Blogcritics Comments on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Comment by Maurice on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:32:58 EST

Does it bother anybody that the government makes so much money from gas? Gas companies take all the risks and get 7 to 14 cents per gallon. The government does nothing but extorts ~50 cents per gallon. Similar to another pet peeve of mine. The courts extract money from law breakers in form of fines and then keep the money. I think the vast sums of money going into the court system should be donated to the local misson and NOT to the government coffers.

Comment by REMF on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:40:54 EST

"Cheney's staff actually met with representatives of the NRDC four times in the process, more than any other single group." - Dave Nalle Wow, four eh? That's one less than his number of deferments during 'Nam...

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:52:15 EST

Out here in farm land we have the same thing. They sell untaxed red dyed farm diesel which isn't legal for use in passenger vehicles. Dave

Comment by Clavos on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:06 EST

Doc, I buy my fuel from a supplier who delivers it directly into the boat with a truck; here in South Florida those are small, one or two truck operations, and there are many of them in this market, so they're highly competitive. The marinas, on the other hand, realize that you are a captive customer, and tend to gouge (they also won't let the trucks on their premises), so the fuel prices at marinas are much higher. But the fact that marine fuel is free of road taxes is set by law (in every state, I believe), and such fuel is dyed red to distinguish it from road taxed fuel. Woe betide the trucker caught with red diesel in his tank.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:21:26 EST

Clav, I wonder if that's because the gas companies know that a) it's not as easy to rip off boat owners and b) they sell a lot less of the stuff than they do road gas and have to price it low to keep it competitive.

Comment by Clavos on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:08:34 EST

Maurice, I was wondering because my boat diesel, which is legally free of road-use taxes like farm and other off-road consumers, is about 65-80 cents a gallon cheaper than gas station diesel.

Comment by Maurice on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:37:43 EST

Clavos, I stand corrected. This link shows 45.9 cents per gallon (combined state and federal). You will notice Florida is in the top ten with 49.8 cents per gallon. We probably need to investigate why the government makes more money from gas than the gas companies.

Comment by Clavos on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:50:42 EST

"Combined State and Federal taxes on gas are at an average of 42 cpg." That's all, huh Maurice? I thought they were even higher, somewhere near a dollar here in Fla.

Comment by Maurice on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:58:35 EST

Most gas companies are making an average of 7 to 14 cents per gallon. Combined State and Federal taxes on gas are at an average of 42 cpg.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:41:03 EST

The NY Times simply makes stuff up. I'm no big fan of the main stream media, but if you think, Dave and Maurice that the playing field is in any way equal with regard to energy, environmental, or any other policy in this country, then we must inhabit parallel worlds. If you ask the wrong questions you will never get the right answer. The question is not whether the playing field IS level, the question is whether the playing field SHOULD BE level. And Virtually every major oil and diversified energy company, from British Petroleum to Enron to Reliant Energy, participated in one or more meetings of the Cheney group, according to the list. Trade groups and lobbyists representing industrial energy users, pipeline companies, utilities and mining concerns were also amply represented at multiple task force sessions. Which makes sense because it was a task force studying energy policy, not environmental policy or how to weave baskets while singing kumbaya or lobby congress for anti-capitalist legislation. By contrast, leaders of 13 environmental groups were invited to a single session late in the process, weeks after most of the industry representatives had been heard. This is true only as it applies to that single specific session. What they leave out is that there were subsequent meetings between staff and environmental groups to address specific concerns, including 3 more meetings with representatives of the NRDC. Dave

Comment by Barbara Barnett on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:54:07 EST

My heart just bleeds for those impoverished oil companies. No. They have no undue influence. Just one of the many little folks who plead their case to the Cheneys in the Administration. No special place at the table for them. Bet they'd trade places with the NRDC any day of the week rather than get the scraps they're served. The NY Times simply makes stuff up. I'm no big fan of the main stream media, but if you think, Dave and Maurice that the playing field is in any way equal with regard to energy, environmental, or any other policy in this country, then we must inhabit parallel worlds. I know I won't convince you with mere links to news stories, but here are a few (and I really hate typing out links in the comment section--I'm hopeless at it): "NYT 2002" "NYT 2007" But here is the pertinent section regarding the relative weight given industry groups (not to mention the very well connected groups) compared to environmental groups. Virtually every major oil and diversified energy company, from British Petroleum to Enron to Reliant Energy, participated in one or more meetings of the Cheney group, according to the list. Trade groups and lobbyists representing industrial energy users, pipeline companies, utilities and mining concerns were also amply represented at multiple task force sessions. By contrast, leaders of 13 environmental groups were invited to a single session late in the process, weeks after most of the industry representatives had been heard. Barbara

Comment by Zedd on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:19:21 EST

Barbara, I think that it was assumed from the start that the message of all of the candidates Dems and Republican would be Change. The real change is from Bush and everything that supported the extent to which his administration was "successful".

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:42:37 EST

If my business had a profit margin as low as the oil industry I'd be back teaching college in no time. Dave

Comment by Clavos on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:15:48 EST

"It doesn't fit with their preconceptions of the evil motives of the Bush administration." ...Not to mention those of the evil, predatory oil companies... One thing I've always wondered: So many people, here and in the MSM, as well as on other websites, rant and rave about the oil companies' "obscene profits," yet none of them ever mention the enormous amounts of money lining the pockets of the sheiks; nor do they ever acknowledge the fact that oil prices are actually set by them, NOT the oil companies.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:40:12 EST

Thanks for quoting it, Maurice, but it's clearly something which an awful lot of people would rather not hear. It doesn't fit with their preconceptions of the evil motives of the Bush administration. Dave

Comment by Maurice on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:30:15 EST

Dave, nobody is going to check out your article so I am going to quote what I think is the most pertinent part: The energy bill is far from being nothing but a big wet kiss for Big Oil as it has been accused of being. It may include a lot of support for building new refineries and expanding drilling and improving efficiency of oil production, but it also includes more money and support than any previous legislation for alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy research. This includes a $3400 consumer tax credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, government loan guarantees for clean-energy projects and conversions, setting a higher standard for ethanol in gasoline, subsidies for wind and other alternative energy sources, support for wind- and wave-based power generating technology, new support for geothermal energy generation, new tax breaks for making homes more energy efficient, converting an enormous portion of the federal fleet to alternative fuel use, and lots of support for revitalizing the nuclear-power industry, including tax cuts, loans and security assistance. All told the bill provides over $16 billion in tax incentives for alternative energy programs. Not only is it not unreasonably pro-oil, it's the most powerful bill ever passed in support of other forms of energy. (emphasis mine)

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:27:50 EST

But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table. It's a Republican administration. What did you expect? And what's wrong with that? Businesses represent the interests of their stockholders and workers as much as elected representatives do in many ways. Business deserves a seat at the table. I would have agreed with many of the founding fathers in trying to find a way to give the business community direct representation in congress. And the (whether direct or indirect) result of this sort of lopsidedness results in a long-term denial, for one example, of the human impact on global warming. Which remains an unproven and likely unprovable theory which thousands of scientists dispute despite losing their jobs and suffering persecution as a result. Yes, get the input of Big Oil; get the expertise of the Energy conglomerates, but temper their influence with REAL, and UTILIZED input from other, less self-interested, parties. As I mentioned earlier, Cheney also got input from 13 consumer groups and environmental groups. You can read my article on the subject for the details. BTW, I was incorrect in my earlier statement. Cheney's staff actually met with representatives of the NRDC four times in the process, more than any other single group. Dave

Comment by Baronius on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:59:38 EST

"But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table." Again, Barbara, that statement doesn't seem founded on anything.

Comment by Barbara Barnett on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:34:01 EST

I think some candidates are sincere when they want change, but I think it's an easy, crutch-word to say. It's also a word that you don't hear the news media analyze much. They rarely examine "Now what does he mean by 'change.' What would change really entail?" In fact, I don't know if any of you have seen the new documentary "The World Without US" (it has nothing to do with the book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman), but I thought of it when I read this article because the whole premise was analyzing what "change" really means when a candidate actually DOES it. Thank you, Nathan for your comments and kind words. I have not seen the documentary you mentioned. But I will be sure to watch it. I'm always suspicious when politicians use easy and subjective words like "change." And I'm not surprised that the media have simply latched onto the "message" without learning more about the "massage" behind it. I agree that Edwards has been at a disadvantage because of the terms he set for his campaign. Dave--(Dave, I know you think that anyone who supports Edwards is insane ;) ) But to address your comment: Of course there is nothing wrong with getting the input of all interest groups, including those that represent big business, and as I said in my article, that's the way policy has always formulated, in one way or another. But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table. And the (whether direct or indirect) result of this sort of lopsidedness results in a long-term denial, for one example, of the human impact on global warming. Yes, get the input of Big Oil; get the expertise of the Energy conglomerates, but temper their influence with REAL, and UTILIZED input from other, less self-interested, parties.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:42:39 EST

One need only remember the Cheney Energy task force which in very large part was written by Energy companies. I marvel at the mindset which thinks that there's something wrong with consulting with the companies producing the nation's energy when trying to set a policy for government management of those very resources. Who should the government talk to about energy issues, fast food restaurant managers? BTW, Cheney also met with representatives of consumer groups and environmental groups. The NRDC was even invited, though they chose not to attend. Did that mean they had undue influence as well? Dave

Comment by Nathan Smythe on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:57:56 EST

I have been enoying BlogCritics since I recently stumbled upon it, but this is my first comment. Although we may have various interpretations over what "Change" means to the American people, and we have different opinions about what each candidate means when they speak of change, I found this article interesting because "change," I think we can all admit, DOES seem to be the word of the week. Yes, it's been the word of the year, too, but I certainly hadn't noticed Hillary Clinton using "change" so much until Obama won Iowa. I think she used "change" more in the two days after than than she had in two months. I think some candidates are sincere when they want change, but I think it's an easy, crutch-word to say. It's also a word that you don't hear the news media analyze much. They rarely examine "Now what does he mean by 'change.' What would change really entail?" In fact, I don't know if any of you have seen the new documentary "The World Without US" (it has nothing to do with the book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman), but I thought of it when I read this article because the whole premise was analyzing what "change" really means when a candidate actually DOES it. You mentioned in your article "Any presidential candidate who talks of change in any of those policy areas will have to explain how he or she is going to accomplish it." This film does an interesting scenario of that. It starts off with a fictional "Turner for President" ad where Turner promises change and to withdraw most of our troops from the world and focus on domestic issues. Then it goes on to analyze what that means to us and to the world. It was more complicated than you expect at first, but I found it well-researched and entertaining. If you haven't heard of it, I think that's because it was made by people who don't have as much money and publicity as other fimmakers, like Michael Moore. While not being made with as large of a budget, I thought it was better researched and better structured than some of Moore's films. (I got the documentary on Amazon, but you can also see trailers for the film at it's website www.theworldwithoutUS.com) By the way, this forum interested me because I like how the authors, like Barbara here, comment back -- that's something I don't see on many political blogs. By the way, as for your choice, I think Edwards is not doing as well in the results BECAUSE he is not accepting lobbyist money, and I wish more candidates would do what he is doing, and not accept it. Maybe without the lobbyist money, we'd know what more of these candidates actually think ....

Comment by Maurice on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:27:04 EST

Barbara, with all due respect and great restraint I have to point out that the link you provided is not policy. No policies were enacted or changed. No new laws were created. No doubt you think I am belaboring this point. The problem is people believe things if they are repeated enough times. Many people believe laws have been changed to provide some imaginary advantage for oil companies. Your statement above tells me you are one of those people.

Comment by Baritone on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:33:12 EST

Barbara, I fear that both Huckabee and Ron Paul are of the same ilk in that regard. I visited Huckabee's WEB site. Right from the top he states that his faith directs his life. If it's possible, a Huckabee White House could be even more "faith based" than Bushes. Huckabee is rather disarming. He has a folksy charm that probably belies a very determined candidate. Evangelical ministers are not known for their laid back nature. Nor are presidential candidates. B-tone

Comment by Barbara Barnett on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:05:05 EST

Baritone, wherever ethics come from, as long as they're...ethical...is fine by me. This administration for all of its Bible thumping has had few. Neither have several of their more "religious" (and I'm using the word advisedly) allies in Congress. I agree that the polling results were wrong. And I think that's a good slap down for the prevailing punditry that they got it so wrong. I think Edwards' on-his-sleeve faith wearing is probably somewhat cultural. It doesn't bother me as long as he keeps God and Government separate. Edwards has gone through alot personally (and his wife) and if his faith keeps him going, great. Now, Huckabee, for all of his "aw shucks" charm and good humor...he really scares me. Because I have no doubt that he will bring God and government much closer together than the founders intended (which was, as I recall, separate.)

Comment by Baritone on Buzzword of the Political Season: "Change"

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:54:35 EST

Howard, I'm just curious exactly where in the King James Bible you found the phrase "a bunch of womanizing cunts?" It doesn't ring a bell. Counter to both the author and Howard, I don't need any "bible" in whatever language to find ethical guidance. But to consider the Bush administration as anything but a disastrous train wreck is anathema to reality. As to Edwards candidacy: I would likely vote for him over any Republican candidate. However, I prefer either Clinton or Obama in no particular order. Edwards is prone to wear his faith on his sleeve which I find offensive. Babara, that you qualified Clinton's NH win as barely is surprising given the pre-primary polling figures. However, I don't believe that she overcame a 15 point deficit. I believe that the polling results were simply wrong. Dave Nalle has made his charge that Obama's loss was likely due to the closet racism of NH voters. I don't agree. Certainly race was no doubt a factor with some voters. It always will be, wherever you go. But I don't believe it was a "deciding" factor. Baritone