Posted on 05/12/2008 5:26:19 AM PDT by webschooner
Show me the quotation marks in that statement. You just read a made-for press release.
Anyone who can read this statement, and other similar ones, made by McCain and not see that he is a socialist has something wrong with them. He is a lying, pandering idiot who thinks he can be elected without conservative votes. Well, he may be elected but he won't be financed, not by me at any rate, and I will vote constitution party for president, and up yours to anyone who says I will be voting for a dem if I vote my conscience.
MCNasty is McNasty. He has no advisers. He IS their advisor. NOBODY tells McNasty what to do....NOBODY!
He now sees himself as the new generation of Republican with his chance to change it once and for all into this ultra Liberal Socialist Democratic society.
*Yawn* I’m going to send money to real conservative candidates across the country. I’m not sending one dime to the RNC, McCain or vote for him.
If McCain is elected (in my opinion looking unlikely, with his lack of cash and unenthusiastic populace, and a soon to be hostile media) then he will have a Democrat Congress ready to fight him on anything that whiffs of conservatism (even assuming he remembers what that is) and a Republican minority that will not fight “their President” on kooky liberal causes like Global Warming (it’s pretty cold here in SoCal for May!).
Those who are counting on McCain to make better choices for judges are dreaming.
I truly despise political panderers.
McCain is the “least of two evils” choice.
He cannot be strong on the WOT with his open border and close Guantanamo policies.
Huh. I wonder who the “moderate” ignoramus is who McCain is counting on to replace my vote at the polls this November?
On the positive side, I like this: “In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions.”
Maybe he plans to use Global Warming as a lever to pry open the nuclear option. That I would enthusiastically support. If you ignore the headline, it’s interesting that he would be pushing nuclear power at a wind turbine plant in Green-infested Oregon.
On the negative side, the man is an idiot. I suspect I’m giving him too much credit for using a clever political approach to do the right thing. Most likely he will choose a dumb political option to do the wrong thing, going by his past record.
That might explain how he has come to be a major party candidate for President and nobody here has.
No reason will convince you because you don’t want to be convinced. However there are plenty of reasons for those who don’t delude themselves that McCain equals or is anywhere close to Obama and they are easy to see.
This man is more than an idiot. He is a panderer. He is not a maverick due to a belief system, he is a maverick because he believes it brings him PR and elevates his status over the other ‘partisan’ senators.
He is one of the most dangerous people in the country, because he really doesn’t believe in anything. He’s as malleable as they come.
He is ‘our’ Bill Clinton.
Except that once upon a time he did have integrity and honor. Unlike President Clinton. But I guess people can and do change. Speaking of which, wonder when the Media is going to start covering his first marriage.
1. Spending
McCain has been a vociferious opponent of overspending whether in the area of pork, multi-billion dollar “defense” contract boondoggles, trillion dollar prescription drug programs, ethanol subsidies, or Federalized disaster insurance. All while Bush refused to issue a veto for six years of his administration. McCain won’t be able to go six weeks without vetoing ridiculous congressional bills.
I've been following politics for sport for 25 years, and though I had a fairly good grip on how the Republican side worked. Never in a million years did it think McCain could win the party's nomination. I still can't figure out how it happened. When did people like Michael Medved lose their mind and consider this seriously flawed and mixed up man an acceptable representative for a purportedly conservative party? Who the hell got out of bed and went out to vote for him? He's presenting people with brains a very tough dilemma. I think if you live in a state that always goes the same way, you just have to leave the presidential ballot blank. If you live in a swing state, I don't know what to tell you. No matter what state you live in you are screwed.
Personally, I've just decided to concentrate more on my family to shelter them for the horrendous economic concisenesses this carbon madness will bring.
Keep saying that to yourself. If Obama gets in you’ll be crying for a “RINO”.
McCain espouses global warming, when the real issue in this campaign is going to be taking back control of our energy resources.
However, will McCain become a slave to the UN mandates? I don't believe he will, but the fact I have doubts is not good.
“As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy,” he said.]
Here is the way it is working out in California according to their P.U.C:
“Addendum to the Sky Trust Proposal:
Alternative Approaches to Elements of the Policy Framework
This document presents possible alternatives to specific aspects of the Sky Trust model. These proposals are presented by Commission staff to stimulate further thinking by parties in their pre-workshop comments. These proposals will be presented by staff at the March 7-9 workshop, and may be modified in light of party comment in advance of that time.
Alternatives to Section 4: The Framework
I. Page 6: “The CPUC is in the process of establishing annual and multi-year renewable energy goals and energy efficiency savings targets for each investor-owned utility, based on least-cost considerations (footnote omitted). Under the proposed framework, these efforts would also be expressed as corresponding limits to carbon-based energy procurement.”
Alternative #1: Rather than expressing procurement limits under Sky Trust as caps on fossil generation, the framework could emphasize limits on GHG output per MWh of electricity service – a “GHG budget” for the IOUs as a whole.
Advantages: Unlike the present proposal, a GHG budget approach would allow the Commission and the IOUs to differentiate among fossil generation types in the planning and procurement process. After the energy efficiency and renewable energy goals are taken “off the top” of IOU load projections, IOUs would then have an incentive to procure those fossil resources with the lowest GHG impacts to meet remaining electricity needs. This approach would also allow for GHG sequestration.
Disadvantages: The GHG budget approach requires a more detailed analysis of the GHG impacts of each fossil generation option presented to the IOU. This analysis would add complexity to an already complex IOU planning and procurement process.
II. Page 8: “The Energy Efficiency Trust would establish a bidding process for tradable allowances – that is, the right to procure carbon-based energy up to the annual procurement limits established by the CPUC. The IOUs would bid for these allowances with ratepayer funds. The proceeds from the sales of these allowances would, in turn, be used to fund energy efficiency programs, thereby reducing (or eliminating) the ratepayer collections currently needed to fund these programs through the public goods charge and procurement rates.”
Alternative #2: Renewable energy programs are also supported by Public Goods Charge collections. The Sky Trust funds “recycling” process could also include outlays to support these programs.
Advantages: Including renewable energy programs in the Sky Trust funding mechanism increases the identified advantages of linking GHG limits to the procurement of preferred resources. Funding for renewable energy programs under the present proposal is not addressed
Disadvantages: Creating a single pool of funds for both efficiency and renewable energy investments may cause these efforts to compete against each other for support, to the detriment of the established Commission goals for each resource.
Alternative #3: Rather than auctioning the entire amount of permits required to cover the total GHG emissions of the IOUs, the amount of permits representing each IOU’s individual GHG goal could simply be allocated to the IOU. These goals would be ratcheted down on a regular, perhaps annual, basis, as envisioned by the present Sky Trust proposal. An auction would be conducted to cover permits in excess of the initial IOU GHG goal-based allocations, if the IOUs are unable to meet their GHG targets, with revenue from these auctions used to replace or supplement present funding via the PGC.
Advantages: Designing the permit allocation process with specific reference to the portfolios of each IOU may allow the Commission to more effectively engage in the resource planning and procurement process with an eye towards limiting GHG emissions. A permit auction process that focuses solely on IOU underperformance against Commission targets may give a better indication of the appropriateness of the targets themselves.
Disadvantages: Allocating, rather than auctioning, the majority of permits will reduce the amount of revenue generated for efficiency (and perhaps renewable energy) investments, maintaining a larger reliance on PGC funding for this purpose than would the original Sky Trust proposal. The Commission would need to establish GHG goals for each IOU individually, as opposed to establishing one goal for the IOU sector as a whole.
Alternative to Section 5: Utility Performance and Incentives
III. Page 1: “Under the proposed framework the CPUC would establish short- and long-term procurement goals for energy efficiency and renewable resources in its rulemaking proceedings, in coordination with other state agencies.”
In conjunction with Page 14: “The procurement framework described in this paper creates a strong incentive for California electric and natural gas IOUs to aggressively pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives by physically limiting the amount of carbon-based energy they (collectively) would be allowed to include in their resource portfolios. However, this attribute alone may not be sufficient to motivate utility managers to be as diligent as possible in minimizing ratepayer costs and risks, given the cost-of-service realities described above.”
Alternative #4: The Commission could establish permit allocation rules that allow the IOU to retain ownership of any unused permits at the conclusion of a procurement period. For example, at the end of each year (or other scheduled interval) the Commission could perform a true-up comparing IOU performance, in terms of GHG emissions, with the amount of permits that IOU was granted and/or purchased via auction. Any excess permits, representing avoided GHG emissions beyond the annual goals set by the Commission, could be the property of the IOU, possibly to be banked for future years or sold to other entities inside or outside of California.
Advantages: This approach would directly encourage the IOUs to exceed the goals set by the Commission for GHG reduction, by giving them the right to what is likely to be an increasing valuable asset – a state-sanctioned permit to release GHGs. This direct financial incentive adds an element to the Sky Trust proposal that may be missing in its present form – an “up side” for IOU managers and shareholders.
Disadvantages: Allowing the IOUs to “bank” or sell permits into other markets may create challenges for the Sky Trust permit tracking and retirement system, including a requirement that the system be compatible with emerging standards elsewhere in the U.S., and perhaps worldwide. Allowing IOUs to reap a new financial reward via ratepayer-funded procurement may be controversial. There may also be “gaming” issues of concern in establishing the targets under this variation. In addition, unless this variation is coupled with a ratepayer cost-minimization requirement or performance incentives, the IOUs may still not have sufficient motivation to minimize ratepayer costs and risks.
Alternative #5: Rather than establishing specific goals for energy resources that do not emit GHGs (e.g., energy efficiency and renewables), the Commission could instead direct the IOUs to pursue the least-cost mix of energy options that meet established GHG targets, and are compatible with the specifics of each IOU’s resource portfolio and service territory. Financial incentives would be awarded to the IOUs if their portfolio costs are lower than pre-specified per kWh and per therm cost thresholds (and penalties imposed if they exceed those thresholds), as long as the portfolio meets or exceeds the GHG targets.
Advantages: Empowering the IOUs to pursue the most cost-effective resource options, as opposed to prescriptively establishing preferred levels of energy efficiency and renewable energy, may allow the Commission to achieve its GHG targets at lowest cost to ratepayers.
Disadvantages: To the extent that this approach does not result in incremental additions of renewable generation of at least 1% of total sales per year, the Sky Trust model may be in conflict with RPS legislation. There may also be additional reasons, beyond the minimization of GHG emissions, that goals for specific levels of energy efficiency and renewable generation are be desirable as a matter of state policy.”
Sounds simple enough :>)
What an odd line of reasoning. Perhaps, if intelligence were all that it takes to become President, we can ask ourselves why Einstein never was President.
Perhaps we can ask ourselves how President Carter was elected. I’d be willing to bet that the average person on Free Republic is smarter than he is.
And besides, the Republican party is the *stupid party* after all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.