. However, this percentage is starting to drop as gas prices underinflate consumer pocketbooks.

With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.

http://www.nascar.com/2006/auto/07/25/tires/ (and NASCAR are screaming liberals )

So, I say why not embrace the idea instead of mocking it

Also, why insinuate that the tire gauge is the only plan Obama has, when that is untrue as noted here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

I am unsure how you actually can bring yourself to defend McCain on this issue.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Also, reducing urban sprawl is part of why we have the housing mess. More houses means cheaper houses, simple supply and demand here. The average wage is $47,000.00 and the average home prices is $380,000.00, hardly tenable. People were stretching themselves ridiculously thin to buy homes, then when their cheap rates expired, they couldn't afford them. Again, your DNC policy of no expansion will lead to further problems. We forget that major national problems start locally with local regulation. We have urban sprawl regulation here in Washington, which is why only the richest can afford homes near cities. The same house near seattle goes for $600,000.00 or more (I mean a 3 bedroom rambler) that you could buy in Houston for less than 100K. I'm currently buying a house an hour outside seattle and it is still $311,000.00 for a house I could buy in Texas for $125,000.00.

I am unsure why you are bringing this up. I did not see anywhere where Obama said bedroom communities had to cease to exist But, i agree, poor urban planning at the local level has caused a serious strain on oil consumption. The Fed. Govt. could help more with that by providing greater incentives to bring public transportation out to the burbs. Sadly, the people in the burbs do not want it because they think, understandably in some instances, that crime will increase.

Also and as an interesting aside, the Bush Admin. and Sen. McCain have known for years about the housing bubble and absolutely nothing about it They couldn't because that drive the economy and helped secure the financing for W's insane spending and bloodthirst for war.

[strandinthewind]

I get that this is an opinion, but I agree with what she says in that McCain has chosen to take the low road - a pity if you ask me:

August 6, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

McCain’s Green-Eyed Monster


By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Not since Iago and Othello obsessed on the comely Cassio, not since Richard of Gloucester killed his two nephews, not since Nixon and Johnson glowered at the glittering J.F.K., has there been such an unseemly outpouring of boy envy.

Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have all been crazed with envy over the ascendance of the new “It” guy, Barack Obama.

Unlike his wife, Bill Clinton — the master of fake sincerity — still continues to openly begrudge his party’s betrothed.

Asked by Kate Snow of ABC News in Africa whether Obama was ready to be president, Clinton gave a classic Clintonian answer: “You could argue that no one’s ever ready to be president.”

As always, the Big Dog was more concerned with himself — asserting that he’s not a racist — than his party. Bill Clinton is not a racist. We can posit that. But he did play subtle racial politics in the primary. It’s way past time for him to accept the fact that there’s a new wunderkind in town.

Just as Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion, so does Jesse Jackson. As Shelby Steele wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Jackson and his generation of civil rights leaders “made keeping whites ‘on the hook’ the most sacred article of the post-’60s black identity,” equality pursued by manipulating white guilt.

Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Even his own mother, the magical 96-year-old Roberta McCain, let slip that she thought the Paris Hilton-Britney Spears ad was “kinda stupid.”

McCain’s 2000 strategist, John Weaver, was equally blunt with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter: “It’s hard to imagine America responding to ‘small ball’ when we have all these problems.”

Some of McCain’s old pals in the Senate are cringing at what they see as his soulless transformation into what he once scorned.

“John’s eaten up with envy,” said one. “His image of himself was always the handsome, celebrity flyboy.

“Now somebody else is the celebrity,” the colleague continued, while John looks in the mirror and sees his face marred by skin cancer and looks at the TV and sees his dashing self-image replaced by visions of William Frawley, with Letterman jokes about his membership in the ham radio club and adventures with wagon trains.

For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool. Now the guy in the back of the class is shooting spitballs at the class pet and is coming off as more juvenile than daring.

Around the McCain campaign, they grouse that Obama “hasn’t bled.” He hasn’t bled literally, in military service, just like W., the last holder of an E-ZPass who sped past McCain. And he hasn’t paid his dues in the Senate, since he basically just stopped by for directions to the Oval Office.

As a new senator, Obama was not only precocious enough to pounce on turf that McCain had invested years in, such as campaign finance lobbying, ethics reform and earmarks. When Obama did reach across the aisle for a mentor, it was to the staid Richard Lugar of Indiana, not to the salty Republican of choice for Democrats, McCain.

When the Illinois freshman took back a private promise to join McCain’s campaign finance reform effort, McCain told his aide Mark Salter to “brush him back.” Salter sent an over-the-top vituperative letter to Obama. “I guess I beaned him instead,” Salter told Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.

McCain could dismiss W. as a lightweight, but he knows Obama’s smart. Obama wrote his own books, while McCain’s were written by Salter. McCain knows he’s the affirmative action scion of admirals who might not have gotten through Annapolis without being a legacy. Obama didn’t even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application.

McCain upbraids Obama for being a poppet, while he’s becoming a puppet. His mouth is moving but the words coming out belong to his new hard-boiled strategist, Steve Schmidt, a Rove protégé, nicknamed “The Bullet” for his bald pate.

Schmidt has turned Mr. Straight Talk into Mr. Desperate Straits. It’s not a good trade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/op...hp&oref=slogin