I think this is the real koolaid story, and mccain has been drinking it.  This speech alone will drive conservatives crazy.  Rush says he might at sometime try to get Republicans to switch parties and vote for McCain, but he acknowledges it will be a great challenge.

Reuters reported that Sen. John McCain would pledge "to take the lead in combating global climate change if elected president in a speech that set him apart from the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush." However, in reporting on McCain's environmental positions that his campaign believes will "win support from independents and centrist Democrats," Reuters did not mention his voting record and did not include any criticism of McCain's positions.

Yeah yeah yeah they should have reported it, but at least give the guy credit for getting on board with a Liberal position.

Off topic--At least McCain knows there are only 50 states....unlike Obama who said he's traveled to 57 states & has one more to go. Losing his bearings...eh? Come on guys, it's funny. Can you imagine if Bush had said this ;-)

Jeter, he is about change. I see you're hindered by your conservative limitations.

He was probably counting Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and a few of the other state wannabes.

I agree that McCain knows there are fifty states. He's seen most of them come into existence.

Well, not most (I think the first one in his lifetime was South Dakota in 1889).

And remember, McCain declared very strongly that he'd be damned before he recognized Missourah. No, wait, that was Abe Simpson.

Jeter, who can tell if he's on board for anything? He never shows up to vote on environmental issues, for all I know he's a tree humping log lover!

Maybe this was the 57 states Obama was talking about. 

That was pretty good, But "as far as I know", BHO was only guilty of a misspeak (not enough sleep, you see.)

Brilliant ! Gramps may just be pretending to go along with that ridiculous Climate Change Hoax until he gets all of those Reagan Democrats aboard. At least, that's one of the theories I've heard on mouth-breather am radio.

Since Tommy's posting today, your still working on his defences um?

That was for your next (so far) down, yer kernalship.

shhh....... we're going on a pic-nic this weekend. ;0)

But he has also cast votes against tightening fuel-efficiency standards and resisted requiring public utilities to offer a specific amount of electricity from renewable sources.

Why has he voted against these things - could it be because of the cost impact to manufacturing and consumers?   

But he has also pushed to set aside Endangered Species Act protections when they conflict with other priorities, such as the construction of a University of Arizona observatory on Mount Graham.

If the U of A land is the private property of the University a Federal Endangered Species act should have no bearing.  If that be the case I have to agree with him on this.

To your first point: I may be wrong, but I have not seen legislation of that type that did not include help with implementation. 

To your second point: it is a public school that receives federal assistance, so it would fall under the pervue of the ESA and NEPA. 

McCAIN: Blah, blah, blah.blah,blah... I'll say whatever is necessary to get elected. Please disregard my record.

Irony, we agree on that.

But I gotta report I'm hearing a lot of folks saying they'll vote for him if Obama is the Dem nominee. And at least half of them are Dems.

Jeter, the election is six months away. I would discount a lot of that talk.

Good point.

I'm hoping to get on board with Obama myself. I think for a lot of folks the debates between Obama & McCain will be very important. Hope enough folks tune in.

I do see the election of Obama as a positive as far as how the world will view us. I see him as a JFK type that could restore the goodwill [lost during the Bush years] towards the U.S., even among our enemies.

Jeter,

Wow. Don't let that sinker get caught in your throat. :-)

The only way Obama will win the respect of our enemies is by giving away the store. (i.e. our country.) But you probably are correct. After all it's more important for our enemies to love us than for us to defeat them.

AA wrote:

>>The only way Obama will win the respect of our enemies is by giving away the store. (i.e. our country.) But you probably are correct. After all it's more important for our enemies to love us than for us to defeat them.

Yup, AA has turned into a regular knee jerk conservative lately. I guess I should return the snark here and point out that Bush both destroyed the good will towards the US and failed to defeat our enemies. Or maybe I could just point out that your have posited a false either/or scenario, as if a president could not both defeat our enemies and restore the good will in our allies like Germany.

Hey, AA, since you like the snark so much, why not provide a link that does not back up what you show? That's what you usually do.  

Funny,

I congratulate you on recognizing it was all snark.

Good comeback. :-)  

So Jeter, is the other half west virginians? ;)

Nah, just God fearing Republican family members & friends :-)

Snoop, seriously I have yet to talk to a family member, friend or co-worker that is voting for Obama. They are either in the McCain or Hillary camp.

I gotta say I find that odd.

I'm at least willing to consider Obama.

"I'm at least willing to consider Obama."

Having a candidate talk to you like you're an adult can do that, even if you don't agree with him on a lot of things. 

So Jeter, is the other half west virginians? ;)

Ahhh, screw West Virginia.  ;>)

So federal laws don't apply on private property!

All right I've got my fun fact for the day!

Would that cost be for the far more important short term. Versis the cost 20 years on, that rightly is of concern only to people who actually hate people. Though they try mightly to hide it that long term concern (snort!) is a dead givaway.  

That's a fun fact that's good to know, Eweston.I always lure my victims from the National Park to my private cabin before "taking care" of them.

I don't see this as "setting him apart" from Bush.  Sounds very much like Bush in fact.

 

I have a suggestion for all those who might listen to Mr. McCain's "environment speech", and who wish to measure it for substance.

 

Take two pieces of note-paper, and at the top of one of them, title it "global warming, climate change, warming, climate, etc."

And at the top of the other, write the single word "EMISSIONS REGULATIONS"

 

Now, each time you hear Mr. McCain mention anything "global" or "warming" or "climate" or "change" or any combination therefof, make a check mark on that piece of paper.

And each time you hear Mr. McCain say anything about EMISSIONS, or the REGULATION of EMISSIONS, make a check mark on that piece of paper.

 

Now, when his "environment speech" is over, take the piece of paper titled "global warming, climate change, warming, climate, etc.", and look at the many check marks on it... and throw it away, in the trash.

Then, look at the piece of paper titled EMISSIONS, and see how the guy said EMISSIONS and the REGULATION of EMISSIONS hardly at all, maybe not once!

 

And ask yourself: "Why did he do that... why did he avoid saying the word EMISSIONS, and REGULATION of EMISSIONS? If warming climate change etc. is actually occurring, isn't it because of EMISSIONS? And isn't it EMISSIONS that is something under the REGULATORY control of the Federal Government, and not the climate? Why does he avoid talking about EMISSIONS, and the REGULATION of them, when he pretends to be talking about the environment?"

 

I let my own emissions do the talking for me, especially when I've got something to say in an elevator.

If McCain is the alternative for Hillary supporters who declare they won't vote for Obama, I have to ask Why?  I see another 4 yrs. of a Bush presidency as being disastrous for this nation. Then there is the possibility of a Supreme Court appointment that McCaion has promised to hand over to the "ultra" right turning the high court further to the right for decades to come.  That to me is "scary".  Secondly, Hillary and Obama agree on more than they disagree, and agree with each other more than either agree with McCain, so why would someone who would vote for Hillary then choose McCain if she is not the Democratic canidate confuses me and immediately raises my "crap" detector. I understand that race has been used over and over again to divide people,sensible people who otherwise make sound decisions suddenly goes against their common interest when race is introduced. The "other" ,  he's not like us, their not like us, they, he does not share our values.  "why doesn't he wear a flag pin in his lapel, you know he is really a black muslim militant." Of cours these are all meant to obscure the issues and confuse you so that you vote against your own interests.  Can anyone rationally argue that policies of the Bush administration has made us more secure?  Do Democrats that support Hillary really feel that McCain will protect their "civil" liberties,or relinquish the accumulation of power in the exexcutive that has created in the eyes of many constitutional scholars an imperial presidency?  How about McCains refusal to support Webbs new G>I> Benefits Bill?  Jobs?  Do you really think that more tax cuts for bussiness and the rich will bring back jobs to Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia to name a few?  Do you think that someone who admittingly has lobbyist doing their bidding from the back of his "doubletalk" express bus will really protect us from the ravages of the most monied and powerful in Washington?  Lets be real! If we let race divide us again, those who just can't see voting for Obama, will surely get what they deserve.  The problem is that we will all suffer. 

Cong,

It could simply be that people won't vote for Obama because he's too far to the left, is an unknown quantity, has no experience, and his actions do not match his rhetoric. That could be why so many didn't vote for him in the primary. 

However at this point my guess is Obama will win in spite of his shortcomings.  

AA wrote:

>>It could simply be that people won't vote for Obama because he's too far to the left, is an unknown quantity, has no experience, and his actions do not match his rhetoric. That could be why so many didn't vote for him in the primary. 

And it could be that you are simply full of BS. Too far too the left? Yes, for someone like you AA, who often sounds like a knee jerk Republican. But for the rest of Americans, probably not. And there might me another reason many did not vote for him in the primary: they like the other candidate (often also considered a strong one) better. Just a thought, you know. 

bzzzt. You lose points for the same snarky comment that you made earlier  regarding a GOP wide patella reflex.

However kudos for identifying your thought.  Looking forward to the next one. :-) 

"However at this point my guess is Obama will win in spite of his shortcomings."

And we will be all the better for it.