« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

For your morning enjoyment: Palin kicks Obama/Biden in the face over gutting the coal industry.

Gets a shot or two in at the media, too.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 08:15 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Really, media folks: the next time a Presidential candidate casually announces that he’s going to slowly strangle the industry that provides us with half of our electrical power, cover it as it happens. Letting us run with it two days before an election is kind of contraindicated, at least from your point of view. Originally via here, but the link is goofy: try here if the below doesn’t load.


Going to be a fun Monday.

Moe Lane

PS: As noted before:

Four years from now, do you want to be poorer, colder, and increasingly in the dark? Then by all means, vote Obama/Biden.

Or are you quite selfishly addicted to the sensation of seeing the lights turn on when you flip the switch? Then I suggest McCain/Palin.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk
  • rleander

    On, Sunday, Moe Lane wrote:

    What Obama isn’t mentioning there is that *there is no clean coal technology *that can replace existing coal plants. That technology is decades away, and until it appears, what we have is what we have to use.

    Then we have Palin:

    Palin promised the crowd at Marietta College that her ticket will ?not let that happen to the coal industry.?

    ?Instead, we?ll make *clean coal a reality and to help power the American economy with clean coal technology, *we?re going to be looking to the hard-working people of Ohio and West Virginia and Pennsylvania.?

    So both parties are laying the future of coal power plants on the existance of “clean coal” technologyt that does not exist? Yea, expect both sides to flog the crap out of that difference.

  • Moe_Lane

    …by freezing the production of new coal plants; McCain doesn’t.

    Glad that we could clear that up for you.

  • blooch

    Bark for Barack!

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=69

  • Darcy

    … is that Obama himself says in that interview that his policies would make electricity rates skyrocket

  • StephC

    That’s on top of a couple of other smaller increases over the last year. Coal is used to provide the nation with 50% of its electricity. This last month I used less than half the electricity I used for the same month last year, partly because of crappy light bulbs that do save a little money, partly because it’s cooler than last year, partly because I know how to hang my laundry on a clothesline instead of using a clothes dryer. Unfortunately, my bill didn’t reflect that half usage. It was the same as last year.

    So, if you want to double your bills or do without it altogether, go ahead and vote Obama and give him is big Dem majority in Congress to screw you.

  • izoneguy

    must be built. If you really want to cut green house emissions then nuclear is the way to go. What about waste?

    Waste:

    The most pressing environmental concern facing the nuclear industry is the issue of waste disposal. All processes produce waste. Nuclear waste from a power plant is unique in that it can be highly radioactive. While highly radioactive waste is hazardous to all living beings, nuclear fuel is amenable to containment, treatment, reduction and reprocessing (recycling). Processes have been developed to separate reusable fuel and the highly radioactive elements from used nuclear fuel. The waste products can then be made into a glass or ceramic waste pellet for disposal. The hazard associated with this pellet has a expected duration of about 100 years. Considering that chemical hazards maintain their nature indefinitely, this waste form may be preferable. Currently, such a waste treatment process is not being utilized in the United States because of political resistance; however, research continues to find new solutions to this problem.

  • StudentOfLincoln

    For your morning enjoyment: Palin kicks Obama/Biden in the face …

    Moe, the image of a “kick in the face” might provide “morning enjoyment” for some folks (too many folks?) … but for a large number of conservatives (and I am one of them) that kind of language displays lack of manners, indulgence of anger, and overtones of violence … which are exactly the qualities that have led many people to be disgusted with the politics of anger and ignorance.

    And it is no excuse to say “they do it too” … because that’s the way children make excuses, not adults.

    So may I respectfully suggest, Moe, that you amend your post by deleting the “kick in the face” language.

  • Strelnikov

    He could say he will gas all poodles and burn down all houses worth over $100,000, because he believes nobody will care about anything he says!

    He could come out for closing McDonald’s and banning Mickey Mouse, and nobody would blink.

    And if they do blink, they will agree!

    He is The One! He has a 10 point lead, maybe even a 20 point lead in the polls, he can do what he wants!

    The Messiah don’t need no steenkeen badges!

  • janis

    Your disapproval of Sarah Palin is well-noted by now. You’re a Peggy Noonan Republican. And you would apparently rather lose by displaying aloofness and the above the fray attitude than to cast this election in the realistic terms of what it is: A no-holds-barred fight for America and the culture of the west.

    And note that you seem to be the only one, Mr. Manners, who objects to Moe’s phrasing. Myself, I think it rocks.

  • bk

    just as soon as one is developed that does not involve any sort of nuclear waste and has zero chance of any sort of release of any nuclear materials via any sort of accident or terrorist attack.

    IOW he’ll approve more nukes just as fast as he approves more coal plants, more oil drilling, more refineries, etc. NEVER!

  • bk

    face
    teeth
    balls

    Moe, you are not allowed to use the work “kick” unless it’s in a context such as “McCain should have kicked Palin off the ticket weeks ago.”

  • terilyn

    Are you sure you, StudentOfLincoln, are not taking that headline a bit too literally? Your comment will simply give the BO minions a reason to comment about how divided Conservatives are.

    I’m not sure why you take issue with the headline rather than commenting on the gist of the article, but please try to focus on the issues.

    The point Sarah made was simply that Clean Coal Technology must be a part of the future of energy in the US. BO cannot be allowed to bankrupt the industry.

  • Moe_Lane

    …and there’s no way that Erick would have let me use the original, more Anglo-Saxon word that was my first choice.

    And I’m not making any excuses at all. Deal with it.

  • Uma_Richie

    CVX-78 and the Virginia class SSNs?

  • izoneguy

    n/t

  • bk
  • izoneguy

    Obama is McGovern, Carter, and John Kerry all rolled into one when it comes to maintaining and improving our defenses. He would be a disaster as president and this video shows very clearly why.

  • StudentOfLincoln

    Terilyn Tatro: Why take issue with the headline rather ather than commenting on the gist of the article? Please try to focus on the issues.

    I took issue with the headline because it needlessly evoked violent images. Not everyone thinks that violent political rhetoric is bad … but plenty of conservative folks do think so … should we be silent?

    Digging for the “gist” is a good idea too … and to find that gist, I had to go all the way back to Obama’s Jan. 17 interview.

    What has been layered on top of Obama’s interview—by both the far-left “greens” and the far-right “reds”—has been pretty much nothing but content-free “spin.”

    I am just one of many people who is sick and tired of spin-based campaigning … and even more sick and tired of rude language and violent images … that is coming from both parties.

  • Moe_Lane

    Not “whine about it.”

  • bs

    Oh, wait, that also evokes violent images, doesn’t it. What about “get in their faces”? Is that sufficiently non-violent? Oh, no, sorry, that was Barry himself saying that…you know, Mr. Non-Violent himself.

    Get a grip.

  • Uma_Richie

    nt

  • SeriousLaff

    is an energy policy every American should know about in the next 24 hours. In his own words:

    “Bankrupt the coal industry”. Half of our electricity. No nuclear. replace it with nothing.

    “Energy prices will skyrocket.”

    “$5 a gallon gasoline doesn’t bother me.” No drilling for oil. Take the bus.

    We will be lucky if it is only $5 a gallon.

    I HOPE they can get the word out.

  • StudentOfLincoln

    Moe Lane says: “Deal with [violent campaign rhetoric]. Don’t whine about it.”

    With respect, Moe, there is a third option: “vote about it.”

    Although you personally may enjoy this kind of rhetoric and/or derive motivation from it, it is (literally) impolitic to ignore the numerous voters—both conservative and liberal—who are offended by it.

  • Moe_Lane

    Feel free to make your objections to the Directors via email: the Contact link may be found at the bottom of the page.

    The subject is now closed, and you will stop thread-jacking. Is this understood? Please indicate that you understand in your next post.

  • JoeG

    Make those union shipyard workers know that they’ll be “redeployed” from defense work to welfare if the one is elected.

  • JSobieski

    Clean coal isn’t a yes/no–it is a direction of improvement.

    Coal plant technology is getting cleaner with each passing year. It is also possible with each passing year to make older coal plants cleaner.

    The Obama fairy-tale of waiting for clean coal technology to reach a certain unrealistic threshold before it is adopted is a recipe for no coal burning plants.

    Also, we should distinguish coal burning plants that are clean from traditional enviromental framework (which do currently exist) from clean in a carbon emissions standpoing (which do not).

    Another reason why “Climate Change” is really crippling us–the theory, not the actuality.

  • DefendUSA

    Of yellow cake uranium were secretly moved out of Iraq in August and sold to an energy company in Canada to be used for Nuclear Power. Shame we didn’t keep it for ourselves, apparently. Obama and his keepers might really fukk up! Guess it’s so we have one more thing to rag Bush about. heh. Yep, His troops sure found a huge chunk of WMD, now didn’t they? And managed to get it where it needed to be without incident. The truth hurts and so will Obama.

  • Neil_Stevens

    That allusion to threatening behavior draws not a complaint from the left, after all.

  • Moe_Lane

    …drawings of women being punched in the face, and of course idle musings about rape.

    You do have to wonder what the Democratic Party expects that they’ll do with their suddenly-visible misogynists once the election’s over. It’s not like they’re going to go willingly back into their cages.

  • bs
  • StudentOfLincoln

    Moe Lane directs: “Feel free to make your objections to the Directors via email. The subject is now closed, and you will stop thread-jacking. Is this understood? Please indicate that you understand in your next post.”

    The Directors have been notified and the subject is now closed.

  • finaljeopardy

    How will coal companies invest in developing clean coal technologies when they are bankrupt?

  • finaljeopardy

    Where do you think you are? The Daily Kos? Moe doesn’t make excuses.

  • izoneguy

    ..Obama’s Civilian Security Farce!!!!

  • finaljeopardy

    With the thoughts I’d be thinkin’
    I could be another Lincoln

  • bk

    They pulled that piece apparently.

    I guess the Obots found it offensive.

    Google owns YouTube right? Enough said.