Obama Warns of Gas Guzzling Cars...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 16 2006, 12:37 AM) [snapback]303928[/snapback]</div>

So is there someplace where we can go to determine which politicians it's okay with you to criticize?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Aug 17 2006, 08:51 PM) [snapback]305013[/snapback]</div>

Criticize whoever you like.

I object to the harping on this little pimple when there are so many cankerous, pustulous boils to choose from.

 

Obama is almost as much of a hypocrite as Al Gore. They both suck.

 

This always cracks me up. The issue doesn't matter enough to criticize someone from our own party, even when its appearent he is the same as nearly everyone else on Capitol Hill. There aren't very many of these guys riding bicycles to work.

Many of them have "drivers", which is even worse than driving your own SUV ... because the SUV drives from the driver's place to you, picks you up, then takes you back, and then drives back to its own place. That's not "car pooling". I'm open to the idea that it may be necessary from a security or time-management standpoint, but not because his party affilliation is one way or the other.

But perhaps I'm starting to get it. All the sacrifices are for the "little folk", and not the "important people".

 

I find it interesting that in the original article, the best thing they could report was that Obama got into an SUV. Nothing really about the speech. Maybe the reporter missed the speech and the only thing he could report on was what car Obama drove off in.

Is anyone familiar with some of his ideas about what to do?

He's advocating Energy Independence as part of national security. Isn't this a good thing?

And I like his idea of Health Care for Hybrids.

I couldn't find the speech mentioned but I suspect he's given it before. I did find one from February.

"But all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes
directly from the mouths of our enemies:

"[Oil] is the umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community." These
are the words of Al Qaeda.

"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since
this will cause them to die off [on their own]." These are the words Osama
bin Laden.

More than anything else, these comments represent a realization of American
weakness shared by the rest of the world. It's a realization that for all of
our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles heel of the most
powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without. "

"Automakers need to get serious about shifting their technology
to greater fuel-efficiency, consumers need to get serious about buying
hybrid cars, and Washington needs to get serious about working together to
find a real solution to our energy crisis.

Such a solution is not only possible, it's already being implemented in
other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and
slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of
fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries
to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a
few years thanks to its investment in biofuels.

So why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great
American projects of the 21st century?

The answer is, we can. The President's energy proposal would reduce our oil
imports by 4.5 million barrels per day by 2025. Not only can we do better
than that, we must do better than that if we hope to make a real dent in our
oil dependency. With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels
we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by
over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we
are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

We can do this by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we
use. "

"Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars
they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up
$1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made - more than the cost of
steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7
billion just last year.

So here's the deal we can make with the auto companies. It's a piece of
legislation I introduced called "Health Care for Hybrids," and it would
allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto
companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would
then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient
cars. It's a win-win proposal for the industry - their retirees will be
taken care of, they'll save money on health care, and they'll be free to
invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their
competitive future. "

"This coalition also knows that corn-based ethanol is only the beginning. If
we truly want to harness the power of these fuels and the promise of this
market, we can and must generate more cellulosic ethanol from agricultural
products like corn stocks, switch grass and other crops our farmers grow.

Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol
and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with
the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel - including my own. "

"The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the
risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding
projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no
different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense
Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with
the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The
Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations
get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The
Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy
security of our own military."

Obama on Energy Independence

speech to Governor's Ethonal Coalition

 

What really happened was that Mr. Obama wanted to buy a Prius, but was unable to find one that fit his personal specifications (5 month back order), and the dealer couldn't get him a hybrid Highlander in time for his speech. He was forced into being seen in a gas guzzling Envoy by Dick Cheney. He should have ridden the bus with the other hard working blue collar voters.

In the next Presidential election, he will be quoted as saying, "I actually supported hybrids before I was against hybrids, and then I was for them again."

 

I'm wondering if there are some constraints regarding transportation. I found this:

"But does it really matter how many hybrids or Hummers these millionaires have? As has been pointed out before, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Treasurer Angelides are driven around all day, every day, in big ol' gas slurping Fords.

Angelides sits in the front seat of an 8-cylinder Crown Victoria, Schwarzenegger in the middle seat of an Excursion, an SUV that features either 8-or 10-cylinder models (haven't lifted the hood lately to determine which one he's got)."

Blogs Mercury News

So, is there some reason our officials are being driven around in less than economic cars...cars they do not own? Is there some rule that they can't drive their own cars? Is it some sort of security thing? Are they not allowed to specify what kind of car they are driven around in? Anybody? Because it looks like they ALL DO IT.

This from an interview with the Governator himself:

"I first discovered the Hummer during a film shoot in Oregon -- there were a few of them driving in the street and we stopped them and asked, "who makes this car?" Later I called the company and had to convince them to make it because they had no interest in ever making the Hummer a civilian vehicle, so I flew to the factory, met with the chairman of the board and finally they bought in on it. They said, "Will you help us with the promotion?" I said, "Yes and I don't want anything. I'll buy my Hummers." Two years later they went into production and just at that time, the military ordered almost 2000 fewer Hummers than they usually did. So it was really great that because they'd started to build the civilian Hummer, eight hundred people in the factory did not lose their jobs. They gave me an award in appreciation of saving all those jobs. The rest is history. Now General Motors has made a contract with Hummer, and they are now going to produce smaller Hummers so that it can be used as a regular family car, which will come out in two years or so. What is it that I like about them exactly? It's difficult to put into words. It's like love, when you meet that girl, you just know. It was like that with the Hummer. I'd been looking for a car like that all my life."

Yep. We have the Hummer and it's good because 800 people didn't lose their jobs. Never mind they get maybe 9 mpg.

Schwarzenegger.com

" It became something -- like that was a huge economic benefit to those car plants when they built the Hummer, because at the time I got involved in -- and pushed it to [be a] civilian car, they only had it as a military car. But the military was not ordering that much in the early 1990s, because we got into a recession. The military spending went down. Also, they were at war in Iraq. And I think only 12 Hummers out of the 1,000 broke. There was no reason for ordering new Hummers. Powerful and durable cars. They really had a decline economically at the Hummer factory, when they turned it into a civilian car, thank God. A new idea. And, you know, they didn't have to lay off anybody because of that. It became an economic benefit.

Host: Great. Who knew you were in part responsible for getting the Hummer on the streets for civilians?

Arnold Schwarzenegger: They know. General Motors knows, which is why they are so generous in return. Because when I went to them, for instance, with our Inner-City Games foundation -- we have it in 15 cities in America -- one of the things you always need when do you this after-school programs for inner-city kids, you need money to run those programs, and to do all that on the national level. They immediately committed to the games and, for instance, one of the things they also did was giving 60 Hummers for the inner-city games to auction off at each one of the cities, to take the money and put it into the program. One of the auctions that we have is going to be in Philadelphia on Feb. 8. "

Schwarzenegger.com

Oh goodie. 60 more Hummers on the road.

BTW Angelides family have 3 hybrids: 2 Prii and a Honda, Scwarzenegger is down to 3 Hummers, from 6 in 1996. Supposedly he's converted one Hummer to hydrogen at his own expense. He brags that he is the one that convenced AM General to sell civilian Hummers to the public. We have so much to thank Awnold for, don't we? But even though it's Arnold's fault all of those H1, H2 and H3s are on the road, Angelides is the Satan of the environment because of something he did 20 years ago as a real estate developer. BTW whatever it was he's apparently square and green now since he's endorsed by the Sierra Club.

So is Awnold a hypocrite for making like he's all green and environmentally friendly despite the fact he owns 3 Hummers and is resonsible for the Hummer being sold to the public? Or does paying to have one of them converted to Hydrogen absolve him?

BTW I've seen the guy. He isn't that big. He could fit in a Prius.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Aug 15 2006, 11:53 PM) [snapback]303897[/snapback]</div>

No, it just means he is getting fewer miles per gallon of fuel. A fuel that takes more oil energy to produce than comes out the end of the production pipe.

It is unfortunate he got tripped up with this. In general, IMHO, Mr. Obama makes more sense than most politicians in any party. Perhaps some day he'll figure out that his family of 4 can get easily through their daily lives in a Prius or Hybrid Camry and ditch the SUV. Then he can honestly say "We" should reduce our energy use.

The big 3 still have their heads in the sand, pushing big vehicles rather than developing more fuel efficent ones. They can no longer claim 'it can't be done' when increased CAFE numbers are proposed. Toyota and Honda burst that balloon.

Reducing energy use isn't only about 18 MPG vehicles vs 45 MPG vehicles. We have a national mindset of "I will use whatever I need to not be inconvenienced in any way". Gas is $3/gallon, I still see plenty of people racing to the next red light, sitting in idling vehicles while someone goes into the store for 'just a few minutes'. The items about senators being driven 2 blocks to lunch is pathetic. They don't even seem to car pool other than with their driver (who isn't even getting lunch).

How many blackouts ocurred during the heat wave last month? The attitude is 'my one A/C unit won't use much, but I'll suffer and set it higher, maybe 70 or 75F'. All those kilowatts added up to a LOT of people being inconvenienced a LOT. Set that baby to 5 degress less than the outside temp and wear shorts. How many BILLIONS of people on this planet would be happy if the summer temps were ONLY 90 or 100F and manage to live without A/C. Sure, there are some people who's health would be endangered by a few days of high heat, but that is a VERY small percentage of the population. Save the KWs for their A/C units.

And lest you say - he lives in Vermont, he hasn't a clue: I grew up in So. Cal. It was close to 115F 3 days the week I moved to VT 27 years ago after finishing college. Never had A/C in the house in CA and the first car I had with A/C was in 1986. VT can get to mid 90's in the summer and it isn't dry So. Cal heat. A few fans go a long way toward increasing comfort and use a fraction of the electricity. Yeah, we are somewhat uncomfortable now and then. Haven't died yet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 17 2006, 11:05 PM) [snapback]305109[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Arnold is a hypocrite. Politicians == hypocrite.

And BTW the Sierra Club is joke. They make the NAACP look like political free-thinkers.

And BTW do you mock the accents of Hispanic and African-American politicians?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Aug 18 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]305386[/snapback]</div>

No, but I've been known to mock politicians that do not know now to say Nuclear.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000 @ Aug 18 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]305382[/snapback]</div>

Any idea how much energy could be saved if you turned off your computer instead of typing this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 18 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]305450[/snapback]</div>

Bwaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaaa


ROTFLAMAAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 17 2006, 09:05 PM) [snapback]305109[/snapback]</div>

If you remember Gov. Jerry Brown, who eschewed the limos for the "regular car pool Dodges", he also had a driver. So I wonder if there is a security issue for some of these guys, because Brown was definately anti-status in his approach. I also knew a businessman who had a driver for a long commute from San Diego to Orange County where one of his businesses was ... in his case, he was able to get work done while being driven for the 2 hour trip. But I wonder if its mostly about ego, having an entourage, and feeling important enough that you have people to drive you around. Politicians are usually the type that likes that sort of thing.

The difference between the Obama and Arnold is that Arnold doesn't try to hide the fact that he's driving a big, expensive, wasteful car. He believes in living large, and doesn't try to hide it. He made money selling them. That may make him wrong, but it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Its only a news story because Obama presents himself as a "green", but lives like a Republican. We'll welcome him in our party if he cares to mature a bit and switch sides. I like Obama, so I hope he is able to survive this little flap. He's a thoughtful guy, even if I think his "healthcare for hybrids" is stupid idea. Car companies don't need subsidies to build energy efficient cars; the marketplace will do that for them if we just stop subsidizing all of the large companies with tax dollars from upper-middle income folks. Usually we associate corporate welfare with business-orientated Republicans rather than Democrats, but he IS from a state with a lot of influence by the UAW union.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 18 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]305599[/snapback]</div>

I think you're making a big presumption when you make that statement that Arnold and Barack Obama are the same in the way they live an that Obama "lives like a Republican." What does that even mean? You deduce that from one incident when he's making a public appearance, and extrapolate out that he LOVES to live big just like Arnold but he's a worse person because he can't admit it?

It's like if you saw me at an airport hail a cab at 1AM, it turns out to be a big van, and assume I shuttle myself around in vans all my life...

I don't think you can rightfully say you know how Obama lives his personal life.

As for him switching parties : No, we on the Dems won't let him go.

As for healthcare for hybrids : You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with you. You mentioned that car companies don't need subsidies to build energy efficient cars, but I point out that the last time fleet wide fuel economy has gone up in this country was 17 years ago when the government lit a fire under the butts of the car companies and demanded they meet certain standards. The car companies under the free market have been consistent over the years in their approach to advances in automobile technology : more power, bigger cars, because that's what the free market wants, with fuel economy a distant priority... profits from higher fuel economy cars are harder to come by than incrementally more powerful cars or bigger cars.

Moreover, the healthcare for hybrids idea is really meant to stop the bleeding for the domestics so they don't have to worry about next years losses in a panic, and can look ahead to the future. Like it or not, the health care problems for the car companies is an unsolved problem, and his idea, while not perfect, would try to kill two birds with one stone by also trying to set the car companies in the right direction to work *against* their best profit margins by developing higher fuel economy cars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Sep 24 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]324282[/snapback]</div>

Fair point. I was really responding to a single incident when someone slammed Arnold for being a hypocrite. But he's not really; we knew he was a womanizing, excessive, rich guy when we voted for him. The "living large" charge can really never be considered hypocritical for Republicans, but for someone who claims to be green, it can be. So that's the reason the media liked the Obama/SUV story.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Sep 24 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]324282[/snapback]</div>

He's still pretty young, right? There is still hope!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Sep 24 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]324282[/snapback]</div>

You probably didn't mean it this way, but it looks like you link the CAFE standards to some kind of subsidy.

Allowing the car companies to redefine vehicles so that they "appear" to meet the CAFE standards ... all those passenger cars that pass as trucks and are therefore exempt ... are a kind of subsidy because they allow them to continue to produce the larger cars without paying the fines. A true market approach that combined government dictates with market forces would have forced the auto makers to attach a premium to the larger cars, so that a standard Aerostar getting 18 MPG would cost $45,000 rather than $20,000. That would have worked. As it is, all that happened was the car companies redefined the market to fit the regulations, so that most people are not buying "cars" at all, but exempt "trucks" like mini-vans, SUVs and "cross-over" vehicles.

I'm not a big fan of regulation from a philosophical standpoint, but its hard to argue unfair competition if all the automakers are held to the same standard. And from an environmental standpoint, it is clear that regulation has forced the automakers to do several things, like increase fuel economy (the first few years, anyway), implement seat belts and airbags, etc.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Sep 24 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]324282[/snapback]</div>

I don't think we should "stop the bleeding for domestics". If you subsidize them, they will work the subsidy, and not the marketplace. The best way to get them to change, in my view, would be to remove the exemptions from the CAFE standards, even if it meant the standard, stripped down Ford F150 would rise to $60,000, and to allow gasoline prices to rise with the market (and that means quit lamenting "excess profits" that oil companies earn). Government subsidies almost always have unintended consequences, and in this case, the environmental consequences and the fostering of continued reliance on foreign oil (which I view as a national security issue) is too large to consider.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Sep 24 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]324282[/snapback]</div>

But apparently they do need a loan guarantee to get favorable low interest rates or they can't compete in the alternative fuel market. Or at least they won't unless they get special fiscal treatment.

So much for allowing the free market to determine anything.