CARROLL: Questions for Barack Obama
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
As Barack Obama gears up for his arrival in Denver next week, his commercials are blanketing the state's airwaves as if it were October, his lead over John McCain has nearly vanished in national polls, and he faces an electorate with nagging doubts about his qualifications for the presidency - and his beliefs.
To be sure, Obama still retains a lot of that presummer magic. Americans across the entire political spectrum are impressed by his biography and what it says about opportunity in this country and the erosion of racial barriers. Voters of all races are drawn to the possibility of an African-American president and the inspiring symbolism it would radiate.
But many also have questions they'd like to ask him.
I know I do. For example:
Senator, you've described global warming as "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," calling for reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Yet you also describe yourself as an "agnostic" on nuclear power, which should be used only "if (your emphasis) we can make it safe" - as if it were not already producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Given that U.S. energy demands are certain to rise, how do you propose cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent without either crippling the economy or building scores of nuclear plants with zero carbon emissions?
If you had to rank the values of liberty and social justice, or freedom and equality, which would you put on top? No fair saying you value each. Of course you do.
You say you'll hike the top two income tax rates and boost taxes on capital gains and dividends. Why is raising taxes a good idea while the economy sputters?
Should federal regulators be able to invoke the Endangered Species Act to block new power plants and other carbon dioxide sources in an effort to save polar bear habitat?
You've said that your daughters, when they're ready for college, should "be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," yet you oppose ballot initiatives that would abolish preferential treatment based on race and gender in college admissions. Why do you oppose these measures when without such laws, your daughters will be given preferential treatment - if they need it - at almost any college where they apply?
You insist that the wealthy should pay higher payroll taxes to shore up Social Security. Even if this were a good idea, don't we also have to slow growth in benefits because so many baby boomers are retiring? Why can't an agent of change just say so?
Congress voted overwhelmingly in 2003 to protect infants born alive after botched abortions so they would not be left to die for lack of treatment. Yet you opposed nearly identical legislation in the Illinois legislature. What do you say to Americans who believe that letting babies die after birth is infanticide?
How can a man with a highly partisan voting record - more partisan than the average Democratic senator - claim to run as a candidate with bipartisan objectives?
You have said that you "respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners" and also the right of "local communities to enact common-sense laws." Do common-sense laws include a ban on the sale of handguns within five miles of a school or park - which would outlaw their sale in virtually every city and town and which you once proposed?
Who should Americans consider the real Barack Obama? Is he the fellow who compiled a liberal to ultraliberal record as a state lawmaker and in his first years in the U.S. Senate, or is he the postprimary candidate who's marched to the center on such issues as offshore drilling, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
You favor a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, although their profit margins as a percentage of sales are in line with U.S. manufacturing. What other industries should be subjected to a windfall profits tax?
Finally, senator, welcome to Colorado. When your party's convention last came to Denver, 100 years ago, the nominee stayed home in Nebraska and cut alfalfa. Fortunately, we can expect much more excitement - and maybe a few answers - Thursday when you take the stage at Invesco Field.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 23, 2008
6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Vincent, these questions are 'Racist'. /sarcasm
Don't you know that questioning The Obama is not allowed and all you need to know is Hope and Change.
August 23, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSWren writes:
Tell us what you think of Obama and the other candidates at the new Denver Speakers Corner. We meet each Sunday, 4 p.m., Civic Center, North Pavilion on Colfax, just across the street from the Denver Newspaper Agency. More info and optional RSVP at http://cocacop.meetup.com/2
There was a great story about us last Monday here in the Rocky:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
Hope you can join us! We'll be shooting a video of each session and posting it on You Tube.
August 23, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Memo to Vincent: "The Wrecking Crew" aka Republican "neo-conservatives" have proven themselves unfit to govern this country as shown by eight years of economic destruction, war mongering and an imperial administration. The Republicans have controlled Congress for 6 out of the last 8 years and have offered no resistance to an incompetent and imperial puppet Presidency controlled by a card carrying PNAC Vice President.
The "neoconservative" philosophy that government is bad is a self-fulfilling prophesy, fulfilling its theory via the placement of incompetent and corrupt administrators starting from the very top down (See George Bush, Paul Bremer, Michael Brown, Michael Chertoff, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzalez, etc, etc). Uber Disaster Captialists focused on personal power and money at the expense of a functioning federal government.
John McCain is unfit to be President of the United States and Republicans have no business (pun intended) to be governing this country. You might have questions about Barack Obama but I have no question at all that incompetents like George Bush and John McCain should be kept as far away from the White House as possible.
August 23, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Your questioning "The One?" Tsk,tsk!!
August 23, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
taoistblockhead, your name says it all. When questions are brought up about BO, you attempt to deflect the conversation off topic. Granted, I'm not happy with Bush and the Republicans (I'm independent) but if you are going to throw darts, be honest and do so at both parties since both have been obstructionists in their political actions. I don't like the Republican's candidate, JM, and I think that the Democrat's candidate BO, stinks also.
The questions posed are valid and the voters deserve honest answers. Your off topic attack makes it appear that you are afraid of BO's answers.
August 23, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
taoistblockhead, your hyperbolic rantings are tiring.
The fundemental question is: Do you wish this country to be led in an ever increasing acceleration downwards towards amoral socialism and secular humanism or do you want to slow that progression by voting for moral candidates who support freedom and liberty?
August 23, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
ItsJustme:
Obama doesn't support freedom and liberty?
And what makes a candidate "moral"?
Just a couple of nagging little questions you left dangling.
August 23, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
I wonder if there is a concerted effort to ignore Hydrogen produced through electrolysis or chemical reaction with water?
Hydrogen energy is 3 times more efficient than gasoline or deisal.
You don't have to drill for it, so automatically this technology neutralizes current enviromental arguments against fossil or nuclear dependency.
Nuclear too, only addresses our power grid, as does windmill and solar panel "farms" that store electricity instead of using it when produced.
All of these technologies plus all of our existing grid can produce the electricity needed to harvest Hydrogen from water to run our transportation industry.
70% of our dependence on foreign energy is used for transportation. All the discussions thusfar by most energy pundits, automakers and environmentalists focus on our power grid and not our transportation industry. Now the time line is 50 years to address 20% of our 20% dependence on foreign sweet crude.
I find it interesting that editorials, talk shows, major news media doesn't cover the potentials of Hydrogen and compare that with that potential to ALL other energy sources discussed thusfar.
I've listened to 760, 850, 630 AM stations, none nada.
I've read editorials in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the local rags, none,nada...
Anything that currently runs on oil, gasoline, deisal, jet fuel, coal can now be run on Hydrogen with current technology that is over 100 years old.
Too good to be true? There are obstacles to be overcome, as there are with all technologies including the ones overcome when we decided to burn carbon instead of using it to manufacture more goods. Carbon can be used to manufacture black top, nylons, plastics, buildings, and cars etc.
When we convert to using oil to manufacture goods, it's usage will plummet. But we have our transportation industry off of it first.
I encourage Vince and readers to google Roy McAlister and pick out Hydrogen oriented links. Also a must read is a book titled Solar Hydrogen Civilization.
go to www.fatheromalley.com for click throughs to these recources and more. www.knowledgepublications.com is a good place to start.
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 23, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Ask the same questions to McSame.
August 23, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ofearghail writes:
ItsJustme writes:
"taoistblockhead, your hyperbolic rantings are tiring."
I couldn't have said it better, but it seems to me that he did not get quite all the DNC talking points into his post in the proper order. I'm sure someone at headquarters will be talking with him soon.
August 23, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
The economy was fine until Reid/Pelosi took over the Congress. The economy started breaking down with threats of raising the cap gains rate. Of course Bush has offered no leadership for 8 years, most Republicans will admit.
August 24, 2008
5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
"As Gen. David Petraeus returns home, McCain increasingly resembles those mad Japanese soldiers who remained at war on remote Pacific islands years after Hiroshima."
August 24, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
LuvAmerica writes:
"Do you wish this country to be led in an ever increasing acceleration downwards towards amoral socialism and secular humanism or do you want to slow that progression by voting for moral candidates who support freedom and liberty?"
a) I suppose you are claiming the Dems will be the source of the downfall of civilization. Leaving aside that you have no evidence of this, as an aside I must ask: What's wrong with socialism, which by definition has no "amoral" component? Or secular humanism?
b) But the bigger question is: Besides the Dems, what other party would you recommend exploring for morality, freedom, and liberty? Surely you are not holding up the GOP as the model of such things, the party that brought you illegal wiretapping, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, Military Commissions Act, shredders of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to name but a few examples of how the idea of anyone presenting McCain & company as the torch bearers of such principles is a big fat joke.
August 24, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
You all realize that you will not get straightforward and honest answers to the above questions from the great O. You will political doublespeak and mumblings about hope and change.
August 24, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Benighse writes:
I prefer to be FOR something.....
Diplomacy and Peace First with War as a last resort --vs-- War based on lack of intelligence and regime change.
Be an international partner with our allies --vs-- Take it or leave it comments to our friends are unacceptable.
Engage in healthcare plans that will make it available at a reasonable cost --vs-- Just don't get sick.
Have an economic plan that includes paying for our domestic and international bills by putting Americans to work --vs-- Leave all the bills for the next three generations from continuing the Bush largesse to multi-millionaires.
Find housing, mortgage and college cost solutions --vs-- Put on a patch and turn a blind eye to the middle class workers and their kids.
Bring our heros home from Iraq --vs-- Leaving them in harm's way for political purposes.
Work for solar, wind, hydrogen cell and conservation alternatives --vs-- Rhetoric about drill, drill, drill when everyone knows the US can't drill its way out of the current mess.
Invest in education with the funding to match our goals --vs-- Tell States and local communities their education system will be punished if they don't reach a test standard instead of an understanding standard.
Put a Veteran's Education and Health Protection Plan in effect to prove we value all their service --vs-- Deteriorating hospitals with lack of doctors and delayed services for the Veteran's and families who sacrificed the most.
I'm for electing Barack Obama President because he is on the right side of these issues. With the help of the American people electing him and a Congress that will put his ideas into action, we will be a great country respected at home and abroad.
....But this is just a wrinkly old white-haired guy talking about why I want the generational change to take place this election so the future will be better for our children and grandchildren. So let's all get to work for OBAMA / BIDEN '08.
August 24, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hank writes:
Here's a question for Vince -
Why isn't the RMN reporting this story:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_1...
August 24, 2008
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Father Omalley
It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than you can get out of it when you burn it.
Hydrogen is highly explosive and must be stored under pressure. The NHTSB says that there have been no crash tests on hydrogen tanks such as would be used in cars. We don't know how dangerous they are.
A hydrogen tank must leak in order to keep from exploding. If a car is parked in an open lot, this would be no problem. If a car with a hydrogen tank were to be left in a hot garage for 3 weeks while the owner is on summer vacation, the garage might end up being filled with explosive gas. When the owner comes home and walks into his garage with a lit cigarette, the garage might go up.
But the testing hasn't been done.
August 25, 2008
5:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
suffernofools writes:
A couple of points about this election: with 300 million people in the United States, it still amazes me that the two major parties could not come up with two better candidates. Also, I've been job-hunting for a month or so, looking for a mid-level management, director position. With over 15 years of work experience, even that is not enough to be considered for some of the positions. It makes me wonder how someone with 3 years of political experience could be qualified to be the President of the United States?! I doubt Obama, with his resume and credentials, would ever be chosen to be a CEO of a major corporation--due to lack of experience. I don't know about the rest of you, but it scares the heck out of me thinking our country could be placed in the hands of such a neophyte who is basically unknown and untested. It's a scary world out there and a complicated one right here in the good ol' USA.
August 25, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
yaakovwatkins
Thanks. You wrote it for me.
Go nuclear (There's a reason God decided to power the sun with it).
August 25, 2008
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Vincent, excellent questions for Barack. Unfortunately, the biased media has been too busy swooning over him than asking hardball questions. I have confidence the American people (that silent majority who has yet to be heard) will see through this and overwhelmingly vote the Democrats off the island in November.
August 25, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
More than 25 years ago, Dr. Morris Massey, an Associate Dean at the University of Colorado, produced a video seminar titled “What You Are Is Where You Where When. The gist of it was that there are periods of development in our lives where we formulate our personal values. One of the critical periods of value development was defined as the time, place, and environment we experienced at the age of 10 years. For instance, if you were 10 years old during the 1950’s living in Oklahoma, your core values could be predicted, to some degree.
Based upon Massey’s work, one might wonder about the possible deep-seated values of Barack Obama. The facts are that Obama resided in Indonesia with his atheist Mother and Muslim stepfather, and attended school in a predominantly Muslim culture at the age of 10 years in the early 70’s. This may be a politically incorrect subject to bring up, but why is it not something to question given the legitimate social science theory developed by Dr. Massey?
August 25, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
at least carroll, unlike rosen, is trying to write some relevant pieces here....
"you also describe yourself as an "agnostic" on nuclear power, which should be used only "if (your emphasis) we can make it safe" - as if it were not already producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity."
really? can you say that nuclear is "safe" in its current usage in the US because it provides 20% of the nation's electricity?
i don't think vinnie can make that argument considering the steps other countries have taken to vastly reform the design of their nuclear infrastructure compared to what we have here in the US.
so yes, vinnie, that's a ridiculous question for obama. if you don't agree that we need to make serious changes to how we produce nuclear energy before greatly increasing the amount of energy it contributes to the US grid...you're either a political hack or need to do some more research on the issue.
i don't think you need more research.
"You say you'll hike the top two income tax rates and boost taxes on capital gains and dividends. Why is raising taxes a good idea while the economy sputters?"
it's a little late to be whining that obama is going to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, vinnie. furthermore, if you were worried about taxes going up...you probably should have been a little more vocal about the conservative policy decisions that guaranteed as much over the last 8 years. at some point we have to pay the bill for the irresponsible decisions over the last decade…or did you think you were just going to pass that invoice off to your children and grandchildren?
again...you're either a political hack or you need to do some more research.
i don't think you need to do more research.
"You've said that your daughters, when they're ready for college, should "be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," yet you oppose ballot initiatives that would abolish preferential treatment based on race and gender in college admissions."
you're talking about two different things here, vinnie c. he's speaking in terms of financial advantage...and you're speaking int erms of...well...who knows...just more standard far right talking points about affirmative action i guess.
do i need to repeat it?
(Cont’d below)
August 25, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
(cont’d from above)
"You insist that the wealthy should pay higher payroll taxes to shore up Social Security. Even if this were a good idea, don't we also have to slow growth in benefits because so many baby boomers are retiring? Why can't an agent of change just say so?"
maybe this is just a product of being honestly misinformed.
do you not realize that obama has insisted that the only way to shore up SS is by either cutting benies or increasing taxes?
maybe you really just didn't know that and it was an honest mistake on your part.
"Congress voted overwhelmingly in 2003 to protect infants born alive after botched abortions so they would not be left to die for lack of treatment. Yet you opposed nearly identical legislation in the Illinois legislature. What do you say to Americans who believe that letting babies die after birth is infanticide?"
now this is just pathetic. We’re hearing the same “pro-infanticide” rhetoric from far righties like rush Limbaugh. This is just as ignorant as claiming that people are “pro-abortion” .obama supports leaving these kinds of decisions up to the family...and...as we saw during the schiavo fiasco...anything else is just gov't intrusion.
"How can a man with a highly partisan voting record - more partisan than the average Democratic senator - claim to run as a candidate with bipartisan objectives?"
fair question...just make sure you ask mcsame the same one.
again....i think his policy stances speak for themselves. they're supported by the majority of americans...as opposed to those held by bush/mccain.
maybe your position on the political spectrum clouds your view of what "partisan" means, vinnie c.
"Do common-sense laws include a ban on the sale of handguns within five miles of a school or park - which would outlaw their sale in virtually every city and town and which you once proposed?"
unless you can point to a policy stance outlined by obama during his run for president...this is yet another far right wing conspiracy theory attempting to muster support for a wedge nonissue. Nice try.
"Who should Americans consider the real Barack Obama? Is he the fellow who compiled a liberal to ultraliberal record as a state lawmaker and in his first years in the U.S. Senate, or is he the postprimary candidate who's marched to the center on such issues as offshore drilling, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?"
is this a cry for help? do you really just not know where obama's policy stances lie on the issues?
this is either ignorance or willful ignorance. if it's just ignorance, remedies can be found by doing research…but as stated…I’m afraid that’s not your problem.
If, however, it's willful ignorance, little is to be done with such blatant political hackery.
i guess i just expected a little more from someone in vincent's position here at the rocky mountain news.
August 25, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Yes, Mr. Vincent, you have some good questions for Obama. Where is your list for McCain? Or does he get a pass since he is of your political ilk? How about:
You were tortured during your years in captivity in Vietnam, where you denounced the United States under torture. Why did you vote to allow the CIA to torture prisoners if, knowing that your denunciation of the US was coerced from you under torture? Do you believe that any useful information can be obtained under torture?
How do you relate to the middle class where you don't know how many homes you and your wife own? How do you relate to someone who is struggling to pay their mortgage when you have more homes than you even know?
Do you feel, as President Bush does, that it is a wonderful thing that a person has to work three jobs to make ends meet?
Since the wages of middle class workers have been stagnant, or have fallen behind, in relation to inflation since the late 70s, do you feel that the wealthy are the only ones who should benefit from a robust economy by offering more tax cuts to those who have earned a significantly higher percent of the national income over that same time period?
I'm sure there are many more questions that could/should be asked of McCain and Obama. However, Mr. Vincent does a disservice to the public by only requiring answers from a single candidate.
August 25, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
And HopiMedicineMan: "The economy was fine until Reid/Pelosi took over the Congress." What planet have YOU been living on? Let me ask YOU a few questions:
How many jobs were created over the first six years of the current administration, when the Republicans controlled the administrative and legislative branches, and how does that compare to the Clinton administration?
How much did the average wage increased over the first size years of the current administration for the middle class versus the top 1%?
How many people were considered living in poverty after the first six years of this administration versus the Clinton administration?
Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton fan. And I don't give him any more credit for the economy in the 90's than I blame congress for the last two years. Anybody with half a brain knows that any policy that is created and passed by congress or the president takes YEARS to make much of a difference. If it didn't, then the economy should be booming right now due to the rebate checks that some people received.
So take off you rose-colored GOP-loving glasses and get back to reality!
August 25, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
yaakovwatkins:
It will NOT take more energy to create hydrogen if Obama! is elected.
He will CHANGE that.
August 25, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
oxoboxo writes:
US congress needs to be fixed to bring on real change. Will candidate Obama and the DNC support a proposal to limit the terms of US senators to two, and terms of US representatives to 6? If not, why not?
August 25, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
imPatrickBateman writes:
taoistblockhead writes:
"Memo to Vincent: "The Wrecking Crew" aka Republican "neo-conservatives" have proven themselves unfit to govern this country as shown by eight years of economic destruction, war mongering and an imperial administration. The Republicans have controlled Congress for 6 out of the last 8 years and have offered no resistance to an incompetent and imperial puppet Presidency controlled by a card carrying PNAC Vice President.
The "neoconservative" philosophy that government is bad is a self-fulfilling prophesy, fulfilling its theory via the placement of incompetent and corrupt administrators starting from the very top down (See George Bush, Paul Bremer, Michael Brown, Michael Chertoff, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzalez, etc, etc). Uber Disaster Captialists focused on personal power and money at the expense of a functioning federal government.
John McCain is unfit to be President of the United States and Republicans have no business (pun intended) to be governing this country. You might have questions about Barack Obama but I have no question at all that incompetents like George Bush and John McCain should be kept as far away from the White House as possible."
More typical liberal garble intended to move the discussion off-track and distract from the point of the article. I have to agree with Darwin when he said, "Your off topic attack makes it appear that you are afraid of BO's answers."
August 25, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
I too Vince would love to hear the answers to those questions, which while being the most direct and pertinent for this pompous a*s will never be asked by the liberal media. Sadly, you will never get to ask them either. But thanks for compiling them. From the above responses you certainly have laid out food for thought.
August 25, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
rjnova: Why does Obama need to answer tough questions, but not McCain? And what makes Obama a "pompous a*s" as opposed to McCain? McCain is so elite he doesn't even know how many homes he owns! How much more pompous can you get??
On one hand, you have a guy who came from a poor family, worked hard to get a scholarship to go to a good school, graduated magna c*m laude, and made his own way in life. (Obama)
On the other hand you have a guy who was given a pass in school, a military academy, based on who his father and grandfather were, graduating near the very bottom of the class, divorced his first wife after a disfiguring accident, and married a wealthy heiress with political connections and has never worked for anything in his life.
So, WHO is the pompous a*s?????
(I can't believe this site censors for a graduation honor!!!!)
August 25, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
oxoboxo...i'm not sure limiting the amount of on the job experience our congresspersons can attain is such a good idea...but i would fully support meaningful campaign finance reform so the same type of folks don't keep getting reelected.
rjnova, i would hope that the questions you'd ask would be a little more significant than the crap carroll threw against the wall up there.
August 25, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, Mr. Carroll didn't ask me, but I can't resist answering one of his questions to Obama:
"Senator, you've described global warming as "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," calling for reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Yet you also describe yourself as an "agnostic" on nuclear power, which should be used only "if (your emphasis) we can make it safe" - as if it were not already producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Given that U.S. energy demands are certain to rise, how do you propose cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent without either crippling the economy or building scores of nuclear plants with zero carbon emissions?"
I think what gets lost in this question is that Obama has suggested such a significant reduction by THE YEAR 2050 - that's forty whole years away. As in four decades. As in almost half a century!
The main source of CO2 emissions is, at least to my understanding, our vehicles. It is entirely realistic that within a few decades, our auto fleet could be mostly electric battery or clean fuel powered.
And in forty years - again, that's almost half a century - we are sure to see that wind and solar technologies have greatly evolved and are powering a good portion, maybe even a majority of our cities.
If Obama was targeting all of these changes within five years, even ten years, it would be a tight challenge, indeed. And certainly our economy would take some whacks. But again, this is a graduated process over a pretty lengthy block of time, forty years.
August 25, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
PaleoConservative writes:
fairness writes:
"[John McCain] has never worked for anything in his life."
Flying jets in Viet Nam was a hobby? I think that it involved a little bit more heavy lifting than being a "community organizer," whatever that means.
August 25, 2008
6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
LuvAmerica asks, "what's wrong with socialism" and then unwittingly answers the question with this brain-dead followup, "[socialism], which by definition has no amoral component."
When someone, anyone, even the kind old lady socialist who'd never hurt a fly but believes that a certain political philosophy has "no amoral component," then it's only a hop, skip and a jump to "the ends justify the means" and "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet."
Socialism and it's evil sisters, communism, leninism, stalinism and maoism has been responsible for more suffering, death, human despair and agony than any form of government in history. And precisely the reason for this is that the moronic true believers think that since they are acting in the interests of the whole, that nothing they do can possibly be considered amoral, immoral, evil, or downright wrong in the grand scheme of things.
We (in the entire mankind sense of the word) have spent over 100 years, untold treasure and millions upon millions of lives trying to come to terms with the horrors that unchecked socialism has wrought. We have finally gotten socialism more or less confined to Cuba, North Korea, Vietname and China only to see it keep sprouting up like a weed that won't go away in places like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and on our own university campuses.
Socialism, like it's evil twin Communism truly belongs on the ash heap of history. It was, and still is, a horrible idea, and hearing a clueless clown saying that it "by definition has no amoral component" just makes me shudder.
August 25, 2008
10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
tchoupitoulas writes:
And what, pray tell, do you plan on asking McCain? How many houses does he have (if he can remember)? How much money does he pay on one pair of shoes? Since military service is such a huge pre-requisite to the oval office, why didn't he hit back on Bush's lack of service so vigorously as he has his opponent? Betty Ford was open about her issues with drugs and alcohol, why isn't your wife? Why are you so excited about the current conflict between Russia and Georgia? If we pull our troops out of the Middle East, are you just going to send them to the former Soviet Republic instead?
We could go on and on, but the point is that there are a lot of things we don't know about either candidate. Selectively scrutinizing one does very little to benefit the voting public.
Unless, of course, you're just venting.....
August 26, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Impressed by his biography? the same biography that contributed to the lies about his birthplace? Which has lead to a lawsuit questioning his citizenship, and therefore his qualifications to be POTUS? The same lawsuit that has gotten absolutely ZERO coverage in any form of press?
buyer's remorse is putting it kindly......
August 26, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Boy, woodwose likes to confuse "socialism" with "communism". Try looking into the European countries of Sweden, Denmark, or Norway for a better view of what socialism is. China and North Korean are not what socialism is about.
I'm not advocating that we go to a socialist society, but there are certain pieces of it that would benefit this country greatly. However, those people who think that capitalism is the end-all be-all way of life will have a hard time accepting any of it.
I prefer a way of life where people care for those around them rather than the Republican idea of every man for himself. I also don't buy into the Democratic view of do everything for people. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but no one is willing to compromise so we will never find it.
August 26, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
PaleoConservative: "Flying jets in Viet Nam was a hobby? I think that it involved a little bit more heavy lifting than being a "community organizer," whatever that means."
If it wasn't for his family name, he wouldn't even have been flying! How many planes did he crash? Where did he graduate in his Annapolis class? At the bottom, I believe. He got what he got and where he is due to other people pulling strings for him - just like Bush.
August 26, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveT8 writes:
I believe Mr. Carroll has solidified his exclusion from the list of those who will be allowed to meet with Senator Obama.
August 26, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rallyracer7 writes:
I am happy to see someone finally asking questions of OB. There have been so many articles on how Obama is so amazing, 15 things you don't know about Obama, 15 things you don't know about Obama's wife. It is time someone asks questions to the flip-floping answers Obama has given. I can agree that neither candidate is well suited for the job, but putting someone in power that has the political experience of a 3 year old. You wouldn't let a 3 year old drive your car, so why let a 3 year old run our country?
August 26, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Rallyracer7: "...putting someone in power that has the political experience of a 3 year old."
As opposed to the tantrums thrown by McCain? Talk about acting like a 3-year-old! Even a number of generals don't want McCain as commander-in-chief!
August 26, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rallyracer7 writes:
Fairness,
I didn't say I wanted McCain as Commander-in-chief. I just said i dont' think Obama doesn't have the experience needed to be running the country.
August 26, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Rallyracer7,
As I have said in other posts, the experience of the president is not the most important factor. You can have the most experienced guy on the planet in the oval office, but if he surrounds himself with idiots, it won't do him a bit of good. Or, if the president is someone who, like the current occupant, is not curious enough about what is going on to get good advice and different viewpoints, you also have a problem.
Now if you recognize where you are deficient and surround yourself with people who can compensate and give you good advice, then an intelligent person can overcome any lack of experience. And I believe that Obama is smart enough to know where he is weak and will surround himself with people who ARE knowledgeable.
That is why he picked Joe Biden instead of someone like Clinton. Clinton may have helped him get more votes, but would she have helped him enough on foreign policy issues?
August 26, 2008
7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
TroyJGrice writes:
Phase I:
A bursting financial bubble, bank runs, a tinkering Federal Reserve making matters worse, and a big spending Republican encumbant.
Phase II:
A Democrat wins who responds with massive public works projects, tax increases, renegotiated trade agreements, windfall profits taxes, a packed supreme court, cartelization and nationalization of industry, a world war, and another 8 years of economic recession.
Prediction? No. This was 1932. Be careful when you vote.
August 27, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
An injured war-hero senator with solid political experience (and a beautiful wife) who voted party-line straight across the board. So what if he catted around a little? Who wouldn't vote for him?
Oh, wait -- that was John Kennedy.
Well, I guess it applies to McCain, too.
Sigh
August 29, 2008
5:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
We're doomed.