Results of the Pipeline Pocket Veto

According to Canadian media oilsands production in Canada will likely triple by 2035. This energy used to go to the U.S., creating American jobs. Now “Canada’s energy hopes are very much pinned on Enbridge’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship oilsands bitumen from northern Alberta to port in Kitimat, B.C., where oil would be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia.”

Great. North American energy will go to Asia to create jobs in China. Environmental standards are lower in China, so we can expect more net pollution. It also will be transferred and shipped on tankers, multiplying the risk of leaks and spills.

So we have more pollution, move American jobs to China and generally deprive Americans of a source of energy close to home, i.e. increase imports from the Middle East and other farther away unstable places.

Who thinks this is a good outcome? The Canadians would have preferred to sell their energy to us via American pipelines. What made them change their minds?

Posted by Christine & John at November 23, 2011 12:26 PM
Comment #332351

C&J, I’m sure you will not agree with me; but Obama is a socialist who is bent on the destruction of America. What fossel fuel energy program in America has Obama not attacked? Obama hates America; he believes we are responsible for the woes of the world. In fact, he hates all majority white European nations who had any part in colonialism during the past 200 years. He is a dangerous man, abnd if elected again, there will be no stopping his socialist executive orders. Explain to me, which of his programs in the past 3 years has helped America? Even the CBO has changed the jobs created numbers:

Everything Obama says is a lie. The old saying(if his lips are moving, he is lying”, fits in perfect with Obama.

Posted by: Frank at November 23, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #332354


You are right that I do not attribute those motives to Obama.

I have a simple rule that applies to situations like this. Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained as the result of incompetence or indifference.

I think it is important that Obama be replaced next year. I think his programs have generally hurt our country. But it seems to me that it is a lack of leadership abilities and general inability.

Re European nations and colonialism - I think there is a general anti-Western undercurrent in modern liberalism, but it has remained inchoate even after many years. IMO it comes from a misunderstanding of history. Most of the world was a big shit hole before colonization, but nobody knew anything better. Europeans discovered this state of affairs and got blamed for not fixing it faster.

Take the example of the Aztecs. It is hard to think of a more horrible civilization than one that thinks tearing the living hearts out of victims and wearing their bloody skins is necessary for the sunrise. The Spaniards were not worse than these guys, but they are judged by a higher standard.

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2011 6:19 PM
Comment #332357

C&J, I don’t believe it is incompetence or indifference. You have too much faithin mankind. In a previous post you said:

“Obama seems to have a first class intellect, but he doesn’t have the temperament or the leadership skills to be even an average president.”

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2011 11:54 AM

Either he is intelligent or he’s not. If he is intelligent, then he knows exactly what he is doing. His actions (sending the bust of Churchill back to England, etc.)plus the comments in his books “Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of My Father”, show me a real hatred for the Colonialists nations.

Might I suggest “Foxes Book of Martyrs”, “Evangelical Churches in the Valley of Piedmont”, and “Trail of Blood”, and you will see that the Spanish Inqusition was the same as Aztec’s, only in the name of Christianity. 50 million died under the name of the Holy Roman Empire.

Posted by: Frank at November 23, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #332358

You know, these days, it’s very hard to parody Republicans without getting taken seriously as one.

Independent economists verify the effects of the Stimulus Package. But of course, The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think-tank that is devoted to conservative political theories as a matter of course will not admit that Obama’s stimulus package worked.

But if it didn’t, what exactly is there to explain the sudden change in direction of the economy, starting in June of 2009? What’s to explain how at that point, the speed of job losses was reduced, and the collapse in growth reversed?

Is this just coincidence?

Obviously, that’s what you would have us believe. The funny thing is that a lot of what Republicans would have us believe is BS. When he gets involved and they refuse to cooperate, they blame him. When he stays uninvolved, and they refuse to cooperate, they blame him.

Republicans are simply unwilling to compromise.

As for this pipeline?

Do you understand what bitumen is? A little clue here: the term is used interchangeably with asphalt. It’s basically oil with all the light stuff boiled off. They have to actually dilute the stuff with a lighter hydrocarbon and/or heat the gunk up in order to get it to flow. Otherwise, it literally moves like molasses.

I want you folks to think for a second as to why Canada never took advantage of this stuff coming up right up to the ground, when other oil wells needed to be drilled hundreds, even thousands of feet down. What gives? Why would people give it up?

First, this stuff is a very heavy fraction. When they get oil out of the ground, it’s got all kinds of hydrocarbons in it, from the light, volatile stuff which is effectively natural gas, to the thick, tarry stuff that paves many of our roads. Now, not all oil is so ideally constituted, so they boil the stuff and put catalysts into the mix in order to break down more of the heavy stuff into smaller chains of molecules.

Your gasoline or diesel, or jet fuel, is made up of that lighter stuff.

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, the bitumen in the Tar Sands is damn close to asphalt, so that means you are going to put a hell of a lot more energy from the outset into processing the stuff. That alone meant that oil companies preferentially went for the lighter stuff from their holes in the ground.

But it’s worse than that. The bitumen of Tar Sands is what they call sour crude. That means that among other things, it’s got more hydrogen sulfide, a toxic, flammable gas. The sulfur in the oil is corrosive to pipelines, and it fouls the catalysts that they use to crack the sludge down into something useable. Long story short, it costs more to process it.

Tar sands either have to be dug up and cooked to remove the oil, or cooked in the ground, both of which require multiple barrels of water per barrel of oil recovered, and which produce toxic solid and liquid wastes. They have to scare birds away from their tailing ponds, because if they land there, they’re going to die.

It’s absurd that this is billed as our energy future. Fact is, this oil is only practical to mine and extract in situ because oil prices have gotten so high. At lower prices, this crap would be left in the ground, it’s so expensive to extract and process.

If we commit ourselves to this oil supply, we’re only handing the oil companies our wallets, and that’s the least of our troubles.

I don’t know why we have to compete with China to be the worst polluters, just because they have their hearts set on it. I’d rather have us produce good, green energy and energy generators here, and have China buy from us, than further addict ourselves to this nasty crap and suffer the consequences.

I’m sick of running these races to the bottom.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #332360


We understand the nature of the oil sands. We also understand that it will either come to the U.S. or go to China. We Americans will buy our oil from Canada or from The Middle East.

Obama’s decision doesn’t change this. Besides, Obama says that he is concerned only with the route of the pipeline. Is he lying?

Re the price of oil - indeed, we don’t use many forms of energy because the prices are high. This is a tautology. If we had cheaper or easier forms of energy, of course we would use it.


The Spaniards were indeed nasty, as were all people at many points in their history. The point is that Western civilization improved. The Aztecs might have, who knows, but they didn’t.

Re Obama - I think he does indeed harbor prejudices against “colonialists” but I don’t think that extends to intentionally creating problems for the U.S.

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #332362

Stephen Daugherty

When a person is about to be raped, what is your suggestion on how to compromise?

That is exactly the question we face in this country. When my wallet is about to be raped, how do I compromise. From your writings in the past, your answer will be of such that rationality would be questioned.

There are times to compromise and times not to compromise. When the end result is failure and destruction compromising is not in the vocabulary.

Ok, take your turn to spin, twist and wiggle, but you will accomplish no logical layout.


Posted by: tom humes at November 23, 2011 9:07 PM
Comment #332364

tom humes-
Not getting your way politically is rape? Forgive me if both your tactless argument and your rather unremarkable situation leaves me unsympathetic.

By your standard, my party has been getting raped for decades now, more forcefully and violently as the years have gone on.

Sorry, but this is what a democratic republic is like. Nobody gets everything they want. The system is built to encourage compromise, or as you would put it, encourage rape. The framers put things together so that no one factional minority could overpower the system, but also so that no majority could forever dictate policy in a way that wasn’t earned.

This was a system meant to undermine hardliners like yourself, force them to bargaion and compromise, rather than run roughshod over their opposition.

You take that failure to get everything you want to be a violation of some unknown agreement. Really, it’s a fact of life in a Democracy. You don’t always get everything you want. Compromise is forced by the system, if you want to get things done.

The way Alexander Hamilton put it is that the system would discourage special interests, and would instead encourage laws and other acts at the national level that would better serve everybody’s interests.

You don’t see your ideas as special interests. Tough. They are, at least some of them. If your people were wiser, they would try and find the things they want that other people want, too, and combine forces to promote that policy.

Instead, you insist on reshaping policy in the image of your agenda.

Really, you’re self-inflicting the pain you feel. If you were willing to bargain, you could so screw over Democrats. Instead, you give them no choice but to gather up their support and try and strengthen their ranks as much as possible. Meanwhile, you have to act like each and every election or political confrontation is some kind of apocalyptic battle, just to keep people interested and motivated.

Here’s a little clue: that’s going to get a little old, sooner or later. People can’t keep that kind of emotional charge forever, especially when the world doesn’t end, and Obama doesn’t turn out to be the closet Lenin or Mugabe you want him to be.

Quit with the hysterics. It’s simply evidence that your side no longer trusts it’s message to be persuasive on its own.

Let me address the price of oil, first: essentially, tar sands oil is always going to be expensive. When oil prices fell in 2008, there was some concerned that the facilities wouldn’t be economically viable, if prices continued at that level.

Put another way, if our oil supply depends on the tar sands, then the market’s forces will never let the rather high current price of oil fall below what it costs to extract, process, and distribute that oil. When prices do fall below that, it will serve to restrict supply, which will then rebound in price, restoring the balance.

Ah, but like all oil, Tar Sands will get more scarce as it’s extracted. You could go for Oil Shale, but oil shale could properly be described as oil sands, only not as easy (which is why we haven’t been mining so much of that conveniently surface level Kerogen-bearing rock.)

Meanwhile, Solar gets cheaper every year, and could get even cheaper if certain breakthroughs take place.

The question in my mind is whether we make efforts to promote the already improving economics of solar, wind, and other renewable forms of power, or whether we continue to throw more money into fossil fuels to maintain ever rising petroleum prices, and dirty the environment even more.

It seems a rather naive choice to me to chose an energy source that is bound to get more expensive over one that will get less expensive as the years wear on.

As for where we buy our oil from?

You fail to understand the market if you assume that Canadian oil is simply going to replace Middle East oil. The price of the market depends on all the oil in production, not just one or two sources. More to the point, it’s of little consequence where it ends up.

They’re building that pipeline to the gulf coast so they can sell that oil to the world, not merely to the midwest at a discount.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2011 11:05 PM
Comment #332365

C&J: “We Americans will buy our oil from Canada or from The Middle East.”

What strikes me most about that statement is how little oil we get from the Middle East compared to the rest of the world. Not letting this pipeline through is not going to change the fact that Canada is our largest source of oil already and these “far away and unstable” countries are far from our only other major source.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 23, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #332366

To make a better point: There is a manufactured urgency put out from the oil soaked American right wing movement to let these projects through without concern, or to drill in ANWR, or to open more operations in the gulf, etc. Remember drill, baby, drill? Americans don’t fall for that sort of thing. We understand the reality of the threat drilling and shipping oil poses to our natural habitats and our communities much more than we fall for the fantasy of cheaper gas.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 23, 2011 11:52 PM
Comment #332367

You know Stephen, even with the chemistry lesson you gave us on tar pits, which I imagine gives you some sort of orgasm, it doesn’t mean anything to the American trying to fill his/her car with gas in order to get to work, or trying to heat their home. American’s don’t really care if the oil comes from a well, from a sand pit, or spews forth from Obama’s arse, as long as they get it. And when Obama shuts down Gulf oil, blocks shale oil, closes down coal mines, and natural gas wells; it just don’t make much sense to them to buy oil from the very nations who are our enemies.

People can’t even make their house payments, and Mr. Daugherty wants them t pay for solar panels, because their cheaper. Cheaper in China by the way, and had Obama known this, America would be half a trillion dollars better off. Stephen, you are so smart about the economy, I would expect you to be a multi-millionaire by now. But somehow I doubt it; in fact, for all your talk, if I remember correctly, you bought a Jap car. So much for supporting the American union worker.

“Re Obama - I think he does indeed harbor prejudices against “colonialists” but I don’t think that extends to intentionally creating problems for the U.S.”

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2011 7:38 PM

You just can’t bring yourself to admit Obama could be a Benedict Arnold. Oh, I believe he knows exactly what he is doing. Socialists want everyone to be dependent upon the government, and Obama is doing his best to make us all slaves to big brother. How many years of bad decisions does it take? What if the Congress had not gone to the Republicans last year? Do you honestly think Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would have been satisfied with the damage already done? I don’t think so. Obama has shown himself to have complete disregard for the Constitution. I figure his law degree came out of a Cracker Jack box. And the joke the libs love to say about him being a Constitutional Law Professor is simply that, a joke. The man can’t even speak unless he has a teleprompter in front of him. Tell me C&J, how many generations are we from anarchy? How many generations are we from complete loss of freedom? Judging be the comments of SD and other libs on WB, many have already gone to the dark side.

Posted by: Frank at November 24, 2011 12:15 AM
Comment #332368

C&J, hopefully you can see the hate extremist on the far right have for this country by reading Franks delusions. Conservatives are feeding upon the misinformation half truths and outright lies coming from the movement propaganda machine. Real and decent conservatives like David Frum are considered to be RINO’s as evidently you are also considered to be by the likes of Frank. How much more proof do you need that conservative movement followers are like the German people of the late ‘20’s?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 24, 2011 1:19 AM
Comment #332371


You keep on talking tautologies. Indeed IF the price of oil sands oil is too high, we won’t use it. If (probably when) the price of solar comes down, we will use it.

Yours is a typical liberal argument and it is always silly. Your contention is that your alternative is better/cheaper/more convenient, therefore you have to make laws to force people to do it. My belief is that is something is better/cheaper and more convenient, people will want to use it and the law is unnecessary.

In other words, if you have to make a law to force people to do something, it is probably not their preferred option. You don’t need to coerce people into doing things they want to do.

Another liberal fallacy is that government spending equals results. Surely you no longer believe that there is a straight correlation. Sometimes increased spending helps, sometimes it does nothing and sometimes it hurts.

Government SHOULD invest in R&D and between government and private money, America already spends a fortune as do others. We can copy the innovations made elsewhere, BTW. What government should NOT do is invest directly, like Solyndra. I know that this is what you really want and it does not work. Government bureaucrats and politicians are poor investors.


I heard worse - much worse - about Bush and we had a lot of false hate speech about the Tea Party. I think the liberals were like the German people in 1920. In fact, most people are like the German people in the 1920s, since human nature does not change.

Posted by: C&J at November 24, 2011 5:04 AM
Comment #332372

j2t2, as conservatives, we do not walk lockstep with a common doctrine. Unlike liberals, we have the ability to think for ourselves on many matters. I entered the discussion with C&J because I know he looks for the best in people and finds it hard to believe and American President would do anything to put our nation in jeopardy. I do not hate Obama and I am not quoting some kind of right wing propaganda; I simply watch Obama and watch what he does and supports and then I come to a conclusion. I hesitate to give examples because the left goes off on a tangent, but: even though Obama has said he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment, he has been trying for the past 3 years to ban shooting and hunting all across the nation. These 3 articles listed below are examples:

I heard just this morning that the Obama administration is dropping their case against hunters and shooters. As the result of sporting goods stores and the NRA, Obama backed off. But the question is; why would he even go after hunters and shooters on bogus environmental reasons? Why can’t he just do his job and leave us alone? Don’t we have enough problems in America, without Obama going through a back door to restrict 2nd Amendment rights?

J2t2, these are not right wing accusations; it is fact and can be easily researched. Like the Obama dump of files every Friday evening, this case drop against Americans comes out on Thanksgiving Day, with the hope that by next Monday, it will be old news.

The left loves to invoke Hitler and the brown shirts every time a conservative asks a question; but a true look at the history of Germany would show OWS and the ant-Semitic views of the left more closely represent the socialist left.

Posted by: Frank at November 24, 2011 9:14 AM
Comment #332374

Frank you may not realize it but you do march in lockstep with other movement members. I don’t know about others but I didn’t invoke Hitler at all, you did. My comment referred to those Germans that were led astray by the propaganda of their leaders. Otherwise decent people led to the political extremes by misinformation half truths and outright lies.

Your claim of Benedict Arnold is as hateful as it is devoid of any factual information to back it up, a spurious claim that is ridiculous on it’s face. A cracker jack box law degree is a hateful comment once again devoid of fact. Deny as you will, your comments in 332367 speak for themselves.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 24, 2011 11:19 AM
Comment #332375

Stephen Daugherty

You are very adept at reading and writing into someone else’s thoughts and ideas. That is liberalizing or broadening the idea. I guess one should understand that a liberal is broad in their interpretation. One event is every event. One thought is every thought. And so on. That is what shows up on paper on on the screen.


Posted by: tom humes at November 24, 2011 11:56 AM
Comment #332376

Stephen Daugherty

Back to the question I posted to you.

“When a person is about to be raped, what is your suggestion on how to compromise?”

You twisted the question to center on rape and not compromise.
You further claimed “your people” have been raped for a long time.

“Nobody gets everything they want.”

What a profound statement!! Gee where have all of us been. Learning that we don’t get all we want is such a revelation!!

“The system is built to encourage compromise, or as you would put it, encourage rape.”

I did not such thing as encourage rape. That is a distortion, mis-interpretation, and outright disregard for what was stated. No further comment is necessary.

“If your people were wiser, …”

Such a condescending thought. First “your people” is a phrase you have never defined. So I don’t know what you are talking about. Then you refer to others as less wise than you. Really? Where is the standard of measurement of wisdom? If Solomon is used, then you have mis-read Solomon. I come to the conclusion that Marx-Lenin-Mao is the standard you use.

Rhetorically you don’t know how to compromise while telling others they must.

Gone for the day.

May all have a Thankful Thanksgiving.


Posted by: tom humes at November 24, 2011 12:13 PM
Comment #332377

If we don’t have an alternative lined up, we will pay the cost to use it despite it’s expense, because not using the fuel will cost us the ability to do work.

That’s why Republicans, on behalf of the fossil fuel producers, attack renewable and alternative energy projects, and laws encouraging efficiency. The market can only charge the prices it does if there isn’t an alternative, and no alternative’s going to get cheaper if the market is already saturated with fossil fuels.

I don’t know if they think they can keep this up forever, but they certainly want it to go out as far as they can get it. And why not? It’s in their interests. The crucial question, though, is whether it’s in ours. See, that’s why we have democracy. That’s why we have Congress. Interests of one group are not always in the general interests. In more tyrannical forms of government, a properly placed special interest can force things on everybody else for as long as the system will bear.

People like me want to make the shift, because we see it in our best economic and social interests. The challenge is persuading other people of the fact. Sometimes nature or economics gives us some help. The breakdown in cheap gas prices, caused by the loosening of restrictions on energy trading and the increasing expense and decreasing quality of new oil finds is making high gas mileage an attractive quantity. It’s easier to tolerate a gas guzzler when gasoline is less than a dollar a gallon, as I recall it once being. When you pay three dollars a gallon for gas, regardless of the cause, you consider your options differently.

You might say that’s a triumph for the market, but unfortunately, the costs for fuel have a negative effect on the economy, and waiting until those costs become intolerable is also waiting while those negative effects increase. Me, I’d rather nip that economic trend in the bud, making the transition to alternative and renewable energy sources before we’re stuck in an economy and job-killing energy crisis. I mean, really, do we really need the thudding day in and day out pressures of increasingly exorbinate energy prices to finally spur us to do the smart thing?

You call my argument silly, but the fact is, we already have a huge infrastructure out there for gasoline and other fossil fuels, and the market for that is a self-sustaining system, even in the face of increasing prices and inefficiency. Without government action, you’ll practically have to break one system before necessity will drive the other system to dominate. That means a drag on our economy. That is the force you want to motivate the transition. You know it will need to be done, but you’re just going to count on an environmentally destructive system with self-interest and the money to lobby for it to politely give up, and not try and throw impediments to its rivals in the way.

That, to me, seems silly.

Frankly, I think people are going to be mostly indifferent to how they power their lives. Does electricity act different if it comes from a wind or solar generator, rather than coal? No, it behaves the same. If your car can just get up and go, and you get to where you want to go, will you care whether it’s gas or electric? Some might, but most won’t care one way or another. Price is about the only thing people will care about.

Government spending doesn’t equal results, not in my book. Governemnt spending plus good policy design equals results. You have to observe what a dollar gets you, not just throw money out there. Yes, government should invest in R&D. It should also invest directly where it can make it count.

What you miss in your rather unorgasmic argument (I mean really, ew.) is that there are economic consequences to those physical facts. Catalysts don’t come cheap. It takes extra energy to extract, and extra energy to process tar sands oil. That makes the initial costs of the oil higher than oil pumped from the ground.

That, people care about. That affects people.

You talk of Obama shutting down Gulf Oil. It’s a real world fact he hasn’t, and a great likelihood he won’t. Your cariacture of him as a radical environmentalist is far from the truth.

As for solar panels being cheaper in China, perhaps. But if you let Obama make them here, the folks being paid to make those panels would be here, and their good paying jobs would help circulate that money here, rather than in China. It would also give us something to export to other countries. Again, money coming here, rather than going to China.

As for my “Jap” Car? Well yes, I bought that car. Mostly, though, I bought that car and not another because I couldn’t find a car that fuel efficient at the price elsewhere. If there was an American made car that had that quality, I would have been more inclined to buy a domestic car. Hopefully, I can make my next car a domestic one. Hopefully, a lot of people will be able to get fuel efficient cars made here.

The thing is, sooner or later, economics will force us toward alternative energy sources. By 2030, if not sooner, it will be cheaper to get solar power than its fossil fuel alternative. The question will be, will your gloriously patriotic conservatives have traded away yet another growth industries to overseas workers, or will we have finally wised up and maintained our industry here. Is your hatred of Unions just so great that you’re willing to trade away one economic advantage after another in order to destroy your opponent’s political base?

As for Obama?

He can’t bring himself to admit it, because it doesn’t have a rational basis in fact.

Obama has a law degree not from a Cracker Jack box, but from Harvard, and it’s a top ten percent degree. He didn’t teach at some podunk diploma mill, he went to teach at a tier one law school. You treat that elite performance, though, as if it’s meaningless.

You say he can’t speak without a teleprompter. More bull****. The guy speaks regularly without one, and answers questions much more astutely, and much more eloquently than his predecessor. But if you admit that, of course, you can’t call him an idiot, can’t drag him down to the previous President’s level. You have to claim Obama’s the worst President ever, because you have to live down the fact that you elected and fervently supported somebody who really was one of the worst leaders we ever had.

The Republicans and the Conservative movement have made it an article of faith never to admit weakness or defeat. Unfortunately, sometimes you can’t deal with a weakness until you admit you have one. Virtually every Republican candidate for President is an example of one failure to admit a problem or another.

I mean, if you guys don’t do things lockstep, why the hatred of moderate Republicans? Why couldn’t Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney reflect with pride on their moderate attitudes? Why does everybody have to be anti-abortion? Why can’t anybody take a position in favor of greater regulation, even if the increase is restrained? Why can’t anybody admit to any of Obama’s successes, or give him a straight congratulation on his achievements, like taking out Bin Laden, or successfully pursuing a policy of regime change in Libya?

You zealously enforce policy positions, calling anybody who doesn’t follow the strictest interpretation of conservatism a Republic In Name Only. There are hardly any liberal Republicans left, and the self-identified moderates are a minority on par with the Democrat’s compliment of conservatives in their party.

Whenever one of you makes a certain charge, I have but to copy a phrase into google, and often I can see the same talking point going out word for word across dozens of blogs and publications.

And look where you get your news! The NRA! Tell me, is their another major dissenting opinion among Republicans, or does the NRA essentially present the Republican’s basic position on gun rights?

You use buzzwords and catchphrases that are identical to what many other Republicans and Conservatives use. You use sources that explicitly ideological, watch television networks with an expressed purpose of promoting an alternative set of facts. Time and again, we’ve proved on the left that those facts are often faulty, often selective, and deliberately so.

You feel like you’re in control, because nobody’s forcing you to take these points of view, but when somebody can feed you the same message across many different media in a coordinated fashion, and can convince you to only take seriously the media outlets they control, then they don’t have to force you to conform, you do it to yourself.

It’s called tunnelling. As they get you to buy more and more into the movement, they separate you from the doubters, and from countervailing opinions. It’s how cults get their hold on people.

Unfortunately, while such conformity can grant strength in terms of dedication to the movement, you have to toss away folks who aren’t too dedicated in order to do it, and as the effects of being in the minority begin to pile up, the trend is ever on towards greater conformity, and more washouts. It becomes a vicious cycle. You get more uncompromising, but less powerful as a result.

There has to be a balance between principle and compromise, not one favored over another. Your party’s problem is that it’s unwilling to dilute it’s conformity enough to gain the majorities necessary to get what they want through normal means.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2011 1:07 PM
Comment #332378

tom humes-
I didn’t twist the question, I found the question to be rhetorically overheated, an effort to portray yourself as some kind of victim because you were forced to compromise.

Yet you’re talking to somebody who, as a Democrat, has seen his party compromise much more than you’ve had to, and finds this resentment on your part, this sense of victimhood to be a bit overwrought. I get it, you think it’s terrible having to compromise. Welcome to my world. Your people have had their chance to get what they want, now other people want more out of the bargains.

But at least I don’t feel like a victim for being forced to compromise. This, I believe, is only natural for a Democracy like ours.

As for my standard of wisdom? Don’t be so melodramatic. What Republicans are doing is steadfastly saying no to everything and anything. Problem is, it leaves them very little flexibility, and they’re often saying no to stuff that was actually consistent with their principles before.

But look at how badly Democrats reacted to compromise among their leaders. Look at that. If I were a Republican, I’d say to myself, you know, we can look like we’re people who can get things done, and meanwhile put all kinds of poison pills and constituent-angering stuff in here for the Democrats.

But instead? Republicans sacrificed much of their influence over the policy that did get passed when Democrats had both houses, and more recently found themselves in a situation where their Tea Party Contingent were such purists, that they couldn’t craft anything Democrats in the Senate and the White House would be willing to allow to become law. Cue the Democrats coming in, and as you would expect, trading votes for concessions.

The way I look at it, it’s a game of how you construct the majorities that pass laws. If you’re willing to compromise, you can get the ball rolling with actual laws, instead of bills that only serve well as re-election fodder. If you’re willing to compromise somewhat, you can get stronger legislation passed than you otherwise would.

If you bargain with others, even if you’re in the minority, you can trade concession for votes. It’s not pretty, or appealing to those who want their laws just the way they want them, but it works.

If you go through my Daily Kos postings, you’ll find a lot of them are aimed at supporting such compromises. Fact is, if Republicans were willing to give votes for something, I would tell Democrats to make a few concessions to get those votes. I only advise against further concessions now because I don’t believe they earn anything. I don’t believe, as long as Republicans don’t compromise, that there’s a point to compromising ourselves.

The way Republicans are going about politics nowadays only works if you hold all the cards. They don’t. That’s my standard of wisdom. You have to suit your strategy to your situation. Republicans have suited theirs to their ambitions, but they’re not in the majority for some very good reasons, so big ambitions have become a siren song for the Republican’s policies and politics.

You have a happy Thanksgiving yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2011 1:28 PM
Comment #332380

Oh no, the Canadians might sell their oil to China. The Chinese have no qualms about using the dirtiest oil but the U.S. government does and by law will not purchase the tar sands oil until the oil companies and the Canadian government are successful at lobbying the U.S. government to change the Bush law.

It sure would have been nice to see conservatives as concerned about taxpayers providing incentives to send jobs to China. The Chinese need that Canadian oil more than we do to keep those cheap products flowing here.

Chinese manufactures have accused American manufactures of dumping solar panels on the market at below cost.

A German company has just secured a deal to provide wind mills for a large wind farm in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: jlw at November 24, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #332381


We NEVER have an alternative “lined up”. We use the sources (plural) that are cheapest and easiest to use, the ones we think are best.

We have many alternatives. Solar is already being used in many specialty functions. We are using wind, water and others. We just found ways to access 200 years worth of clean burning gas.

When we shifted from wood to coal, both continued to be used for some time. Still are. When we shifted from coal to oil, both continued to be used.

We do not just turn one off and another on.

Government can do a few things well to help.

1. it can fund R&D
2. It can switch government fleets of cars and trucks to “alternatives”.
3. It can install alternatives on its own buildings.

These things are good.

What it should not do is try to become an investor, such as in Solyndra. It is not good at this and it leads to waste, fraud, abuse and corruption, as we saw with Solyndra.

BTW - among the biggest investors in alternative energy are energy companies. They do not own much oil. Most oil is owned or controlled by governments, that is the bad part about that.

Re silly arguments - liberals just have no faith in the people. They think only government can help, in their opinion.

Liberals thought GM was able to control the market and could never be pushed out of the lead.

Liberals thought IBM would crush rivals and stop innovators like Microsoft.

Liberals thought Microsoft would crush all its rivals and stop any changes.

The market is stronger than the big businesses, IF government enforces simple rule of law and does not pick winners. And the American nation is greater than the American government. We learn quicker and make better choices.

Re the lock step - AGAIN you contradict your own argument. We have Romneys and Pawlentys. I think Romney will be the nominee and he will beat Obama. According to you, he cannot get nominated.

It is not much of a lockstep if the “conservatives” nor the “moderates” can get one of their own w/o compromise.


We could get North American oil more efficiently delivered to us. It would create thousands of American jobs. We are giving it to the Chinese. Nice of us.

What do we car if the Germans build a wind farm in the U.S. We get to use the technology and the energy. I want to create American jobs. This doesn’t mean grabbing everything for ourselves, but it also doesn’t mean making ourselves pay more for things.

Posted by: C&J at November 24, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #332384

My opinion is rather more moderate than you guess it is. You take to assuming that I’ve merely taken the opposite of your opinion, when really, what I believe in is a composite system. You act like I just want government intervening, but what I actually suggest is that the government regulates and intervenes in a market-aware way.

I mean, give people enough information about price, and they’ll make many of the right decisions.

As for the companies you mention, well here’s where your market as panacea theory breaks down. I would say that Microsoft’s hold on things only started to break down as computing began to develop beyond PCs. Even then, most people’s PCs carry windows, and the lack of innovation that prompts has had its effect. Windows 7 is just beginning to address problems that have been around for years.

Look at GM- If it had fallen, then the domestic car industry could have gone with it. Even foreign carmakers’ factories here would have been hit by proxy, due to the impact on suppliers. If GM hadn’t been allowed to swallow up so much of its competition, we could have let it die without much concern.

IBM? The explosion in quality reverse-engineered clones is what made their dominance end. Put simply, IBM’s main contribution to the PC was the BIOS chip, what sets things up when you boot the computer up. All the rest of the components, like the motherboard, the hard drive, the floppy drives, the processor, and the RAM could be purchased from others.

In the meantime, though consumers paid greater costs, saw less innovation, and got less quality. See, if you’ve got market dominance, if you’re pretty much the only game in town, you don’t need to be good. You’re THERE. You’re in the way. If they don’t go through you, then they don’t have the operating system everybody writes software for. If they don’t go through you, they’ve got few other choices as to who to buy an American made vehicle from. If they don’t go through you, they’ve got few options as to who they get their personal computers from.

You look at the smartphone market, the tablet market, and you see constant innovation, because Google know that if they don’t update Android, iOS will snatch up more customers.

Would iTunes provide so many albums if they didn’t have other digital music distributors like Amazon breathing down its neck? Would X-Box producer Microsoft have invested in their Kinect, and Sony in Move for the Playstation, if they hadn’t been outsold by a Standard Definition console that happened to have one of the most innovative controllers of recent times?

See, when you let one system win, when you let them essentially crowd out all competitors, you don’t get innovation, you get institutional stasis, because one group of people can essentially shape the system to suit their interests. They have something we all need. If we can do without it, if we can seek out alternatives, or use less of their product to do the same things, then they might be forced to do things a different way. As it is, R&D by energy companies is damn low by percentage, especially compared to their profits. fossil fuel is their business, that’s all they know or need to know, and they don’t have to make what they sell cheaper.

They’ll start seriously looking into other things if outside forces, both in the market, as supported by the government, and directly by the government itself, make it in their best interests to. For now, their research into alternatives is mainly window dressing.

You’re content to let the system they’ve set up decide when change is necessary. The fact that they’re having to cook that sludge out of the tar sands up in Canada should be a warning sign of where the market-only approach is taking us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2011 9:41 PM
Comment #332389


If you believe in a mixed system with the market used and government providing R&D, but not actual leadership in industrial policy, you are a moderate conservative.

And if you believe in such things, you are not the opposite of me, you are the same. But I think your instincts are to trust government more in the driver’s seat, which I find very interesting because there has never been a government in your lifetime that you trusted. The recent Obama-Democrat Congress government was the MOST you will ever get on your side and yet that still was not enough. So ANY government will be heavily influenced or controlled by the opposition, yet you want to put them in the driver’s seat.

Re GM - I am talking GM in 1970, when the great liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote the new industrial state, explaining that big firms - GM the example - enjoyed such market control that they could never be brought down or controlled except by government. A few years later the market did it.

Re your explanations of IBM and Microsoft are good. It is what ALWAYS happens. Markets change and the big leaders find themselves overtaken by events and new technologies. The same happens in the energy field.

You mention innovation. It is what changed the market. It IS the market. Consumers pay much less and get much more than they would in a more government controlled system. The market doesn’t work perfectly, but it is better than the alternatives.

I don’t mean this as a joke - You always make free market arguments and then jump to the other side at the end. You prove yourself wrong by your own words.

Conservatives abhor the concentration of power, in business or government. You seem to support this, but then flip to the government side.

Conservatives want competition in the market. You seem to support this, but then flip to government mandates.

Conservatives distrust big business because we know it will get in bed with big government. We see them as a unit in many cases. Powerful business interests get government to enact legislation that protects them. This is a failure of GOVERNMENT. IF you give government such power, many will use it.

Conservatives are patriotic and willing to serve their country. You seem to support this too.

The only non-conservative trait you seem to have is a belief in equality of outcomes. We don’t like that idea at all.

I think perhaps you have a misguided opinion of conservatives. We have our share of weirdos, as do you. But the basic beliefs of conservatism seem more in line with yours than do the liberals.

Posted by: C&J at November 25, 2011 4:27 AM
Comment #332391

My instincts are neither to trust nor not to trust, but rather to set expectations and punished those who fall short. I don’t believe government is any more fundamentally good than people are, and I believe people, all people are fundamentally corruptible if they are not held to certain standards.

I believe that if you ask a person in the oil, gas, or coal business what energy source they think best, their answer will not remain unaffected by their interests. If you take their word at face value for what’s best, you’ll of course perpetuate, or fail to head off that system, even though the evidence from science tells us it’s not the best system. At best, one will end up resigned to the necessity of such a system, even though alternatives are viable once an infrastructure for them is created.

The trouble with Republicans across the country is not that they are ill-intentioned, it’s that they’re locked into dealing with a leadership that chronically misinforms them to further the interests of the few, and the spurious facts they’re exposed to are taken at face value. Worse yet, the rest of us are accused by them of being power-hungry liars who want to destroy our own country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 25, 2011 9:08 AM
Comment #332398

SD said:

“Worse yet, the rest of us are accused by them of being power-hungry liars who want to destroy our own country.”

And your point is?

“You talk of Obama shutting down Gulf Oil. It’s a real world fact he hasn’t, and a great likelihood he won’t. Your cariacture of him as a radical environmentalist is far from the truth.”

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could tell us where the oil drilling rigs, that used to be in the Gulf, are now located? Oh Stephen, I don’t believe my caricature of Obama is wrong; he bows to the altar of the environmentalists. For all your scientific talk of oil sands, it all boils down to Obama pleasing his GW lobby by failing to allow the Canadian pipe line, and cutting 20k+ jobs off the market.

“But if you let Obama make them here, the folks being paid to make those panels would be here, and their good paying jobs would help circulate that money here, rather than in China. It would also give us something to export to other countries. Again, money coming here, rather than going to China.”

Well, first of all, Obama don’t make anything and secondly: can anyone say Solyndra and half a trillion dollars. The only thing left for Obama to do was shoot solar panels out of his rear end. Which he failed to do.

“As for my “Jap” Car? Well yes, I bought that car. Mostly, though, I bought that car and not another because I couldn’t find a car that fuel efficient at the price elsewhere. If there was an American made car that had that quality, I would have been more inclined to buy a domestic car. Hopefully, I can make my next car a domestic one. Hopefully, a lot of people will be able to get fuel efficient cars made here.”

Too late Stephen, you already bought the Jap car and failed to support the American union worker. The easiest thing to do is say “Well next time, I’m gonna”. You already should where your allegiance lies. You double talk Stephen: you say if an American car had the same qualities, you would have bought it. That is called capitalism and free enterprise. You believe in capitalism when it’s your money being spent and you believe in the right to buy whatever you want. But when it’s someone else spending their own money, you want to force them to buy what you think they should have. Tell me Stephen, would you have been as supportive of bailing out a Jap carmaker in the US as you were bailing out GM and Chrysler? Would you have been as supportive of bailing out non-union corporations as you were bailing out the AFL-CIO? I don’t think so. What you have done is typical of liberal socialists, “do as I say and not as I do”. We can attach these principles to everything liberal socialist want to do: obamacare is designed to tell us where, when, why, and who we are to buy our healthcare; and to hell with what the American people want, because the liberal socialists always know what is best for us.

“The thing is, sooner or later, economics will force us toward alternative energy sources. By 2030, if not sooner, it will be cheaper to get solar power than its fossil fuel alternative. The question will be, will your gloriously patriotic conservatives have traded away yet another growth industries to overseas workers, or will we have finally wised up and maintained our industry here. Is your hatred of Unions just so great that you’re willing to trade away one economic advantage after another in order to destroy your opponent’s political base?”

Yes Stephen, again its called free enterprise, capitalism, and the free market. You believe in the free market as long as it is your buck being spent; but when it comes to the rest of us, you believe the government is responsible for ushering in the golden age of solar panels and hot air. You have the gall to make this statement, “will your gloriously patriotic conservatives have traded away yet another growth industries to overseas workers” and in the previous paragraph you were justifying why you bought a Jap car, and before you make yourself look even more ignorant I will answer your next statement. Yes, your car may have been built in the US, but the profits went back to the father land.

Let me ask you a question Stephen, how many unions have you belonged too and how much money have you given to in union dues? I would expect none; again typical of liberal socialist, “do as I say and not as I do”. For your accusations that I have a hatred of unions; I paid dues into a national union for 40 years and I am a lifetime member of the IAM/AFLCIO, so I don’t need some punk union activist who has never paid into a union to tell me what I love or hate. Unions are corrupt, their bosses are corrupt, and the union member has absolutely no control over who is elected, or where the money is spent or what politician it is spent on. My ancestors came out of the coal mines of Easter Kentucky and West Virginia, they live in company housing and were paid with company script, and spent the script at the company store. So I know how corrupt companies can be and I know that the unions turned their lives around and gave them a better life. 60 years ago, it was the goal of every man, who didn’t go to college, to get a union factory job. But that was 60 years ago, and today the unions are corrupt. The left and Obama are union supporters, not because of concern for their working rights, but rather for their union dues. Obama’s stimulus was nothing more than a bailout of unions and in turn the unions pumped stimulus money right back into democrat re-election coffers:

“ Washington (CNN) – Although President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating remains steady, his standing among Democrats, and in particular among blue-collar Democrats, appears to have dropped, according to a new national survey.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, 44% of Americans say they approve of the job the president’s doing in the White House, with 54% saying they disapprove of how Obama is handling his duties. The president’s approval rating has hovered in the same mid-40′s range since June in CNN surveys.

But the poll indicates that there has been some change when Democrats are asked whether they want to see their party renominate Obama, with 26% of Democrats saying that they would prefer the party to nominate another Democrat for president next year, up from 18% in October. …

“The biggest change comes among white Democrats with no college education, a group typically considered the core of the party’s blue-collar constituency,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Half of all white Democrats with no college education say they don’t want President Obama heading their party’s ticket next year.”

Now Stephen, I can already hear you reply to this latest CNN/ORC poll; “these blue collar union workers are nothing more than a bunch of racists, clinging to their guns and religion”

The primary reaction of the left is to always attack the messenger and never deal with the message.

Re- law degree; if Obama has a law degree from Harvard, he must have been sleeping in class. His view of the Constitution is the same as yours Mr. Daugherty; that the Constitution is a flawed document; and evolving document that needs the courts to redefine it.

Sorry Stephen, but I have heard Obama try to speak without a teleprompter, and it’s continual “uhs” and “duhs”.

I’m only going to deal with one more of your points, because your whole response is becoming ridiculous. Your comments are a continual double standard and contradiction:

“I mean, if you guys don’t do things lockstep, why the hatred of moderate Republicans? Why couldn’t Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney reflect with pride on their moderate attitudes? Why does everybody have to be anti-abortion? Why can’t anybody take a position in favor of greater regulation, even if the increase is restrained? Why can’t anybody admit to any of Obama’s successes, or give him a straight congratulation on his achievements, like taking out Bin Laden, or successfully pursuing a policy of regime change in Libya?”

I could ask you the same question about Reagan’s, or Bush one and two successes, but I already know your response.

You say we all walk in lockstep, and yet in the same breath you accuse us of equal y supporting a number of divergent republican candidates. Stephen, unless you are a registered republican and plan to vote for a republican for president, then you have absolutely right to stick your nose in our business. Much like your advise on union membership (since you have never been in a union), you now give republican advise (of with you have never been). Yu have the nerve to complain about the republican’s supporting a conservative candidate, and yet why don’t you tell us the last time the democrat party ran a candidate that was anything other than a liberal. We know that Obama is a full blown socialist, and you will undoubtedly refer to Clinton; and I will respond by saying Bill Clinton became a moderate only after 2 years of caving to the socialist liberals of the Congress, at which point the American voters gave the Congress to the Republicans. It was only then, that Clinton became a centrist. It’s none of your business who we nominate and we certainly don’t think you have our best interest to heart when you give advice. Since Conservatives make up 40% of the voters, and liberals only make up 20%; I would suggest you be concerned about you own house.

Posted by: Frank at November 25, 2011 10:53 AM
Comment #332423


“Worse yet, the rest of us are accused by them of being power-hungry liars who want to destroy our own country.”
And your point is?

I was thinking something along the lines of it being fundamentally inaccurate.

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could tell us where the oil drilling rigs, that used to be in the Gulf, are now located? Oh Stephen, I don’t believe my caricature of Obama is wrong; he bows to the altar of the environmentalists. For all your scientific talk of oil sands, it all boils down to Obama pleasing his GW lobby by failing to allow the Canadian pipe line, and cutting 20k+ jobs off the market.

The Science of the tar sands determines the reality. By letting the productions from those fields become our main source for oil, how many jobs do we sacrifice on account of the expense?

One reason why our economy slowed down in 2007 were that gas prices were strangling the economy. It’s probably one of the reasons things are slowing down now. Tar Sands is expensive oil, more difficult and dirty to extract and process into a usual form. Ignoring this doesn’t merely make your argument wrong, it makes it into a fairy tale. As it and other oil sources get more scarce, it’s only going to get more expensive, and paying that much for energy is going to cost people jobs, and reduce economic activity outside the energy sector.

You keep bringing up Solyndra. You need to watch your numbers there. You said half-trillion. Half-billion is the better term, but around five hundred million is the more neutral and accurate way to phrase that. What’s more, it’s the only major failure so far from that loan program.

More to the point, you act like the failure came because solar panels didn’t work. No, they worked beautifully. There product wasn’t that bad. It just wasn’t cheap enough to compete with the other kinds of solar panels out there. Solar is getting seven percent cheaper every year. See, the field they’re produced in is basically the same field as electronics, once you get down to it, and so the quick pace of innovation there translates to greater efficiency of solar panels, greater economy of them over time, and also a greater variety of such panels, so they can be put all over the place, rather than just concentrated in one area.

Now you can invoke the free market, but we already pay huge subsidies to the oil companies, subsidies you and other Republicans are unwilling to reduce, for fear of having that priced into a barrel of oil, as the free market would have it. With oil only getting more expensive, it just seems a roundabout way to end up paying more at the pump. With the constant cost-cutting of solar panels, your subsidies encourage a cheaper energy source to grow. Me, I think that’s the better idea.

As for your accusations of hypocrisy, which you seem to lean on like the rhetorical crutch it is?

Look, I had a certain level of car that I could afford, and a long, negative experience with a gas-guzzler, especially during the 2007-2008 time period. It turns out, I made the right choice. The payments were affordable to me in the way that a more expensive car might not have been. The ability to spend twenty dollars, even at current gas prices, and get about two weeks of travel out of it is not inconsequential to my budget. I made an economic decision that was in my interest, just like many Americans who chose more efficient foreign cars over less efficient domestic cars did.

For years, your people promoted a culture that valued those big behemoth gas guzzlers, loudly complaining of the violation of your freedoms when somebody suggested, merely suggested that so many of us driving Hummers wasn’t such a great idea.

Then, of course, came that energy crisis, building as we went through Bush’s second term. They became white elephants to their owners, a drag to the economy. That’s your idea of freedom.

Well, when energy prices rebounded, not long after I got my car, I certainly didn’t get as much gas for my car for the buck, but I wasn’t pushed to the point where I was counting the miles on every trip, just putting in a gallon there, a gallon here to get along. Thirty dollars fills my tank for more than two weeks, which means I’m not stuck, unable to pay for anything else, or do anything else.

What I want my government to do is to encourage our domestic carmakers to produce cars that offer similar advantages, so that I don’t have to go elsewhere to buy that level of gas mileage, at the price I was looking for.

To answer your question, no, I would not bailout a foreign car company. Their own government would have that in their interests, not us. I favored the bailout of the big three in order to save millions of jobs and prevent America from lacking a domestic auto industry for the forseeable future.

But why did we have to bail them out? If we had pushed efficiency standards in the last decade, if we had required the average auto to have a certain level of fuel efficiency, we could have avoided that bailout.

The bailout came partly because selling big expensive gas guzzlers had once again become Detroit’s main business. The other part came from the fact that the lending part of the car business was their big producer, and with credit crunched all over the place, their financing of customers where going nowhere.

Your free market system steered itself into a blind corner and hit the wall. Your solution was to lose additional millions of jobs. Since many were union jobs, you saw them as expendable. You like to value union and government jobs with an economic double standard, but it’s still a job loss, and it still hurts the economy.

Rather than act like the market always knows best, no matter what the outcome, I recognize the capacity of people to sometimes follow the herd into doing something stupid or destructive to society as a whole, simply because that’s what keeps people paid, and enriches the few who make the big decisions.

You can pull the intimidating old many routine on me to convince me otherwise, but I think Republican policy, and policy on the right wing is simply too inflexible to function in the real world. It has the desperate quality that comes with trying to force political and economic theories to become realities, despite their failure to correspond with expectations.

You say Conservatives make up forty percent of voters, as if that proves that your people should be in control. However, self-identified liberals and moderates make up sixty percent of the country’s electorate, by that measure. Think about that for a second.

Liberals only make up about forty percent of Democrats, despite your insistence otherwise. Self identified moderates make up an additional forty, which conservatives rounding out the rest of the numbers. Take out the liberals, and a majority of the Democrats remain.

Take out the conservatives, and a minority of the Republicans remain. The comparison on basis of ideological self-identification is misleading, because Democrats are looser about ideological purity. You claim you don’t walk in lockstep, yet your party identifies much more as a single ideological movement than Democrats.

This gets especially complicated when you define liberalism and conservatism by policy. Do that, and most people become liberals by your standards when it comes to Medicare Buy-Ins, the Public option, and other individual policies of what you call Obamacare.

Same thing with taxes for the rich and corporations. Same thing with an emphasis on Jobs over deficit reduction. We get weird situations where Republicans succeed in getting people to disapprove of “Obamacare”, but fail to get them to disapprove of the individual policies.

There is a good possibility, therefore, and this is probably what your people fear, that people who identify as conservative, but are really politically liberal, are more the norm than the exception, that conservatism for most Americans is an In-Name-Only philosophy. They’ll tell you they dislike big government, but they’ll be much less enthusiastic when you start tell them what you’re actually going to cut.

Rhetoric and political theatre can manipulate people on a general level, but on more specific policy levals, I feel, events and real-life concerns override the conscious political choices. This is what lead the GOP to become more moderate than its conservative opinion leaders liked, over the course of its majority.

I think sooner or later, what people support as individual policy will catch up with what they support as general policy. In other words, people are going to shift to the left, as the pressures the economy and society exert undo the nominal successes of Republican Propaganda. It may not even be noticeable at first, but it will happen. Change comes whether you like it or not, and if you haven’t answered certain policy questions by the time it starts happening, it will not favor you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 26, 2011 9:30 AM
Comment #332426

Stephen, I have noticed you like to wait until everyone has moved on to a newer post and come back with your little snide remarks and hopefully you will get the last word on record. By doing that, no one comes back to dispute you. I have come to the conclusion you would defend Obama if he announced he was a Muslim Imam; secondly, you spout the daily talking points from Obama’s press secretary; and thirdly, you argue everything and HAVE to have the last word. At the same time you argue every point that is in opposition to Obama, you ask, why can’t conservatives be willing to compromise. I have never seen you compromise one single point. So basically, discussion with you is futile. You are nothing more than a liberal hack whose sole purpose is to spout liberal propaganda.

Half a billion to Solyndra; my bad.

Doesn’t really matter; the tax payers are the loosers and Obama’s bundlers and donators (including Al Gore) are the wimners.

Posted by: Frank at November 26, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #332441


“Stephen, I have noticed you like to wait until everyone has moved on to a newer post and come back with your little snide remarks and hopefully you will get the last word on record. By doing that, no one comes back to dispute you.”

What good is having the last word if nobody reads it?

This comment doesn’t make any sense.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 27, 2011 7:32 AM
Comment #332453

RM, I guess you will have to take that up with Stephen. I’m sure there is logic behind his madness.

Posted by: Frank at November 27, 2011 9:51 PM
Post a comment