Obama's First 100
View my blog: www.projectilepolitics.blogspot.com
So close to the end of this blockbuster campaign, it is time to start thinking about how these guys would actually govern. We should actually sit down and try to visualize what an Obama and McCain presidency would look like and what policies they would put through congress in the first year instead of focusing only on their generalities.
This morning, Pat Buchanan has written a dooming article about Obama's first 100 days in office. It is a useful article because it talks specifically about what an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate would try to accomplish in its first few months. The funny thing is, Buchanan is clearly presenting these accomplishments as negative. Here are a few examples:
The end of the article mocks, "Welcome to Obamaland." There is so much wrong with his tone that I don't know where to start. Let's start, then, with the fact that Democrats, even if they wanted to, would never be able to do all of this in barely more than three months. They are too scared to lose their majority in the 2010 midterm elections to take such risks.
More important, though, is that Buchanan is essentially saying that these initiatives are negative. Even if you take his word for it, and accept the examples above as what the Democrats will actually do, they will restore the United States as a beacon of hope through immigration reform and universal health care, restore equality in the forms of affirmative action and gay rights, and appoint judges who will counteract the ruthless conservatives of Bush's appointments Roberts and Alito.
Errr.... Bring it on. Buchanan seems to say that these policies represent an American doomsday with Obama as its messenger. But it all sounds pretty good to me.
This morning, Pat Buchanan has written a dooming article about Obama's first 100 days in office. It is a useful article because it talks specifically about what an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate would try to accomplish in its first few months. The funny thing is, Buchanan is clearly presenting these accomplishments as negative. Here are a few examples:
Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.
Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.
Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."
The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.
Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.
Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.
The end of the article mocks, "Welcome to Obamaland." There is so much wrong with his tone that I don't know where to start. Let's start, then, with the fact that Democrats, even if they wanted to, would never be able to do all of this in barely more than three months. They are too scared to lose their majority in the 2010 midterm elections to take such risks.
More important, though, is that Buchanan is essentially saying that these initiatives are negative. Even if you take his word for it, and accept the examples above as what the Democrats will actually do, they will restore the United States as a beacon of hope through immigration reform and universal health care, restore equality in the forms of affirmative action and gay rights, and appoint judges who will counteract the ruthless conservatives of Bush's appointments Roberts and Alito.
Errr.... Bring it on. Buchanan seems to say that these policies represent an American doomsday with Obama as its messenger. But it all sounds pretty good to me.
Advertisement





The funny thing is, Buchanan is clearly presenting these accomplishments as negative......Buchanan seems to say that these policies represent an American doomsday with Obama as its messenger. But it all sounds pretty good to me.
That perspective is what has Republican heads blowing off their shoulders this year. Republicans have taken for granted that Americans are conservative, and so, they've been using all of the usual conservative arguments and fear mongering. Cries of socialist or Marxist, tax raiser, and baby killer haven't worked this time. Republicans went "all in" and added cries of secret terrorist, and, OMG, he might be the Anti-Christ! But, no dice this year against a black guy, no less.
Republicans expect real plumbers making $40K/yr. to be more concerned with the taxes of guys making $270K/yr. than with their own taxes. Conservatives just can't see that their record over the past 28 years has so discredited conservative policies that Americans aren't reflexively buying the usual crap any longer.
Republicans want to pretend that the catastrophes of last 8 years did not happen. That the President for those years was not Republican. In short, they still believe it's 1980 when they were the outsiders coming in to rescue the country from Democratic malaise.
The end of the article mocks, "Welcome to Obamaland." There is so much wrong with his tone that I don't know where to start.
Pat's tone when he's discussing Obama stems from his obvious bigotry. That's not invective, it's fact.
October 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I expect the first 100 days of an Obama administration to include major announcements on commitment to wind and solar energies. Targets and funds for construction of offshore wind farms, southwestern solar farms, Great Plains wind farms and a national electrical transmission grid to connect all of the dots. I know he has talked about $150B over ten years during the campaign; I expect this to grow to $500B and form the centerpiece of a plan to re-industrialize America. The R&D on the technology will be done here; the construction will obviously be done here; and the energy produced will be consumed here and the technologies will be exported around the world to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide.
Coal will be off the table: the time to research and implement clean coal technologies was 20-years ago; it is too late now.
Nuclear will be off the table: the most efficient fusion reactor the world has ever known is just one AU away and it makes for a fine energy source for our solar and wind plants.
Jump-starting the economy is Job One and energy is the pathway to accomplishing that goal.
October 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, (green) energy independence has a triple payback of environmental, economic, and national security benefits.
October 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute but nuclear refers to fission. Your example refers to fusion -- which we haven't even been able to make practical yet.
And huge amounts of coal research was performed years ago -- during the Carter years. I've talked to older engineers who worked on these projects who are coolly committed to the idea that nearly all the research you needed was done during the Carter years -- it just turned out not to be so economical during the oil glut of the 80s-90s.
October 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
By fusion reactor, I believe he meant the Sun, i.e. solar energy.
October 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know what he meant. My point was "nuclear" clearly refers to fission on Earth -- since fusion isn't even an option.
October 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still don't get your point.
October 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
First point: we don't have fusion available to us on Earth.
Second point: therefore when he says "nuclear" it can only mean fission... and then he goes comparing the sun (fusion) to fission. In other words apples to oranges.
Mostly, I don't like nuclear being treated so fliply in the vernacular -- too many people already don't get it.
October 28, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guy is making a good point. Solar makes more sense than nuclear. Why make fun of his joke?
October 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because nuclear isn't fusion.
Consider if he said:
See? It doesn't make sense, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
I'm not sure he necessarily even understands it is an apples and oranges comparison but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
October 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well let's put it this way: Fusion and fission both involve changes at the nuclear level that release tremendous amounts of energy. In addition to building fission reactors that produce radioactive waste that will be around for a hundred thousand of years, we're also contributing billions to ITER, a fusion reactor project that may never be commercially viable, instead of using that money to capture energy from the Sun, a very large, safe fusion reactor that is available to all.
October 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. This is especially the reason I mentioned that fusion was practical in my original comment -- and you were bothered why I mentioned it!
Let's be clear: in the vernacular, "nuclear"="fission".
Lumping fission and fusion together because they are both "nuclear" processes, is about as useful to this discussion as lumping oil and coal together because they are both "fossil fuels".
Saying nuclear fission reactors are off the table because we can use solar (e.g. stellar fusion) is comparing apples to oranges and a specious argument. Moreover it confuses people who don't know much science to begin with. Calling the sun a "fusion reactor" is cute for rhetorical reasons but further confuses people because they will equate fusion energy (heat harvesting) with solar energy (photon harvesting).
I hope this clears up any misinterpretations of my comment.
October 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it not useful to remember that coal, oil (and natural gas) are all fossil fuels?
You can harvest heat from the sun. Solar chimneys and passive solar heating make a lot more sense to me than PV, which depends on a very high level of technology, or nukes, which we still don't know how to build safely.
October 28, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donal,
We know how to build nukes safely.
We know how to store nuclear waste safely.
It's the political problems of Yucca Mountain that have held things up. Las Vegas didn't have the political clout when things were started.
If you mean photovoltaic, say photovoltaic. For most people "solar" means photovoltaic, not "solar thermal". Maybe your experience is different.
Lastly, oil, coal and natural gas all are fossil fuels. That doesn't mean they burn the same, have the same environmental impact when burned, have the same costs associated with transportation, or a variety of other issues that affect their political and economical use.
If you want to keep changing the topic, that's fine with me... but it does get tedious. My comment started off by saying it was disingenuous to say nuclear (e.g. fission) was off the table because of solar -- and imply the sun is a "fusion reactor".
October 28, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NRC says we don't have any reliable designs: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/nrc-no-reliable-designs-or-cos.php
I don't believe anything we build will last over 100,000 years.
When you're talking about allocating monies, comparing solar to nuclear, or any energy source, makes perfect sense to me. Sorry if you disagree, and sorry if I'm boring you.
October 28, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, that headline is from an article which also states:
And yet, you state down below (correctly) that wind isn't "profitable".
There is also too much rhetoric in that article to ascribe it as a source.
Look at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf
and you might see why the new designs in the US may have a problem -- we haven't built any plants in quite a while. Nevertheless, about 20% of the power in the US comes from those old plants. And, of course 78% in France.
Does that mean they are unreliable? On the contrary...they've been working reliably for a good long time!
But you know what isn't reliable? Hybrid car batteries. You know what isn't profitable? Selling hybrid cars. In the auto industry, they are considered loss leaders with money paid back by subsidies and repair/maintenance.
Does this mean we should stop with hybrid cars?
Of course not.
When the grid winks out often enough, we will be on nuclear power just as sure as we will strip mine for coal.
October 28, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we will. Electricity now is more important than radioactive waste in the future.
October 28, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only fear, and I've mentioned this before, is that VCs will be more interested in feeding on government pork than actually providing workable energy alternatives. Obama's people will have to carefully scrutinize the proposals lest we give rise to another investment bubble.
October 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
VCs are not a particularly patriotic bunch. Typically these days (and this was before the market meltdown) they want 15x-20x return in 3-4 years. They typically are loathe to get involved in anything with the government because of long cycle times and bureaucratic regulations. The VCs that do government stuff are often beltway bandit types -- these are not your Kleiner-Perkins.
VCs also don't care about investing in US vs (say) China. They are also lemmings: they go one "hot" area to another. The "green" area is already "hot" and is on the wane. I'm guessing the VCs are happy to start dumping these investments on the market with the government now promoting things green. The VCs clean up -- and the technology may or may not work, or be valuable, or practical.
October 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A primary complaint against Wind has been that they are happy to build turbines as long as there are govt subsidies, but abandon them to rust when the subsidy subsides.
I see that Tesla seems to be running short of capital, though that probably has more to do with lack of credit than VC interest.
October 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink