Foreign oil dependency: Hillary versus Obama

Winning is the only thing that matters?

According to the DetroitNews, Hillary Clinton is going to try very hard to distance herself from Barack Obama and his stance on Detroit and U.S. automakers. Mr.Obama wants to see significant increases in U.S. fuel economy and a move towards hybrid vehicles due to the dangers of foreign oil dependency and global warming.

Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't want to risk any votes by speaking the truth. Well, sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that U.S. automakers need to become as aggressive as possible regarding foreign oil dependency. There's no way to candy-coat that reality.

On that issue Barack Obama is dead-on.

I guess since Hillary saved the health care system, she probably has the perfect plan to save U.S. automakers as well.

Could a gas tax revolutionize America?

Will $4.00 make any difference?

A new poll suggests that while $3.00 plus gas hurts, most Americans are getting used to it. And, while $3.00 gas is pushing more to consider more fuel efficient vehicles, it's mostly just causing consideration, not action. Will $4.00 be the magic number to force real change? Will we hit $4.00 this summer?

One thing is for certain. At $4.00 per gallon, there is no question about the cost effectiveness of hybrid cars, which makes me wonder, does this prove a gas tax could revolutionize America?

(Finish: More proof a gax tax could work)

Memorial Day - Celebrate Foreign Oil Dependence!

Honor our soldiers by buying a foreign-oil dependence-increasing gas-guzzler?

Heading into the Memorial Day Weekend, U.S. automakers are beginning an ad campaign to convince Americans that CAFE increases are bad for America. Such a move, they argue, is too expensive, too limiting and too unsafe.

How safe and cost effective is America's foreign oil dependence?

The world is on the brink of massive chaos - chaos significantly created and nurtured by America's dependence upon cheap, foreign oil - yet we do nothing? Even worse, heading into the Memorial Day weekend, U.S. automakers launch a campaign to warn America about the dangers of trying to do something about foreign oil dependency?

Nice timing.

Still, I understand that it won't be easy to end foreign oil dependency - it's our generation's moonshot, some have called it. But with every crisis there is an opportunity.

Detroit needs to stop telling America that's it too expensive to end foreign oil dependence. Rather Detroit needs to work with Congress to create a real-world plan to end foreign oil dependency.

Enough partisanship. Enough politics. Enough profiteering. It's time for action, not excuses. It's time for leadership.

The benefits of ending foreign oil dependency could revolutionize the U.S. auto industry and U.S. manufacturing, while inspiring a nation to greatness. The costs of not acting, however, threaten not just the U.S. auto industry, but the entire U.S. economy - not to mention our security.

Will we, the consumers, voters and tax-payers of America, demand it?

Are Michigan Democrats really Democrats?

Is Nancy Pelosi's biggest problem her own party?

Do Democrats really care about global warming and foreign oil dependency? While the answer to that question seems like a resounding yes, why is it that some Democrats are the BIGGEST laggards regarding real CAFE increases and real action on global warming? Isn't that supposed to be the domain of Big Oil-influenced Republicans?

At some point Democrats might have to ask, "Are Michigan Democrats really Democrats."

John Dingell (D) of Michigan is one of the biggest forces preventing a serious increase in CAFE, even though hybrid cars demonstrate that the CAFE requirements proposed for 2020 are essentially achievable today. Yet, Dingell has ripped....(Finish: CAFE: Can Democrats put Michigan in check?)

Pelosi to break almost 200 year old procedure?

First change to the germaneness rule since 1822

According to the Drudgereport, "After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit."

So, would such a move end partisanship and enable Congress to accomplish something? Or, would such a move create more partisanship and lead to an even less productive Congress?

Democrat slams Obama over CAFE

Democrat John Dingell slams Barack Obama

"U.S. Rep. John Dingell came to the defense of Detroit's automakers Monday, stressing the need for a U.S policy on global climate change while taking shots at some of the industry's toughest critics.

The Dearborn Democrat ribbed President Bush, as well as Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois."

I say wake up Detroit! Wake up John Dingell! Ignore fuel efficiency at your peril! Work on figuring out how to help U.S. automakers develop hybrid vehicles if you want to be productive.

(Source: DetroitNews)

NY Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is the next Ralph Nader?

Will Bloomberg run as a Third Party Candidate?

"New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times."

Bush more popular than Congress?!?!

Bush testing out a plug-in hybrid vehicle

George Bush is unpopular. That's no secret. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, Bush's approval rating is holding steady at about 33 percent. This low approval rating led many to believe that the unpopular President helped lead to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

But is that the real story?

According to the same Gallup poll, Congress has an approval rating of just 29 percent. Congress is even less popular than the President?

I think Democrats better wake up, as better Republicans. Ultimately, Democrats probably won control of Congress simply because they weren't Republicans - that's it. It was a vote for change that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Yet, has anything really changed? Certainly, the gross, unproductive partisanship of Congress has not changed, and nothing is being accomplished. Even worse, it is possible that essentially nothing will be accomplished until early 2008 - at best.

Perhaps in 2008, when America again votes for change, it shouldn't be limited to replacing Democrats with Republicans or vice versa. Instead, perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced?! Perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced with an Independent candidate?

Now that would be a change. Seriously, could it get any worse? When the best that is accomplished is, well, nothing, can it really get any worse?

Register to vote. Take a stand for change in 2008.

Jerry Falwell: A reason not to vote Republican?

A reason not to vote for McCain or Romney?

My condolences to the Jerry Falwell family. Mr. Falwell, I assume, was a man that tried to stand for his beliefs, and that is to be commended.

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Falwell's beliefs were out of touch with a majority of Americans. The bible does not rule America, and the fact that Mr. Falwell tried to judge America by the bible was just plain wrong.

Thus, I am saddened to see Republicans, particularly John McCain and Mitt Romney, supporting the bible-thumping minister. Quite simply, Mr. Falwell was too religious to be such a central focus of the Republican party - for it was this same type of fascist-religionism, or rebellion against it, that ultimately created the U.S. in the first place.

Wake up Republicans!!!!! If you want to represent America, you MUST look beyond religion. If not, then rest in peace, because if you don't wake up your party is dead.

How can Democrats justify gas-gouging talk?

Hillary would like to tax oil company profits

A number of Democrats have loudly attacked Big Oil - probably because many Americans buy into the Republican - Big oil connection, and Americans love cheap gas. Thus, many Democrats have continually raised the issue of gas-gouging and gas-gouging legislation. Yet, the Democratic party is the largest supporter of global warming legislation and action.

Isn't that too ironic?

What if Democrats can make gasoline cheaper through windfall taxes, gouging legislation, etc.? Wouldn't Americans just increase their gasoline consumption, thereby increasing both foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions?

Ultimately and unfortunately, aren't high gas prices a good thing for those whom believe in global warming? Not only can increased gas prices reduce global warming-causing gasoline consumption, but higher prices can make alternative fuels more competitive, while also increasing the cost-effectiveness of clean technologies, such as hybrid cars?

Isn't that a good thing?

Obviously, Republicans didn't achieve any effective legislation towards fighting global warming, or even foreign oil dependency (if you don't believe in global warming) - something which is supposed to be a core Republican value. Sadly, I don't think Democrats can achieve much either if they keep engaging in double-speak.

Politics as usual? Are we, the people, simply incapable of accepting the truth, so we are habitually lied to by politicians whom just tell us what we want to hear? Are the people just too selfish and apathetic to even care about the truth?

(Originally published on Hybridcarsblog.com)

Edwards would spend a $Trillion if elected?

Spend money to make money?

"Presidential candidate John Edwards is offering more policy proposals than any other candidate in the primary and his ideas are winning loud applause from Democratic audiences. All told, Edwards' proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms."

(Breitbart)

Government spending at all time high

"For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year."

So the government is out-of-control, but it isn't spinning quite as quickly out-of-control?

Let's do it. Register to vote! Dump the incumbents!

(Source: Yahoo via Drudge)

Not just the President: America is also mad at Congress

Get rid of all the incumbents?

The people of the U.S. are not very happy with the job the President is doing according to every poll. A new poll, however, indicates the people are just as unhappy with Congress, despite a switch from Republican control to Democrat control.

"The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January." (GuardianUnlimited)

If we expect change, isn't it time to really change Congress? So, register to vote and lets vote out the incumbents - ALL of them. Yes, a few good people will be lost, but isn't it time for a fresh start?

Should Republicans be more open minded about abortion?

Are Republicans too close-minded?

I wouldn't get an abortion, and I wouldn't want my wife to get an abortion. Still, I don't believe I have the right to tell others not to get an abortion. Conservative Republicans, however, probably think I'm evil because I support a woman's right to choose.

This view, however, could keep an open-minded Republican from having a shot at the Presidency.

"I think it's one of the fundamental principles of a conservative to have respect and commitment to the dignity of human life, both the born and unborn," John McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It makes it tough because the Republican Party is basically composed to a significant degree by people who are pro-life, just as the Democratic Party has pro-choice candidates." (more)


Isn't the Presidency about far more than an abortion? Let's face it, only a tiny, tiny percent of daily preventable deaths are a result of abortion. Is putting abortion above all these other human lives really logical?

Related

Giuliani contributed money to Planned Parenthood

Fred Thompson has supported legalized abortion

John Edwards got rich to learn about poverty?

Too much of a slickster?

John Edwards worked for a hedge fund to learn about how financial markets affect poverty, and made good money doing it - money he kept and didn't donate to fight poverty.

"Edwards said it's fair to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund designed to make rich people richer. But he said the job was a complement to his position as the head of a poverty center at the University of North Carolina, something he said he didn't describe adequately when asked about the hedge fund during the first Democratic debate last month."

Can millionaires ever really understand poverty, especially if they've never been poor?

(Source: Brietbart)

The Senate's CAFE increase demonstrates America's lack of vision

What percentage of Americans really need a bigger SUV than this Escape hybrid?

A Senate panel approved a plan to increase average fleet fuel economy in the U.S. to 35 mpg by 2020. Of course, the plan has yet to be approved by the full Senate and the House has its own plan, so it won't be surprising if the final plan is watered down, especially related to trucks and SUVs - Detroit's moneymakers.

Still, the Ford Escape hybrid can essentially meet 2020's standards, today. The Toyota Prius blows this requirement away, today. Hybrid cars provide the technology .....(More).

Hybrid tax credits: Now Barack, not later

Time to give Toyota some credit!

Congress sucks. Numerous Democrats and Republicans have been speaking about foreign oil dependency and global warming for at least a couple of years now, yet they've done little, despite the fact that a majority agree action is necessary.

O.K. Forget the past.

Barack Obama has now claimed that if he becomes President, he's going to push and to help U.S. automakers to develop hybrid cars. In addition, he also wants to change the tax credit for hybrid vehicles so that there is no cap by manufacturer - something Obama has also proposed as a legislator.

So, what are we waiting for? Foreign oil dependency and global warming are important, but not important enough .......(more).

Hillary or Obama: A vote for change?

Either a woman or a black man is a big change

There's an interesting article in the TimesOnline about Republicans that are converting to Democrats to support Barack Obama's run for President. Why? Because these converts believe Obama could unite the country.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush's Chief Campaign Strategist in 2004. And, apparently, Dowd believes Obama has the best chance of achieving that end.

Could a politician actually unite the country these days, especially one coming from one of the major parties - both of which seem to relish campaign-funding partisanship? I hope so.

Even better, I hope these different candidates (not rich white males) can get more Americans to register to vote and, more important, to vote.

And if you don't like either of these candidates, then get out and vote for your candidate. And, if you don't like any of the candidates, then vote for a third party candidate - that's a better vote for change than not voting at all.

So, register to vote. If the far majority of eligible voters start voting and keep voting, then politicians will have to listen to the people, rather than the lobbyist controlled two party political system.

Barack Obama promotes fuel efficiency, drives a guzzler?

Maybe Barack should drive a more fuel efficient vehicle?

Barack Obama wants U.S. automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, especially hybrid cars. To achieve this goal, Obama would like to provide healthcare assistance to U.S. automakers so that automakers could utilize half their healthcare savings to invest in producing hybrids.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," Obama has stated according to a text of the Illinois senator's remarks that were provided to The Associated Press (more).

And consumers, such as Mr. Obama, have been buying these vehicles. Do consumers not share some of this lack of vision?

Mr. Obama typically drives a gas-guzzling SUV. Of course Mr. Obama, when questioned about his inefficient vehicle, claims its a flex-fuel vehicle. Sadly, since Mr. Obama spends much of his Illinois time in the Chicago area, he can't utilize flex-fuel because there are simply so few E85 pumps in that area. So, Mr. Obama has been a part of the problem, not the solution.

Even worse, it's not just Obama, it's the far majority of politicians of both parties. Leadership?

(Obamas fuel efficiency plan)

Ex-CIA Chief: Buy a Prius, fight bin Laden

The best tool for America's battle for foreign oil independence?

Former CIA Chief "drives a Prius, and he says that if you live in a country dependent on imported oil, it's your patriotic duty to do the same. His argument is simple: It's a bad thing for transport to depend on oil when the great majority of that oil lies in volatile parts of the world whose governments are hostile to the West. Moreover, he argues that, by making the Middle East so wealthy, we're indirectly subsidizing terror. For Woolsey, the cash register at your local gas station is a collection box for Al Qaeda. "We're paying for both sides in this war, and that's not a good long-term strategy," he says. "I have a bumper sticker on the back of my Prius that reads, 'Bin Laden hates this car.'"

Read the complete MotorTrend article.

Would Americans support a gas tax?

A fuel tax to fund alternative fuel research?

According to a survey released by the Civil Society Institute "more than half of Americans would support higher gasoline taxes if the money went to research into alternative fuels." (CNN)

I say, what a silly study.

While I favor a gasoline tax, I think the revenues derived from the tax should go only to consumers whom purchase hybrid cars, electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars, clean diesel vehicles, etc. Instead of using a gasoline tax to fund research, simply leave alternative fuels exempt from the tax. Thus, alternative fuels become more price competitive.

Giving tax revenue to fund research sounds too much like pork to me. Give it to 'the people', not to the people whom are owed political favors.

Make this Independence Day a Foreign Oil Dependence Celebration!

Let's Celebrate Foreign Oil Dependence this Independence Day!

I'm making up my own holiday, and if anyone else has already created such a holiday, I apologize. Nevertheless, this 4th of July, I'm not going to just celebrate American Independence, I'm going to celebrate America's dependence upon foreign oil.

This 4th of July is going to be my Foreign Oil Dependence Day Celebration!

Let's celebrate not just the first Iraq War, but both Iraq Wars!
Let's celebrate the Iranian hostage crisis and gas lines!
Let's celebrate $3.00 gas and pray for $5.00 gas!
Let's celebrate oil-funded terrorism!
Let's celebrate record oil company profits, as the gap between the rich and the poor widens!
Let's celebrate the suppression of technology!
Let's celebrate acid rain, smog and global warming!

This 4th of July, let's celebrate Foreign Oil Dependency Day! More on Foreign Oil Dependence Day.

Rage's Bush Rant: Typical Hollywood hypocrisy?

Rage Against the Machine making money for the 'machine'

I love the music of Rage Against the Machine. To be honest, most of the time, I don't really care about the lyrics - it's the vibe, the rhythm, the beat. Still, I've always found that name 'Rage Against the Machine' to be a little hypocritical. How can you really rage against the machine when you are part of the machine? Let's face it, Rage has made millions for capitalistic record companies, etc.

But, whatever. It's just rock and roll, right?

Consequently, I wasn't surprised to hear that Rage called for President Bush to be "hung, tried and shot" at a recent concert in Southern California. That's to be expected at such an event. Nonetheless, I'm really tired of so many Americans using Bush as scapegoat for their own inaction.

Was Bush wrong about Iraq? Did he lie? Was he duped by oil men? Maybe.

Still, when Bin Laden attacked the U.S. he explicitly stated that the American people were not innocent. Ultimately, OUR oil greed and OUR gross energy consumption and waste has helped corrupt the Middle East at the expense of many in the region - and this policy has been well executed by both parties and cheaply sold to most Americans.

And it's not as if Americans haven't been warned. It shouldn't have taken global warming to make America realize that change was required, or 9/11, or Iraq - and we STILL haven't changed much. Even before the first Iraq War there were gas lines and the Iranian hostage crisis. Yet, America still didn't act. And it isn't purely oil-influenced Republicans. During the Clinton/Gore years, for example, foreign oil dependency grew at an astounding pace.

Ultimately, both parties and the American people have failed, and ignorance is no excuse.

Want to blame Bush for Iraq? Fine. But don't forget to also blame everyone that you know that drives, or has driven, a large SUV or truck. Anyone that you know whom has driven a luxury car. Anyone that you know that drives a gas-guzzling sports car. Anyone that's been flying private jets.

In reality politicians and Hollywood - including rock stars - have been some of the grossest gas-guzzlers and polluters, the worst offenders. Just because Hollywood has recently bought into hybrid cars doesn't absolve them of their sordid past.

In reality, most of us helped pave the way to Iraq.

Sadly, even when today's Presidential candidates - of both parties - travel to discuss issues like foreign oil dependency, they fly private jets and drive large guzzlers. Not one major candidate has taken a real stand against foreign oil dependency or global warming.

Not one major candidate - of either party - has decided to "Be the Change you want to see in the world" as Gandhi would say, and neither have most American people. But I guess it's far easier to blame someone else, rather than take any real responsibility and action. It appears to be the American way.