Anybody who can seriously assert that the real political tension these days is between “authoritarianism and libertarianism,” then immediately declare that Kucinich and Nader are [leftist] libertarians is somebody who has gone completely around the bend.

I find that concern trolls vastly underestimate the intelligence of right-wing crypto-fascists like us. Not only can we write in English, we can think in it, too.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/cia/html/t1p01p1.html

Downstate Illinoisians absolutely HATE the Chicago crowd (with good reason). Also, coal is produced in Eastern Pennsylvania, where Obama support is strongest, not Western Pennsylvania, which has already been denigrated as redneck-rube country by both Murtha and Obama.

MikeD – your reference to tandem trolling is spot-on — we noticed that same interplay between DG and dagon recently and wondered how they could throw so much mud against the wall with endless energy, if you recall. Sounds as if we called them out correctly.

That’s why I had to raise the question (several times) about Ozzie being potentially a paid Axelrod concern troll.

From Wikipedia:
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

The Axelrod effort has tried to be sophisticated but sometimes the mask slips, just as Obama’s mask sometimes slips. There was another blog a few weeks back that had two concern trolls operating in tandem – ganging up, apparently independently of each other, on the same blog. The blog site owner published their internet address – the SAME subnet mask, from Chicago. They were both working from the same Axelrod office.

Ozzie sometimes offers a reasonable amount of her own opinion; usually it is long cut and pastes of other articles. In each of all of these such comments, the comment consists of a large amount of negative information. Then Ozzie issues a demoralizing sentence at the end, such as “The Republican party has become unsupportable by any reasonable person”, or “The conservative movement as we know it is dead,” or, “The nomination of Sarah Palin is the end of any possible vote for Republicans, at least those with a brain.” This all follows the concern troll formula to a Perfect T.

A concern troll will raise issues and never offer a solution. If you propose a solution and ask for an opinion, your offer will be ignored, and a larger article will be posted that ignores your proposal as well. Again, Ozzie follows this paradigm to a Perfect T.

Hopefully this will change. And it doesn’t mean Ozzie is a concern troll, because it is a correlation and not cause and effect proof. But the Axelrod concern troll effort is real and is out there, and as with any Axelrod effort, you can expect it to be well-funded and pervasive.

If you do just ONE THING today, we ask you a personal favor: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to as many Republican blogs as you can and WARN THEM that the Obamedia will tell you all weekend that Obama is winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, West Virginia, and other states we do not believe Obama will win (except for Iowa, which we still think goes to Obama, but our best sources claim McCain now leads in internals by 1 point). They are already starting to say truly crazy things like “Obama will win Louisiana and Arkansas!”, and that’s just nuts. That is your equivalent of the Obamedia swearing up and down that the Kennedys and Oprah would win Massachusetts and California for Obama. WE knew that was pure cockamamie nonsense, but Eeyores wet their pants on cue over this. So, the Obamedia’s marching orders are to freak all of you out with SHOCKING DEVELOPMENTS! in Lousiana, Arkansas, Georgia, etc. just to shake your faith and confidence.

This is like in Little League when the opposing team would chant, “Hey batta hey batta hey batta hey batta hey batta sa-weeeeeeeeeng batta” when you were at the plate, to make you swing too soon or too late. Just to psych you out. And that nonsense actually worked on Team Hillary, because we lost a lot of volunteers who Eeyored off the face of the Earth just before Super Tuesday, so convinced of unprecedented blow-out doom.

So, when you see the Obamedia doing all of this to McCain, please know they are crying wolf again. Don’t let that demoralize you!

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/three-things-the-obamedia-will-do-to-depress-republican-turnout-and-help-obama/

What an election this is! I’m taking advice from a Hillary website.
They also talk about Obama trolls.

It’s like what I told my wife when she caught me oogling a neighbor’s garage calendar decorated with girls who were letting their naughty parts show.

“Sweetums, I was only looking at the photos. No way was I open to them!”

(She’s voting for Obama, so she believed me.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) recent order categorizing depleted uranium as “low-level” radioactive waste does not solve the waste disposal problems of a multinational consortium that wants to build a nuclear fuel plant in southeastern New Mexico, said citizens’ groups Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The groups today filed a motion in their pending case against Louisiana Energy Services (LES)—the company seeking a license to build the plant—maintaining that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) does not have the capacity to accept LES’s waste for processing and disposal. NRC rules require LES to come up with a “plausible strategy” for the disposition of the depleted uranium waste that would be produced by its plant. One of the disposal strategies identified by LES is transfer to the DOE. But U.S. law requires depleted uranium to be classified as “low-level” radioactive waste by the NRC as a necessary condition for DOE to take the waste.

“Simply calling this waste ‘low-level’ does not change the fact that the DOE has its hands full with its own waste—more than 700,000 metric tons of it that will take at least 25 years to process,” said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. “LES still has no plausible strategy to dispose of this waste.”

The groups further allege that the DOE has a poor track record when it comes to radioactive waste disposal, citing the department’s failure to meet the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which require it to establish a national high-level waste repository and accept utilities’ irradiated nuclear fuel for disposal. The DOE has yet to even submit an application to the NRC for a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Environmentalists oppose Yucca Mountain, so the DOE has no place to store “low-level” radioactive waste. Since the consortium has no place to strategy to dipose of the waste, the plant can’t be built.
Checkmate.

Spread The Wealth Around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnU78Z-01Wc&eurl=http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Found: http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Brian, I believe Obama has in truth only said he would “look at” constructing new nuclear energy power plants. In the Obama universe where word parsing is an art form, there is a world of difference between “look at” and “be open to”.

Quite frankly, the definition of “look at” in Obamaland is: No way in hell is this going to happen if I’m President. But the average American voter only hears the smooth words and thinks, “Gee, this fellow really is incredibly reasonable. I guess all that radical stuff and Ayers and Wright stuff is a bunch of hooey.”

On the other hand, I only recently saw an article that said that nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized. If they’re such a good idea, why in fact are they subsidized? That was a bitter blow to me to read that; I still haven’t been able to determine how true the statement was. Just as with solar power, wind power, etc, if it requires subsidies via taxation, I’m not for it.

Unless someone presents a wonderful compelling argument, that is…

Sen. Barack Obama fielded questions on a variety of topics in a meeting with The Chronicle’s editorial board Thursday, Jan. 17 at the the St. Francis Hotel. Duration: 53 min.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL&o=0

For some reason I cannot get the video to play, so I am assuming this is the same interview where the audio came from.

Obama:

“The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

The audio is from an interview Obama gave with the San Fransisco Gate, in Jan. 2008.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-well-bankrupt-any-new-coal-plants/

Additional:

Q: How do you convince people to change their lifestyles, to live differently, or to turn the question on its ear, are voters ahead of the politicians on this stuff? Do they get it, and maybe the politicians don’t?

A: Well, I think, uh, I think voters do understand it. I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior.

Iowa Public Television
November 2007

The link is to the video of Obama saying this.
http://tinyurl.com/6pagpb

Obama calls for ‘clean energy’ nation

The three main components of Obama’s plan are:

— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.

— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.

—Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12280.html