Patterico's Pontifications


Obama’s Plan to Bankrupt the Coal Industry (Updated x3)

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 11:19 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

Gateway Pundit posts the audio and a transcript from a January 2008 San Francisco Chronicle/Gate interview in which Barack Obama said twice that he will bankrupt coal plants with heavy fees for emitting greenhouse gases:

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

I hope the bitter, clingy folks in coal states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Indiana, West Virginia, and Virginia are listening. As for voters in other states, we already know Obama opposes most oil and gas drilling, and Gateway Pundit reminds us (via the Wall Street Journal) that Obama likely has the same opposition to nuclear energy.

It’s clear Obama votes “No” on vital energy choices for America. It’s time to vote “No” on Obama.

UPDATE 1 — from the same interview via Hot Air: Obama knows “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” from his plans.

UPDATE 2Jake Tapper provides a lengthier transcript where Obama says eliminating coal is an illusion. Does it change Obama’s meaning? I don’t think so but as Tapper says, you be the judge.

UPDATE 3 — The WSJ reports Sarah Palin attacked Obama on his coal comments today in Ohio. In an update, the WSJ also provided this response from the Obama campaign:

“The Obama campaign says that Palin took Obama’s position out of context because in the interview Obama said that “this notion of no coal, I think is an illusion.” Obama and McCain have both pushed for technology to develop cleaner burning coal. “What we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon,” Obama told the Chronicle in the interview.”

Michelle Obama says Barack thinks he can do anything, so perfectly clean coal should be a snap. Right after he invents that perpetual motion machine …


164 Responses to “Obama’s Plan to Bankrupt the Coal Industry (Updated x3)”

  1. Why hasn’t McCain been on top of this? Too “racist”?

    Crikey! Sometimes I think he’s trying to lose!

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  2. I’m not in the energy trading industry, but according to the folks who are, there’s a lot of money to go around right now.

    Not saying I agree with crushing an industry. I don’t. I’m saying I think Obama’s being a bit naive thinking the carbon credit plan (if that’s what he’s referring to) will bankrupt the coal industry. Not a chance.

    I’ve already voted for Obama, but I don’t understand his objection to nuclear energy. I’ve asked other left-leaning folks about the whole nuclear energy objection and it just seems to be a holdover ideology rather than a newly re-thought idea.

    i like america (d2f951)

  3. Coal in black and as such like the word niggardly not to be used in polite conversation. I’m originally from anthracite coal country in upstate eastern pa. where typical white people cling to guns and religion. Yes, coal is dirty BUT that can be rectified. Companies such as sasol and Headwaters can clean it up and convert it. I think cost per gallon of resultant clean gasoline is around $35 a barrel in case of HW. Chinese have licensed their technology and are building numerous plants in China.
    Obama has also said he wants nothing to do with importing Canadian Oil Sands products because of the energy involved in extraction of fossil fuels. Canada is only too happy to send it to China. Ditto for not drilling for oil in Fla. straits- Cuba is only to happy to have China do it and the way deep wells work is there is no doubt China will be pumping out some oil from the Fla. side of the underground wells.
    A pox on Obama, algore and the misguided green obama anal sniffers. We will be paying dearly for energy under the leadership of that abominable troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid…clueless and intransigent assholes all.
    Oh yeah, 1. patricia- rev.wright is off limits for the most part and so is dear auntie whom o had no clue about her status. Make that woman a saint. As an illegal, one wonders does she vote? She says she works for Boston housing authority. Of course the Obama team now says the revelation is another GOP dirty trick.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  4. _______________________________

    Obama really thinks and acts like a stereotypical limousine liberal. Of course, his sentiments and ideology will do nothing but push up the cost of living for everyone, including the moderate- to modest-income folks of America. But, hey, since we’re headed in the direction of being the next and largest Banana Republic in the world, go for it!

    Illinois affiliate WPSD-TV reports that Illinois Senator Barack Obama warned citizens at his 50th Town Hall meeting about gas guzzling vehicles.

    According to reports, the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center heard the popular senator Obama speak on everything from politics to global warming.

    According to Obama, part of the blame for the world’s higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to hybrid cars.

    Obama said, “It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska.”

    According to the reporter at local News Channel 6: “After the meeting Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV’s himself.”


    Mark (411533)

  5. If you culled two years worth of remarks, McCain and Obama both would have been found to say: “I want a cleaner environment but I sure don’t want to hurt the coal industry.”

    They walk the line.

    Much like Obama did with nuclear power: In a Senate fight over tougher reporting regulations, he ultimately sided with his friend(s) at Exelon.

    steve (8417ab)

  6. Pull out your wallet come Wednesday… and please don’t whine as you complain about your taxes being raised or having to pay for someone’s snacks as Obama fans plan to do given his infocommerical.

    meg (e71a0e)

  7. The answer is really simple here, folks. For all the people deriding Sarah Palin for “not understanding” aspects of science, we need to keep in mind that ALL of the politicians are ignoramuses regarding issues of science and technology.

    Oh, they might know more about legal issues, to be sure. But then, I am not telling lawyers how the law should work. Why should lawyer-politicians be holding forth about science and technology?

    What the politicians have in place of knowledge are advisors (go read up on the “flappers” in Gulliver’s Travels for why this is a bad, bad idea). And I am not claiming that we need scientists and engineers as politicians, necessarily, though with all due respect to Patterico and DRJ, we could probably use fewer lawyers in politics.

    My freshmen students know more about science at the end of my class than ANY of the candidates running for President. And that shouldn’t be happening.

    So regarding coal, Senator Obama is taking on a purely partisan view of these matters: coal and nuclear, bad. ANWR drilling, bad. Biodiesel (oh, for God’s sake!) good. Solar, good. Wind, good (T. Boone Pickens has some thoughts on this, to be fair).

    Pretty much, Obama follows the DNC line on energy, supporting strategies that won’t produce very much energy. These are the same points of view from the 70s, when the same Left of center types would insist that conservation of energy would solve our problems.

    The fact is, if we follow Obama’s plan, we will be MORE dependent on Middle East oil. And we know how well that has been going, right?

    All of the candidates should be pushing for all of the alternatives, to get us off the Middle East Oil problem.

    In that sense, it might indeed be more about politics than science.

    Sorry for the rant. The fact is, many folks want to vote for Obama because they want something different, but Obama isn’t different. He is just Jimmy Carter and George McGovern in the 21st Century. But the different meme is keeping people from hearing what Obama is actually saying, like the “bankrupting coal” comment, about which I believe he is very sincere.

    Buckle up, folks. And remember this, above all: none of these politicians will ever suffer because of the decisions that they make. Voters will.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  8. You may not like coal, you may not like oil, but you certainly will not like the gigantic (100% or more) increases we will see in our Electrical and Natural Gas bills in an Obama Administration.
    Plus, I predict that we will shortly return to $4 or $5/gl gas, with the increase due to Federal taxes.

    Socialism makes everyone equal(ly poor).

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  9. But don’t worry, AD. The MSM is all about the following meme if Obama wins:

    1. Bad things that happen: always GW Bush’s fault.
    2. Good things that happen: always due to the hard work of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis.


    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  10. Eric…
    Please remind me when we have one of those good (for society) moments.
    Individually, it almost compels a live-for-the-moment mentality.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  11. If McCain can’t make an ad out of this, to run on Monday, accusing Obama of wanting to destroy our coal industry, and of being dishonest. And he’d better throw in that clip of Joe Biden. If he says, “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message because the liberal media refuses to report the news,” that would be super-awesome.

    But he won’t do any of this. Because John McCain is not awesome.

    He would rather go down in history as the lovable scamp who ran a clean campaign but lost honorably to our first black president. He doesn’t want to win–and his refusal to run an ad attacking Obama for his deception on clean coal proves it. This is a big issue in swing states and it also calls into question Obama’s honesty.

    Daryl Herbert (fdbd75)

  12. I don’t think you quite understand the end game, DRJ.

    If BHO and the Dems can force Big Coal/Oil/Energy into bankruptcies, they can nationalize these industries, just as they are about to attempt with Big Auto in order to save union wages and benefits/perks.

    The entire climate change movement is geared to having governmental control of energy sources, and therefore, all commerce.

    Ed (d7cda1)

  13. Eric,
    Diffidently, I point out a service academy grad-kind of like a liberal arts major at Cal tech receives a very good science background

    corwin (19775c)

  14. It’s clear Obama votes “No” on vital energy choices for America.

    Exaggerate much?

    The chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, is a major Obama campaign donor.

    Obama came out of the [safety] battle as a martyr for both sides of the cause. His constituents back in Illinois thought he fought a good fight while industry insiders knew the Obama machine was worth investing in.

    His chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. To say Obama has the “same opposition to nuclear energy” as offshore drilling or coal is saying he will turn his back on some of his largest fundraisers.

    steve (8417ab)

  15. Comment by steve — 11/2/2008 @ 12:10 pm

    The rank-and-file of the Dem party vehemently oppose nuclear power.
    Their constituencies vehemently oppose nuclear power.
    They are the 21st-Century equivalents of the Luddites…
    and we will get to curse the darkness while freezing in our caves.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  16. All coal fired plants should take a week off, starting tomorrow!

    Such would be rather humorous to watch the commentary from the politicos then.

    TC (0b9ca4)

  17. If we kill coal, we will have to build nukes. No way around it. Solar will play a part, especially in new construction, but the baseline choice is coal or nukes. So, let’s kill coal by all means.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  18. steve,

    First, oil, gas, coal and nuclear are vital American energy sources. No matter how much we like wind, solar and other alternative sources, they aren’t reliable or adequate energy sources for America right now.

    Second, the whole world is an Obama campaign donor so how do we decide which ones a President Obama will listen to? It’s interesting to learn you apparently believe David Axlerod and Obama’s big donors will have the biggest impact. So much for changing Washington.

    Third, I’m interested in comparing what Obama says on the stump with what he says in his comfort zone in San Francisco. His SF statements are specific while his public statements are vague pablum. Which ones have the ring of truth to you?

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  19. if i cling to my coal…
    i mean really-really-really cling to my coal..
    will it turn into a diamond?
    i know diamonds cut glass but
    will they cut thru my jail cell doors?
    cuz that would be awesome!

    pdbuttons (359493)

  20. I’ve updated the post with a Hot Air link/excerpt from the same interview in which Obama says electricity rates will skyrocket under his plan.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  21. You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    Barack Obama

    I eagerly wait trying on all my new sweaters.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  22. Coal generates 52% of the electricity in this country. With what will Obama replace coal?

    arch (18fdbe)

  23. It’s interesting to learn you apparently believe David Axlerod and Obama’s big donors will have the biggest impact. So much for changing Washington.

    It’s interesting you failed to note the ties.

    If you culled two years worth of remarks, McCain and Obama both would have been found to say: “I want a cleaner environment but I sure don’t want to hurt the coal industry.” They throw bones and they walk the line.

    Their contortions on coal show neither to be a unifier who can appeal across constituencies at loggerheads.

    You see McCain as ushering in a “new kind of politics” to solve the coal dilemma?

    steve (8417ab)

  24. So, Obama is going to drive coal power bankrupt.

    With WHAT is he going to power The Grid with when all those magical plug-in hybrids that are supposed to be taking the highways in millions over the next few years?

    Techie (62bc5d)

  25. steve,

    Politicans pander, but has McCain said he wants to bankrupt the coal industry?

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  26. All those coal miners will be bitterly clinging to their jobs in a few years, I reckon.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  27. AD—when you wrote:

    “Please remind me when we have one of those good (for society) moments.
    Individually, it almost compels a live-for-the-moment mentality.”

    I meant something a bit different. That if any Bush-derived action ends up doing something positive that doesn’t become apparent until after an Obama victory, why, that positivity will never ever be linked to GWB.

    It’s MSM-directed dishonesty and vapid cheer-leading.

    Corwin, my point was not to diss liberal arts majors, at Caltech or otherwise. I think that science majors ought to know more literature and history, too.

    But I promise you, let’s ask Congress, the Administration, and the SCOTUS a few simple questions, without aides or preparation:

    1. What does “DNA” stand for?
    2. What is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
    3. What is your view of France’s commitment to global environmentalism? Please be specific.
    4. Connected to #3, what percentage of France’s energy is generated by nuclear power? How do they deal with waste processing and storage?
    5. Consider energy generation of the US as a whole. What percentages of that energy were derived from: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, and solar?
    6. What was the major source of death in 1908? How about in 2008?
    7. What does the word “amortization” mean?
    8. What is your position on genetically engineered crops? What are they, and what are BOTH the “pros” and “cons” of that issue?

    And so forth, across the spectrum of our Brave New World. You can see what I mean. I am furious at the empty-headed posturing.

    None of these are propeller-beanie questions. They are relevant to life in a very technologically driven world. When I get students who are full of themselves, I ask them a question: how does the toast in your toaster “know” when to pop up? 99% of people have no idea—yet we think it is perfectly okay to call other people names for not knowing particular pieces of information.

    But maybe they should know more, huh?

    Yet people continually, for example, deride Sarah Palin for saying something scientifically not-well-informed…but give a complete pass to similar bits of sci-tech ignorance from politicians that they like.

    All of our politicians ought to have a freshman level of understanding of science, technology, economics, and history.

    I don’t think that they do. Do you?

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  28. With WHAT is he going to power The Grid with when all those magical plug-in hybrids that are supposed to be taking the highways in millions over the next few years?

    Good luck with the GRID that is already outdated, and the enviro-weenies protesting/litigating against any new infrastructure that would be required to carry the solar and wind generated alternative energies that will supposedly replace coal power plants.
    We’ll be back to burning wood, and partying like it’s 1899! Doh-bama!!!

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  29. Imagine Ameica once agian beating other countries in the technology race, and vote for Obama.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  30. Hangovers suck, don’t they?

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  31. With what, snuffles? A wave of his magical hand?

    With a tax structure that discourages capital investment, and apparently an energy policy that will greatly increase our energy costs, that’s going to drive innovation?

    Obama could earn a wedge of respect from me if he announces he would lift the Executive Order prohibiting Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  32. Yeah, Mossberg500. The problem is the weird evolution of the NIMBY Brigade. It has turned into BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

    But maybe we should emulate France’s ability to produce over 80% of its electricity from nuclear power…except Obama said…wait…

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  33. I’m pro-nukelear, Techie.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  34. Well, the junior Senator from Illinois sure isn’t.

    Although spell check needs work, yet again. But I’m sure it was a late night for you.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  35. DRJ, there’s no such thing as the San Francisco Gate. That phrase in your first sentence should be San Francisco Chronicle.
    (The Chronicle’s web site is called sfgate-dot-com.)

    [Thanks. I was torn on how to phrase that since I think the online SF Chronicle website is called the SF Gate. I’ll compromise and put both. — DRJ]

    Official Internet Data Office (6c7d18)

  36. Yep, that is the way to create technological innovation.

    Seriously, give it a listen. It’s the fellow’s own words, complete with all the uhs and ums and such.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  37. Imagine Ameica once agian beating other countries in the technology race, and vote for Obama.

    Obama: “Thanks to my policies, we have the best recycled candles in the world!
    Obama: “Thanks to my policies, we have the best crank operated computers in the world!”
    Obama: “Thanks to my policies we have the best peddle powered refrigerators in the world!

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  38. I tried to link to the wonderful interview with Obama about raising energy prices from the Chronicle, and it didn’t work.

    Go over to Hot Air and check out the entry for “skyrocketing energy prices.”

    Don’t read the transcript. Click on the link and listen to the fellow’s own words. Don’t go to HP or DK or right wing sites. Go listen to what the guy actually said, with tape rolling, in San Francisco.

    [I found it. It’s now comment #36 and there’s also a link in the update I added earlier today. — DRJ]

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  39. Comment by Eric Blair — 11/2/2008 @ 1:00 pm

    I think the runny-nose one was trying to be humorous re his comment on Nukelear Power.
    He almost got it just like Jimmah used to say, and he was a nuclur inngner. It’s a wonder the Navy never had a meltdown – just shows that the systems Rickover developed were idiot-proof.

    And, Eric, I just wished our elected officials had a HS freshman competency in science, engineering, math, etc.

    Another Drew/Mossberg-590 (2d9338)

  40. i’m pro cape codder [vodka w/cranberry juice]
    or sea-breeze[vodka with cran/grape-fruit juice]
    but when those windfarms start churning
    and my brains starts burning
    me thinks-
    what a fad..
    thats when i steer towards the heli-pad
    health care for all !
    somes more equal than others

    pdbuttons (359493)

  41. That high speed rail project in California will require electricity, right? Imagine it not running during brownouts and blackouts!

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  42. If BHO and the Dems can force Big Coal/Oil/Energy into bankruptcies, they can nationalize these industries, just as they are about to attempt with Big Auto in order to save union wages and benefits/perks. The entire climate change movement is geared to having governmental control of energy sources, and therefore, all commerce.

    Yes. This woudl be entirely consistent with Obama’s political theme and the Dems history. Knowledge of hard sciences is secondary to the proposition because the end game has little need of it. As long as the leverage is in place.

    Dana (658c17)

  43. Audio complied by NakedEmperorNews serves as Obama’s defining gospel on coal energy.

    In preference to earlier quotes:

    “With the right technological innovations, coal has the potential to be a cleaner burning, domestic alternative to imported oil. We cannot solve the climate crisis without addressing coal — which generates half of America’s electricity.”

    Why would he propose bankrupting the industry he recognizes can help satisfy our needs? Both Obama and McCain tout the virtues of clean coal. Beyond that, they haven’t said dick. The “clean coal” term itself is evolving.

    steve (8417ab)

  44. steve,

    I don’t know why Obama said he wants to bankrupt the coal industry (and apparently other energy producers that impact greenhouse gas) or why he’s willing to see electricity prices skyrocket, but he did.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  45. Dear God almighty, AD, I agree with you about basic competency. Not just about science, but about anything.

    Just try asking college students today to name the decade in which the Civil War was fought.

    Or to name the members of the Axis Powers in World War I.

    Or to locate Iraq on a map.

    And yet these are the kids who carry on about how stupid Sarah Palin is….

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  46. DRJ, thanks for fishing out the links. I know you have a lot to do.

    As for the junior Senator from Illinois, he indeed has been very straightforward about what he wants to do—when he speaks to groups of people like himself (the society set in San Francisco). And then the MSM or partisans try to explain the nuance or context or somesuch. He really doesn’t mean he wants to “spread the wealth,” of course. He really doesn’t find regular folk “bitter” and “clinging to their guns or religion.”

    Although Senator Obama ought be careful about that “clinging to religion” line, given his own prior associations.

    Yep. “Skyrocketing prices” are good for us. The coal industry needs to be taxed into oblivion, even though it produces about half of our energy. Senator Obama and the DNC knows what is best, after all. Better than all those pesky folks in the flyover states, anyway.

    The fact that the MSM and government types are pretty affluent doesn’t really matter, of course. Except that the impact of these policies will…ah…impact the public differentially.

    So why does the press support this guy? Or so many voters, who say things like “I support nuclear energy” at the same time as they support Obama?

    It sure sounds like a familiar business from high school or college. You know when a female friend goes on and on about the cheating or abusive boyfriend? To be sure, he does all this bad stuff, but he says the right things.

    And even when he says bad stuff, she just knows that he really, truly loves her and wants what is best for the both of them.

    Just. Plain. Creepy.

    Like the say goes: we get the government we deserve. It is both a threat and a promise.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  47. If you listen to the tape you can hear Obama continue to talk.

    Sounds like yet another snippet taken out of context.

    This time the right cut Obama off literally in mid-sentence.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  48. I’m pro-nukelear, Techie.

    Snuffy – what do you do for work these days? Come now, don’t be shy, you’ve been posting here for quite awhile, and even more voluminously as of late. You seem to be fond of mocking other’s career expertise, let’s hear about yours.

    How about it?

    Dmac (e30284)

  49. Coal generates 52% of the electricity in this country. With what will Obama replace coal?

    Human muscle.

    Somehow I get the feeling that King Barry the Good and Queen Michelle of Arugula really really enjoy renaissance faires.

    Darleen (187edc)

  50. I’ve updated the post with a lengthier excerpt from Obama’s interview.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  51. Eric Blair,

    No problem. Saving comments is part of my job description, especially good comments with interesting links.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  52. Sounds like yet another snippet taken out of context.

    So that means that you’re a production person of some sort, Snuffy? Do you have expertise in these matters, as well as in so many others that you’ve opined on continuously? Please tell us about your varied and rich career history.

    Dmac (e30284)

  53. Comment by Eric Blair — 11/2/2008 @ 1:57 pm

    You have my sympathy for your travails, and my undying admiration for the efforts you put forth to hold back an incoming tide.
    Someone, sometime in the future, will be able to document how the EduCrat Establishment (including Wlm. Ayers et al) have destroyed the basic literacy of the American public.
    If you (a general appeal) can see any way of putting your kids in private school (preferrably a Jesuit one), make any sacrifice, it will not be in vain .

    Another Drew/Mossberg-590 (2d9338)

  54. I work at Tysons pluckin’ chickens all day long, Dmac.

    Why do you ask?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  55. Snuffy would be overmatched attempting to organize a one-clown parade!
    Even if he was qualified to be the clown.

    Another Drew/Mossberg-590 (2d9338)

  56. I work at Tysons pluckin’ chickens all day long, Dmac.

    PETA will be displeased, sniffles. BTW, what do you do with the feathers after they’re plucked?

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  57. I’ve added Update 3.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  58. The bottom line is that Obama has no conception of the economic devastation that would result in the US from his vacuous ideas.

    None. Zero. The man is quite dangerous in his ignorance or arrogance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Kinda like the economic devastation America is suffering under the Republcans, SPQR?

    With one day to go, I’d advise you guys to talk about anything but the economy.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  60. snuffles, no, in fact Obama would cause devastation in excess by several orders of magnitude compared to what we are seeing today as a result of Democrat’s mismanagement of the MBS industry.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. This statement should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention. O! said over the summer that he had no problem with $4-$5 gas, he was just concerned with the velocity of the price increase. O! and his followers hate energy as it is currently configured. It provides opportunity, freedom, productivity and individual independence. Naturally, he and the followers are adamantly opposed, wholly or partially, to all the benefits we derive from abundant reliable energy sources.

    Chris (cefe13)

  62. Obama wants the entire nation’s electricity generation system to be as screwed up as California’s.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  63. Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 2:35 pm

    You know, once you got to “devastation” you lost snuffy, and then all those other multi-syllabic words?
    Oh, the Humanity!

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  64. It’s nice you guys have that phony story to cling to while the rest of work to clean up the mess the Republicans created, SPQR.

    Nothing is ever you fault, is it?

    And yet, America is about to give total control of America over to the Democrats.


    snuffles (677ec2)

  65. #45 There were no Axis powers in WWI. The term applies to WWII. But your general point is correct.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  66. snuffles, your complete and utter ignorance of the current financial crisis is not my fault.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. Eric, any Democrat who claims Palin is stupid, when they’ve nominated Slow Joe Biden, is showing his/her fundamental dishonesty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. Comment by Perfect Sense — 11/2/2008 @ 2:40 pm
    Germany, Austria, and Turkey were known as the Central Powers IIRC.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  69. #67 Don’t forget Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who both have room temperature IQs.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  70. Remember too, that this statement was made in Pelosi’s district. She of the famous, “Natural gas is not a fossil fuel” five times in one interview.

    Chris (cefe13)

  71. SPQR,

    I know Republicans always concoct wonderful fantasies to cling to so they don’t have to admit to themselves that their ideology has flaws.

    Do continue though, your mental gymnastics are always good for a smile and a chuckle.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  72. You know, I’m finding out how hard it is to type whilst clinging to my guns….

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  73. How can anyone claim that Joe Biden is stupid! After all, he’s smart enough to know that Franklin Roosevelt was president in 1929, when the stock market crashed, and that FDR soothed America’s jitters during the Great Depression by speaking to the American public (in the 1930s-40s) via the television set.

    Mark (411533)

  74. snuffles, yeah, its a fantasy that Democrats like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, the chairman of Obama’s VP search committee and Barney Frank’s “husband” looted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 2:50 pm


    Another Drew (2d9338)

  76. AD, you forgot homophobe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 2:51 pm


    Another Drew (2d9338)

  78. The “context” for Obama’s statement does not alter the fact that his plan will bankrupt US coal producers. His statement simply acknowledges the reality that the world depends on coal (“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. “), but nevertheless he intends to penalize US coal producers so extensively that they will go bankrupt.

    SueC (99a8b2)

  79. AD, that’s better.

    Meanwhile, snuffles has nothing substantive to say about Obama’s radical and astonishingly dangerous proposals. They illustrate a fundamental ignorance of economics that would stun a high school student.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  80. SPQR, what makes you think he/she/it/amoeba/plankton’s anything but a HS student?

    I think Eric had this one pegged awhile ago – sounds a lot like the immortal Harptard, as the posts keep devolving into incomprehension.

    Dmac (e30284)

  81. I agree with your analysis, SueC.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  82. What am I missing, SPQR?

    The “fact” that 3 guys on their own caused trillions of dollars of bad debt?

    Dick Cheney, noted Republican scholor says “Deficits don’t matter!”

    Is that true?

    How about Bush’s pledge to cut the defecit in half by his last year in office.

    Oops, he accidently doubled it instead.

    Close enough, right?

    Smile and chuckle.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  83. Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 2:54 pm

    There you go, getting all disparagingly towards HS stupids. I thought Eric and I had that territory mapped out.

    But seriously, if we discussed any subject that wasn’t on a DU/DKOS tpm, sniffles would be lost.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  84. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week.

    And a great deal of the coal that they are buying to burn in those plants comes from the coal deposits in Wyoming, Utah, and other Rocky Mountain States. I see a unit-train on the UP tracks come through here several times a week going to the Port of LA/LB.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  85. snuffles, you seem quite confused. But that’s an artifact of your ignorance. Our current economic troubles have very little to nothing to do with the US government’s deficit spending.

    The ill of excessive deficit spending is that it drives up the cost of credit. Given that the cost of credit is still very low, there is no empirical evidence that the deficit spending of the Bush administration has caused any economic issues. In fact, in terms of percentage of GDP, the current deficits are not extraordinarily high.

    But you are ignorant of these facts.

    Meanwhile, trillions of dollars is tied up in mortgage backed securities, whose value is plummeting because of the misrepresentations made by Fannie Mae ( who originated between one-third and one-half of all MBS depending on how you measure it ), and because those MBS instruments are poisoned with crappy sub-prime loans specifically encouraged by Clinton himself ( in his administration’s rewriting of Fannie Mae’s underwriting rules ) and pushed into unworthy borrowers by clowns like Franklin Raines and a host of Democratic senators and congressman.

    This has been widely reported but you remain ignorant of it.

    I’m detecting a pattern.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. Now what is Obama’s answer? For dubious reasons, Obama proposes destroying the entire national electric grid. For what high oil prices could only damage, the collapse of electricity generation would utterly destroy – our economy.


    SPQR (26be8b)

  87. It’s that hopey/changey thingy!

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  88. Another Drew, Cuba got “Change” in 1959.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  89. All the bad loans America is now having to pay for originated on Bush’s watch, SPQR.

    Next thing you know, you’ll be trying to convince us 9/11 happened during the Clinton administation.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  90. #82 Snuffels wrote:
    How about Bush’s pledge to cut the defecit in half by his last year in office.
    Oops, he accidently doubled it instead.
    (His spelling)

    Keep up with the news snuffels, Democrats now control the purse strings, not Bush.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  91. snuffles, again you show your ignorance of the topic. When the bad loans originated, Democrat Franklin Raines was running Fannie Mae – Clinton’s former budget director. And it was Franklin Raines who was run out of Fannie Mae and forced to disgorge millions of his fraudulently obtained pay when his fraud was discovered.

    Oh, and snuffles, you did know that 9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration, don’t you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. If it isn’t on the tpm, sniffles doesn’t know shit!

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  93. Keep rationalizing, SPQR, as Patterico predicted you would.

    Pity all your rationalizations can’t vote.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  94. snuffles, I’m relating actual events in recent history to you, and you are pretending that they never happened.

    It is clear who is disconnected from reality and it ain’t me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  95. Just what kind of abject stupidity does it take to believe that someone like Obama who is clueless on the economic consequences of driving the coal-fired electric generation industry to bankruptcy is going to “fix” the US economy?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  96. Why haven’t you answered any of the questions, snuffles?

    All your responses consist of “nyah nyah nyah republicans suck”.

    So, genius, HOW does Obama’s proposals not entail a large spike in energy costs? HOW is he taken out of context? WHAT are we going to switch over too when coal becomes Obama’s targeted industry?

    Even IF Obama wins on Tuesday, you are still a meaningless fool boldly playing contrarian on a website, whilst the REST of us are going to have to deal with Obama’s decisions and polices in the real world.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  97. Hey, if my multi-rationalizations all register,
    can they vote individually?

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  98. Another Drew, only if ACORN submits the registrations.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  99. There you go again with the negative waves, Moriarty!

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  100. Obama has said many things about energy, techie.

    A one minute snippet carefully edited out of the middle of a conversation is a dubious source to base predictions about President Obama’s energy policy on.

    And you guys know it, too.

    The sad thing is, it’s all you have.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  101. Without linking to his website, what IS his energy policy?

    Cause what you and your ilk keep shouting to the rooftops is confiscatory taxes on “Big Oil”

    Techie (62bc5d)

  102. The sad thing is, it’s all you have.

    No, it’s just the latest.
    And you’ve denied, disparaged, and lied about all the others too.
    But, that’s the thing you do.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  103. Explain it to me slowly, I’m just a slow Republican with two degrees from Georgia Tech and MIT.

    Use small words, please.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  104. snuffles, Obama has indeed said other things about energy, some of them almost as patently economically stupid like his plan to eliminate fossil fuel automobiles in 10 years.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  105. The San Francisco Chronicle is a reich-wing neocon source now?

    Techie (62bc5d)

  106. Techie, snuffles is just a left wing varient of an Eliza program.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  107. Comment by Techie — 11/2/2008 @ 3:40 pm

    Are Yellow Jackets up to small words now?

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  108. I slip into HEX from time to time.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  109. Comment by Techie — 11/2/2008 @ 3:50 pm


    Another Drew (2d9338)

  110. Don’t forget that Illinois is a coal state as well…

    Durbin has been running an add for a while now that includes a line about clean coal…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  111. Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/2/2008 @ 3:59 pm

    Would Durbin even know what coal looked like if it fell on him?????
    Ooh, now there’s a thought.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  112. “Michelle Obama says Barack thinks he can do anything,”

    and then she said it was too early for him to run for President, because “he hasn’t done anything.

    The sad thing is, knowing Sen. Obama and the Democrats who support him, those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

    tyree (bf2eac)

  113. California was a clear example of the kind of economic harm caused by stupid policies like the one Obama proposes, but not not the magnitude. Obama’s policies would be an order of magnitude worse than California’s incompetent administration of its electric grid.

    High electricity costs accelerated the departure of industries from California, and impacted the poor the most.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Yup, Senator Obama has said many things. Like this:

    “…use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon…”

    Um. Time to ask what precisely is burning, and what combustion products in an oxygen atmosphere are produced by that process. The major greenhouse gasses are methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor (the latter two are the most relevant to carbon based energy production). I’m waiting for the Senator to explain how burning carbon polymers can result in anything other than some combination of those combustion products. For every carbon atom in the polymer, one pretty much leaves at carbon dioxide.

    Scrubbers? Um. That is a lot of scrubbing.

    Or does he want to turn the coal into natural gas? In which case, what is produced by combustion of that natural gas, again?

    What about hydrogen (leaving aside the Hindenberg Issue)? Well, what are the costs and infrastructure for doing so?

    And Palin is the scientifically ignorant person?

    But not worry. Hope and Change are on the way! And that is much more important than, well, accuracy.

    On the other hand, the TdJ has been hijacking the thread…and that is no surprise.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  115. “Michelle Obama says Barack thinks he can do anything,” including repealing the law of supply and demand.

    Your Majesty (9176a6)

  116. Not to mention the basic laws of chemistry and physics.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  117. Indeed, Eric, scrubbers just remove particulate emissions ( and the new technology that the coal-fired generation industry has created and installed in recent decades does a brilliant job of that ) but CO2 is a product that can’t be ‘scrubbed’ given that it is not a particulate but a gas, and the immense volume generated.

    Obama will Change physics!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. “Young lady, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!” – Homer Simpson

    snuffles (677ec2)

  119. ‘ “noted Republican scholor says “Deficits don’t matter!” ‘

    Funniest line yet so far in this thread. Heard of the word “oxymoron,” Snuffly?

    Dmac (e30284)

  120. Obama’s plan drives home a trait of leftists that I have noticed for several years: They do not seem to distinguish between altering human behavior (which requires nothing but the willingness to use force) and creating new viable technology (which depends on the laws of nature). In other words, they believe that if you have the will to create something, then can force people to create it.

    Obama does not understand that alternative energy can’t replace coal just because he wants it to. That’s a dangerous blind spot for someone in his position to have.

    This speaks once again to the naivete grandiose of the Hope and Change mantra. What Obama wants, he truly believes, he will get. No matter what it takes. Looking at the long-term, what a dangerous proposition this is.

    Dana (658c17)

  121. Hey, Dmac: I’d like to chat with you. I’ll shoot an e-mail to Patterico, and if you want to exchange e-mails off blog, it would be great.

    If you are too busy, that is cool, too.

    Thermodynamically speaking.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  122. “Young lady, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!” – Homer Simpson

    Excellent qoute, sniffbutt! I’m sure DOH-bama is using the Simpsons as an energy policy reference.

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  123. Dana, great post. The laws of nature don’t much care about the purity of our motives.

    Sort of like Gore’s ten year program to change the energy economy…rather than trying anything to get us away from Middle East petrochemicals.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  124. Just some disjointed facts:

    TIPP shows Senator Obama up by 2.1% with 8.7% undecided.

    Drudge has this headline:

    Audio: Obama Tells Paper He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry…

    From wikipedia:

    27 states produce coal. The major coal-producing states are (in descending order as of 2000, with annual production in thousands of short tons):

    Wyoming (338,900).
    West Virginia (158,257)
    Kentucky (130,688)
    Pennsylvania (74,619)
    Texas (49,498)
    Montana (38,352)
    Illinois (33,444)
    Virginia (32,834)
    North Dakota (31,270)
    Colorado (29,137)
    Indiana (27,965)
    New Mexico (27,323)
    Utah (26,656)
    Ohio (22,269)
    Alabama (19,324)
    Arizona (13,111)
    Total United States: 1,437,174

    I smell a quick attack ad….

    patch (b1cd84)

  125. If you are too busy, that is cool, too.

    Not at all, Eric. Send me an e – mail anytime, and we’ll talk.

    Dmac (e30284)

  126. True enough, SPQR.

    I have a good friend who had an idea: use plants to tie up carbon dioxide in biomass, and then bury the plant material in the deep ocean.

    He actually told me that the cold and lack of oxygen would prevent the return of the carbon to the atmosphere at carbon dioxide. Whoops. Anaerobic psychrophilic organisms can do their work quite well that way, returning the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in short order.

    Maybe lignin could be used as a carbon sink, but I have my doubts about that, too.

    I hate to keep coming back to Heinlein, but it is true: TANSTAAFL. Burn carbon polymers, you get carbon dioxide. And nature is very, very clever.

    Unlike politicians.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  127. Dmac, I sent a note to Patterico.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  128. Obama and snuffles share science backgrounds. You can tell. I think we will see national brownouts by 2010. The grid is failing and the failure to build power plants in California, and elsewhere, the past 20 years will cause a shortfall soon. The only thing that can prevent brownouts is a severe recession with decreased demand.

    That may be the Obama energy plan; raise taxes and cause a depression. Voila ! The energy problem is solved !

    Mike K (2cf494)

  129. Well, look at the bright side.
    We’ll all get plenty of rest since there won’t be anything else to do at night … No TV, No computers, No electricity for lamps.

    Guess I’ll have to do all my reloading during the day….don’t like using candles around open gunpowder…something tells me that’s a bad idea.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  130. Dr K., I respectfully disagree. Senator Obama believes he is entitled to be President based on his extensive experience.


    His work with bipartisanship.


    His ability to govern.


    You see? He is just the “face” of the DNC.

    As for Troll du Jour, he believes in nothing at all. And I do believe that we have seen this troll before, under a different name. He or she is just here to snipe and pick fights and feel important. Or something.

    That’s why I like to see folks like Icy Truth and Dmac and JD and AD go after him or her. He or she is here to stir things up, why not have some fun at her or his expense?

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  131. Worse yet. The United Mine Workers Union endorsed Obama using some weak argument. ” He is from a Coal State”..

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  132. AD, regarding reloading.

    I denounce your bitterness. You should be using fresh brass.

    And frangible loads.

    Eric Blair (a723e0)

  133. Eric, there are suggestions that plate tectonics was necessary to the development of life on Earth as the subduction zones took sedimentary organics from the ocean floors and buried them in the mantle in aid of the reduction of our atmosphere to an oxygen rich one.

    As for sequestion of carbon short term, during the Kyoto fiasco, the Canadian government wanted to take credit for its forests as a carbon sink. But scientists pointed out that the way that a forest sequesters significant amounts carbon is by growing new trees, not by the status quo. So the best way for Canada to take advantage of its forest for carbon sequestion credit was to cut it all down, make furniture and houses out of them and plant seedlings. That seemed to discourage them for some reason that escapes me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  134. I believe that among all of the nations that had to give payouts for increasing their Co2 emissions under the Kyoto accords, Canada and New Zealand paid the most (as a % of GNP). And which nation actually decreased their emissions during the same time period? The US, the many – hated non – signer of the accord.


    Dmac (e30284)

  135. Obama has an extraordinarily hard time managing his own words:

    So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

    It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

    What am I missing? And talk about chutzpah? This is coming from the queen of ethanol.

    Let’s terminate this guy on Tuesday with our votes, and thank God that we dodged the most dangerous bullet of our era.

    I don’t want change; I want improvement.

    McCain-Palin ’08.

    SAM (d8da01)

  136. Obama wants to destroy the US energy industry, the US agricultural industry (greenhouse gases don’t you know) the US health care industry, the US voting system, and talk radio, after nearly destroying the US mortgage industry and the stock market. The man is a menace and any person who votes for him needs serious counseling.

    eaglewingz08 (013c81)

  137. And frangible loads.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 11/2/2008 @ 5:24 pm
    I have some of those from ICC. Very good stuff – can’t be reloaded.

    And thanks for the compliment @ 5:23.
    Where is JD today, anyway?
    He better show up, I have a hockey game to watch.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  138. Forget that frangible nonsense from Eric, AD,… Barnes bullets. Lead free.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  139. I prefer Sierra and Hornady…
    Depends on the application…
    and if they can’t get it out, too bad!

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  140. 134 and the libtards would have us forget that under clinton/gore the us senate 95-0 against ratifying Kyoto. What does anyone think algore as potus would have done about any of it.

    Nice that O! wants us to downsize and use hybrids, but he and the rest of the holier-than-thou assclown left adore their aircraft carrier sized limos and SUVs, not to mention private Gulfstreams and Lears. Do as I say, not as I do. We are all equal, but the libtard elite is more equal, eh?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  141. Actually, frangible is a very good option for home defense as the richochet, and downstream penetration issues are pretty much taken out of the picture. You neighbors will appreciate your concern for their well being (though, I don’t tell them much about this shit).
    All Air Marshalls carry frangible, for the obvious reasons.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  142. AD, Hornady part # 30502 is my fav.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  143. …more on lead free:
    Now that CA, and soon to be in a hunting area near you, has banned the use of any bullet containing lead for hunting of game (including .22cal), I would think we might see a new line of bullets, in both rifle and handgun, made from depleted uranium (ada, Staballoy). Depleted Uranium core, with a copper jacket; could be very interesting as a penetrator – will present some unique engineering challenges to induce mushrooming for maximum damage in game animals.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  144. AD, that’d be so cool. The enviro-whacko’s heads would explode.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  145. Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 7:00 pm

    That’s a good choice.
    I use Sierra 168gr, HPBT Match-King for target loads (used by DoD for Sniper loads now – the bullet is not classified as an expanding bullet because of its’ construction, so is battlefield legal), but stick to a 150gr Spitzer-BT for blasting ammo.

    Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2008 @ 7:05 pm
    What better reason than that to do it?

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  146. EagleWInz08:

    Obama wants to destroy the US energy industry, the US agricultural industry (greenhouse gases don’t you know) the US health care industry, the US voting system, and talk radio, after nearly destroying the US mortgage industry and the stock market.

    See, now I’m all confused. You guys need to get your story straight. I thought he’d already destroyed all those things, simply by running for president, and had single-handledly TOTALLY demolished the US mortgage industry and stock market.

    Also, does Obama wanting to single-handedly destroy every single, coal plant, coal mine, coal miner and coal-fired BBQ grill, does that mean this story takes precedence over his evil illegal immigrant auntie who single handedly donated $236 dollares to his campaign?

    Peter (e70d1c)

  147. Comment by Peter — 11/2/2008 @ 7:27 pm

    See, now I’m all confused

    That’s something we can all agree on!

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  148. Hear, hear!

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  149. There’s a lot of silly comments on this topic because few understand how cap and trade works. In a cap and trade regime, x tons of carbon pollutants are allowed to be issued by energy plants. Everyone bids for rights to emit the relevant pollutants. If one emits more than the allowance, big fines are imposed.

    Anyone wanting to build a new plant must acquire allowances by purchasing them from incumbents.

    When the original allotments occur, the big payers for allowances will be coal plants, as they are the most polluting; modern natural gas the least polluting. Nonetheless, because coal plants have the lowest marginal costs after renewables and nuclear, they will be able to bid on a marginal basis more than older natural gas plants, so they should not be put out of business unless they cap is much lower than current emissions.

    The story becomes very different for new coal plants, however. They have to acquire allowances from incumbents; this means unless the plant is being shut down, they have to compensate the holder for the entire lost revenue relating to the allowance.

    Cap and trade would therefore make additional coal fired capacity in the US very expensive. Existing plant owners would have an incentive to gradually shift to newer or refurbished plants; however, “clean coal” is still dirtier than the dirtiest natural gas fired plant.

    Whether the cap and trade system substantially raises energy costs for consumers depends on where the cap is set as compared to existing pollutants, and whether the cap is lowered by pro-rata reductions in the amount of pollutants permitted by each allowance unit. If the cap is set at the current levels and not moved, the effect on energy prices is very modest. However, if the government aggressively lowers the amount of pollutants per credit over time, then the biggest polluters–always coal plants–get squeezed first,starting with the most polluting and ending with the least polluting. The slack gets taken up with a bias to renewables and nuclear.

    Does this significantly boost energy prices? Not if the coal is replaced gradually with modern nuclear plants, which are far safer than the old ones and produce electricity, if the plant built right the first time, in the 7 to 9 cent per kwh range.

    Transition to renewables and natural gas replacement plants would occur to some extent, but only nuclear can replace baseload power demands at something close to the same cost as coal.

    The problem though is that unlike France, where the state system mandated one reactor and plant design and worked through all of the problems one time only, in the US the practice was to reinvent the wheel every time. If the nuclear industry wants to become economic, it needs to standardize the design to the greatest extent possible.

    So, cap and trade is bad for coal fired plant owners, but does not result in the entire industry being destroyed. Whether energy prices shoot through the roof to consumers depends upon how the transition is managed.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  150. The thing I don’t like is how Obama’s energy policy changes depending whether he is with SF enviromentalists or Appalachian coal miners.
    McCain has been very clear about using it all.
    Obama was clear in the audio that he intended to tax the carbon emissions of coal to the point where it would be economically non viable and Obama would use those tax monies to promote other sources.
    Tell me again how that helps the poor.
    How does that help Appalachia?
    How is it that Obama feels comfortable telling the elitists on the coasts one thing and the working class another?
    Seems like a cold hearted misrepresentation at the least. Callous pandering

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  151. “…it needs to standardize the design…”

    Time to call the U.S.Navy.
    They’ve been operating with standardized designs for years.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  152. Three cheers for bankrupting them. Kentucky needs opportunity in Appalachia that doesn’t kill you early.

    Nothing that kills its workers early or gives 4% of the workforce a terminal disease should be allowed to stand.

    The people complaining about the increase in their bill need to just eat the cost and be glad they have more opportunities in life than to hope they are in the 96% that doesn’t die.

    Bobby (2e9cbd)

  153. and to SteveG:

    Help the poor?!

    Funny how “helping the poor” always seems to mean to an early grave. The poor can build solar farms, and they won’t get a disease from doing it.

    Bobby (2e9cbd)

  154. Bobby



    In the next 8 years.

    Do we bus workers from Kentucky to the sunbelt to work on solar?
    I think they did something like this in the Old Soviet Union. Obama can just dial up Ayers to get the details.

    Seriously though
    Explain to me how Obama’s plan to impose crippling taxes on coal burning plants helps the people depend on the coal industry to transition out of that dependence within Obama’s 4-8 years?

    How would killing the industry affect the poor in Appalachia positively?

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  155. Comment by SteveG — 11/2/2008 @ 9:54 pm

    Well, it lets Bobby feel good about himself, which is all that’s important (at least to Bobby).

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  156. Flash – Higher energy prices, women and minorities hardest hit!

    Senator Government, how will those higher energy prices your plans will lead to affect the middle class?

    Mr. Gullible Rube voter, that’s an excellent question. Obviously in the near term higher energy prices will be painful for some Americans, but I feel the price is worth it to lead the way ending our dependence on fossil fuels and solving the problem of global warming. Did I tell you about the cool hybrid cars I’m going to force everyone to buy?

    Senator Government – How are we going to generate enough electricity to power those hybrid cars if you are shutting down the coal fired electric plants and not building nuclear plants because you don’t trust storage solutions?

    Well Mr. Gullible Rube Voter, I was just planning on mandating that people start consuming 45% less electricity starting next year or I’ll fine the freaking shit out of them. It’s a simple plan that will also raise government revenues for alternative energy research.

    daleyrocks (60704b)

  157. Surprisingly, the West Virginia Register indicates that the Sr. VP of WV Coal Assoc. was unaware of Obama’s comments up until this point and obviously is none to pleased,

    The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama’s comments “unbelievable.”

    “His comments are unfortunate,” Chris Hamilton said Sunday, “and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.”

    Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

    “In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said ‘not here’ about building coal-fired power plants — this is exactly what will happen,” Hamilton said.

    “Financing won’t be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

    “If we’re going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.”

    Is there a possibility that the plan is to eventually import all of our coal and let countries who are less concerned with environmental issues and more concerned with generating real income, carry the burden?

    Dana (658c17)


    Ted (429bc3)

  159. If the cost of coal-generated-power is significantly increased (which is Senator Obama’s self-stated intentions), then most likely we could expect an increase in fossil fuel demand. Guess which regimes stand to benefit the most?

    I am told that in the Middle East, knifes are being sharpened and smiles are growing wider, as our enemies look forward to an Obama Presidency.

    Pons Asinorum (4bc8d7)

  160. I commented on this issue in response to some lame Sarah Palin t-shirt post at a left wing blog and they banned me. Obama’s plan to bankrupt the coal industry scares them.

    tyree (bf2eac)

  161. What Obama is really saying is that if you’re going to build a coal power plant it will be built using clean technology or you will get fined so badly your new coal burning plant will go bankrupt.

    Whats wrong with having clean burning coal? This is another example of Obama’s comments taken out of context.

    RCLC (4331fa)

  162. RCLC – All Obama’s comments are taken out of context from the perspective of his supporters.

    daleyrocks (60704b)

  163. Don’t forget Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who both have room temperature IQs.

    Comment by Perfect Sense

    The room temperature of an unheated pup tent in the Antarctic in winter.

    RickZ (06fa85)

  164. Micheal Steele said on FOX last night, “Wake up America and pull the Kool-aid IV out of your arm. He is telling you in his own words what he wants to do.”

    Barrack not only wants to spread Joe the Plumbers wealth around, he wants to spread America’s wealth around. He will tax Americans “carbon credit” and send that wealth to third world countries. Buying there carbon credits.

    This will not help those countries any more than Lyndon Johnson’s welfare plan ended poverty in the U.S.


    Veteran Patriot Small Business Owner (e45089)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1447 secs.