Obama to Coal States: Drop Dead!

Sunday, November 2, AD 2008

Obama doesn’t believe we should use coal to generate power.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

I guess under an Obama administration coal miners, bitterly clinging to their God and their guns, can go on welfare.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Obama to Coal States: Drop Dead!

  • Many of us from coal states agree that our coal addiction needs to die. In fact, many pro-coal (in the sense that it brings jobs) folks in WV have been resentful of the U.S.’s coal addiction for decades. Here again, folks like you, Donald, think you’re speaking for everyday people, but you contribute nothing when it comes to justice for the people who provide you with energy. Your backwards, dying politics is literally killing people in Appalachia. Green Appalachian energy jobs now!

  • It’s amazing the arrogance of Senator Obama to think he will openly admit this thinking his position is secure in the polls.

    He probably realizes he isn’t going to win West Virginia, but Pennsylvania is far from a lock. If McCain wins PA, this comment could be the decisive turning point of the election.

  • Senator Clinton destroyed (understatement) Senator Obama in West Virginia. And the polls showed Senator Obama leading.

    Senator McCain is leading in West Virginia, I predict 75% vote for McCain in WV. Unless a couple of million dead West Virginians come out in vote, it aint gonna happen.

  • Michael, I spent a few years in the Ohio Valley, and I didn’t see much effort to move beyond the steel industry… kind of sad, actually. For a variety of reasons, it doesn’t seem that the area wants to face reality and move ahead.

  • I’d rather incentivize industries that we want to grow and promote than “disentivize” ones that we want to leave behind… in some ways, this seems typical of the difference between liberals and conservatives… my intuition is that the latter are quicker to “disentivize” while the latter are quicker to incentivize.

  • A WV official no less responding to Senator Obama’s remarks. It’s going to be a slaughter in WV… and possibly Pennsylvania?!

  • Michael, I spent a few years in the Ohio Valley, and I didn’t see much effort to move beyond the steel industry… kind of sad, actually. For a variety of reasons, it doesn’t seem that the area wants to face reality and move ahead.

    I suspect a good part of it has to do with steel and coal jobs remaining some of the best paying jobs for those without college degrees. At the call center I worked at for nine months or so in Wellsburg, WV landing a steel mill job was seen as something akin to winning the lottery since it payed 3x what most of those guys could make anywhere else. (And the jobs were about as scarce as winning lottery numbers two, since the mills were only a gradual slope of constant downsizing.)

    I’d be very, very surprised if Obama took WV, though. I was working there for the 2000 election, and everyone was pulling very hard for Bush over Gore — at least up in that region.

  • Good thing Obama didn’t spout this stuff round these parts. For all his incongruities, PA Gov Fast Eddie Rendell is gung-ho coal. Talks up useful and clean ways to dig it/process it/use it. Helpful as no other area of the planet boasts it in such large quantities. Only demonstrates the Empty Suit Tendencies of Demo standard bearer. No doubt Fast Eddie will downplay pro-coal remarks in any future interview for say HHS Secretary job.

  • On the other hand, many of us from coal states look at coal as the future of our nation’s energy. If mining is becoming too hazardous in West Virginia, by all means, quit mining coal there. It means more of a market share for Wyoming. Our coal is cleaner, anyway.

    I find it astounding that people are so irate against coal. Our technology has advanced to a point where we scrub out all the deleterious materials (down to maybe a few parts per billion), and if you’re worried about carbon dioxide, don’t. CO2 isn’t a problem, no matter what the hysteria says. CO2 makes us less than 5% of all greenhouse gases, and anthropogenic sources are only a tiny portion of that, anyway.

    Coal is necessary for electricity until or unless we make a wholesale switch to nuclear. It has to be one of the two (given our lack of producing energy from cold fusion). Why? Because in order to power a city, you have to have a stable base load. Wind, solar, and other renewable sources just can’t foot the bill. They’re too unstable, too inconsistent. You can’t simply have the city shut down when a cloud passes overhead (yes, I know, the reality is a little more complicated than that, but hyperbole has its uses).

    Moreover, unlike all the renewable sources the left touts as being the “cure” for our oil addiction, coal can actually cover that, too. Using coal-to-liquids technology, from Wyoming coal alone we can provide all the gasoline, diesel, and kerosene our nation needs for the next 250 years. We would have to fix the price at about $75 a barrel, but I’d be willing to accept that if it means $700 billion/year stays in the states and we don’t have to worry about foreign powers creating huge fluctuations in the market.

    The coal/energy issues are important for my wife and myself, mainly because my wife is a Chemical Engineer, and her focus is on coal technology. If you want to know anything about coal, e-mail me, and I’ll ask her, and relay the answer.

  • Yes, it probably hurts Obama to have said this — such is electoral politics — but I’m all in favor of getting our electricity from a clean source like nuclear plants rather than coal (dirty and dangerous). More people die from coal mining every year than have ever died from nuclear power in the West.

  • Ryan is right. Coal is the future for the time being. For one thing, there are still tons and tons of it in the Earth. Just the stuff we have located could last centuries even with our increased usage. We already have “clean-coal” technology that will only get better.

  • SB,

    You are right, coal miners die from mining coal. But that is in underground mines. Again, as my husband said earlier, feel free to let those underground eastern mines fail. Wyoming will pick up the market share and my salary will go up. Ok, so I’m joking about the salary. Wyoming strip mines it’s coal. We have had one coal mining death this year. Someone backed one shovel into another and crushed the cab, as well as the driver. It made major news in this state. We don’t have the dangers underground mining faces. Also with the laws requiring 3-6 inches of topsoil in every area mined, the earth is put in a better state than what is available in Wyoming. Only in reclaimed land do we have that kind of topsoil.

    As for dirty, well, coal can be dirty if you are using an old plant. However, any new plants that would be built are required to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Wyoming coal, in small quantities is clean enough not to require cleaning for most regulations, and we still clean it very strictly for any new plant designs. The “dirty coal” idea is an incorrect advertisement, at least out here

    However, I will agree that nuclear is “cleaner” if no carbon capture is used and if we used nuclear for power, coal could be used in place of our petroleum products. Don’t count coal out just because it’s “dirty.”

Civilian National Security Force?

Saturday, November 1, AD 2008

Senator Obama has called for a Civilian National Security Force.

Hmmm.  Considering we already have the US military, the state National Guards, and police to protect us, just what would be the role of the C.N.S.F.?

At any rate I am confident that it would not have the same role as the civilian army in another country that used to march while singing this tune.

Why am I confident of this?

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Civilian National Security Force?

  • The next thing Senator Obama will announce once in office is to dissolve the judicial and legislative branches and create the Committee of Public Safety.

  • The Volokh Conspiracy has a good analysis of Obama’s proposals:

    In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military.

    This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization. Others suggest that he may have been talking about our “current non-military security agencies – FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, DHS, etc.”

    I think that both interpretations are probably wrong. If you listen to the whole speech –- or even the couple minutes before his security force proposal — I think that it’s reasonably clear that Obama is talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, and the Peace Corps — and adding some new ones. … read more

  • Not to say it’s any less troubling, if Obama means what he says:

    … his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama’s proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise “to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military….

    But given Obama’s penchant for hyperbole and obfuscation, let’s hope this is more of the same.

3 Responses to Very Modern

Class and Classless

Friday, October 31, AD 2008

In this election there have been a spate of conservatives who have endorsed Obama, including Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley, founder of National Review.  Most of these Obamacons have chastised Senator McCain for choosing Governor Palin as his running mate.  I have been struck by how much of the Palin hatred is simple class snobbery.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Class and Classless

  • Puh-LEASE.

    The republican party — suddenly gaining “class consciousness”?!


  • I can understand why you are amused Catholic Anarchist. Horny handed son of toil grad student that you are.

  • Horny handed son of toil grad student that you are.

    You some kind of a pervert?

  • No, Catholic Anarchist, although my own hands are softer than they used to be.

  • Sarah freaks those who believe that all national political types should be vetted by the D.C. Chattering Classes. Attend the right cocktail parties. Leave cell phone number to producers of all D.C. cable teevee shows. Come from The Right School. The Right Political Mentor, The Right Image. Thus we have a logjam of folks who spout the same cliches in slightly modified form. We have not even mentioned how Sarah violates basic tenets of Official Feminists. Ew she hunts and fishes. Ew she had five kids. Ew she holds lifetime membership in the NRA. Double triple ew her baby is a gasp retard. But it’s all good. Sarah’s star will shine brightly should the GOP ticket burn out on November 4. Attention Obama- take a look at your 2012 opponent should you win out next week. This means you too Hillary. Thus The Future Of The GOP on display for all to see. Rhyme definitely intended.

  • As always Gerard I agree with your sentiments and stand in awe of your way of presenting them!

  • For those who, like me, came of age after the English language had ceased to be used to describe anything other than the excretory and reproductive systems (and who failed to sufficiently immerse themselves in the prose of ages past in order to get past that modern degeneracy) “horny handed” refers to someone with heavily callused hands.

    A horny handed son of toil is, thus, someone whose hands are calloused from long years of manual labor.

    What Don was doing, Michael, was questioning your cred as a representative of the working classes.

  • Perhaps Michael I. wouldn’t qualify for cocktail parties either. Do you really want Palin as the nominee in 2012? I haven’t been that impressed. I like her more than Huckabee…or McCain…or Giuliani. But Jindal is a much better representative of the party I would like to support.

  • “Do you really want Palin as the nominee in 2012?”

    Depends upon what conditions are in 2012, but as of now yes. I haven’t seen a candidate with better political skills since Reagan, she draws massive crowds wherever she goes and I believe she beat Biden hands down in the debate. If she were the nominee instead of McCain, with a year of campaigning for the public to get to know her, I think she would be up 3 points even in the current polls with the partisan id slanted to the Dems. She has done incredibly well for a candidate who arrived on the national scene only two months ago and in the teeth of the most hostile media environment I can recall for any national candidate.

    Jindal is also impressive. As of now I would be happy with either of them being the standard bearer.

  • Was Michael just kidding, or is his vocabulary that limited?

  • What Don was doing, Michael, was questioning your cred as a representative of the working classes.

    I don’t claim to represent anyone. But you republicans who think 1) that Sarah Palin represents working people and 2) that criticism of Palin is “classist” are unbelievably out of touch.

    Was Michael just kidding, or is his vocabulary that limited?

    Yes, I was joking, in that I didn’t really think Donald’s comment had anything to do with that meaning of the word “horny.” But no, I have not heard the term “horny handed” before. Probably an age thing.

  • Catholic Anarchist, Sarah Palin is much closer to actual blue collar voters than the Harvard trained attorney and his career politician side-kick. The best conservative candidates can establish such a linkage between themselves and blue collar families, the same type of family I came from.

    As to horny handed, I feel so old! Tip O’Neill, then Democrat Speaker of the House, and President Reagan once had a minor dust-up when they attempted to “out poverty” each other regarding which one of them had the humbler start in life. A columnist referred to the horny handed sons of toil multi-millionnaires and the phrase stuck with me.

  • Donald,

    In Western PA, most ‘bread and butter’ people think that Sarah Palin is a joke.

  • -But no, I have not heard the term “horny handed” before. Probably an age thing.-

    You probably don’t read very much.

  • “In Western PA, most ‘bread and butter’ people think that Sarah Palin is a joke.”

    You’ve talked to them all Mr. DeFrancisis? I suspect that the joke this election cycle in western PA is Murtha lambasting his constituents as racists and rednecks.

    Palin draws massive crowds at all her events in PA. For example in eastern PA Biden and Palin had dueling campaign events in Williamsport last Thursday. Biden drew 700. Palin drew 13,000. Her political opponents underestimate this woman at their peril.

  • “Her political opponents underestimate this woman at their peril.”

    Not this election cycle. I certainly over-estimated her prior to the Katie Couric interviews. She has a serious credibility problem; not necessarily among evangelicals or talk radio, but among independents/MSM. The independents tend to follow the MSM conventional wisdom, and Palin has a lot of work to do if she wants to run successfully for national office. She might be able to win a Republican primary, but her approval ratings indicate she would be a tough sell to non-Republicans.

  • “Not this election cycle.”

    Hmmm, the most accurate poll in 2004 has it now as a 2 point race. I guess we’ll find out how successful Palin has been this election cycle on Tuesday night.


  • Though I was politically aware enough to be massively upset by the outcome, I wasn’t a very deep reader of political commentary in ’92. However, I do remember that at Bush’s concession speech there were GOP supporters there waving “Quayle ’96” signs. Despite four years of relentless media pile-on, at least some of the conservative base still clearly loved the guy. But come ’96, he wasn’t even talked about in the primaries that I recall. (Not that the GOP disported itself well in the ’96 primaries.)

    Now, unlike Quayle, Palin has a strong ability to work a crowd. She can electrify an event in a way that few people (Reagan and Obama are the only examples springing to mind) can. The question is: will she succeed in building up a viable mainstream political persona over the next four years — which would mean having solid speeches on a range of topics which she’s able to give convincingly, something resembling a stated political philosophy (Obama’s would fit on an index card, but he does have one); and successfully going up against Meet The Press and other major venues.

    If she walks away from this with a solid team of advisers and puts in the work that work, she might well turn into a very viable candidate in ’12, with a “she was hobbled by McCain’s bumbling campaign” narrative smoothly coming into existence.

    Right now I wouldn’t have a problem with her as number two, but she doesn’t strike me as having the gravitas to be a president.

    As for the polls — I’m starting to think that we pretty much have a 47/47 electorate with very little swing actually in play no matter who the two parties run. There have been precious view victories by more than 4% in recent memory. So while I think it’s true that selecting Palin got McCain a much needed degree of loyalty out of the base, I wonder how much the polls would be different if he’d picked someone safe like Pawlenty.

  • Catholic Anarchist, Sarah Palin is much closer to actual blue collar voters than the Harvard trained attorney and his career politician side-kick.

    There must be vastly different factions among blue collar workers, then. From what I can see, Mark is quite right.

    BTW I simply can’t wait for Palin to become the new face of the republicans. Their demise will be sealed. And the real conservatives know it!

  • Given that the nation is roughly equally split between supporters of each candidate — it seems a no-brainer that there must be radically different groups of “blue collar” workers out there.

    Who do you consider to be the “real conservatives”, Michael?

    It’s all very well to vaunt over the idea that an intellectual/political movement one dislikes is about to meet its demise — but honestly if conservatism could survive GOP nominees ranging from Nixon to Dole and progressivism could survive Democratic nominees like Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, it would seem clear that lousy presidential nominees (if Palin were both nominated and lousy) are incapable of destroying a movement.

  • Please Catholic Anarchist. Real conservatives? You have as much of an ability to determine who is a “true” conservative as I do who is a “true” anarchist.

  • Seriously, when did Michael I. and Mark become the arbiters of conservatism (or western PA)?

  • You have as much of an ability to determine who is a “true” conservative as I do who is a “true” anarchist.

    Then I expect you will shut the hell up from now on?

  • “The question is: will she succeed in building up a viable mainstream political persona over the next four year…successfully going up against Meet The Press and other major venues….Right now I wouldn’t have a problem with her as number two, but she doesn’t strike me as having the gravitas to be a president.”

    Agree completely. I’m inclined to say it won’t work, but I’m open to be proven wrong. The GOP doesn’t have a very deep bench right now, although Jindal shows promise (if everything goes well in LA – a big ‘if’)

  • -Then I expect you will shut the hell up from now on?-

    Did your mama raise you to talk like that?

4 Responses to The Continuing War on Joe the Plumber

One Response to Polls and polls and polls and polls and polls

Is Obama a Socialist? You be the Judge.

Monday, October 27, AD 2008

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Is Obama a Socialist? You be the Judge.

  • David Bernstein at Volokh has a fairly balanced take on Obama’s remarks:

  • Pingback: Redistribution and the Court | The Cranky Conservative
  • I think the post fus01 links to nails it pretty well, especially with its closing:

    It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

    Not to sound like an elitist, but it’s one of the odd contradictions of the American voting public that although many essentially socialist (as in European stype social democrat) ideas are moderately popular with voters, and yet the concept of socialism is seriously unpopular.

    Or more cynically, perhaps it’s that Americans like free stuff, but don’t like the idea that their earnings might actually be taxed in order to give others free stuff.

  • Well said — DarwinCatholic and David Bernstein.

  • My opinion resembles the Volokh writer’s. Obama’s mention of redistribution is too vague to be scared or excited about. I’m not sure why Drudge got so excited about this. Why would he think it to be a bombshell?

    Government always redistributes wealth. This is most obvious in the case of, say, Social Security. But military spending, foreign aid, and domestic improvements channels wealth to government employees and contractors.

    I guess it’s the redistribution from private citizen to other private citizen *without pretense* that gets some people nervous.

  • Of course, the Christian Democrats in Germany accepted many of the same principles as Clement Atlee regarding the state’s duties to enforce positive rights and not just negative ones. I would agree with you that Obama is a social democrat, but on economic issues he shares a lot of ground with at least one branch Christian democrats as well.

One Response to Serious Catholics Only

3 Responses to Just Barely a Parody

The Fourth Estate Finds True Love

Friday, October 24, AD 2008

The fact that most of the Press has been completely in the tank for Senator Obama is obvious to everyone except the most fervent Obama supporters.

ABC News columnist Michael S. Malone has written a column which discusses how such naked advocacy is a betrayal of the most basic principles of journalism.

Update-Joe Biden encounters a journalist who apparently hasn’t been smitten by the love bug.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Fourth Estate Finds True Love

  • I found your blog on MSN Search. Nice writing. I will check back to read more.

    Eric Hundin

  • Chuck Baldwin and Raplh Nadar said some pretty interesting things about the media during their debate thursday night, needless to say it wasn’t flattering either.

    > Sarah Palin is invited to meet with the Pope while he is vacationing south
    > of Rome in Venice. The liberal press reluctantly watches the semi-private
    > audience, hoping they will be able to allot minimal coverage, if any.
    > The Pope asks Governor Palin to join him on a Gondola ride through the
    > canals of Venice. They’re admiring the sights and agreeing on moral issues
    > when, all of a sudden, the Pope’s hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and
    > out into the water.
    > The gondolier starts to reach for the Pontiff’s cap with his pole, but
    > this move threatens to overturn the floating craft. Sarah waves the tour
    > guide off, saying, “Wait, wait. I’ll take care of this. Don’t worry.”
    > She steps off the gondola onto the surface of the water and walks out to
    > the Pope’s hat, bends over and picks it up. She walks back across the
    > water to the gondola and steps aboard. She hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.
    > The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats in Congress, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, the New York Times, Hollywood celebrities, and in France and Germany is: “Palin Can’t Swim.”

  • That was a great interview by Ms. West… If the msm wasn’t in the tank for the O-man; we would be ahead by 30 points 🙂

  • That link to Diane West’s interview doesn’t work anymore. Here’s the youtube link:

  • Thanks for the tip Cathy. I’ve embedded the video in the post now.

  • Eric,

    Thanks for stopping by and please come back often. We have some great writers here.

Trust Your 401(k) to Uncle Sam?

Friday, October 24, AD 2008

The government of Argentina plans to nationalize, read steal, the private pensions of Argentinian citizens.  Good thing we’re Americans right?  That could never happen here, right?   Depending on how the election next month goes, maybe it could happen here?   Hmmm, that investment strategy of gold in coffee cans buried in the back yard is sounding better and better.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Other Father Duffy