- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tam Hunt: The Decline and Fall of the Oil Age
The decline and fall of the Oil Age is upon us. Its faint outlines are becoming clear as the reality of sustained high oil prices sets in and new technologies appear at an increasingly rapid rate. The new generation of electric vehicles is particularly promising and may lead to a massive transformation in coming decades in how we move people and goods.
Gas prices in the United States are at an all-time high for this time of year — well above the previous high set in 2007. Why are prices so high? Well, mostly because oil prices are so high. And why are oil prices so high? The short answer is that there is a growing structural imbalance between supply and demand. To keep prices low we need more oil than is being produced. As Chevron acknowledged years ago in its shrewd but correct ad campaign: “The era of cheap oil is over.”
I’ve written many times previously about the threat of “peak oil,” the notion that we are at or near a peak in global oil supplies and may now be heading down the back side of the supply curve. I’m not going to rehash this discussion here. Rather, I’m going to focus on the good news with respect to non-petroleum transportation trends.
In the United States, about two-thirds of our oil consumption is for transportation and the rest is used in making plastics and other industrial uses. The share used in transportation has steadily risen since the dawn of motorized transportation, rising to about 13 million barrels per day today from about 4 million barrels in 1950. We use about 19 million barrels per day for all uses, compared with about 89 million barrels for the entire world. Per day. We are indeed living in the Oil Age.
But not for much longer.
An exciting new shift is afoot, from using petroleum to move people and goods to using electricity. This future is still faint in detail, but clear enough to allow useful speculation about its eventual shape.
Electric cars are not new. In fact, the very first cars were electric! During the latter half of the 19th century, most cars were electric. It was only as advances in gasoline engines appeared that the convenience and power of gasoline overtook electric vehicles. That trend seems set to reverse direction again in the coming decades.
Before I delve further into the world of electric vehicles I’m going to discuss improvements in energy efficiency (better technology) and conservation (behavior change). Some of this information is the same as that which I highlighted in my essay “The Good News: Climate Change Doesn’t Matter Anymore.” That piece focused on the renewable energy sector, however, so this essay extends my earlier arguments to the sector that uses the most petroleum: transportation.
There are three very promising trends supporting my argument that the end of the Oil Age is upon us: 1) substantial improvements in energy intensity (less energy required per unit of output), 2) price-induced conservation, and 3) the growth in electric vehicle availability and some encouraging trends in early adoption.
We’re Becoming More Efficient Over Time
The most promising trend in the transportation sector is the steady improvement in energy intensity, which is defined as units of energy required for each unit of GDP. It’s a relative measure. The Energy Information Administration projects that global energy intensity will improve by almost 100 percent by 2035 — an average improvement of 1.8 percent per year, with the developing world leading the way in large part because the developed world is already far more efficient in energy use.
This trend means that we will, as a globe, be able to produce goods and services with half as much energy by 2035. This trend will become real primarily through improvements in transportation, although we can’t ignore other sources of energy demand, such as industrial consumption and (non-petroleum) electrical consumption.
The United States has been a great example in recent years of how improved energy intensity can make a real difference in emissions. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions actually fell 7.5 percent from 2008 to 2009 due in part to improved energy intensity. The recession was also a substantial factor, but only accounted for about one-third of the improvements, according to the EIA (Figures 1 and 2). The other two-thirds came from improvements in energy intensity and carbon intensity (more renewables and natural gas, less coal).
Figure 1. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Source: EIA)
Figure 2. Sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions in 2009 (Source: EIA)
The trend reversed again in 2010, with the biggest annual jump, a 4 percent increase, since 1988 as the U.S. economy bounced back from recession. The biggest factor in this jump was a rebound in manufacturing, which grew about 6 percent in terms of energy demand, and coal consumption, which also increased by 6 percent. However, the good news here is that much of the energy intensity improvements witnessed in 2009 have persisted in other sectors, including in transportation.
Energy intensity is a relative measure, not an absolute measure. So even if we improve energy intensity dramatically, current global economic growth projections result in oil use and accompanying greenhouse gas emissions growing substantially by 2035, all else being equal. EIA projects that global petroleum consumption will rise from about 90 million barrels per day to 112 by 2035.
Conservation Is More Than a “Personal Virtue”
This is where the next two trends can help a great deal. “Price-induced conservation” refers to the fact that as energy prices go up we often see remarkable changes in how much energy is used because people and businesses change their behavior to adjust to the high prices (conservation refers to behavior change, whereas efficiency refers to technology improvements).
A good example of price-induced conservation is reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption as prices approach or exceed $4 a gallon. Since 2007, U.S. net gasoline consumption has declined, due to both the recession and price-induced conservation (which are closely related trends, of course, see Figure 3). A 2004 meta-analysis of studies on gasoline consumption elasticity found that a sustained 10 percent increase in gas prices leads to a 2.5 percent to 6 percent decline in consumption. Price does matter.
U.S. gas prices have increased far more than 10 percent in recent years and exceeded the seasonal record in the spring and fall of 2011. Oil prices remain very high, at about $100 a barrel (the record was $147 in July 2008). It is very likely that prices will continue to rise in coming years due to the ongoing structural imbalance between supply and demand, which is partly masked by the ongoing global economic problems. As the global economy continues to recover, prices will rise further, and conservation will increase.
Figure 3. Gasoline consumption vs. prices in the U.S. (Source: EIA data)
It is impossible to predict, of course, exactly where prices will be in coming years and decades. And ditto with price-induced conservation. But the fact that prices have stayed so high even during global recession is strongly suggestive that those who believe we have reached some kind of global peak in oil production are right. Time will tell. My feeling is that we’ll see a sustained and accelerating reduction in oil consumption because of ever-increasing prices in coming years (with periodic price dips caused by recession, as we saw from mid-2008 to 2010).
Electric Vehicles Lead the Way?
Now, how about electric vehicles? This is the most speculative of the three trends I’ve identified because we are so early in the adoption of this new/old technology. As mentioned, electric cars were predominant in the 18th century. There are now six electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles available in the United States, and far more models available around the world. The only mass market models in the United States are the Tesla Roadster (an expensive sports car), the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt (a plug-in hybrid), but a number of new models are expected in 2012.
Sales of the Roadster are relatively low (about 1,800), which is understandable when we consider the $100,000-plus price tag. The Leaf and Volt are brand-new in 2011 and sales so far have been good but not stellar. Chevy projected 10,000 sales in 2011 and has actually achieved about 8,000 so far. Customers love their Volts, however, with Consumer Reports finding that the Volt earned the highest ratings in 2011 for all new cars.
The Leaf is doing better than the Volt in terms of sales, with more than 15,000 sold worldwide (about 9,000 in the United States) by October 2011. If 20,000 are sold by the end of 2011, the end of the first year of sales, the Leaf will have eclipsed by about a factor of six the sales of the Toyota Prius when it first went on sale in 1997 and sold only about 3,000 units that year. The Prius has now sold more than 3 million units worldwide, 14 years after its debut. The Leaf appears to be well on its way to surpassing this record, which bodes very well for consumers and the environment. (Some feel that the first year sales figures represent a lot of pent-up demand from consumers who have waited years for a viable electric vehicle, but time will tell whether these figures are artificially high or indicative of sustainable market demand).
At least 10 more electric vehicles and three more plug-in hybrids are slated for sale in the United States by 2014, according to the EPA’s FuelEconomy.gov Web site.
There isn’t yet a “killer app” electric car because vehicle prices are still too high. The Leaf costs about $33,000 before tax credits and about $26,000 after. The Volt is even more pricey, at about $40,000 before tax incentives and $33,000 after. The Leaf and Volt are, according to most testimonials, great cars. But they’re still too expensive to become even as pervasive as the Toyota Prius anytime soon, which is by far the most popular hybrid vehicle.
The good news here is that battery prices, which comprise as much as a third of the cost of these vehicles, are dropping fast and a glut is predicted by 2015. This may be bad for some battery manufacturers, but it is unequivocally good for consumers and the environment because a glut will lead to far lower prices. The federal government projected in 2010 that prices would drop by 70 percent by 2015 and we appear to be headed in that direction.
It’s way too early to attempt an accurate extrapolation of current electric vehicle sales two or more decades into the future. Electric cars are still very much in the low foothills of sales and forecasts are all over the place. Nevertheless, many companies still try to forecast sales. Morgan Stanley’s most recent projection of global EV sales is a dramatic downgrade from previous estimates (Figure 4). Even at the reduced projection levels, however, the figures are quite encouraging when compared with hybrid vehicle sales, which are now, 14 years after the Prius became available, still at only about 2.5 percent of total U.S. sales. Morgan Stanley projects this level being reached by about 2018, twice as fast as that achieved by hybrid car sales.
Research company IDC Insights feels far more optimistic than Morgan Stanley, concluding recently that global sales of EVs are likely to reach 120,000 in North American in 2012, up from 20,000 or so in 2011!
After a few more years, we’ll have a much better indication of the real potential for these groundbreaking new cars to reduce petroleum consumption substantially. The drop in battery prices could easily reverse the more pessimistic sales projections again as EV vehicles prices fall to the point, perhaps, where they are as cheap or cheaper than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
Figure 4. Morgan Stanley projection of EV global sales
More Efficient Cars
We shouldn’t let the glamor of electric cars overshadow entirely the contributions of more efficient cars such as smaller cars, hybrids and “mild hybrids.” Buick’s new LaCrosse, a mild hybrid, gets better gas mileage than the Honda Fit or Mazda2, at 36 miles per gallon on the highway! Hybridcars.com reports that 108 models of hybrid cars (about half of the total) and electric vehicles are expected by 2015, with a doubling of available models in 2011 alone. This rate of innovation and market interest is itself very encouraging.
Toyota’s big boss reported at last year’s Detroit Motor Show that he sees the Prius becoming its best-selling car by the end of the decade, surpassing the Camry. Toyota is rolling out three new Prius models in 2012, including a station wagon, a smaller commuter vehicle and a plug-in version. (For the record, I drive a 2010 Prius and I love it, although I’m looking forward to a plug-in hybrid soon).
Morgan Stanley recently concluded that electric vehicles “aren’t ready for primetime” and highlighted how traditional technologies are witnessing great improvements: “2011 has witnessed a breathtaking level of technological innovation for the internal combustion engine that is ready or near-ready for market. We have been surprised by how quickly and aggressively the OEMs have moved to incorporate fuel-savings content into the model lineup.”
The Obama White House, along with high gas prices, has been a major spur for these trends. President Barack Obama has proposed a historic improvement to fuel-efficiency standards with the recently announced goal of 54.5 mpg for regular vehicles by 2025 — almost a doubling of today’s 27.8 mpg mandate. This program, if successful, will be the single largest conservation program in history.
There are some hefty loopholes in the 2025 mandate, but even so, experts expect that the 2025 mandate will result in an average 42 mpg for new cars. A deal was struck with automakers during multiyear negotiations on this proposed mandate, but it’s still far from ensured that the proposed regulations will pass as is. Earlier proposed regulations under the Bush administration were riddled with loopholes, so fuel-efficiency advocates will have to stay vigilant against late-stage shenanigans in this case. Vehicle manufacturers must achieve these new standards with a mix of improvements in traditional technologies and new technologies like electric vehicles.
California is, as usual, pushing the envelope even further, announcing recently a goal of having almost 100 percent of all new vehicles be electric vehicles or other types of zero-emissions vehicles (fuel-cell vehicles, for example) by 2040. California’s main agency with respect to vehicle regulation is the Air Resources Board, described recently (and accurately) by one expert as “a global environmental regulator of the auto industry.” As California goes, so goes the United States, because of our 40 million people and the size of our vehicle market.
A less concrete but perhaps even more encouraging trend, nonetheless, is the increasing prevalence of the recognition that we must electrify transportation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy independence. A recent article appeared in the highly respected journal Science on the transformation required to achieve California’s ambitious goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. The authors concluded that electrification of transportation would be crucial. Most serious plans looking toward a low-carbon future conclude the same, as I did when I wrote a carbon neutral plan for Santa Barbara County in 2007 — the Community Environmental Council’s A New Energy Direction.
The Big Unknown
The obvious “X factor” in this discussion is the future price of oil. The last super price spike, from 2005-2008, saw less fuel-efficient car sales plummet. In 2008, U.S.-manufactured car sales, which are less efficient than their European and Japanese counterparts, fell to 10 million in 2008 from 16 million in 2007. That’s a profound difference prompted in large part by oil prices reaching $147 a barrel and gasoline prices exceeding $4 a gallon.
If we experience another super price spike in 2012 or in later years, or multiple super price spikes followed by recessions and plummeting gas prices in a cyclical manner (as seems likely), we can expect EV and other more fuel-efficient car sales to climb far higher than even the most optimistic projections.
Super price spikes in oil are not “good news” in any traditional sense, but the pain that follows may actually lead to a far better future, far sooner, if it does jump start the nonpetroleum vehicle market in a serious way.
After I wrote the first draft of this article I learned that GreenTech Media has just produced a report, written by Travis Bradford, titled “The EV Revolution Has Begun!” Bradford stated in an interview, strongly supporting my points here: “I didn’t call it ‘The EV Revolution Has Begun’ for nothing. This change is permanent and profound, though it will take awhile for full realization.”
The end of the Oil Age is, then, under way now and is precipitated both by the increasing scarcity of cheap oil and dramatic improvements in technology. This dialectic will unfold unpredictably in the coming years, but odds are that the decline and fall of the Oil Age will arrive far sooner than traditional pundits project.
— Tam Hunt is a renewable energy lawyer and policy advocate based in Santa Barbara. He owns Community Renewable Solutions LLC, which focuses on community-scale renewable energy consulting and project development.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 12.31.11 @ 06:26 PM
Just curious how much of that AMAZING growth of electric car sales is the result of government fleet purchases? Seems like that’s an artificial skewing of the real data.
But I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before public enthusiasm for these cars ignites and their popularity catches fire.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.01.12 @ 07:04 AM
“But I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before public enthusiasm for these cars ignites and their popularity catches fire.”
Ha, good one.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.01.12 @ 10:14 PM
The thing that bothers me the most about his articles is that he has a company where he profits handsomely from renewable energy and the prodigious govt subsidies paid for by us taxpayers. All your constant shilling for any energy source except fossil fuels wouldn’t be so objectionable if it wasn’t so self-serving. It is definitely irritating to have my tax dollars going into your pocket, another reason to vote out the current gang in Washington and Sacramento.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.02.12 @ 02:05 PM
The biggest surprise for me here is the claim that there will soon be a glut of hi-tech batteries driving down prices. Sadly, if you follow the link the author gives, you discover that this expected glut comes from too many government subsidies chasing too few buyers, not from the discovery of a better way to make batteries. It’s a negative (-), not a positive (+).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.02.12 @ 08:46 PM
lou segal - BINGO!! You nailed it baby. I had dinner with a guy the other night and Tam’s name came up and what he told me just confirmed to me that all progressives (they just try to hide it - refer to our local boy Gore) are…just good little capitalists all. And I truly LOVE captialism/greed. But with that old Russian bent - “What’s Mine Is Mine…What’s Yours Is Negotiable.” But it is good to finally know the real measure of this budding snob of a Captialist.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.03.12 @ 09:24 AM
No kidding. Queen of them all is San Fran Nan, former Speaker and insider trader par excellence.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.04.12 @ 03:31 PM
Ok I don’t know what to think of this. The other commenters are accusing you of grandstanding for your new business and your post seems fraught with illogical arguments. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the very best battery. The miracle of carbon based (organic) chemistry is really amazing. All life exists on this planet because of the wonderful energy packing properties of carbon. Yet because of some miss guided, misanthropic delusion that somehow only man caused sources of CO2 are “pollution” you cannot see the error of your ways and reject the most common energy storage on planet earth used by all living creatures. All life, Tam, uses carbon fuel. Life did not evolve a battery and even though we refine petroleum to get gasoline it is still a naturally occurring substance and part of the carbon cycle we living creatures depend on. Put that in your dopy religion based anti oil global warming climate change pipe and smoke it. And yes even that smoke is “natural”.
We tend as human beings to elevate our intellect to God like status, eliminate God then start making all kinds of absurd pronouncements on how the universe we had nothing to do with creating should work. I don’t know about you Tam but I know enough to know where we are truly ignorant and that is on most everything. Look at how nature works and stop trying to fill God’s shoes. Our energy problems are self imposed and now more than ever by a bunch of narcissistic fools trying to play God with something even the most brilliant among us knows little about.
The environment doesn’t need your protection and particularly at the expense of our species. Yes I am all for eliminating wastes and not fouling up our living room with our own crap. I am also a big fan of developing as many alternatives to oil as possible. You are correct that oil is going to run out as are all fossil fuels. Fossil fuels were made over millions of years and we don’t have millions of years to replace them. To that I am thoroughly dismayed at your rejection of nuclear power and your reasons are disappointingly flimsy. Any other industry would be happy to have the record of safety the nuclear industry has. Your irrational fear is not backed up by facts or experience. And yet nuclear power generation and exploitation of existing carbon supplies and hydro electric are the best ways to fund R&D for solar, wind and geothermal. To do otherwise would relegate all but a very small percentage of the world’s human population into subsistence level living. And Tam, you and I are NOT part of that small percentage. As for electric transportation, only where it’s practical and right now that is not cars, trucks or planes.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.05.12 @ 02:50 PM
I’m beginning to think Tam has a tin ear and has been drinking his own bathwater for too long. I guess he hasn’t heard that the “amazing” electric car sales are less than 10% of what was projected and would be even less if the government hadn’t bought a bunch and gave away money to buy them.
I also guess he hasn’t heard about the safety issues either.
I also guess he’s missed the whole hydraulic fracturing revolution that has increased our oil and gas reserves tremendously pushing off the often predicted dreaded “peak oil” boogie man. Peak oil keeps getting pushed off because we keep finding more and more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html
I’m also curious where he thinks all the electricity is going to come from to charge these cars? Half our electricity comes from coal which means we’ll be burning more coal, which is dirtier than gasoline, to power our cars. Coal powered cars.
So, if we all drive electric cars we’ll need a lot more electric generation capacity. Since the cars are primarily charged at night, that means his precious solar panels can’t do the trick, wind is too intermittent. So that leaves conventional power. But wait, we can’t build any new power plants, especially those dreaded and dangerous nuclear plants.
Such a conundrum.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.09.12 @ 12:49 PM
Here we have some more examples of the train wreck that is the renewable energy “industry”.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/a-sustainable-depression/?page=all#pagebreak
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 01:14 AM
Crikey, where to start with the usual chorus of naysayers. Since I have neither time nor the inclination for the usual go round of rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, here are a few thoughts and I’ll leave it at this.
Lou: I make my financial interest in renewables clear in each and every article I write. Of course I’m biased - we all are. I make my biases clear and, I hope you would agree, I’m an honest broker when it comes to my statements and arguments. Even though I make my living in the renewable energy industry, I don’t distort my writing based on my living. I’m in the renewable energy industry because I’ve been passionate about improving the little planet we call home pretty much my whole life. My aim is to do well by doing good.
Daniel Petry: I guess I should be flattered I came up in conversation. I can’t imagine the horrific comments I inspired, however, that would prompt your insinuations.
AN50: I’m not going to repeat the debate we’ve had about nuclear in other threads. My summary: you are the one who is being irrational in dismissing accidents like Fukushima, which now has a 40 year cleanup plan from the Tokyo government, and which has led to a $240 billion bill for Tokyo Electric, pushing them to the verge of bankruptcy and killing the alleged nuclear renaissance here and around the world because private insurers, even with socialized assistance like the Price-Anderson Act in the US, will no longer insure these accidents waiting to happen. As for your oft-repeated claim that all life on earth uses carbon fuel, this has been and still is just silly, and wrong. Animals use carbohydrates for energy, in part, which are very different than hydrocarbons. Re-visit your chemistry textbook Mr. Engineer.
Wireless: a student of mine at UCSB completed a good study looking at the electricity mix of all 50 states and he found that in all but a handful the current electricity mix would result in a net carbon emissions savings by switching to electric cars form gasoline cars. This is the case because even if coal and natural gas are a high percentage of the power mix, electric cars are about three times more efficient at turning energy into movement, largely because they have so little heat waste compared to internal combustion engines. And this analysis ignored the fact that our power grid is changing rapidly away from coal toward renewables and more natural gas. You are right that there is a boom in natural gas in the US right now, due to fracking. But don’t count on this lasting too long. Shale gas wells are exhausted far faster than traditional wells and there’s been a lot of hype by the industry talking up the long-term potential. Not to mention, it’s very likely that the feds and states are going to start (finally) cracking down on fracking by imposing limitations on how much of the noxious mix of chemicals they can use to produce their gas. My crystal ball tells me that in a few years the fracking revolution will run its course and we’ll return to far higher prices for natural gas (currently about $3, down from $14 or so at their peak a few years ago). But my crystal ball could be wrong.
As for solar and wind not being up to the task of providing power for electric cars: wrong again. Wind and solar provide energy to the grid, even if they’re not considered firm capacity (meaning capable of providing power at any time). And of course there are numerous new technologies coming online that can firm up variable renewables like wind and solar. Come 2020, far more than half of our electricity in California will come from carbon-free or largely-carbon free sources like renewables, big hydro (not legally renewable in CA), and nuclear. As I wrote in a recent piece on nuclear, CAISO recently completed a study finding that CA can meet the 33% renewables by 2020 mandate without adding any new natural gas generation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 11:32 AM
“My aim is to do well by doing good”
Every crony capitalist who depends on taxpayer subsidies and politicians to line his/her pockets always falls back on this old tired canard to assuage their guilty conscience. Go ahead and make money, just try doing it without picking my pocket.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 11:39 AM
Wow Tam, you really have been drinking your own bathwater. When the government favoritism and subsidies dry up, and they will, we’ll see how your jihad for renewables holds up. Somehow I’m guessing carbon based fuels will be with us for a long, long time. In the meantime I suspect we’ll have to endure your insufferable and misguided columns.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 04:43 PM
Tam,
Like clockwork and without even trying I’ve found, yet another, study showing how renewables are not cost effective. In this case wind power in the UK which has many of the same suicidal renewables mandates we have here in CA.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
Note that it also concludes that wind power, for a number of reasons, does not reduce the dreaded carbon footprint. I know you are un-convinceable, this is a faith based pursuit for you, but others who are interested in a balanced view of this debate might appreciate some information that isn’t presented with rose colored (or green tinted) glasses.
Enjoy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 09:29 PM
Lou, under your logic perhaps we should put our policemen, military men, teachers, and all government employees in public stocks and throw tomatoes at them for “picking your pocket.” These dastardly people dare take jobs that are paid for with your (and my) taxes. Shame on them.
Look, the renewable energy industry, like nuclear power and offshore drilling, military research and medical research, the early internet, computer and laser industries, depends in part on government largesse. I look forward to the day when it doesn’t - and I’ve written about my expectation that within a few years this will indeed be possible.
So please think a bit about your statements before you knee-jerk label those you disagree with as having guilty consciences and picking your pocket. The policeman who guards your neighborhood might hear you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.10.12 @ 11:19 PM
Tam, I would hardly compare what you do with policemen, teachers and military men. Although I have my problems with the ridiculous retirement and employee benefits they receive (not the military) because our Democratic politicians are dependent on public employee union contributions, the prodigious subsidies you receive due to the misguided policies of our Governor and President are adding to our deficit without any real benefit to our country. Besides you, Wallstreet tax shelter syndicators, lawyers and other financial manipulators are making a killing selling these renewable energy tax credits to wealthy investors. I would bet you any amount of money the people in this industry have made millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Obama and other politicians with a quid pro qou understanding to keep the gravy train going. If the American people really knew about the corrupt process with respect to these energy renewable tax shelters, there would be a riot.
BTW, while we are spending all this money on energy renewables, the discovery of natural gas and oil in shale deposits in Pa, the Dakotas and Texas is recognized by all the real experts to have the greatest impact on reducing our reliance on foreign oil in the last 30 years.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.12.12 @ 11:47 AM
Tam, a carbohydrate is a carbon fuel. What on earth are smoking boy? It contains carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and the oxidizing (combustion) results are energy, carbon dioxide and water. You want to explain Mr. Einstein challenger what difference it makes whether we burn oxygenated hydrocarbons (carbohydrates) or just plain hydrocarbons? And yes I do know the difference buster. And you call me silly! The point I was making is that these carbon based fuels have far better energy density than the best batteries we foolish humans can create. Get it?
As for nukes, using fear based models for risk analysis is a self fulfilling prophesy. If Japan wants to bankrupt itself over this fine, let them, it’s their funeral. We are not Japan. We are the originators of the nuclear power industry. We invented it and sold it to the world and we have a permanent responsibility to make sure we are the best at it.
Tam, it is going to be used no matter what you say. The question you and the anti nuke fanatics have to ask is who do you want to lead that use, both scientifically, commercially, ethically and politically. If not us, who Tam? Russia, China, North Korea, Iran? While you cowards run away and try to hide from the genie we, the US, let out of the bottle, you by default abdicate that leadership to the worse governments and cultures on planet earth. The nuclear genie is out for better or worse and since we let it out we have a responsibility to lead the way in its use and handling and never let that leadership fall to anyone else. That is called responsibility.
I know that goes against the coward philosophy of the left, hide, capitulate, run, cry make excuses and obfuscate. But ultimately we have that responsibility and we should be the strong, brave culture we once were and lead the way. We are more knowledgeable now Tam. We have many better tools to do the job. This is what is so confounding about your fear. At precisely the time when we can do it much, much better you want to quit. Good grief! Please stop smoking the whacky stuff and get a grip. I’ll leave the whole discussion of renewable energy to others since your narrow-mindedness and stubbornness on this topic is exhausting.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.12.12 @ 03:09 PM
Here is another great example of the absurd lengths our government is going to ram this renewable energy down our throats. In this case cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips and corn cobs.
The EPA mandated that so many millions of gallons of the stuff had to be blended into motor fuel but unfortunately it doesn’t exist. No matter, they get fined anyway.
By the way, a major plant that was funded with stimulus money, like Solyndra, just went bankrupt to. This was one of the plants that was supposed to produce the cellulosic ethanol. Range Fuels sucked up over $70M in taxpayer money.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.13.12 @ 03:05 PM
Tam probably thinks this is just great but this article details that automakers are making cars for the government now and not consumers.
Lots of data on those great electric car sales.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.13.12 @ 03:15 PM
Yet another example of more green mischief, this time with our light bulbs:
This is rank tyranny. Incompetent tyranny at that.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.13.12 @ 05:30 PM
I hate mandates. They are usually stupid, expensive and have terrible ROI’s. However the energy savings and life span of LED’s make them a very good investment. I wish the government would realize that the conversion to solid state lighting is going to happen, mandate or not. As a plant energy efficiency consultant I can tell you we are reaching critical mass on LED ROI’s. When that happens, I only hope we don’t go stupid and have the Chinese making the damned things because then we gain nothing. Make them here, cheap and flood the market and it will do very well on its own, without the damned government getting in the way and reducing your lighting energy requirements by up to 80%! Given lighting is the top electricity use that is a significant savings for everyone. But we have to make them here people or the benefit goes to the manufacturing country.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.13.12 @ 10:20 PM
Take a look at this video from CBS news (yes, even the liberal media is catching on) that there are 12 other clean energy companies that are having financial difficulty after collecting more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have already filed for bankruptcy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.14.12 @ 11:25 AM
more detail on the Range Fuels fiasco. This stuff is just indefensible:
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.14.12 @ 11:28 AM
AN50,
I like LEDs too but the government shouldn’t be choosing our lightbulbs for us. Like I said, this is tyranny. Our country went to war over a 2 cent tax on tea for crying out loud. How have we arrived at a point where our lightbulbs, toilets, shower heads, etc. are being dictated to us? We are seriously off track.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.14.12 @ 01:10 PM
I agree Wireless, like I said the LED market is on fire all on its own. It doesn’t need a damned mandate! These devices are not “clean energy products” as they have been around for 4 decades now. It was the DVD market and its push for high aerial density that got high brightness LED research going. Once substrate issues were worked out (thank you Cree!) high stability high brightness LED’s hit the market and it’s been phenomenal since. They don’t need the governments help. They will succeed on their own merits just fine. They have also spurned an avalanche of LED driver IC’s that will take care of my biggest issue, which is the enormous installed base of incandescent dimmers. The competition is fierce and where the stupid idiotic government and all these idiot clean energy nit wits can do some real good for a change is protecting American manufactures from predatory trade policies and currency manipulation by foreign competitors designed to steal our wealth generation.
Come on people pull your collective heads out of your behind and wake the hell up! We have a huge manufacturing boon to our economy that works the energy conservation end really well and we are throwing it away to the damned Chinese, again! And to make matters worse this stupid mandate actually works better for the Chinese than us. Talk about stupid!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 03:08 PM
Lou, you’ve missed my point. Here it is again more clearly: you criticize me for “picking your pocket” because my industry relies in part on tax credits and other government incentives. Under your rationale, industries such as policing, the military, teaching, etc., should be castigated even more strongly because they rely entirely on government largesse - not partially.
Also, you’re clearly a right-wing kind of guy so you should in fact support the tax credits that form by far the largest incentive for renewables. Don’t you support lower taxes? Tax credits are just: lower taxes on certain industries.
Last, I suspect you’re a nuclear power supporter and probably a supporter of offshore oil drilling. Those industries receive as much or more government assistance as renewables. Do you denounce them for receiving government help also?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 03:15 PM
Wireless, I’ve warned you before about reading IBD. It’ll rot your brain. Just about everything they write in that editorial is wrong. The lightbulb mandates refer only to energy efficiency. They do not mandate the phaseout of incandescents or required LEDs. Rather, many companies are developing incandescents as well as CFLs and LEDs that can meet the standards. Read up on this issue and you’ll see for yourself how wrong the IBD editorial staff is on this and other issues. Here’s a good start:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 04:18 PM
Tam,
You are deliberatively distorting what I have said. I certainly do not object to lower taxes for everyone, applied without special favors for certain industries. What I do strenuously object to is one industry (renewable energy) receiving special favors that is making certain people very rich at the expense of the taxpayers. I do not support Wallstreet tax shelter syndicators, accountants, lawyers and people like you getting rich on these credits and then sanctimoniously telling us it is for our own good.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 04:21 PM
Tam,
You are deliberately distorting what I have said. I certainly do not object to lower taxes for everyone, applied without special favors for certain industries. What I do strenuously object to is one industry (renewable energy) receiving special favors that is making certain people very rich at the expense of the taxpayers. I do not support Wall Street tax shelter syndicators, accountants, lawyers and people like you getting rich on these credits and then sanctimoniously telling us it is for our own good.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 08:30 PM
Tam,
You’ve got to be kidding me. Using about the farthest left group of environmental radicals as your source to dispel what Investors Business Daily says is hardly convincing. You may as well quote Al Gore to convince me that human beings are baking the planet. Besides, what the article was primarily about was the CFL’s which are sick joke. LED’s got a passing mention and they acknowledged they were very efficient. As usual, you are highly selective in your points. I’ll also point out you have not addressed any of the other articles and points I made that directly, and effectively, contradict your opinion piece.
Secondly, my point is that federal government has no business ramming this down our throats. If its such a great idea and so efficient I think consumers are smart enough to figure this out themselves without coercion by our government. I’m interested in preserving our liberties, you apparently are not.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.15.12 @ 11:42 PM
Lou, take a look at the broader issue of tax credits in the US economy and you’ll see that renewable energy comprises a tiny part of that industry. So your ire is misdirected. I agree with you, however, that Wall Street types are and have been for decades abusing the American people with the power they exert in Washington. This is where the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party converge: let’s get money out of politics and even the playing field.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.16.12 @ 01:01 AM
Tam, trying to equate my support for free markets and capitalism to agreeing with you that renewable energy tax credits are somehow beneficial to the economy is completely disingenuous on your part. The renewable energy tax shelter business is making hundreds of millions of dollars selling these tax credits to corporations to lower their taxes. These syndicators could care less about good energy policy, instead they see a great opportunity to make immense profits at the expense of taxpayers. They funnel tens of millions of dollars to Obama and other liberal politicians to ensure the survival of these tax credits. They can hardly believe their good fortune that our President who supposedly opposes special interests is helping them make a ton of money.
If you don’t believe me - the following is taken from the website of a prestigious law firm advertising their work in packaging these tax credits for their tax shelter clients:
“As the nation’s preeminent law firm in structuring and closing investments in tax credit transactions, attorneys in Nixon Peabody’s Syndication and Tax practice groups understand the complexities of the production tax credit, the solar energy investment tax credit, and the new markets tax credit, the three tax credits that can help finance commercial renewable energy development. Our experience includes advising clients on the financing and tax structuring using these tax credits.”
The fact of the matter is that you are profiting from these tax credits, making you no better than the Wall Street financiers you and the Occupy Movement love to vilify. In my estimation, there is a simple word for this: hypocrite.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.16.12 @ 02:57 PM
As far as tax credits go this is a tough one. We can all agree that the investment we made as a country in the Apollo space program yielded huge economic benefits decades later in the electronics industry. These benefits in the multi trillion dollar range far out numbered the billions spent. Does the renewable energy sector look like a winner down the road? Hard to say. One thing is very different though and that is the financial health of our country. In 1961 we ran a trade surplus and the government was not in debt. We are currently shipping half a trillion in wealth offshore every year now and the government is 16 trillion in debt. Not good. It might be wise for the government to clean up its unfettered spending habits and help us balance the trade in our favor rather than go off half cocked supporting marginal technologies. Once we have a healthy economy, then we can look at how to invest taxpayer dollars.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.16.12 @ 05:36 PM
Lou, do a bit more research on US tax policy. It’s an extremely common policy to lower taxes on favored industries or activities - including home mortgage deductions, depreciation on home improvements, etc. that apply to individual tax liability as well as corporate tax liability.
Using the traditional right-wing narrative, this isn’t “taxpayer money,” as you say. This is private money being allowed to remain in private hands. Yes, it is selective.
As for firms like Nixon Peabody being part of the Wall Street establishment and bilking us taxpayers out of millions, this is a bit melodramatic. Again, tax policy for favored activities is extremely common. All Nixon Peabody and other law firms are doing is doing what lawyers have always done: make business transactions work. They help private entities with tax liability take advantage of these tax credits when the renewable energy development companies don’t have sufficient tax liability to absorb the credits. Again, this is extremely common.
While I defend this type of legal assistance, I certainly do not defend the corrupt Washington “pay to play” lobbying environment and I strongly advocate for campaign finance reform, public financing of elections, and severe limits on what former politicians and their staffers can do in private industry after leaving government service.
So, no, there’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in me taking advantage of tax credits to support renewable energy while also agreeing with much of the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party anti-Wall St. narrative. As for me being rich, that’s a good one. Maybe one day.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.16.12 @ 05:36 PM
In terms of deficits and the economy more generally, AN50, I’m sure you’re aware that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for about $2.5 trillion in lost revenue to the federal government - which of course dwarfs any tax deductions afforded to the renewable energy industry (a few $billion each year). So are you advocating letting the Bush tax cuts expire along with removing renewable energy industry and other industry tax credits such as nuclear, offshore oil drilling, etc.?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.16.12 @ 07:00 PM
Wireless, just check the facts from whatever source you like - read the original legislation if that suits your fancy. Again, the bottomline is that the IBD editorial got just about every fact wrong and therefore the editorial conclusions asserted are way off base. IBD editorials will rot your brain. Avoid them.
As for NRDC being far left, wrong again. They’re actually a very moderate group that often gets flack from other enviros for selling out and being too corporatist. But because NRDC is very moderate they’re highly effective on key issues.
As for your other claims, you’ve shown repeatedly that you’re pretty immune to facts contrary to your worldview, so I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to every one of your posts or points. Don’t interpret that to mean that I agree with you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.17.12 @ 03:01 PM
Tam,
Thanks for providing us a little more insight into your neo-marxist views of things. Your view that tax cuts cost the government is typical of collectivists like you appear to be. That view assumes its the government’s money in the first place. Its not, its ours.
Secondly, that $2.5T number you quote is highly suspect and likely generated using terminally flawed and always wrong static models of scoring tax policy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26314.html
The reality of tax cuts is the almost always result in an increase in tax revenues over time because of more economic activity and growth. Our tax system averages about 18% of tax revenue vs. GDP regardless of tax rates. The largest Bush tax cut was passed in 2003. Individual income tax revenue that year was about $950B. In 2008 individual tax revenue was about $1.2T due to economic growth. The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 clearly helped spur economic growth after the dot com implosion, recession and 9/11 attacks.
People like yourself that prioritize government never seem to get that dollars the government spends have to come from somewhere. They are either taxed or borrowed from the private sector. Government consumes wealth that the private sector creates. When the government has the money its no longer in the private sector engaged in commerce and investment which reduces growth. That commerce and investment generates wealth which then increases GDP and increase federal tax revenues.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.17.12 @ 04:29 PM
What I am advocating Tam is letting people keep their own wealth. The government is $16 trillion in debt, so why on earth do I want them to have more of anyone’s money? Seriously!
I am a big fan of tax credits as a way of stimulating successful wealth generating enterprises, not subsidizing stuff we cannot afford. If the renewable energy products you advocate provide cheap abundant energy then you won’t need credits because every investor in the world will be flocking to your door dumping money in your lap.
And here in lies the problem, your motivation. You are driven by a religious desire to eliminate carbon fuel, not finding a profitable way to deliver cheap energy. You can do both you know. But that will require you to drop the parasitic nature of your business model that requires government subsidies and expensive pricing to be viable. If you can deliver electricity cheaper than carbon fuels do and in greater quantities then your financial problems are over and you will be on our side screaming to get the government out of your way.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.17.12 @ 09:13 PM
I generally don’t like tax credits, deductions and other loopholes created by politicians who like to engage in social engineering, crony capitalism and political gamesmanship. All they end up doing is needlessly complicating a byzantine tax code and wasting taxpayer money. Instead, eliminate all the loopholes and lower all the tax brackets. If you did this, there is no reason why the top marginal bracket would have to be higher than 20%. I promise you this reform of our ridiculous tax code would generate more economic activity than anything else.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.17.12 @ 09:22 PM
Actually Tam, what will rot your mind is drinking your own bathwater like you clearly have been doing for some time. What specifically is inaccurate in the IBD piece, I’m not going to do your work for you. Give me specifics and I guarantee I can find sources that support what IBD says.
But, as long as we are discussing how much of your own bathwater you’ve been drinking and indeed what a fiasco this renewable energy stuff has been, here is a new well sourced study from the American Enterprise Institute that looks at the industry and the absolutely mindbogglingly stellar results delivered for tons of our tax money. Enjoy, we’ll be here waiting for a book report:
What was it Homer Simpson always said? I think it was: doouuggghhh
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.19.12 @ 11:28 AM
Two more examples of the Obama admin denying us energy we can actually use. November can’t come soon enough:
Keystone pipeline:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168912332364268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Uranium mining:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577154332224006536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.19.12 @ 05:48 PM
You know Wireless, the sad thing is these idiots really believe they are doing us a favor. It galls me no end that they only see the world through their narrow tunnel vision.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.22.12 @ 09:13 PM
Here is a recent article in Der Spiegel talking about Germany’s experiment in solar energy. They’ve blown $100B and it generates like 3% of their power. You could a bunch of nuclear plants for that…..
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,809439,00.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.22.12 @ 09:51 PM
Wireless, what’s your take on the Republican race. Do you think Newt has a chance in the general. I am worried that Republicans may be about to nominate a candidate whose negatives may make him unelectable. He is certainly striking a chord with Conservatives who are angry with the status quo, however, is he the candidate who can really implement the change we all want. I am skeptical. When Senator Coburn speaks so disparagingly of him from their time in the House, you got to wonder.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 12:28 AM
Lou,
I share your concern about Newt. Here is the most worrying thing:
Favorability is just another word for likability. Newt is not likable. Romney and Obama have positive favorability ratings, Newt is like 30 points underwater. He is too well known and people have already formed opinions of him. It is unlikely they will change their opinion of him. People generally don’t vote for people they don’t like. This is why the “establishment” is terrified of Newt. He is very flawed as a candidate.
That said, Obama is in deep, deep trouble and I think any of our candidates, except Ron Paul, can beat him handily. His problem is fundamental: You can’t spin $4 gas, homes worth half as much as they were a couple years ago, that you worry about your job, that you know several unemployed people, that milk costs more every time you go to the store, that the debt and deficits are massive, that things just don’t feel good. People live that every day of their lives, $1B of commercials can’t change that reality. So Obama will try to make anything the issue other than his abysmal record. Why help him out running a candidate people don’t like? This is basic stuff.
I suspect Newt will implode, he can’t help himself. I wish Pawlenty and/or Perry would have hung in there but they didn’t. End of the day, Romney is a pretty good candidate. Not as conservative as I would like but he’s more conservative than George Bush the 1st and 2nd and way more conservative than McCain. Probably more conservative than Newt, as he’s all over the map if you really look at the history.
Having the primary go on though I think is good. It makes our candidates better and all the news is about them, not Obama. They are out there day in and day out hammering Obama and capturing most of the press. It gives them a huge amount of free media to make their case.
All this fantasy about Newt debating Obama is just that, fantasy. Obama will never agree to debate formats where Newt could shine, not going to happen. It will be strict one minute here, 30 seconds there, etc. No professorial rants. Newt will get frustrated and come off as angry. This nonsense about chasing Obama around challenging him to 3 hour debates is ridiculous. the press will just make fun of him as an annoying little gnat. It would belittle him. People forget Lincoln lost that race….
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 04:46 AM
I agree Newt will implode; he can’t help himself. It is hard to ignore all his Republican colleagues from his Speaker days, who almost unanimously feel he is unqualified to be President. I think they are terrified he will not only lose to Obama, but will lose the Congress as well.
I also agree I wish we had a better candidate than Romney but he is the best we have and he is much more conservative than some would acknowledge. I wish we had a Daniels, Ryan, Christie or even Jeb Bush in the race, but that is not to be. I just hope Romney can take Florida and speak authoritatively and without hesitation to these ridiculous charges regarding his taxes and his record at Bain. It is galling that Newt is doing the job for Obama in attacking Romney for a successful career in the private sector. I never thought that the Republican candidates would stoop to the same divisive class warfare tactics that the Democratics reflexively rely upon to pander for votes.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 01:19 PM
Come on Guys. You have the left hitting the airwaves with all this class warfare crap and aiming their guns and rightfully so at Wall Street and the best the GOP can do is nominate the poster boy for the Street? Are you kidding me? While you and the establishment GOP wring your hands over Newt he is picking up more and more endorsements from the conservative base. Washington may hate him, the left may hate him, but the GOP base loves the guy and for one reason, he stands up for what he has done right, admits what he has done wrong and never flinches or stutters when hit by an unexpected question. Of course DC hates the man he embarrasses them daily.
Wireless I agree anyone could beat Obama, including my left shoe. What the establishment GOP does not get and to their eventual demise is that people are looking for fire, not dad. Newt is fire and Romney is dear old dad. As for Romney’s career, Lou, heading up financial services as an experience in the “private” sector, at a time when that sector of the economy just raped the nation is about a stupid a move as you can make. The Street does not make wealth it transfers and consumes it and until we on the right start making that discernment we are going down in flames gentlemen.
Defend capitalism, defend it by showing what it can build and create, not by how much a service sector can suck off it for its own sake. Listening to the punditry go through this hand ringing and defense of capitalistic parasites is really showing their true colors, weak, tired and out of touch. Don’t be one of them. Our industrial sector built this country and the modern world and we have, our generation, hawked it all off for a pocket full of cash and patted ourselves for being clever capitalists. Vultures and parasites maybe but not capitalists. A true capitalist understands the financial system and uses it to create, build, innovate and advance. We have it backwards now. We take what was created, built and innovated and hawk it for selfish personal gain and the future be damned. Me now has become our motto and the people, those who actually make wealth are sick of hearing it. And that gentlemen plays right into the left’s war on class.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 01:50 PM
AN50,
All of what you said sounds good, but the bottom line is can Newt win in November. I know Newt taps into our anger and talks a good story about how he is the real conservative (not supported by his record), but what good does that do for us if he loses to Obama and drags the Congress down with him. He is incredibly unpopular with the general electorate, people don’t like him. It would be much harder for him to attract independents than Romney. Having said this, don’t get me wrong, he is light years better than the disaster we have now, but the central imperative of our time is to retire Obama as soon as possible. Can you assure me that Gingrich can be trusted to accomplish this task.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 02:15 PM
AN50,
Romney is more conservative than our last two GOP Presidents and our last nominee. I’d prefer someone else but you go to battle with the army you have. Everyone is looking for another Reagan and our candidates all suffer by constant comparisons and nostalgic pining away. Reagan ain’t on the ballot. Its fine to push our candidates to articulate and defend conservative principles, that is what is happening now, but discarding otherwise solid candidates for the unachievable is dumb.
You did not address my link about Newt’s core problem—- likability. Please go look at this. These numbers are a likely fatal vulnerability. The democrats would love to run against Newt, its a gift. In fact, he’s probably their only realistic chance of holding the presidency. Look who Obama and the unions are attacking now, today, in Florida. Its not Newt, it’s Romney. This election needs to be about Obama, not Newt. If Newt is the nominee it will be about Newt.
This is basic Political Science 101. Politicians that aren’t likable are unlikely to get elected, that is just a fact of life. Newt has a 30% deficit in likability, he can’t make that go away. In many ways I like Newt but he is a very, very, very risky candidate. It is too important to 1) get Obama out of office, 2) hold the house and 3) take the Senate to run a nominee that fundamentally endangers those goals. If we fail in achieving any one of those three objectives I fear for the future of this country. Why nominate the one candidate who has the lowest probability of achieving those imperatives? Newt might be able to win but Romney definitely can.
The top of ticket matters, just look at what happened here in CA in 2010. Meg Whitman hurt everyone down ticket. If I was running for office I would hate to have Newt at the top of the ticket.
Private equity and VC’s perform very needed functions in our economy. They are one of the reasons we still have a pretty vibrant economic fundamentals. Europe does not have such a robust system and instead of letting the free market administer its sometimes brutal medicine they protect their companies whether they are efficient or not. As a consequence they have a sclerotic economy with little ability to grow and we can all watch them circling the drain. These companies Bain invested in were pretty much all in trouble and likely to go out of business anyway. They created far more wealth and jobs than you could say they destroyed.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 02:31 PM
Here is some analysis from a guy who is pretty good on this sort of stuff:
Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face comes to mind. We elected a guy who just ran his mouth, said absolutely nothing, but sounded good saying it. Let’s not elect someone who will definitely talk too much and might, at any moment, say something really, really dumb. He’s does it repeatedly.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 04:37 PM
I agree Wireless; I am tired of good talkers who sound good but in reality when you look at their record there is nothing there.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 04:37 PM
George Will:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49003
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 05:04 PM
Gingrich cartoons:
http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/newt-gingrich-cartoons
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 06:14 PM
Triumph of style over substance:
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 06:21 PM
You guys are missing the points. Newt is hated by the establishment. Romney is one of the least inspiring politicians out there and he is supported by GOP afraid of their own shadow. We played it safe with McCain and what did that get us boys? Obama. Here we are 4 years later, country being driven into a ditch and you still want to play it safe? Shit, enough of that already!
Look I like Mitt, he is safe, warm and a nice dad. But we need a warrior and badly. I’m not saying its Newt, just that he comes closer than good ole Mr Safe.
As for your support of the finance industry, Wireless, like I said before I don’t have a problem with it. I just want you cheerleaders to realize they would not exist without someone actually earning real intrinsic wealth for them to play with. For God’s sake you got the damned cart before the horse. Everyone sees that but the establishment GOP and their pundit cheerleaders (and most of the left for that matter). And that my friends will lose us the election.
You are hearing this from a capitalist loving, gun toting, bible clutching conservative, so no need to do a Rush Limbaugh on me, I already got it. Just stop propping up the parasite side of our system and stick to the side that actually makes new wealth. If you don’t know what that is then stop listening to Romney and listen to Rick Santorum.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 06:40 PM
AN50, can you tell us with a straight face that Newt can win in Nov. I don’t want to wake up on Nov 5 with a Democratic President and Congress for another 4 years and a post from you apologizing for supporting a flawed candidate.
Do me a favor and go to Romney’s website and read his policy postions and tell me if Newt’s description of him is accurate. I think you will find that he is more conservative than Newt. Forget the rhetoric and look at their track record and their positions on the issues. Newt is a good talker, but he has consistently favored big govt solutions to most of our problems.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 06:47 PM
I pulled this excerpt from the the last article Wireless posted for us:
“Gingrich has an enviable rep as a one-man think tank, but in his wilderness years, he made a sweet living as a “forceful” pitchman for utterly conventional center-left policies: Medicaid expansion, the individual mandate, cap and trade, “clean energy” subsidies, and the like. Newt does a great impression of a red-state firebrand, but when it comes to policy, “the color is blue.”
Is this the real Conservative you’re supporting, AN50. If this doesn’t convince you, I have a lot more for you to digest.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 08:14 PM
“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.”
Wireless, you know I agree with you and will support Romney, but he better formulate a better message than this one, which he used in his speech after the South Carolina defeat. This type of drivel is not going to work, particularly when Newt is giving the conservatives the red meat they want. Maybe Romney needs to hire new speech writers or consultants, but he’s got to wage a better campaign than what we’ve seen so far.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 08:56 PM
AN50,
I don’t think I’m missing anything. It’s one thing playing it too safe and its quite another thing going on a kamikaze mission. Newt is the closest thing we’ve had to a kamikaze candidate (other than Ron Paul) we’ve had in my memory. The “establishment”, whoever that is, hates Newt for many valid reasons. Like he goes off to left wing, big government la-la land all the time. Read the last article I linked to for a few examples. I don’t agree with Joe Scarborough often but he is exactly right when he describes Newt as a political opportunist.
Newt likes to say he has grandiose thoughts but they are pretty much big government grandiose thoughts if you actually look at what he’s proposed. He is no conservative champion. The conservatives in Congress fired him as speaker because he kept shafting them. He’s doing his best to sound like Mr. Conservative now but the fact of the matter is he has largely lived off the reservation. But regardless, even if he’s had the transformation of his life due to his being a granddad and a new Catholic, it doesn’t matter. Voters don’t like him and there is very little he can do to change that. That is just a fact of life.
I am glad the process of the primaries continues, I think it helps us and helps them. If it forces Romney to embrace more aggressive tax reform, talk about sound money, and aggressively defend conservative ideals and free market economics that is all great. I’m watching the debate online now and he’s much better on the free market. I’m just making the point that Gingrich, whatever you think of him, is highly problematic if you actually want to win this election.
Nearly everyone who voted for McCain is going to be inclined to vote for the GOP nominee. That’s not the audience we need to win this election. I agree Romney has been playing it too safe and he’s paying a price for it. We’ll see how he reacts. But Gingrich could well lose people who voted for McCain and is not the kind of candidate who is going to peal off many Obama voters or appeal to the magical independents.
I agree we can’t just service each other. I’m in manufacturing. The death of American manufacturing is greatly overstated. That said, the problems we do have are largely self-created and they aren’t the fault of the financial community, they are the fault of government policy. The government had all of the authority they needed to stop the financial meltdown and they did nothing. In fact they encouraged it. They are the ones perpetuating the bailouts and cronyism. The private sector didn’t cause any of this, they play on the field the government has created for them. Don’t blame them for taking advantage of what the government gives them. If there was criminal behavior prosecute it. But there wasn’t much, people largely work within the framework presented them.
Companies like Bain largely ensure the efficient distribution of capital. They win some, they lose some but by and large they serve a much needed purpose. You can make good arguments that the financial industry just moves money around and makes too much in the process, but they perform vital functions in our economy of providing liquidity, investment capital, loans, risk capital, etc. that are absolutely critical to the overall health of our economy. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Without a healthy financial sector we won’t have a healthy economy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 09:01 PM
By the way, I still haven’t made up my mind. I wanted Pawlenty and then Perry. I’ll support whomever is the nominee but I have huge reservations about Newt. Santorum I could support but I think Romney is a better general election candidate.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 09:45 PM
Here is a great example of what we have to look forward to if Newt is the nominee. Endless revelations like this:
GINGRICH NOW: I SUPPORTED GOLDWATER…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/23/gingrich_i_supported_goldwater.html
GINGRICH FLASHBACK: I SUPPORTED ROCKEFELLER OVER GOLDWATER…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJQsLFhuyOY
Like that other article pointed out, this guy has been, and still is, all over the map.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 10:22 PM
Thanks, Wireless - the audacity of this guy to lie about supporting Goldwater is going to be hung around his neck with the million of other inane things he has said over the years. He is toast, either now before it is too late or certainly against Obama who will use his billion dollars to repeatedly play all the gaffes and lies of Newt before the public. It is a train wreck in slow motion.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.12 @ 11:44 PM
Lou and AN50,
The fundamental problem with Newt is perfectly illustrated with these Goldwater/Rockefeller clips. He just shoots from the hip. Constantly. It just rolls off his lips without thinking. Wherever he is, whatever the situation is, he just starts talking and says what he thinks people want to hear.
If you are in front of a bunch of activist Republicans who want someone to eviscerate Obama he’ll serve that up and put a big cherry on top. If it’s a group of immigration activists he’ll find something for them too that conflicts with other positions he has. It all sounds all nice and authoritative but largely misguided with sprinkles of brilliance. That’s fine if he wants to be a pundit or a commentator or a talk show host but its not OK if you want to be the leader of the free world and lead our country back from the abyss.
He will always be at risk of doing crap like this. He rarely has an unshared thought. This is an excellent example why the “establishment” wants nothing to do with this guy. Its a slow motion, and totally predictable, train wreck waiting to happen.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 12:18 AM
Here is a very insightful editorial by Wesley Pruden about Gingrich, it is worth the read:
http://www.prudenpolitics.com/index.php/pruden/full_column/newt_and_the_moral_thing
Dems will have a field day with this guy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 11:24 AM
Hey Tam,
We’re still waiting for our book report on the AEI study on renewables.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 11:34 AM
This is rich, sounds like something Tam would write:
I don’t even know where to begin on this nonsense. Taking credit for increased oil and gas production while doing everything they can to shut it down. Then going on the delusional “clean” energy jihad, which has been shown repeatedly to be an expensive boondoggle.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 06:04 PM
Well no since in trying to wrangle you two guys. You play it safe like you did with McCain and we’ll see what happens.
As for Tam, he can’t win this one Wireless and he knows it. As for the WSJ article I didn’t know whether to barf or laugh my self to death. What a load of BS.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 07:51 PM
AN,
Romney is way more conservative than McCain. All of our candidates this year this year were, not that it is too hard to be more conservative than McCain. We will see how Romney does now that he is being challenged and actually has to work for the nomination, which is a good thing. He took it to Newt pretty well last night in the debate.
I like many things about Newt but the Dems are licking their chops to get him as the candidate. You can tell who they fear by who they attack, that’s Romney. I haven’t made up my mind and here in CA we probably won’t have a say anyway, but as far as actually winning the election Newt is our weakest candidate IMHO. The only reason Newt is even in consideration is because of the debates, but as I pointed out that will not be a major factor in this election. Obama won’t let it happen. Both Romney and Santorum will also debate well against Obama. How Obama got a reputation as a great debater is beyond me, McCain held his own against him and he is terrible.
Let the process play out, I’m sure there will be more surprises. But I’m not prepared to jump on the bandwagon with the human hand grenade, he could explode at any minute. Aren’t you concerned with any of the stuff I linked to?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 09:35 PM
AN50, let me throw my 2 cents in too. You have complained that Romney has not created any wealth and that private equity has been a net drain on the economy, even though his firm provided the necessary capital to many productive companies like Staples, Sports Authority, HCA and many others. These companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers today. Bain has also provided the seed capital to a number of these companies, unlike the traditional private equity firm - a fact overlooked by most pundits.
But if you think Romney has been detrimental to our economy, what the heck has Gingrich done to contribute to the economy, what jobs has he created, where has he built anything of value. He has spent his whole life in govt and then after he left he has made millions of dollars lobbying or influence peddling. He has never had a real job in the private sector, unless you include giving speeches as a wealth-creating job. If you are going to criticize Romney for illegitimately making money, you cannot give Gingrich a pass. Has he ever started a company, employed people, made something of value. You know the answer. Do you think Gingrich could read a financial statement, understand the capital structure of a publicly-held company, take a failing company and reorganize it, bringing it back to health. I highly doubt it. Although I will concede he can give a good speech or charge exorbitant fees for his lobbying services(or would you rather call it historian-related work).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 09:54 PM
don’t know if you guys tortured yourself to watch the President’s State of the Union address. If not here is a summation:
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 10:28 PM
Wireless, I watched some of it and then turned it off. I have heard all of this before from him. This was simply a political speech launching his reelection campaign. Everything was carefully calibrated by his pollsters and consultants to divide the electorate and create numerous straw man to divert the attention of the voters from the real issues. He knows if the people focus on the real “state of the union”, he is toast.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.12 @ 11:39 PM
It was actually painful to watch. Pretty pathetic on balance. I was struck by how minimalist it was compared with all the hope and change and big visions, happy talk and the vacant promises of bipartisan cooperation and all that of days gone by.
This was really nothing. Just words strung together meaning next to nothing to check the obligatory blocks of a State of the Union speech. Zero energy, just the perfunctory jumping jacks by the Congressmen. I didn’t see her in the audience but I’m sure our own Lois Capps was doing her best impression of a bobble head doll.
The only thing of note was a new proposal to use the coercive force of government to forcibly lower people’s mortgages and interest rates on their underwater homes. He didn’t really explain who will pay for that. I guess the 90% of us who didn’t take loans we couldn’t afford and who aren’t underwater will subsidize that somehow. We must be rich after all.
This speech was really a caricature of itself. Empty rhetoric from an empty suit. I doubt this could even inspire some of our most devout marxist lefty posters here on Noozhawk. I actually found myself feeling sorry for him.
The amazing thing was there was ZERO mention of his biggest “achievements”, those being the “stimulus”, ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. I wonder why? Gee, they are so successful and popular, you would think he’d be thumping his chest like a gorilla.
The predictable and destructive class warfare stuff was on full display. Grievance politics at its worst. You know, we all need to do our “fair share”. Never mind how much we are already doing. Lots of evil rich straw men to set up and knock down. Pitting one American against another with politics of envy and resentment. Then saying how we all need to come together. What an inspirational leader! Really rose the occasion where Americans seek a vision of an assured future for themselves and their children. Not.
There was the also the predictable hosannas to all the jobs we’ll create with “green” energy. Funny, no mention of how successful our previous green energy investments like Solyndra have been. He should have had Tam write his speech for him, he’s a better cheerleader for that nonsense than Obama is.
The foreign policy part of the speech was as laughable as it was in denial of the mess he has made of the middle east and elsewhere. Our vaunted reset with Russian has resulted in them selling new fighters to Syria to massacre their own people and nuclear technology for Iran and missiles to protect them. We bailed on our investment in Iraq and now that country is plunging into violence. What a sick joke.
End of the day it was pretty pathetic. How we ended up with this lightweight as President is horrifying.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 12:57 AM
Well, I just forced myself to read a transcript of the speech. It was breathtaking how many falsehoods and distortions were in the speech. The chutzpah of this guy to take credit for new oil drilling in the Gulf and the extraction of natural gas, which his EPA has done everything conceivable to make it more difficult and expensive, takes incredulity to a new level.
I got a good laugh from all the regulations he killed and how he is such an advocate of small govt, no more than we can afford. Yeah, he is a great steward of taxpayer’s money.
I loved the part about taxing corporations who outsource jobs or refuse to repatriate their overseas income. Did it ever dawn on this numbskull, that if you lowered the corporate income tax rate so it was competitive with foreign countries, companies would have no reason to keep their money overseas.
I love his solutions for improving our pathetic public education system. Require kids to graduate high school. What good is that going to do if they can’t read or write. And training people for high tech jobs in our community colleges is another non-starter if kids are leaving our govt-monopolized public schools practically illiterate.
I could go on - there was so much nonsense in this speech, but I agree with you, Wireless, his proposal to allow people to refinance their underwater home by having FHA insure these mortgages is going to be very expensive for taxpayers when the homeowners start defaulting on their new loans. It cracked me up when he threatened the big bad banks that he would not rescue or bail them out again. Who is he kidding, his administration has made these banks even bigger than before the crisis. If BoA goes out of business, I am sure our govt is prepared to tell them to go to h*ll.
Anyway, there was a lot more outrageous stuff in the speech, but if it did anything that was constructive, it reminded us how critically important it is to send him back to his corrupt cronies in Chicago.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 02:52 AM
Wireless and AN50, read the Mona Charen column in Noozhawk on Newt.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 10:19 AM
Ouch. Wait until the Dems go to work on him.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 11:45 AM
This is a great piece of analysis on Obama’s green fixation and why he nixxed the Keystone pipeline.
Tam, care to comment? I think he’s got your number.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 12:46 PM
R. Emmett Tyrell, editor of the conservative American Spectator on Newt:
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/william-jefferson-gingrich/87674/
Don’t get sucked in
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.12 @ 06:30 PM
Wireless, the American Spectator piece is a devastating indictment of Gingrich and should be heeded by conservatives unless they want to suffer for another 4 years.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 10:31 AM
Well, here it comes. Newt’s flippant comments and assertions are already coming back to bite him.
CNN: Gingrich admits his ABC claim was false during debate…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html
Gingrich tells UNIVISION: No perjury during my divorce depositions…
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/gingrich-asked-about-marital-past-role-in-clinton-impeachment/
Marianne Gingrich lawyer: ‘He was never deposed’...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/30/gingrich-claims-of-veracity-in-divorces-don-t-hold-up.html
FLASHBACK 1998: Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ads103098.htm
Elliott Abrams, Newt and Reagan:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams
This is just the beginning of this stuff. This is why I say this guy is a very risky candidate. His baggage has baggage as we can see here and it is all self-created. If he’s the nominee it will be a death by 1000 cuts. He might be able to survive it and win but why chance it? Besides, as I pointed out, he’s not really a great conservative. He’s a big government Republican, not a small government conservative. He can say whatever he wants now but his record shows otherwise. And as you can see from this stuff, you have to take anything he says with a few grains of salt.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 12:06 PM
Again boys, you played it safe last time and we got Obama. You played it safe in 2000 and we almost got friggen Gore. You played it safe in 92 and 96 and we got Clinton. You actually help the opposition torpedo a candidate that is more popular than your Melvin Milk Toast so you can play it safe and when Romney loses to Obama what will you think then? This is the reason many of us left the party in 2006, the scared, frightened comfortable being number two republicans sitting around wringing their hands over the possibility of actually leading the nation, trying way too hard to look like Democrats, good grief.
Here is the biggest risk you run slamming the candidate now being supported by those who gave the house back to the GOP, a third party. If you guys are too blinded by this disastrous infighting to see what is happening behind you then you deserve the loss you will be handed.
As for the Newt, I’ll take him any day over your Melvin Milk Toast and your damned loser party. The more you attack Newt the more you attack the base, the more you reveal your true roots in the party of second place. Get a clue.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 12:08 PM
The consistent theme in all your links is his tendency to lie to promote himself or explain embarrassing behavior in his past. I am beginning to think he has some kind of personality disorder (sociopath) which may explain all the prevarication and falsehoods.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 03:11 PM
AN50,
I’m not a big Romney fan either, but Newt will be a disaster as a candidate in the general. If you think this intra-party stuff is bad, wait until the Dems go to work on him, they will twist all this stuff, and more to come, into a pretzel.
I’ve made my points about how important it is to win this year. We have 3 viable candidates. Newt is the least likely to beat Obama. He’s a suicide mission. You want to stick it to the party fine, I do to but I’m not prepared to commit suicide to do it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 03:52 PM
AN50,
This tells you everything you need to know about which candidate the Dems fear:
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 07:43 PM
Wireless,
I wonder what is going with Sheldon Adelson, who is bankrolling this PAC attacking Romney. He owns a number of casinos and I wonder if he thinks Romney is going to crack down on gambling or regulate his busines in some way. Or maybe he has a personal vendetta against Romney which were not familiar with. He has already contributed $10 million, so you know something is going on other than liking Newt.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 08:54 PM
I have no clue about this guy. He’s been a big Gingrich backer for a long time, I would just take that at face value until there has been some evidence to the contrary. He’s a true Newt believer, which is fine. He can spend his money any way he wishes. As long as they are telling the truth it should all be fair game. Let’s get all the dirty laundry out now. I hate October surprises. That Bain hit piece they did was not accurate and probably hurt Newt more than Romney.
I don’t think the federal government has much to say about gambling in the states. It is a state issue if I’m not mistaken so I don’t know what role Romney would have. He certainly doesn’t tout anything like that.
Look, I actually like Newt and I wish he didn’t have so many manifest flaws. But he does have those significant flaws. Despite those flaws he’s articulate and feisty and talks a great game. He’s a street fighter and bare knuckled brawler, I think that is why people, like our pal AN50, are fired up with Newt. A lot of people, like my parents, are totally on the Newt bandwagon because they want to make a statement to the “establishment”. Nothing wrong with that but that can’t take a back seat to winning.
If Newt is the nominee I will enthusiastically support him, I just think as a general election candidate he is the weakest (other than Paul). I still am undecided, I’m just weighing who I think will be the best candidate. We must get rid of Obama. That is the overriding imperative. I’d vote for a potted plant over Obama.
Did you guys watch the debate tonight? Pretty good actually. I think Obama will fare poorly against any of these guys in a debate. They are all good. Santorum gave an absolutely beautiful explanation of the relationship of faith and freedom. Romney zinged Newt a few times and Newt could not effectively respond. He was basically speechless. Romney took it to Newt pretty well the last two debates and Newt was unable to parry effectively. Santorum hit Romney pretty hard and effectively on RomneyCare. On balance they all did well but Romney probably walked out in better shape than Newt. Santorum should hang in there, he’s a good candidate. Ron Paul even sounded halfway cogent.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 09:51 PM
I like Santorium too, but I worry about the shellacking he took in his last election against a weak opponent. I know it was a bad year for Republicans, but he lost by 15% (I think) unheard of for an incumbent. I wonder how well he plays in a general election with independent voters.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 10:50 PM
I wouldn’t count Santorum out. As he correctly points out, Republicans in PA got completely creamed that year. In 2010 it was the opposite. But that election is a big detractor from his electability. He’s a good guy and I think he keeps solidifying his position as the pinch hitter. If, more likely when, Newt flames out again I think Santorum has done a great job putting himself in position to pick up the ball.
We don’t have a perfect candidate. But neither do the Dems, Obama is a badly wounded and vulnerable duck.
I want to see these guys keep going and fight it out and make their case. Pawlenty and Perry are probably kicking themselves for getting out but bad on them for not having the faith in themselves to stick it out. Santorum is solid and has show great intestinal fortitude. I’m not convinced he can carry it off, its up to him to prove it to us.
Romney is steady Eddie. Reliable but dull.
Newt is the volatile, oddly sexy but moody and unpredictable chick from your youth. When you are emotional or drunk he seems great, until you wake up in the morning. Not marriage material.
Santorum has yet to define himself. That is his challenge an opportunity. We shall see.
We’ll see how all this plays out. Based on what I am seeing from the last two debates and the trends, Newt will not win Florida but as we’ve seen, a couple of days is a lifetime in this race.
Santorum is making the right case: he’s a real conservative and he can win midwestern and industrial states. If the GOP wins PA, Obama can’t win the presidency, its just math. Santorum won statewide twice and lost once. Stay tuned.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.12 @ 11:47 PM
I just watched a replay of the debate and I thought Romney did much better. He hit Newt hard, particularly on the issue of his wealth and Newt’s hypocrisy regarding his own investments. It took the air out of him
Yes, Santorum did well. I thought he was very effective pointing out the similarities between Ma. health care plan and Obamacare. I don’t get why Romney doesn’t say it was a huge mistake and he would never do it again. Everytime he partially defends it, he looks defensive and weak. He needs to repudiate it and get past this issue. The Ma. plan is indefensible.
As an aside, I have been told that the Ca. State Senate is voting on Friday on a Canadian-style single-payer, govt takeover of private healthcare insurance in Ca. I have been told there is a good chance it could pass the legislature. The question is would Brown veto it. We may have much worse problems in Ca. than Obamacare, if they pass this abomination. Can you believe this crap.
Newsflash: I just checked again and apparently it failed by two votes. So I can guesss we can breathe a sigh of relief; however, they may try again in the next few days. A couple of Democrats abstained, so it isn’t clear how they would vote if they tweak the bill.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.12 @ 12:10 AM
Lou,
We are at a point in CA that it really doesn’t matter what the numbskulls in Sacramento vote for. We don’t have the money to implement any new lame brained schemes. Just look at AB32, our vaunted global warming act, that implementation keeps getting pushed off and even the liberal courts even intervened to stay the law pending further study. You can’t defy math forever. Unfortunately, AB32 has chased a lot of business away in the meantime.
We are broke. The legislature is a sick joke. The Governor has not shown the needed spine to deal with the systemic pension and other structural issues we have. We’ll continue in this fantasy land government until it gets so bad, that even the Marxists, like our own Das Williams, in the Assembly and Senate in CA can no longer ignore the math. Sad to watch and unnecessarily destructive. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.12 @ 11:16 AM
AN50,
Here is exactly what I have been sensing and worrying about with Newt:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/01/27/sabato-warns-of-electoral-newt-mare
This guy is pretty well respected and has a good track record. We must get rid of Obama, keep the house and win the senate. Those are primary goals.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.12 @ 12:39 PM
Hey Tam,
Radio check. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this article:
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy
I love it. This fraud is unraveling under its own utter corruption
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.12 @ 03:53 PM
Hey Tam,
Here’s another one of your fantastic green companies circling the drain and taking a bunch of our taxpayer money with it. This one a battery company to power your magic electric cars:
Your whole green fantasy world is coming crashing down around you. Solar companies folding, study after study showing how inefficient and expensive all this stuff is, more and more scientists questioning the AGW dogma and the worst of all things for your particular wallet: the subsidies are drying up. Maybe you should consider a new line of work.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.12 @ 04:14 PM
I would actually prefer Santorum and it looks like if Romney and Gingrich continue their despicable fight with each other, Rick may come out ahead. As for Romney you guys have got to look at this guy’s inability to get more than a third of the party to support him. Just falling back on the old “most conservative we can elect” mantra doesn’t cut it. It is an act of cowardice and a bad strategy considering people want leadership not safety. The more you come down on Newt, whether rightly or wrongly the more you alienate the thing people really want, a leader. You tear this guy apart his votes will go to Santorum not Romney. What does that tell you? It tells me a lot of pundits are just plain wrong and that my friends does not bode well for us. Rick by the way did very well in the last debate and made the other guys look like children.
As for the battery dilemma, more proof that top down economic systems don’t friggen work. One of the hardiest laughs I ever had was when the liberal academia said that the old commies of the USSR weren’t wrong in adopting command economics, they just weren’t smart enough. Ha, ha ho, you gotta love a liberal. Bless their intellectual narcissism blinded little brains.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.12 @ 06:15 PM
AN50,
I’m fine with Santorum as well but I’m becoming more and more convinced Newt is a train wreck that will hurt our chances significantly including races down ticket. Let the process play out, whatever these guys throw at each other Obama would too so getting it over with is better in the long run. You think this is negative? Wait until you see Axelrod and the boys go at it. They have nothing else and are desperate. Our nominee needs to be able to weather the negative storms, we’ll see how these guys hold up.
It is absolutely essential that Obama be defeated. Whoever has the best chance of defeating him will be the nominee, that’s the way the process works. I highly doubt it will be Newt, he is too risky and I think as the GOP electorate digests things you will see Newt decline. In any event, whoever that is I will enthusiastically support.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.12 @ 01:44 PM
I hear you Wireless, but it ain’t Romney or should I say, McCain 2.0. My only hope is that these two front runner idiots throw so much crap at each other that Ricky actually gets a shot. Like him or not he is a real solid guy and understands the economic fundamentals. God bless him for sticking it out while all the pundits and establishment whackos bleat for him to drop out. If one thing is true about this race, its that nothing we’ve seen before applies.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.12 @ 05:11 PM
Gingrich is getting into the gutter with his latest attacks on Romney. Accusing Romney of denying Holocaust survivors in nursing homes of their kosher food is beneath contempt. This reveals more about the Gingrich campaign and his scorched earth tactics than anything else. This is exactly why so many people can’t stand Gingrich.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.12 @ 07:06 PM
Hey Tam,
You are a big “peak oil” guy. Maybe you can comment on this article:
Everything you know about peak oil is wrong:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/everything-you-know-about-peak-oil-is-wrong-01262012.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.12 @ 11:13 PM
AN50,
Look, Romney for whatever his faults, is way, way, more conservative than McCain or Bush I or II. Newt is not a consistent conservative, he’s been all over the map. He’s talking the conservative game now but its all big government conservatism. Like the moon base.
Romney’s big flaw is Romneycare and he really needs to just say: We had a problem, we tried a solution, I had an 85% Democrat legislature, they wanted things I didn’t but when you have an overwhelming liberal legislature that is the way it goes. Did it work out like we hoped, no. Would I do it again, no.
Then commit to repealing Obamacare and he needs a more detailed plan based on getting off the third party payer system. Steal someone else’s plan. He needs to just come out and say Romneycare didn’t work out as planned and it is not the model for the rest of the country.
Romney is the first and only guy to wholeheartedly support the Ryan plan. Ryan’s plan is the best plan actually on the table at this point. Newt torpedoed Ryan. Santorum has been pretty timid about Ryan’s plan.
I understand the angst with Romney but the reality is he is the best general election candidate we have at the moment and is the most likely one to beat Obama, which is why he will likely be the nominee. Our job is to keep pushing him to more aggressively embrace solid conservative policies.
I think it’s in his heart, he has just been playing too safe. If he stole Newt’s tax plan and just said, yeah, I pay 15% tax rate and I think everyone else should too he would totally knee cap the class warfare crap. Go right at it. Tell us Mr. President why some people should pay a higher rate than others? When he goes off on the fairness riff just point out that Karl Marx’s #2 plank in the communist manifesto was the progressive income tax.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.01.12 @ 12:15 PM
Just sounds like cheerleading guys, same thing I heard in 08. The GOP is so terrified of running a real conservative (no, Romney is NOT!) that they almost always swing to the middle by rote. But history shows the opposite is true, when a real conservative in the GOP is nominated they win by landslide in the general. When they nominate a McCain or McCain 2.0 they either squeak by or lose. I call it the country club oligarch phenomena, the old starched shorts wing of the GOP. Reagan chased a lot of these people out and on to the DNC, but once he was gone Bush senior (an oligarch if I ever saw one) brought them all back.
I agree that Newt is in full self destruct mode, good for Rick. But settling and that is what you two guys are doing, settling, I know because I have read enough of your commentary here to know you would take a good conservative any day over what we have as front runners, is what we are doing, AGAIN! The second time in the party’s history when they could have run a real conservative and we get friggen McCain 2.0!
Please don’t get me wrong, I like John, a lot and admire him deeply, but I don’t want him or his clone Romney running the ship right now. I want a damned gun slinging, brash, bold, clear headed intelligent leader. We had at one time 10 damned candidates and none of them came close. God Almighty, what the hell is wrong with the GOP? So used to being the loser and in second place we can’t produce one damned guy who wants to friggen lead?
Sorry for venting my spleen to the choir guys and appreciate the tolerance you have shown. In the end my hope is we prevail in November or God help us all.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.01.12 @ 02:02 PM
AN50,
You crack me up. Who is this “establishment” who is pulling the strings? What “true conservative” ran that the establishment didn’t support? Pawlenty? He quit too early in my opinion. Bachman? She did herself in with her ill advised Gardisil attack on Perry. Perry’s entering the race is what killed Bachman. Perry? He did himself in with weak debate performances, unfortunately. Cain? He did not demonstrate the policy chops needed and couldn’t effectively deal with the female issues that were raised.
If true conservatives choose not to run how is that the party’s fault? That’s a personal decision. Where are all these missing true conservatives? Palin, Barbour, Daniels, Ryan, etc. chose not to run. Who else were you thinking about? Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity aren’t running.
As to who’s left, Newt keeps killing himself. The only reason he has been able to hang in there is everyone else imploded and he did well in debates. His debate prowness, by his own assertions, become the primary rationale for his candidacy. Remember “only I can debate Obama”? Then he proceeded to get his butt handed too him in two debates in a row. Romney cleaned his clock, especially in the 2nd debate.
This stuff about all the negative ads is a diversion and frankly whining. He can’t answer those charges effectively because he can’t raise money, which tells you a lot about his true support, and the charges are largely true. Newt got millions of dollars of free airtime on talk radio and TV interviews to make his case. If he can’t withstand attacks from a Republican how do you think he’ll hold up when Dems unleash the hounds? By time they are done with him he’d look like a gargoyle. He’s unlikeable.
Santorum has acquitted himself well and I hope he hangs in there. If Newt keeps fading it will benefit Santorum. We’ll see how he can hold up when the spotlight is on him. He’s skated through relatively unscathed so far.
Like it or not, voters are acting rationally. There isn’t someone from the establishment casting their votes for them in the voting booth. You have the people to vote for that are on the ballot, you have to realistically choose from them.
More and more people are coming to the realization that Newt is a very risky candidate. Santorum has not been able to attract much support. If you can’t attract support as a candidate that is your fault, not the establishment’s. The reality is people don’t think he is a good general election candidate.
Romney is not as conservative as I am but he is, at the moment, the most conservative candidate that looks like he can actually win in Nov. Romney has demonstrated an ability to raise the necessary money, create an effective organization, be pretty disciplined, take a punch and throw them as well.
Who exactly are you pining away for? Sounds to me like you are just generally pissed off, which I can understand, but that isn’t going to win us this election.
The Journal this morning had a pretty good take on things and had some pretty good advice for Romney:
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.01.12 @ 04:46 PM
Tam,
Here is an article we would love your take on:
Electric Cars: Doubling down on dumb
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/02/01/electric_cars_doubling_down_on_dumb_99493.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.12 @ 12:05 PM
Romney should follow this guy’s advice on how to deal with RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare. This is right on target:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289907/romney-vs-obamacare-yuval-levin?pg=1
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.12 @ 12:17 PM
Agenda driven “science” at the EPA:
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2012/02/01/agendadriven_science_at_epa/page/full/
some detail into the EPA’s destructive overreach
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.12 @ 12:56 PM
Ouch. Read this guys analysis of the GOP race:
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=599628&p=1&ibdbot=1
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.12 @ 02:20 PM
Now that Trump has endorsed Romney, I guess its all over before the fat man sings. Gingrich may not know it yet, but its over. Just hope Romney becomes a great candidate and, if elected, will move this country in a much different direction.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.12 @ 03:46 PM
For me Trump’s endorsement is a minus. What a blowhard.
Newt is vindictive enough he’ll soldier on. I think its good for Romney to continue to be challenged from the right so I hope Santorum hangs in there. He needs to tighten up his policies and put more meat on them. As long as the debates and messaging are like 10-20% zinging each other and 80-90% zinging Obama it will work out for the best.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.03.12 @ 11:29 AM
The case for Romney:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290033/case-romney-jonah-goldberg
He actually makes some good points.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.03.12 @ 12:03 PM
Tam,
Obama’s Green Energy Mirage:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290001/obama-s-green-energy-mirage-jerry-taylor?pg=1
Comments??
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.03.12 @ 04:25 PM
Goldberg’s piece echos my sentiments exactly. I may have settled for Romney as the best possibility to retire Obama, but I fail to see how that makes me a member of the establishment. I also agree he will be on a short leash and that may be a better alternative than someone who thinks that approval of the conservative movement will allow him to wander off the conservative path if it serves his interests.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.05.12 @ 03:50 AM
Wireless, did you see the Nixonian press conference Newt gave after his resounding Nevada defeat. If you haven’t, find a transcript because the real Newt showed up. The vituperativeness, hostility and angry denunciations were on full display for everyone to see. I would say it was the closest thing I’ve seen to a meltdown of a political candidate. He may be the smartest guy in the room, but temperamentally he is a disaster.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.24.12 @ 01:47 AM
Gas will always be priced as high as the oil companies can charge without chasing away too many customers. The only way to reduce what you pay out for gas is to stop buying the stuff. I long ago reached my limit for “price-induced conservation” so I bought an EV, a 1999 Ford Ranger Electric, and now save $4000 per year. The savings has increased with the steady rise in gas prices. I added solar to my garage roof so more recently my transportation fuel has become free. After some efficiency improvements my home electric utility bill has further decreased to about $250 per year, including home usage and car charging. Our national trend toward energy intensity improvement is encouraging although I am dismayed to see it lag so far behind what has already been proven possible.
http://ameriloansearch.com/news/us-energy-boom-investments.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tam Hunt: In Defense of Philosophy
The bottom line is that the boundaries between philosophy and science are rather arbitrary and, arguably, even illusory
Tam Hunt: Spirituality in the Information Age
A search for the divine turns up some surprising personal discoveries along the journey
Tam Hunt: Significant Solutions for High Gas Prices Are Right Before Us
At a time of severe pain at the pump at home, a ban of U.S. gasoline exports could have a dramatic effect
Tam Hunt: A Move Toward Energy Literacy Critical to America’s — and World’s — Future
To successfully wean ourselves off fossil fuels we must first educate ourselves about energy
Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will
Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?
Weather: Fair 59.0º
Search Noozhawk »
