A brilliant slogan proposal for McCain and Palin
Bookworm on Sep 07 2008 at 9:23 pm | Filed under: John McCain, Sarah Palin
I noted earlier that the “Country First” slogan that McCain uses is meaningful (and moving) only if you understand McCain’s life story. Otherwise, it sounds suspiciously jingoistic, especially to liberal ears. Beldar, however, has come up with a brilliant slogan that would serve McCain and Palin very, very well. What do you think?
Hat tip: The Anchoress
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
21 Responses to “A brilliant slogan proposal for McCain and Palin”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That slogan is a winner for me.
I like the suggestion of “Energy. Independence.” on a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.
I’d buy and display it.
By the way: The most common claim against increasing oil drilling and exploration is that it will take ten years to make any appreciable difference.
Yet I see estimates of 20 to 30 years before solar, wind, geothermal, etc, are expected to make any appreciable difference, even assuming the energy can be harnessed consistently enough to supply the national power grid.
The most conservative estimate I’ve seen for our oil and gas reserves is that they would last sixty years.
Why would you not drill? And develop nuclear fission plants?
I may be a pie in the sky optimist, but I’m sure that with a prudent rollout of new oil and gas drilling, along with solar, wind, geothermal, etc, development, we could make a large dent. Perhaps we also need a “USA Market” to which oil and gas can be supplied, along with the “World Commodities Market”, as a national security measure.
But in the end, my optimism extends to the idea that within fifty years, the technological difficulties with fusion power will be overcome. And that would, within a very short time, relegate ALL OTHER sources of power to the sidelines. Oil, gas, nuclear fission, coal, solar, wind, geothermal… everything else would become a niche energy technology. If the daunting technical challenges are solved, fusion would be as transformative to civilization as was the written word itself, the introduction of agriculture, and the printing press. Totally transformative. (Note that the issues with fusion are not safety issues nor environmental issues; they are merely technology issues. For starters, a fusion reactor cannot melt down. Ever.)
Mike,
Love that post! The sci-fi geek in me is coming out…
I would point out, in addition to your comments, that one more significant technological hurdle is being addressed that could radically change the energy challenges of the world. That’s energy storage.
We swim in a vast ocean of energy every day: solar, wind, tidal, rivers, temperature gradients of whatever source; the list goes on. One problem is that most of these energy sources vary with conditions and we expect and need predictable and continuous energy. So, we need to find a way to store, then distribute the energy.
Hybrid technology for automobiles is spurring basic research with the goal of improving the mass/storage ratio and capacity of batteries. Light, high capacity batteries would have a huge impact on our energy economy – it’s going to be an interesting 20 years…
(BTW – for now… “Drill, Baby, Drill!!!!”)
BobK- “Hybrid technology for automobiles is spurring basic research with the goal of improving the mass/storage ratio and capacity of batteries. Light, high capacity batteries would have a huge impact on our energy economy – it’s going to be an interesting 20 years…”
You, no doubt, are aware that Exxon has a breakthrough in storage.
I just saw a tv ad touting the technology a couple of days ago.
From an article in Nov. 2007.
This is a big deal. Kinda of scary having Exxon own the patent.
BrianE and BobK -
The energy storage breakthrough excites the sci-fi geek in me too. That is incredible news for hybrid-car technology. The flex-fuel and hybrid action, at least for vehicles, is promising.
What we need for the national energy grid is a way to feed solar, wind and geothermal energy into storage, so that they can be a more consistent supplier. I definitely hope to see more “energy” thrown into these technologies. We need ALL sources tapped. Even if solar and wind increase in use over the next twenty years from 1 or 2 % to 10% – not likely, but let’s be optimistic! – it will certainly help a great deal. Oil and gas drilling, and safe fission nuclear power expansion, will have a much more important effect over the next fifty years. But let’s do them ALL.
(And in the meantime, I of course will always await each fusion breakthrough. It would be wonderful to see mankind harness fusion within my lifetime.)
Mike:
But let’s do them ALL.
Precisely so.
BrianE, there are actually a lot of promising fronts on the storage issue (e.g., http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html). And we should fund all of the options, but we should stop lying about the numbers. Palin implied in her speech that the large amounts of energy in Alaska will put us well on our way to independence, but this is a pipe dream. The oil industry is talking MORE THAN A DECADE for meaningful contributions from off shore drilling, which may or may not impact prices in the interim; however, that hasn’t stopped many conservative commentators on television to argue that the current debate has already lowered oil prices. I saw Newt Gingrich argue this a few weeks ago, omitting of course that the 20% drop in oil the prior month had to do with weak economic data coming out of Europe and the US (which lowers aggregate demand for oil). Oil markets are not as stupid as conservative (or liberal) political commentators think they are. I just wish the same could be said about their audience… The numbers are very clear: we produce roughly 5M barrels of oil and consume 20M each and every day. No amount of offshore and AK drilling will close the 15M gap and I’ve seen no energy analyst or oil company that has said that it will. “Drill, baby, drill” is an empty slogan that appeals to people who don’t do math and, therefore, are doomed to talk nonsense. Boone Pickens, a billionaire, Republican, energy expert, has a smart idea: move the natural gas supplies (of which we are reasonably endowed and which is about 20% of total energy supplies) from electricity plants to the transportation sector while using wind, solar, clean coal and (later) nuclear for those plants. This makes more sense than empty jingoism or misleading campaign slogans…
Also, we should concern ourselves with greenhouse gases as we figure out our long-term energy strategy. This is a very real threat that most (but not all) conservatives like to ignore.
I was on board 20 years ago with alternative energy– my last addition on my house included low grade solar heating utilizing large storage, low delta t approach. The problem is that where I lived with inexpensive hydro power rates, there was never a payback. Times have changed though, and we should encourage efficient site plans and passive solar where we can.
Most parts of the country would benefit from solar hot water heaters– and that would be a great place to start, which would free up a percent of electricity or gas.
If you notice, Pickens altered his original ad, to add drill, drill, drill. If you heard Palin’s speech, she ackowledged that oil isn’t the only answer– no one on our side said it was– it was just a stupid debating technique thrown up by the left.
In spite of the Goracle’s pronouncement that we could produce all of our electricity from wind and solar in the next 10 years– my answer is not until we fundamentally change our environmental laws. These laws have been carefully crafted to prevent development, and the greenies will use them against us, even as we slip back into the 18th century.
Corn based ethanol is a joke– an example of special interest lobbying usually reserved for the oil companies. If we’re going to use ethanol, it needs to come from sugar cane, which we can’t grow.
Biodesiel might be a niche market.
We need lots and lots of nuclear in the near term– what’s the chance that’s going to happen. The feds own 85 percent of Nevada, but Yucca mountain isn’t going to happen under Reid’s watch– probably the only thing he’s going to do.
I live near Hanford, and most of the folks there grew up with nuclear, so they wouldn’t have a problem storing it (there’s already quite a bit there), but the eastside Demowhackos will never let that happen.
It’s going to get serious. All of our food supplies, and most of the world’s for that matter, come from a concentrated number of agriculture operations, and they won’t run without oil. Think starvation on a massive scale– it’s already happening in some destitute areas.
I think you’d find most conservatives on board this train of all of the above– if we could just overcome the stranglehold of the environmental lobby (I mean citizens petitioning their government).
That 15m barrell shortfall isn’t going to be made up by wind either. Oil shale could be a good source, except Clinton locked that up with one of the last acts of his administration. It’s going to be coal (cleaner than China’s) but I haven’t seen the numbers on the cost of cleaning it up.
BrianE, there is enough blame to go around on the botched energy policy. To pin it all on the Democrats is historically inaccurate. As one brief example, the conservative Bush administration is holding up the “development” of solar farms on government land because they are worried about environmental impacts. Sounds like the “whackos” who favor “radical” green interests also exist in the GOP–or at least those taking checks from the oil lobby. And sorry, but “Oil. Independence.” is a pretty misleading tagline considering how far we are from it. I am not advocating a particular energy policy, but a refreshing amount of honesty, which neither Democrats nor Republicans (McCain and Palin included) are showing. I do think it’s great that you are reaching for alternatives in your personal consumption–the liberals down here in LA (e.g., Mike Farrell).
–would be pleased with your conservation efforts. Good stuff. Kudos.
dg dijo:
Palin implied in her speech that the large amounts of energy in Alaska will put us well on our way to independence, but this is a pipe dream.
Instead of dealing with what you CLAIM she IMPLIED, let us look at what she actually said.
No amount of offshore and AK drilling will close the 15M gap and I’ve seen no energy analyst or oil company that has said that it will.
Agreed. Refer to what Governor Palin SAID, not what you claim she implied. The argument for increased domestic drilling is that at least the money will stay inside the US, instead of going to Thugo and the Wahabis.
Given that Canada and Mexico are major sources of oil shipped to the U.S., I am not that exercised about achieving independence from “foreign” oil (aside from the fact that given the general inefficiency of its economy and industry, Mexico may not be a reliable source in the future). Increasing domestic energy sources may provide more leverage and allow less U.S. money to go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, as Gringo notes above, and provide a more stable supply so that energy needs, and prices, are less dependent on countries like Mexico and Nigeria, at risk of interrupted production. Also, as I’ve noted before, U.S. energy production means U.S. jobs that can’t be outsourced. The Democrats rail about jobs shipped overseas, but why do they not rail against U.S. energy outsourced too?
dg –
You’re right. “Drill, Baby, Drill!” is sloganeering. But it’s sloganeering that brings to the national political debate the only currently feasible approach to reduce (not eliminate) our use of imported energy while the alternative sources are brought to the point of commercial viability. I suppose we could try sucking it up and simply NOT using the energy… but the people who “do the math” on energy independence (and greenhouse gas contribution) somehow conveniently don’t apply those same numerological skills to economics.
I am a staunch advocate of conservation. I’ve seen how conservation efforts have allowed a 50% increase in population in the Puget Sound area (that’s the area around Seattle) without adding significantly to our fresh water supply. Conservation is a great thing, but we should not settle for scarcity-based energy economy. As Mike, Gringo, T. Boone Pickens (and the McCain/Palin ticket) have said – develop all the sources!
Including offshore and ANWR (come on, Sen. McCain – it’s time for a flip-flop here).
Drill, Baby, Drill! – until we can build the reactors and harness the same principles that power the stars.
Gringo, first, that’s not all that Palin has said, and I thought the slogan for ’08 was “Energy. Independence.” but I’ll concede the point. Second, you do understand that even when we produce at home, if we do not displace growing demand, then we might move dollars spent to domestic or “friendly” sources, but the collective demand will still be buying 100% of the supply from those dangerous regimes in the Middle East, so they will still have the means to fund terror that threatens us, don’t you? That is why BobK’s argument for conservation are important–you need to destroy aggregate demand to cut pricing power and revenues of Middle Eastern states. I’m happy to hear at least one conservative arguing about the merits of conservation… So drill, baby, drill, but save, baby, save…and inflate those tires!
BobK, it’s a little technical, but stars are powered by fusion, while nuclear plants rely on fission. Otherwise, I am in basic agreement with you. Although I am still waiting on the McCain energy plan specifics. He seems to have skipped the alternative energy votes in Congress for me to give him credit as you do.
if we do not displace growing demand
Bombing countries back to the stone age should “displace growing demand”. But that’s not exactly something that is ethical.
so they will still have the means to fund terror that threatens us, don’t you?
Nobody said that new sources of energy will bankrupt the enemy. Alternative sources of energy are still just that: alternatives, not primary.
But it does provide the political tools and the space the US will need to take effective action against such enemy organizations as OPEC, the EU, the UN, etc.
I’m happy to hear at least one conservative arguing about the merits of conservation… So drill, baby, drill, but save, baby, save…and inflate those tires!
Conservation will do nothing to destroy aggregate demand.
dg –
I’m not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV, but I’m aware of the difference between fusion (H + H + gobs of energy = He + even more energy) and fission (U/2 [not the music group - that's Uranium divided by 2] = fission products + lots of energy). I was starry-eyed and thinking of the time when we’ll be able to build fusion reactors.
With regard to the McCain/Palin ticket, I’m simply relying on the convention speeches and Sen. McCain’s previously stated opposition to drilling in ANWR. I haven’t reviewed any white paper from the campaign website regarding energy policy specifics. Though now I’m motivated to head over there and see what they say.
BobK,
What no one has talked about yet, especially McCain, is what he would do to change the “once through” policy we have on fuel rods.
To achieve more nuclear reactors as well as reducing the storage issues requires a purely poltical/leadership exhortation and action.
This is also a political field ripe for reaping. “VP Palin will take the lead on energy matters, and here is what I propose… She will be responsible for pursuing this.”
Increased energy conservation will come about from a response to high energy prices. Take a look at SUV sales. After 1986, when oil dropped to $9/bbl, had the government passed a $1/gallon increase in the gasoline tax, with a corresponding reduction in the income tax rates, the ensuing conservation of energy could have delayed the time of reckoning.
However, no politician would have voted for such a proposal, because he would have promptly been voted out of office. Constituents and thus politicians tend to think in the short term, not in the long term. As dg and others have pointed out, Republicans and Democrats both share responsibility for where we are today.
FWIW, I do my bit for energy conservation by not turning on the wind energy generated AC this summer, like other summers, in spite of an ample number of days where the high was 100 or above.
Energy conservation is among the tools, but it is not the only one.
Allen,
Am I right in remembering that only a very small portion of our spent nuclear fuel actually has a long half-life and needs storage such as that proposed at Yucca Mountain? Is that the issue you’re alluding to? If so, that is certainly a great energy issue for the McCain/Palin ticket to push. Nuclear energy in this country is still suffering from the frenetic hyper-reaction to Three Mile Island (pushed by political activists wrapping themselves in environmental clothing – sound familiar?)
France (France!) has 59 reactors representing 87.5% of electrical production (according to Wikipedia). It’s disgraceful that the United States has only 104 operating plants and only 1 under construction, producing only 20% of our electricity. If our political leadership will stop kowtowing to the environmental lobby and allow our nuclear industry to expand (Split, Baby, Split?), perhaps I might become proud of my country for the first time…
Sorry, couldn’t resist the dig – I spent a little too much time in the sun today
Bob K,
Sorry I didn’t make it clear. When Carter was President the policy became that we would only use fuel rods once because they contain plutonium, rather than recycling them. At the time it was a proliferation issue. The Europeans, Japanese, and even under the Nunn-Lugar Act we recycle weapons grade plutonium for fuel rods for others. But, not our own reactors.
It;s kind of schizophrenic, we’ll take plutonium from Russia make fuel rods but won’t do the same here with ours. That’s why it’s a ripe issue.