Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't want a Candidate that has a hard and fast plan before are even elected to the office. I want a candidate that will take the office, and use the additional Top Secret information, that only the executive branch and intelligence agencies are privy to, to re-evaluate our current energy plan, and apply the necessary resources to fix it.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama is capable of that. I'm not sure McCain is either, but he does seem like he would have the best chance to stave off economic collapse.

Really? McCain seems best suited for that? To a great extent the candidates have to show their hand in terms of how they plan to deal with the current economic woes. That's all the voters really have to go; the candidate's promises. And while they are all privy to top secret information, if what they've revealed thus far is an indicator of how they plan to deal with the economy, I would simply beg to differ on your statement about John McCain.

[12thMan]

Just to be clear, GTripp, I'm in no way trying to spark a debate over whether or not John McCain is good candidate, because I think he is. I just have my doubts about whether he can right the ship and get us back on track. Personally, I think he's a good man.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't want a Candidate that has a hard and fast plan before are even elected to the office. I want a candidate that will take the office, and use the additional Top Secret information, that only the executive branch and intelligence agencies are privy to, to re-evaluate our current energy plan, and apply the necessary resources to fix it.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama is capable of that. I'm not sure McCain is either, but he does seem like he would have the best chance to stave off economic collapse.

Like 12th, I like McCain and will likely vote for him if Hillary somehow secures the nomination. But, I'm not sure that the economy is McCain's strong suit. McCain admitted as much. Moreover, during the debates, McCain often skirted questions about the economy and managed to turn them into how he supported the surge. I'd say McCain's ability to stave off economic collapse largely rests on the competence of his economic advisors.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Really? McCain seems best suited for that? To a great extent the candidates have to show their hand in terms of how they plan to deal with the current economic woes. That's all the voters really have to go; the candidate's promises. And while they are all privy to top secret information, if what they've revealed thus far is an indicator of how they plan to deal with the economy, I would simply beg to differ on your statement about John McCain.

Inherith lies the problem. Campaign promises are made on a hypothetical scale based on a lack of information (because as Senators, they aren't necessarily privy to the Top Secret level of information, stuff that could ultimately make or break any plan), and therefore are really not meant to be kept. I don't believe them to be an indicator of anything, and if they are, I would probably vote against all those plans.

The problem is that the voters aren't electing a set of issues, they are electing a man (or woman).

My personal intuition believes that McCain's experience and relatively bipartisan voting record gives him an advantage over the other two, but again, it's really just my intuition...and I of course have no facts to defend that with.

I think you did hit the problem on the head, is that, these Campaign Promises are all the voters have to work with when deciding who to align with, and that really isn't worth anything at all. Ultimately, when voting, we are pledging semi-blind alligence to our candidate. I know some Bush voters feel spurned by their allegiance to him, as is reflected in his approval rating, but that doesn't mean they voted stupid, it means they picked what seemed like the better candidate at the time--which in no way assures a positive result.

You can look at their voting record, but once a person is elected to the presidency, it seems like a lot of their beliefs change. Bush, for example, certainly adopted policies that were more to the left of traditional conservative once in office, and he beat McCain in the 2000 primaries because he ran as the more conservative of the two candidates.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'd say McCain's ability to stave off economic collapse largely rests on the competence of his economic advisors.

This is certainly true, and I believe it's an underpublicized point. However, I would argue it's the same way for either of the Democratic Candidates also.

Side point: I do think a lot of people though a lumping McCain in with the far right who prefer to be blissfully ignorant to environmental issues. McCain has drawn the ire of these people because he understands those issues as well as anyone, and disagrees with them on politics of the sort.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Inherith lies the problem. Campaign promises are made on a hypothetical scale based on a lack of information (because as Senators, they aren't necessarily privy to the Top Secret level of information, stuff that could ultimately make or break any plan), and therefore are really not meant to be kept. I don't believe them to be an indicator of anything, and if they are, I would probably vote against all those plans.

The problem is that the voters aren't electing a set of issues, they are electing a man (or woman).

My personal intuition believes that McCain's experience and relatively bipartisan voting record gives him an advantage over the other two, but again, it's really just my intuition...and I of course have no facts to defend that with.

I think you did hit the problem on the head, is that, these Campaign Promises are all the voters have to work with when deciding who to align with, and that really isn't worth anything at all. Ultimately, when voting, we are pledging semi-blind alligence to our candidate. I know some Bush voters feel spurned by their allegiance to him, as is reflected in his approval rating, but that doesn't mean they voted stupid, it means they picked what seemed like the better candidate at the time--which in no way assures a positive result.

You can look at their voting record, but once a person is elected to the presidency, it seems like a lot of their beliefs change. Bush, for example, certainly adopted policies that were more to the left of traditional conservative once in office, and he beat McCain in the 2000 primaries because he ran as the more conservative of the two candidates.

Well, honestly I don't know what level of Top Secret information one needs or is even privy to regarding domestic economic issues. It's no secret we're teetering on the brink of an economic recession. It's no secret that foreclosures are as high as they've been in recent years. Every time the Fed cuts rates, it chips away at the value of our beloved dollar. There's no end in sight to the current credit crisis, and prices of every day needs are rising. It's no secret that umployment just hit a 5 year high. This is very common information.

I'll take it a step further, in terms of secret information, all three candidates sit on various Senate Committees, which no doubt provide them great insight as to what's ailing the nation, but at the end of the day it's what they do with that available information is what will make the the difference. I would say the only area where "secret information" is THAT valuable is shaping foreign policy, and I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here.

In terms of McCain's voting record, again I beg to slighly differ. I don't think people will look at his voting record as that much of an indicator. Simply because he's changed his tone on a few issues since he ran the first time. Since then, many, even in his own party have aligned him with Bush's policies. But as it was mentioned in another thread (I forgot by whom), McCain has been in the Senate for so long, it's really unfair to nit-pick his voting record and come to any reasonble concuclusion about whether he's a viable candidate or not. Often times, in politics, your opponents use your voting record against you as a tool to make you look bad rather than what you are actually good at.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Yeah i've heard stuff like that and I am really in no position to judge when oil production will peak. I just think it makes more sense to start preparing for it now, if for no other reason then to put America in a position to technologically dominate the next century the way it did the last.

That is the kind of forward-thinking/leadership this country needs!!! I can't see fossil fuels being the "energy of the future" either and totally wish we could get ahead of the curve in the energy sector.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't know if it's a Democratic thing...or even a Republican for that matter. But I'll say for one, and take this how you want, but our occupation in Iraq has most definitely played a role in the price of oil and it's trickle down affect on gas prices.

I wasn't saying it was either, but with all of the "Rich Oil-thirsty Republicans" and "War for Oil" statements that fly around...thought it would be fun to point that out.

[70Chip]

Hillary's energy seems to be very negative. I can't get a good read on BHO's energy because the dark side of the force is casting a shroud over everything.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Hillary's energy seems to be very negative. I can't get a good read on BHO's energy because the dark side of the force is casting a shroud over everything.

I noticed you had posted something and thought, okay, here come's a deep one. Nice job

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I noticed you had posted something and thought, okay, here come's a deep one. Nice job

Deep like Thomas Carlyle deep? Or deep as in "Watch your step!"?