Fred lost my vote after his statements at the last debate…

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Let’s be honest, Fred never had your vote. Being a realist shouldn’t have scared you off, guess you prefer empty promises.

Click to make a donation for Fred’s stand in South Carolina and beyond!

What I mainly mean by biomass is industrial waste: landfill waste, forestry products waste etc. in addition to non food energy crops such as algae and/or miscanthus.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM

I don’t know much about coal to oil production, but I do know something about farming having grown up around it.

I don’t consider biomass a practical solution. First of all, the biomass is used in no-till to preserve the soil and moisture content after harvest. For excess biomass that comes off corn, a lot of farmers already use it as silage to feed cattle through the winter.

But the biggest problem is that it ends up being an energy sink, in other words… by the time you figure in all the energy it takes for recovery, transport and processing… it takes more energy to produce than it delivers. And you can’t start dictating production without screwing up crop rotation and degrading soil nutrients.

Quite simply, biomass from crops just doesn’t have the ROI needed to make it viable… which is why people keep advocating government intervention.

Why? He never bothered to show up in NH and never spent a dime advertising there. Yet people are still voting for him. Granted only 1%, but still considering he never even tried in NH thats not bad.

doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM

I just thought there would be more than 1% of Republicans who want a conservative with a conservative record.
I’m still down for the struggle. I’m waiting for SC before I abandon Fred, even though my wallet’s starting to complain.

Let’s face it: New Hampshire doesn’t like southern candidates in general. They expect a leader to be high-energy, and probably wondered what was wrong with Fred.

Now is exactly the wrong time for Fred supporters to throw in the towel. Of the early states in the primaries, only South Carolina gives a really good idea of how a candidate will play in the south. I’m betting Fred! will do just fine there.

Of course, to be a viable candidate, he’ll have to do better than just “fine.” South Carolina will answer the question whether hoping in Fred! is a reasonable hope. He doesn’t necessarily have to win, but he has to do well enough that people will believe he could win the south.

Sure, Mitt’s done okay so far, but “so far” is only Iowa and New Hampshire, and he didn’t even win either of those, even with all the advantages of money and organization.

It’s too early to give up on Fred!, and too early to decide that Mitt is the front runner.

I am not a member of the church of global warming. I don’t think our policy makers should be either. Global warming effects have been intentionally DRASTICALLY overestimated and manmade global warming has been disproven.

As far as liquified coal goes…America is the saudi arabia of coal, biomass and oil shale. We have huge untapped resources that the libs refuse to let us use due to “global warming”

doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 10:34 PM

But, but, it’s green technology! Who cares if we destroy half the countryside, solar is clean! /econut.

It takes approx 1 year to build coal to oil facilities and biomass to oil facilities. We have enough coal and biomass to produce 150% of the total oil that we consume annually not just the amount that we import. If we did this we would not only produce all of our own oil but we would be able to export oil also. Legislate huge tax breaks(1 year) Build synthetic oil facilities(another year). Done.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Somehow I doubt you have any idea what you are talking about.

Myth: Alternative energy sources are environmentally benign

Advocates of alternative energy sources, commonly believe that these energy supplies have very little impact on the environment. Sunlight as a source of energy would seem to be an ideal energy source with virtually no negative environmental consequences. Or, converting a relatively more polluting source of energy such as coal into a less polluting liquid fuel appears to be a good exchange.

Reality:

Converting coal to some liquid fuel form which could be used in transportation is possible but to do so to the extent of replacing oil would involve the greatest mining endeavor the world has ever seen. It would require strip mining vast quantities of western land each year. If alternative energy considerations do not include coal, but rather are thought of in terms of solar energy, biomass, nuclear power, wind, hydropower, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) or shale oil, they also have environmental impacts.

These have been discussed in more detail in Chapter 22, Mineral Development and the Environment, but some of the environmental problems are briefly summarized here. Solar energy collectors in numbers sufficient to be significant in our energy supplies would use very large amounts of land. Mining the materials used to make these collectors would have an impact. Because the collectors would not have an infinite life, there would be the continual problem of replacement, involving more mining operations.

Fred Thompson finished just behind “write-in” in New Hampshire. I need a drink.

joewm315 on January 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Why? He never bothered to show up in NH and never spent a dime advertising there. Yet people are still voting for him. Granted only 1%, but still considering he never even tried in NH thats not bad.

It takes approx 1 year to build coal to oil facilities and biomass to oil facilities. We have enough coal and biomass to produce 150% of the total oil that we consume annually not just the amount that we import. If we did this we would not only produce all of our own oil but we would be able to export oil also. Legislate huge tax breaks(1 year) Build synthetic oil facilities(another year). Done.

You have seen the glimmer of light that others dismiss as a mirage. Sometimes the best strategy is to sit it out and let your adversaries bloody each other before you enter the fray.

Well done, Grasshopper.

I am in investment banking and focused on clean tech/alternative and synthetic fuels and I know for a FACT that what he is saying is pure BS!

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Not to be rude but if you have the answer then I challenge you to share the secret with all of us… It’s easy to make a claim like that and then state that you’re shifting candidates.. Since you are in the biz and stated so, an argument from authority only works if 1. you’re not challenged on the facts OR 2. You’re challenged and produce the facts to substantiate. Number 2 pleaseFredalanche!©

FRED is really in trouble….even Ron Paul got more votes…thats pretty sick. The south ought to be more his flavor. GL FRED.

mpax on January 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Wrong…Fred didn’t campaign in NH, didn’t spend a dime there and is still pulling 1.3 percent of the vote.

Fred supporters should switch to Mitt unless they are okay with McCain being their guy after fred and huck flame out.

I’m gonna pray hard and send some money to Fred.

I like the fluidity of the elephant side. It’s more fun this way. We’re still dating the candidates and we haven’t decided on who we want to spend the next four years of our life with. None of them are the perfect candidate but nobody is. We should enjoy the ride more. As Bill Bennet said on his “Morning In America” radio show, “even Ronald Reagan wasn’t ‘Ronald Reagan’ back when he was president.

McCain will probably win tonight due to how the N.H. primaries are set up and for no other reason.

Fred may or may not be in trouble, but saying this based on the NH results is…hm…of questionable value. He didn’t have a single campaign even in NH recently and pretty much blew off the entire state in an obvious fashion. The result match the polls very closely, so “woe is Fred” isn’t an appropriate response.

How about blaming your crappy candidate for once, sport?

A bit harsh, AP. Fred certainly made his share of mistakes (they all do, to one degree or another)and, regretfully, those mistakes involved form and process rather than substance and policy.

When it comes to the former, Fred’s record has been…well…crappy. He underestimated the demands of the campaign trail and grossly overestimated both the fairness of the MSM and the political awareness of the average American voter. On the other hand, Fred Dalton Thompson has done a stellar job of presenting his bona fides for the presidency of this still-great nation, with detailed policies and a rock-solid conservative platform that has appeal even for the independent voters. If anyone can unite the Republican party and peel closet conservatives away from the Democrats, it’s Thompson.

Having said that, I am nevertheless confident that events will break in his favor – history sometimes has a funny way of working out like that. If I may offer a strained historical analogy: in December of 1776 things did not look at all good for the Continental Army and were we blogging back then (with quills and parchment, no doubt) we would have engaged in a similar discussion. You would have called the cause of General Washington a hopeless one. He was in retreat, his troops were starved and freezing and they were more or less surrounded by the overwhelming might of the British Army.

Let’s be honest, AP: were we blogging back then you would have derided me as a “George-Head” and dismissed my belief that Washington would succeed as little more than desperate wishful thinking. In response I would have said then what I am saying now: something extraordinary is going to happen – something that will confound pundits and historians for years to come. I am not sure why I know this. I just know it. Perhaps it is irrational, AP. Perhaps I believe what I believe because the alternative is simply too horrible to imagine – just as I would have said the alternative to victory in our war for independence would be too awful to contemplate.

Nevertheless, Washington managed to defy the conventional wisdom and secure a hugely significant (if strategically minor) victory in the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. He had only just BEGUN to fight. And he would triumph at Yorktown 5 years later. And we would become a nation, a nationed destined to be the greatest the world has ever known.

Thompson will prevail. I stand by my prediction.