McCain is blowing his election chances.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

As for pre-existing houses, offering a tax credit is a great way to spur investment. And even without a tax credit, an investment of 30-40k will get one 90% off of the electric grid and pay itself off within a decade, after which you enjoy super-cheap energy and independence for a lifetime.

You and others have complained about people losing their homes, jobs, insurance, etc.
Now you want them to spend 30-40k more on solar power?
How do you propose they do that?

Is your objection going to be this stupid in every conversation we have, MM? Obviously not everyone can afford to do this, but you don't NEED everyone to do it all at once in order to start making a difference.

As I said, tax credits can lower the cost of the initial investment significantly. Also, you don't have to spend that money all at once; you could do 3-5k of work per year for a few years, reap partial benefits and the cost will drop the whole time.

Please think for one second about what my answer is going to be before you post. Nothing I've written here is complicated or revolutionary, you know that!

Cycloptichorn

on this issue anyway, I find myself in total agreement with Cyclo. to revert to a cliche.... a journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.

Quote:

It's an economy which is not based upon oil, but upon domestic energy production from renewable sources. We achieve that by spending the money to make it happen, instead of frittering it away on wars over oil.

Cycloptichorn

Not based on oil?
So you are going to ground all jet aircraft, stopping all commercial air traffic?
You are going to stop making plastics, because they are a petroleum product

And exactly what are those renewable sources?
Wind?
Solar?
Nuclear?
hydroelectric?

Lets start with wind.
How and where are you going to build wind farms large enough to power a city the size of LA?

Solar?
OK, that might work, IF someone wants to go to the expense of adding solar panels to their house.
Is Obama going to force people to do that?

Nuclear?
I support that, but where are you going to build the new plants required?
What are you going to do with the waste?

Hydroelectric?
OK, but where are you going to build the new dams?
How are you going to deal with the environmental wacko's that would oppose it?

Jesus H. Christ!

"Switching away from oil will be hard. So let's not even contemplate it, mkay?"

That's the American spirit. Yessiree.

That was a good post, McG. I haven't really been following the campaigns recently but I do think that McCain was most definitely the best possible candidate the Republicans could have fielded this year for all the reasons you mention. Yet it does look like he has management issues.

I was thinking the other day that I could live with McCain if Obama doesn't win, and I still feel that way. Either would be a step in the right direction. Yet I definitely see what you're saying about McCain shooting himself in the foot with the way he runs his campaign. I had thought that I was in the minority of people who look at the way a candidate runs his/her campaign as an indicator of how they will run the government, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I think it's still close due mostly to McCains reoutation, not his campaign. It's that strength he needs to base his campaign on. Trying to tear down Obama will not win it for him.

So what? We can deal with the current problems just fine. What we should really be focusing on is solving tommorrow's problems before they happen.

Noone is going to suffer horribly from having to pay a realistic price for oil.... today. But if we spend the next ten years focusing on 'solving our current problems,' then we will still have the same problems then we do today...

DrewDad wrote:

Jesus H. Christ!

"Switching away from oil will be hard. So let's not even contemplate it, mkay?"

That's the American spirit. Yessiree.

No one made that claim. I believe that claim being made is that the government should pay for it... hardly the American spirit of rolling up ones sleeves and doing for oneself.

Believe it or not, but the government's been involved in some pretty impressive engineering projects. They include the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and don't even get me started on how much quality of life has improved because of the space program.

If the American people really had the will, we could be energy independent in short order.

Now that energy prices are hitting everyone in the pocket book, I expect we'll see some serious suggestions.

DrewDad wrote:

Jesus H. Christ!

"Switching away from oil will be hard. So let's not even contemplate it, mkay?"

That's the American spirit. Yessiree.

No one made that claim. I believe that claim being made is that the government should pay for it... hardly the American spirit of rolling up ones sleeves and doing for oneself.

But according to the poster I quoted, noone is suffering because of the cost of oil and gas now.

DrewDad wrote:

Believe it or not, but the government's been involved in some pretty impressive engineering projects. They include the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and don't even get me started on how much quality of life has improved because of the space program.

If the American people really had the will, we could be energy independent in short order.

Now that energy prices are hitting everyone in the pocket book, I expect we'll see some serious suggestions.

But according to the poster I quoted, noone is suffering because of the cost of oil and gas now.

If only we had a thread about this topic we could get back to the dismal McCain campaign.

Oh, wait! We do have one! How fortunate.

John Weaver, for years one of John McCain's closest friends and confidants, has been in exile since his resignation from McCain's presidential campaign last year. With the exception of an occasional interview, he has, by his own account, bit his tongue as McCain's campaign has adopted a strategy that Weaver believes "diminishes John McCain."

With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had "enough."

The ad's premise, he said, is "childish."

"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags."

Weaver remains in contact with senior McCain strategists and, for a while early this year, regularly talked to McCain.

The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives "reduces McCain on the stage," Weaver said.

"For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness."

He added: "There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."

On a conference call with reporters, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said the ad "addresses a unique facet in Barack Obama's campaign that is unlike any other campaign we've seen in modern history: a campaign that is focused on the development of an enormous image of celebrity status." Davis and Weaver do not get along, and the campaign's operations chief, Steve Schmidt,was reportedly upset that Weaver told the New York Times that the campaign "lost" the week that Obama went overseas.

Obama, speaking to reporters outside a diner in Lebanon, MO, at first did not answer a question about the ad. Then he said,.

"You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads, although I do notice he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for and not just what he's against," he said.