tales of a fallen frontrunner
Before beginning my final post in my “opposition research” series I would like to apologize for the break between posts; between a minor illness and a major assignment I lost track of time, and before I knew it a week passed. This won’t happen again. With that said, I would like to turn to Arizona Senator John McCain. When I first decided to write on the Republican field my intention was to go from weakest (within reason) to strongest; today, however, I can safely say that John McCain is no longer frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
Intuitively, this seems wrong. The first reason the senior senator ought to be leading at this point in the race is his standing in the GOP. Much of the punditocracy has been based on the two part belief that a. the Republican party always nominates “the man whose time has come”, and b, McCain is that man. In proving the first, most point to the 1996 nomination of the uninspiring Bob Dole while in pointing to the second McCain’s attempts to stay on the good graces of the Bush administration often are high on the list. Put another way, because McCain has earned his shot, many believe Republicans will hand it to him no questions asked.
Yet beyond his standing, McCain also has many potential strengths as a candidate in his own right. He is a war hero, an outspoken senator and a widely recognizable figure nationwide. His “maverick” image could allow him to garner many independent voters while past disputes with the Bush administration over high publicity issues like torture would allow him to portray himself as a moderate. This is not to say that McCain necessarily would be seen as the most “electable” candidate, merely that he would be electable enough that Republican primary voters could choose him and know he had a plausible chance of winning
Yet despite the fact that McCain’s “time has come”, the electorate seems to disagree. Today Giuliani leads the GOP nomination race by a whopping 14.5 points in an average of national polls, and as I mentioned earlier this month this lead has yet to evaporate or change hands.
At this point, the question is simple: Can McCain save himself?
I think not.
STOP; in the naaammme of looovveee
Today I can think of several key core constituencies of the Republican party that McCain can no longer count on. To go down the list:
National Security voters: The problem with running against Rudy Giuliani is that you will NEVER outflank him on the war on terror. Giuliani is able to sound far more convincing on this subject and to inspire a visceral, emotive response. This group is extremely important because in 2000 it did not exist and today it may well be the largest part of the party. In addition, many such voters have anecdotally decided that they’re okay with giving up social issues provided they are safe from terror. Every voter that makes such a determination is a voter who will not choose McCain.
Social Issues Voters: Ah yes, the famous “moral issues” plurality from 2004. McCain’s problem here is that there aren’t as many of them as there once were (if they existed at all) and the ones that are left don’t really like him. In addition to GOP voters prioritizing terrorism over gay marriage, McCain cannot count on pure social issues voters to break his way. The first issue here is Kansas senator Sam Brownback. Brownback is perhaps the only pure social conservative on the GOP side, and it is conceivable he will take the majority of such voters. Yet even if one restricts himself to the “big three” he finds that many in the Christian right are still deeply wary of McCain. This is unsurprising. In 2000 McCain lashed out at Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “ agents of intolerance” and “an evil influence over the Republican party”. Though he has since re-canted, this creates the sort of distance into which a McCain or Giuliani can weaken his lead.
In-it-to-wins: Finally, the people who will vote for anyone they think has a shot in the generals, period. A year ago McCain could have been said to have this category firmly in his pocket; after all, his reputation as a moderate and a maverick was such that many believed he would bring independents to the table in ways others could not. Today, the situation is radically different. In many ways, McCain’s “moderate cred” has been weakened by his attempts to cozy up to the radical right in his party. In addition, as gems like McCain’s stance against teaching evolution as science come to light more and more people are realizing that McCain isn’t close to centrist. Yet the most damning factor in this department is, once again, Rudy. McCain may have shown an ability to win independent voters in New Hampshire, but Giuliani was mayor of Blue York City. At this point, I see no way an intelligent in-it-to-win would prioritize McCain as the candidate of the moderates.
“The Republican Establishment” : Here I refer to the Republican officials, executives, journalists, academics, and others in the elite who have been said to think that McCain’s “Time has come”. For those who believe the senator from Arizona will win in 2008 this group is the key agent that will save John from all those pesky “voters” and “primaries”. Polls be damned, the “republican establishment” will make it happen! But after a brutal 2006 cycle, I cannot bring myself to believe the GOP will move lockstep behind a candidate with so many weaknesses. In addition, if these magical kingmakers had this sort of pull why on earth would they not crush Giuliani to dust when he appeared manifestly inept several months ago? If there is a crazy coordinated McCain cabal out there, their timing sucks. Yet ultimately, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “republican establishment”, or at least not one single actor. Bob Dole’s nomination had as much to do with
Taken individually each of these groups poses a serious, serious obstacle to McCain getting the nod. Yet I think the problems that face this campaign run far deeper than any one group. Which brings me to the most important reason why McCain can’t win
the creepy-as-anything factor
Though this is controversial, I actually believe McCain’s age is the single most important reason he will not be the GOP nominee. Although the Arizona senator’s age is comparable to Reagan’s at the time of his election he looks 20 years older. In addition, in the YouTube era of constant media whenever McCain does anything that looks particularly ungraceful or old-person ish (falling asleep randomly, staring off into space) the nation will know instantaneously. This leaves the senator at a profound disadvantage in two ways. On a visceral level, people don’t like voting for candidates who look infirm or visibly old. While senators and congressmen get away with it all the time due to incumbent advantage and the relative remoteness of their office to everyday life the president is by necessity a figure Americans must live with every day. Don’t be fooled by a Hallmark card; outward appearances do matter. Yet more than the superficial but true “America likes hot candidates” is the fact that the presidency from 2008 onward will be VERY, VERY stressful. America faces a host of problems that will determine its security, prosperity and superpower status, all of which make the office of Chief Executive a Herculean task. If McCain does not appear to physically be up to the task then people will not vote for him, and at this point I do not believe any 70 year old would be taken as acceptable.
So, with that, I conclude that John McCain is no longer front runner and, barring any major changes, will not be the nominee in 2008. In fact, I’ll go farther. I predict McCain will suffer a minor to moderate health problem due to the stresses of the campaign and will use it as an excuse to gracefully withdraw early in the primary season. How’s that for substantive prediction?
Stay safe, DER
Note: This post written in my capacity as blogger of the Princeton College Democrats
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Deep Trouble
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
no doubt. but i think you stole this argument from me.
No Dave, thou surely art mistaken in thus proclaiming; recant, lest ye die.
see, Jesus says you're wrong. take that.
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R13
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Mar. 21, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
"the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change."
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,"
solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
"The goverment should serve as an example to its citizens"
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R4
By YJ Draiman, Energy Development Specialist
As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man.
There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this.
Someday, we'll run out. It will be gone.
Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil -- which we burn -- has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can.
We can't burn oil forever.
And it's bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies.
Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we'll switch over to them.
Here's why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal.
First, there's no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out.
In other words, if we wait until it's an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it.
It's easy to supply energy for an economy that's only a tenth the size of the world's economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established?
Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations -- if we didn't burn any more of it. But if we wait till we've burned all the cheap petroleum, it won't be just fuel that we have to replace.
Third, market forces don't do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries?
And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil?
You notice that I haven't said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue.
In the long run, it's an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we've luxuriated in as a nation since World War II.
It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don't burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don't know when, but we do know it will happen.
And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn't want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense.
The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let's turn that distortion to our benefit. Let's enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let's put oil there.
Oil in the bank ... so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it.
Oil in the bank ... so we'll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies -- including us -- with weapons paid for at our gas pumps.
Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up.
You don't have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil.
In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it.
But ... foresight just isn't the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there's a wildfire.
Oh, it won't reach us here, we tell ourselves. We'll be safe.
Talk about foolish optimism.
Fair Threat to World Economy But Oil Boycott Improbable
Energy Efficiency Must Be North America’s Priority but Canada and
U.S. Fail on Energy Efficiency Policies
“The despots of the moderate Middle East are non-players save for
their oil in the ground… My concern is that my grand kids might see parts of the
Middle East turned into a nuclear waste land, and Ali Baba and The Forty
Thieves. The world community needs to see a checkmate within the next 60 -
90 days. Failing that, Iran and Syria will be emboldened.” Reiterating an almost
universal view on the panel, this CEO emphasized that the world’s seemingly
The Chinese contribution to the energy crisis
The quest for resources. The dynamic Chinese economy, which has averaged 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, nearly tripled the country's GDP, has also resulted in the country having an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. The PRC has been a net importer of petroleum since 1993, and has increasingly relied on African countries as suppliers. As of last year, China was importing approximately 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d), which accounts for about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 bbl/d – roughly a third of its imports – came from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville).
To get some perspective on these numbers, consider that one respected energy analyst has calculated that while China's share of the world oil market is about 8 percent, its share of total growth in demand for oil since 2000 has been 30 percent. The much publicized purchase, in January of this year, of a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oilfield for $2.27 billion by the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) was just the latest in a series of acquisitions dating back to 1993 whereby the three largest Chinese national oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC, respectively – have acquired stakes in established African operations.
Our insatiable thirst for Middle East energy is “the oil [that] feeds the fire.”
This idea that we can live in a homogenous cul-de-sac suburban development in our plastic homes driving 50 to 100 miles to work in a 4700lb SUV to our middle management job at Bed Bath and Beyond and expect this way of life to just continue on indefinitely with no consequences represents mind boggling ignorance and negligence towards our future. The "American Dream" is a relic of the Baby Boomer generation and will die with our parents and grandparents. To quote author James Kunstler: "Suburban development in this country represents the single largest misallocation of wealth and resources in the history of the planet."
So could a 900 acre photo voltaic array power a major metropolitan grid. No, probably not. But the question isn't how do we squeeze enough energy out of the technology to accommodate our seemingly insatiable thirst for electricity and fuel but rather how do we cut the fat and waste out of our civilization and our lives and actually live WITHIN our environment with some sort of sustainability. There is no one technology that will provide all our solutions. It will have to be a combination of wind turbines, solar and hydroelectric excluding the remote possibility that some new form of energy production (i.e. cold fusion or something equally fantastical) is unleashed on the world by CERN or ET. These power plants will operate primarily at a local level servicing on a much smaller scale than what we here in North America have been so used to in the last 70 or so years.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, ... Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. ...
If the American public's insatiable appetite for automobiles continues, uncurbed by any sense of responsibility, someone must, like a parent with a selfish child, at least start slapping wrists.
Perhaps we should ration gasoline, and insist that all cars meet a miles-per-gallon minimum -- one higher than many sport utility vehicles, for example, achieve now. The rationing would not be a wartime figure, of course, but a reasonable amount allowed for business and pleasure.
Americans consume the largest portion of gas in the world and cry the loudest about the price.
The government should repeatedly increase the price of gasoline in an effort to slow our country's insatiable thirst for oil. Utilize the excess profits and taxes to fund research and rebates for renewable efficiency and renewable energy.
YJ Draiman, Energy Analyst – 9/4/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy.
A new source of energy storage is in the works using ULTRACAPCITORS.
Post a Comment