Team McCain Conference Call: oil prices
posted at 1:10 pm on June 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Rep. Eric Cantor started off by talking about the “shock” American families feel with high prices. The time for action has come, but Barack Obama’s comments yesterday show how out of touch he is with this shock. He says that Obama’s suggestion that the only problem is the rate of increase and not the price demonstrates that an Obama presidency would not improve matters. He is “out of touch”.
Doug Holtz-Eakin says that McCain is not “out of touch”, and touted his gas-tax holiday as an example. Again, they point out that Obama voted for such a holiday in Illinois. They then attacked Obama’s tax policies, which will hit taxpayers across the spectrum. John McCain wants to lower corporate tax rates, introduce incentives for modernization, and keep access to capital easy through lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Holtz-Eakin makes the rather common-sense case that tax increases on business get passed on to consumers, creating inflationary pressures and not real growth.
Questions:
- Amanda Carpenter — How about drilling in ANWR, and where else can we drill? — Still opposed to ANWR but is open to more production on federal lands.
- Jeff Mason, Reuters — Gas tax holiday got panned by economists and backfired on Hillary Clinton. Is there feedback that says it’s politically adept? — McCain feels that it’s right, and can be done quickly and simply. It’s not a panacaea.
- James Pethrokoukis — Won’t a cap & trade plan force higher energy prices? — McCain’s plan has generous use of offsets, as well as incentives for modernization. The realistic model shows price increases in the future.
- Carol Costello, CNN — Why not draw up legislation now for the gas-tax holiday? — He did, and the Democrats blocked it. Cantor says it got blocked in the House as well.
John McCain is not going to find many votes here by splitting the difference. We have enormous resources on federal lands — an estimated 1.5 trillion recoverable barrels of oil in shale, for instance — and he needs to take action to start accessing those reserves. That means allowing for drilling in the upper plains area, in Montana and the Dakotas, to recover oil from massive new fields as well. If he wants to preserve the 0.01% of ANWR that would get affected by the drilling, then he had better start taking action to find oil elsewhere.
The gas-tax holiday is a joke. Not only would it do nothing for prices as the demand would increase with the temporary price cut, it would only make the eventual price shock worse when the taxes got reapplied. It would save the average family less than the cost of two tickets to a major-league baseball game over the entire period. In fact, the next price shock would hit right before the election.
We already know where Obama stands on this issue: he likes the high prices, if not the speed at which they arrived. What will John McCain do differently? So far, his campaign and McCain himself have made themselves as clear as mud. We need a clear plan from the McCain campaign that includes massive new efforts to produce domestic supplies of oil, as well as nuclear power and more effort on renewables. They are missing the opportunity of a lifetime on this issue.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
With China and SE Asia, corn prices would’ve been where they are now within another 1.5 years……….talk about taking food off of USA shelves….shipping it to China.
Oh yes, buy the way, Ethanol uses starch…..Cows utilize protein….after the ethanol process, the DDG’s (protein) are shipped to Lvsk feeders, in very high demand, premium prices…..
Other than corn flakes, what feild corn do you eat….I’d say the spike in soybean prices have alot more to do with food prices than corn……and besides, the big jump in food prices is mainly due to shipping and middleman price hikes……..5 cents of corn in a box of Kellogs….
Google is a easy thing to use…..dont be like a Liberal and always settle for what is told to you in a 10 second sound bite
sbark on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM
any pop you drink.. corn syrup…
any meat you buy at the market,.. corn feed it..
any pre packaged food.. something from corn went in there.. corn starch, corn syrup.. fructose.. and on..
so.. more than you might think..
DaveC on June 13, 2008 at 9:14 AM
meat from the market… corn FED it.. not feed it..
DaveC on June 13, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Exactly right Ed. It can be a winning issue for him here in my state, PA, and I believe in many others.
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Can’t McCain understand a winning issue and how to run with it?
It’s a national security issue.
And a winner in November.
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LE$$!
profitsbeard on June 13, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Whatever goodwill McCain buys with a gas tax holiday for 3 months will be overwhelmed by the anger generated by the end of the tax holiday–which of course would occur just a couple of months before the election.
Stupid idea by a stupid candidate.
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM
After cutting through the usual pandering what you find is that all of these politicians don want to talk about lifting the restrictions on pumping oil from the EXISTING oil wells located in this country. All you heart is more pie-in-the-sky future dreaming. They have been singing this same song since the end of WW-II. That “they” includes the politicians of both parties by the way.
The government has been “fixing” the oil business since before WW-I and its still broke.
OldNuc on June 13, 2008 at 9:35 AM
High energy prices in the US are due to a “perfect storm” of agendas coming together and the GOP is missing their biggest chance to shut Obama down defining once again the GOP as the party of the people.
The gas tax holiday is too little and too late but a lot of people are listening to Obama and the DNC opposing it and are wondering exactly what their agenda is.
We need to have additional oil exploration, refining, nuclear energy, clean use of coal and everything else as part of our plan.
Buzzy on June 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM
James, I read something the other day about some PA families near Hazelton using local coal for their furnaces to heat the homes, and it was mucho cheap.
I remember as a young kid seeing the coal chute in my grandfather’s old row house in Philly. It was no longer used, but there it was just the same– a living history lesson for me.
Do you know if coal is a primary fuel source for people there still, and if it’s cheap?
JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Uh. What?
“Only being allowed by law”? You mean “being forced by law,” don’t you?
“Held down the price of a barrel of oil here”? How is this possible? Who do we pay less than the world market price for a barrel of oil because we use ethanol?
If ethanol is so cheap and wonderful, how come we’re forced by the government to use it, and how come the government subsidizes it?
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
This makes no sense.
We’re forced by law to put ethanol in gasoline.
Who do we pay less than the world market price for a barrel of oil because we use ethanol?
If ethanol is so cheap and wonderful, why does gummint have to force us to use it and why does gummint have to subsidize it?
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM
A gas holiday lasting for three months and then shooting back up to the “normal” price because of government taxes will cause a lot of anger …. at McCain?
Yeah, right. Voters know that republicans traditionally lower taxes when they can, and that democrats traditionally raise taxes as often as they can. The shock of going back to the real price for gas will serve as a glaring example of exactly what percentage of dollars spent per gallon goes to taxes.
And the voters will see this and vote for a candidate that is in favor of raising taxes even more?
Ignorant comment from an ignorant commenter.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
At least he’s being consistent. He’s clear as mud on most things. The typical McCain stance is to disagree with Bush and the Republican Party, and then to try to come up with small differences between himself and the Democrats. That’s the case here.
Take the Republican position and the Democrat position. Split the difference between them. Now take several steps towards the Democrats. Nine times out of ten, that is where you will find John McCain.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
witless man
“Ignorant comment from an ignorant commenter.”
Heh.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Keep digging, flenser.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Yes; assuming he sells the holiday idea, then he’s stuck explaining in September or October why the prices have shot back up. Its a pander, not a solution, and a pander that buys him no good will. They don’t call him McStupid for nothing.
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
When the price of gas goes up, because the taxes imposed by the government resume … then people will blame McCain, and then vote for a democrat …
Makes perfect sense.
To a democrat.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Ouch, you really got me with that one!! Double McPoints for the “wise man”!
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
The gas tax holiday is a gimmick. McCain is an idiot for proposing it, as was Hillary.
Every time he speaks on restricting drilling in ANWR, as well as his bs support of the man-made global warming fallacy, I get so pissed. His maverick status may be his downfall because he’s too stubborn to bow to the base on this one.
We’re all being asked to swallow McCain for the sake of the party. I can buy that to a degree, but he’s got to bend a little too. Throw us a bone, please.
sheesh on June 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’m sorry, did I say democrat? I meant troll.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Re: Caustic conservative at 8:43 am
I do not mind 10% enthanol as an air pollution preventing additive. But to go from the 5 billion gallons a year level to 35 billion gallons a year as mandated by the Congressional action last December would require our entire corn crop. This is ridiculous. It will raise food prices, cost lots of subsidy money and ignores cheaper sugar cane based ethanol sources. The long term economics of a free market will not support the building of all these corn to ethanol facilities. They will become white elephants some day.
When cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive that will be fine — in the meantime keep ethanol at 10%.
KW64 on June 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM
kusi.com
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman
BRAVO!
Figure McCain’s read it?
I also wonder if Gingrich did his stoopid bench seat ad with Nancy to test the waters before McCain commits to sharing the tub.
maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM
“economists” as in Gore U. graduates?
…and I lampoon W. for promoting the corn vs. sugar ethanol in SoU promises and commitments. Where was his compassion for the starving 3rd world population when he designated US corn crops for fuel vs. food? As far as 3rd world populations go, what all’s going on with the BushI/Clinton campaign collecting funds post Tsunami? No news out there leaves one to think more of that “compassionate” pocket padding playing/paying political favorites with “investors”.
maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Cheap coal (dirty) or clean burning coal “cheap”?
maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The gas-tax holiday won’t do jack, Juan. Too bad drilling in Anwar and in the lower 48 won’t help for years, but you’re against that, like the rest of your liberal buddies.
Maverick muse got it right, John Coleman (of K-UUUUUU-S-I!) knows the truth, too bad McCain is too daft to know it too.
At least there’s one meteorologist here in San Diego who’s too smart and honorable to sell out to the global warming nutbag gravy train.
Christine on June 13, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Don’t know. Here in the northeast, it’s becoming an issue. Heating oil at over $5/gal. will be an enormous hardship this coming winter.
If it gets too cold and too expensive, people will not care about the distinction.
JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I’ll keep cutting, witless_man.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Hey Swabbie,
Not to many CQ’ers around anymore…..I just have a few issues other than that I keep my mouth shut. I see you still drop in at Strata. I drop a line at Powerline if it concerns immigration or energy.
See you around.
patrick neid on June 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
This issue should be a natural winner for the Republicans. But it’s not, because they are either tongue-tied and incompetent (Bush) or on board with with the eco-nuts agenda (McCain).
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Don’t be lonesome, I’m still here.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Yeah, don’t you just hate those republicans, flenser. Keep up your crusade to cut them down, flenser. Thats a good flenser.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 12:49 PM
No, witless_man, pointing out some Republicans shortcomings is not cutting Republicans in general down. It’s pointing out some Republicans shortcomings.
If you want to know why Republicans in general have a bad image, look at the people who are the public face of the party. Look at Bush and McCain. Cutting away diseased tissue is not bad, it actually helps the patient back to health.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Keep digging with the name calling. You’re on a roll.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Perhaps Doug Holtz-Eakin could explain to us exactly how a “gas-tax holiday” is going to secure America’s energy needs for the future.
I’m all for tax holidays, but the practical result of such a holiday would be waiting in line with 250 other cars to fill up your tank with gas that cost about 30% less. You would burn a tank of fuel while you waited in line. But at least it would get us American’s use to lines for everything. Just like the soviet bread lines. McCain is not only out of touch he is totally blind to the real problems.
And Oh Boy, if they bring in socialized medicine we will get to wait in line for that too.
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Presumably all would be right with the world if only I praised Bush for his silver tongue and McCain for his committement to conservatism and free market capitalism. I’m flattered anyone thinks I have such power. But even if I did, that would not be the correct way to use it.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Says the guy who calls everyone else on the site a troll.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM
heh.
Redhead Infidel on June 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Maybe you should stop acting like a troll, flenser.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Besides, its not “everyone,” just you.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM
It was just announced on Rush Limbaugh’s show that Exxon-Mobile will be pulling out of the United States and selling off its gas stations.
Reason? Their profit margins are too low.
The real reason, I believe, is the Democrats wanting to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies thus reducing their margins even further.
Newton’s Law is in full effect with Exxon-Mobile’s decision. “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.”
In other words, the Dems can say goodbye to any taxes they hoped to confiscate from Exxon.
Could other oil companies be far behind?
pocomoco on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM
.. and perhaps maybe one or two more supposed conservatives here that are advocating to everyone else that they should not vote for McCain and allow a democrat to be elected president, flenser. This is something that other democrats are advocating.
Makes you wonder.
If you reply to this, try not to mock my username, if you can.
Thanks.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Until recently, cars could only run with a certain amount of oxygenate additive. That is not the case any more. No one I have ever spoken with about the “poor economics” of ethanol ever seems to back it up with data less than 8 years old. Like having a conversation about computer graphics with somebody using a Commodore 64. Ethanol is a scalable, readily available energy source that does not require massive infrastructure adaptations to be employed. To the extent that it can be used, it should be used, like any other practical energy source.
The blender’s subsidy is going away anyway, over time. Eventually most cars are going to be able to run on any blend of gas or alcohol and ethanol pipelines and filling stations will spring up to compete with fossil fuel based ones. Most GM engines run that way today, and many Chrysler products do as well. The question becomes whether or not there is a public interest in promoting the move in a quicker fashion, or if the market penetration will continue to occur on its own. Either way it happens, the only difference being how long you intend to pay off the oil companies (who get the ethanol subsidy) to blend it for you.
Caustic Conservative on June 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
-John Coleman
Here is my rebuttal – John Coleman
MB4 on June 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I have noted your presence previously flenser but as I have said ultimately the thread always ends up spiralling the same drain.
patrick neid on June 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Your sudden sensitivity is amusing, since just yesterday you were calling me a “liar” repeatedly, without ever pointing to anything I said that was even incorrect. Can I assume that you’ll treat others as you wish to be treated from now on?
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Isn’t that just another way of saying that McCains stands on the issues put him at odds with most Republicans? Your quarrel is with McCain, not us.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 5:41 PM
In your cramped little world, I suppose the only two possibilites are McCcain or Obama. (Neither of whom has even been nominated yet.)
I have this quaint idea that Americans are free people, entitled to vote for anyone they wish. Your stye of thinking seems more appropriate for the old Soviet Union.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 5:45 PM
No its not another argument for anything. It’s simply a statement that you circle the same drain no matter where the thread starts.
patrick neid on June 13, 2008 at 6:16 PM
*BUZZERRRRRRRRRRRRR*
Wrong, flenser. Try again. Maybe you can correctly guess what drain he was talking about. I’ll give you a hint: it’s you.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Is that the 19th or the 20th time you’ve made that same idiotic claim? I lost count.
Every election ends up to two people. Except Ross Perot, and he lost. Actually, he ‘won’ because his goal was to split the vote against Bush so a democrat would win. Something that you should be familiar with. (makes you wonder) and Ralph Nader? He tried and lost. And others? Probably a lot I can’t recall. The first person I do remember wondering why the hell he was at the debated was John Anderson. He lost. Reagan won. Cater lost too.
Your anti-McCain/pro democrat rhetoric is the same, old, tired, spamming on this site, unfortunately. You want Obama to win, and you claim to be a conservative. Oh, and you personally attack others who point this out to you. You’re only winning with the few real conservatives here who also want to see Obama elected because they want the future economic chaos blamed on him, and they think that by Obama being the president, that this will magically make the republican primary voters choose a conservative candidate next time. And their reasoning? …. hmmm …. no, they don’t have one. It’s just a pipe dream. So, you’re wasting your time here, and most people laugh at you. Sorry. It’s the truth.
Just thought someone needed to let you in on it.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Then why are even liberals like Krugman saying it’s a hoax? Why are we forced to use it, and not using it because it’s cheaper?
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM
You meant “they don’t have any.” Right?
So flenser’s attacking McCain apologists the way you’re attacking conservatives?
Here’s some reasoning: if McCain wins the election, we’re going to get more McCains, because politicians will see that he was rewarded for his behavior. If McCain doesn’t win, we’ll get fewer McCains, for the same reason.
Republican primary voters will choose a conservative candidate next time because either there will only be conservatives running, or because the policies one or more conservatives put forth will be attractive to them, considering the mess Bambi is going to make.
Did you have reasoning for how electing McCain will encourage conservatism amongst the politicians? Or do you even think conservatism is a good thing? And how is having McCain blamed for the economic chaos (obscene profits, global warmism, amnesty) he will cause going to be good for the Republican party?
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Oh, I don’t think I am “attacking” real conservatives, misterpeasea.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I don’t believe that I have made that claim, so maybe you can ask someone who actually said that.
Not voting for McCain will guarantee you a non-conservative president. Maybe you should know as well.
You’re welcome.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Uhm. Thanks. But I think I already knew that. As you pointed out, some people think that a Bambi presidency will be better for the country and the Republicans in the long run.
String two thoughts together, quit being evasive, and engage in a substantive discussion.
How will electing McCain be any better than electing Bambi?
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Heh, that’s funny.
If you don’t know the answer to that question, then I can’t help you on that one.
And if you don’t know, maybe you should vote for Obama and find out for yourself.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Heh.
Like I said. Quit being evasive, and engage in a substantive discussion.
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 7:46 PM
The substance is this:
Obama.
Or McCain.
As a conservative, you choose what to do based on the love you have for America.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 7:50 PM
That’s it? The sum total of the considerations? How very wise.
misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Yes, it is.
Unless there was a time that Ralph Nader was elected president. Like – about a dozen times already.
Ross Perot, he was elected president, right? Not Clinton.
And who could forget Anderson. He was elected after Carter and Reagan only had one term.
You could vote for someone else.
But that wouldn’t be wise.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Tom Delay says McCain is why we are not now drilling ANWR.
Tom DeLay: John McCain Has Done the Most to Hurt the GOP
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Misterp,
you stated:
“Here’s some reasoning: if McCain wins the election, we’re going to get more McCains, because politicians will see that he was rewarded for his behavior. If McCain doesn’t win, we’ll get fewer McCains, for the same reason.”
I wish that were the case, not more McCain’s necessarily, but replicants of a nature. Had that been the case we should be electing our fourth Reagan by now. Sadly however it is never the case. Every election is a bizarre twist of time and space spawning candidates who at other times would not be considered for VP.
This time it is Obama and McCain.
I play the cards I’m dealt.
patrick neid on June 13, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Perhaps. But voting for McCain will guarantee me a non-conservative president also. I say we dump McCain and go with someone else. And that’s what I’m doing, regardless of what you do.
flenser on June 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Actually, very few elections end up with two people. There are multiple candidates in every US presidential election.
I see you ignored this, so here you go again.
Your sudden sensitivity is amusing, since just yesterday you were calling me a “liar” repeatedly, without ever pointing to anything I said that was even incorrect. Can I assume that you’ll treat others as you wish to be treated from now on?
I’ll take a non-answer as a no.
flenser on June 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM
You are rooting the third man in a two man race. You’ll make yourself feel better and the end result is that you had an opportunity to be counted while everyone else is deciding the fate of our countries future and lining up on the left and the right to be counted …. and you decided to put on a pointy hat with sparkles and blow a horn.
Our system is not perfect and individuals don’t get their way. Some choose to participate and some decide to make a mockery of our election. If you want to be a clown, then by all means.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:31 AM
No it is then, witless man.
flenser on June 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Keep digging your hole, flenser.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
witless man
That’s an admission that you don’t know the answer either. I don’t know why you imagine it’s a devastating rebuttal.
flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Oh I know the answer.
If I tell you the answer, you won’t be able to learn for yourselves. You need to be able to come up with the correct answer by yourselves.
And lay off the personal attacks on me, you are digging your own grave here, flenser.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Obscene profits.
He lifted this crap verbatim from the loony leftists. It’s unbelievable that Republicans nominated this idiot.
I disagree. The number of conservative politicians increased during the Reagan era, and afterward. The Republicans’ respect for seniority is to blame for HW. And HW’s squishiness is to blame for Clinton.
The biggest problem is that conservatives who go to DC start “maturing” and “growing in office.” Power tends to corrupt, and there’s a lot of power in DC. One more argument to stick to the Constitution with respect to federalism. FDR did so much damage to this country, it’s a crime the way he’s been deified. Johnson, Nixon, and W. haven’t helped. It’s funny that Nixon and W., two liberal Republicans, are demonized by the Left.
Politicians are like pets: you get more of the behavior you reward. I don’t want to encourage the kind if idiocy that McCain exhibits.
misterpeasea on June 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Wrong.
When George H W Bush said ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ and reneged on his promise, he was defeated. After 8 years of Bill Clinton, George W Bush was elected. How did that idiotic protest vote against Bush turn out? Was Bush’s father bad behavior suitably punished?
If you want a real change, then all of the people who vote in the republican primaries need to vote for conservative candidates. If people don’t support the man who the republicans overwhelmingly voted for in the nomination process, then the only idiocy there will be as a result is a democrat victory. This will be worse than a republican defeat. I don’t know why i need to constantly explain this to another conservative, unless you are not.
Makes you wonder.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
uh, where you paying attention during the primaries?? we have delaware and south carolina to thank for this clusterfuck of a candidate. he has one area that we know for sure he is better than bambi, the war. other than that he wants to demonize the free market, raise oil prices and give citizenship to illegal aliens. and those are just 3 issues i can think of where he is way too liberal. hell he just might take away more 1st amendment rights as president. the man cant be trusted. if someone has to be blamed for ruinious policies let it be a liberal. makes it hard to defend a conservative position when someone can throw back “but your president doesnt think so”.
there are more of me (conservatives)than there are of him. if he wants our votes he needs to change for us, not us change for him. if he gets the presidency w/o the conservative than maybe the conservative movement is out of steam. if he doesnt and bambi runs things in the ground its johnny’s fault, not mine. he didnt have to come all the way over, just a little. but he refuses too acknowledge the validity of any conservative of substance. the ones he does “agree” with are ones he cant deliver anyway due to a dem congress.
chasdal on June 14, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Uh. You don’t get more of the behavior you reward? You get more of the behavior that you punish? How very wise.
You appear to be having an argument with yourself. HW exhibited undesirable behavior, and he was punished.
The idiotic protest vote against HW Bush? I’d say it turned out pretty good. We got a Republican House for the first time in 40ish years, as I recall. Citing Clinton’s presidency doesn’t help McCain’s case. I’d gladly give Bambi the presidency if it would mean that the Republicans would regain control of the Congress.
Was Bush’s father’s bad behavior punished? I’d say yes, he didn’t get re-elected.
Who are you trying to fool? When the nomination was actually being contested, he struggled to get 40% of the vote. He never got as much as 50% until he was the only candidate. And that’s Republicans (and independents and Democrats!), not conservatives. His strongest states were, of course, blue states.
Uhm. A Democrat victory will be worse than a Republican defeat. Won’t they be, you know, the same?
You aren’t explaining anything. And you appear to be narrowly focused on the presidential election, and ONLY the presidential election, with no awareness of, say, the day after, or the election after. Or the negative effect of a liberal idiot like McCain on Republican politicians and Republican electorate.
Not very wise, man.
misterpeasea on June 14, 2008 at 7:47 PM
You appear to be having an argument with yourself. That’s not very pea sea, misterpeasa.
“HW exhibited undesirable behavior,
and he was punished.“ And Bill Clinton was elected, and stayed in the whitehouse for 8 years. How well did that work out for conservatives?“I’d gladly give Bambi the presidency.” So would democrats. What other things do you have in common with democrats. As for me. I have little if anything in common with democrats, and I like it that way.
“Who are you trying to fool?” I’m speaking to one. What I am trying to do is tell you the truth. And you are either a conservative who is incapable of understanding the truth, or a liberal who is here to convince as many real conservatives here not to vote for Obama, and you understand the truth completely. Either way, what you advocate and wish others do like you is harmful to my country, and I won’t let you do this on this conservative site as long as I am able to respond to your lies.
“When the nomination was actually being contested, he struggled to get 40% of the vote.” And then he clinched the vote and will become the nominee because he got more votes than anyone else. Had a real conservative gotten more votes by republicans in the primaries, then John McCain would be back in the senate right now, and not on the campaign trail.
“You aren’t explaining anything.” Yes, I am. And you are propagandizing and spamming the thread with lies.
The election will be happening this november. Democrat versus republican. Seems like a good focus of my time. Please inform me of any other presidential elections that I am not focusing on that I should widen my focus.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 10:37 PM
wise-man: “As for me. I have little if anything in common with democrats, and I like it that way.”
Ummm….you have McCain.
Redhead Infidel on June 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM
It worked out very well. We got the first conservative and Republican House majority in decades. Let’s do that again.
And liberal versus liberal. Conservatives need to look elsewhere.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Explain what difference it makes to conservatives which liberal wins the WH.
Given that the Republican Party is (or was) the home of conservatives, explain why a liberal Republican becoming President is not worse for conservatism than a liberal Democrat doing so.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Are you threatening to kill me?
As for “personal attacks”, you are the master at those. If you were prohibited from calling people trolls and liars you would not be able to post here at all.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM
witless man
How noble and selfless you are!
But as you keep telling us, by not agreeing with you we are Benedict Arnolds destroying America. Surely if you really loved America, you’d place correcting us and saving America ahead of your desire for us to learn for ourselves.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Isn’t there some way to turn lumbering carbon emitting Polar Bears into oil?
BDU-33 on June 16, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Wow. Three strawman posts in a row.
This must be
a recordyour standard operating procedure for you, flenser.Why are you still allowed to comment here?
This place must have no moderation of the comments and the users at all.
wise_man on June 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Exactly, because all true conservatives believe drilling is bad, increasing supply is bad, and a temporary tax cut (with no real effect on prices) is the only true solution.
How could a Conservative not agree with McCain. Trying to tell me that increasing supply would lower price or something. Take that voodoo somewhere else troll, wiseman and me aren’t buying your snake-oil economic theories.
We’re going to go with McCain’s tried and true “lower the prices by decreasing taxes, and people will want less, and use less, so prices will steadily go down”… anything else is madness.
How can you say that. Haven’t you seen the Congressional Leadership reports on poll numbers?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/14/1019748.aspx
Obviously what we need to encourage “Conservatives” is to vote for the SCHIP and the homeowner bailout, and subsidies for farmers making record profits. If we can’t agree on that, you’re obviously a false conservative and a troll and should be ignored.
Stop drilling, stop production, subsidies for all, massive handouts and spending… the only true conservative principles.
Did I miss anything wise_man? Well I forgot to make cheap shots at people’s handles, so I’ll leave that for you. But I think I made the case for McCain pretty clear, showing exactly how he wants it; didn’t I?
gekkobear on June 16, 2008 at 1:11 PM
WE NEED TO DO THIS!!
ConservativePartyNow on June 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3