Obama vs McCain

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha, you're not getting it.

In my opinion he has no substantial policy with which to compare McCain too. You can't compare something that doesn't exist.

[Partha]

It's easy to say something doesn't exist if you don't go and look for it.

Hell, I'm making it EASY for you, Embar. I don't even need your lazy ass to click a link. Just tell me WHAT POLICIES.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Dude -

You're asking me how Obama's polices stack up against McCain's. I'm telling you that in my opinion, Obama has no substantial policy.

In other words, I'd love to compare Obama's policies with McCain's. I'm just waiting around until he forms them so I can compare them.

[Partha]

How is his policy insubstantial to McCain's?

[Partha]

And with a flash of light and hearty 'HYUK HYUK HYUK', Embar has fled the scene of the debate.

Again.

[Beestyall]

Here Embar I'll help, Gas Tax Holiday.

McCain:For
Obama:Against

For the most part debating any major specific policies from any of the candidates is a Sisyphean proposal, because they will largely be bastardized by the house or senate, assuming there is not a clear majority for either party. However this is topical, they both have stances on it and they both have history with this topic. I'll even help you out more Embar, Obama's been faced with this choice before at the state level.

What I don't think is pointless is talking about how the candidates will face the envitability that they can't push through their proposals unchanged, what do they do then. McCain (and Clinton) are fairly clear, they cave to public opinion or cry about it to the media. Even McCain's vaulted finance reform seems to be gaining plasticity. I am less certain about Obama, only because without living in Illinois I don't feel I can adequately understand all sides of the issues.

[Klast Brell]

So, in other words, you're claiming to know nothing about Obama's policy positions and that you haven't looked to see if he has any?

I've been following the candidates pretty closely. I really haven't seen much in the way of solid policy positions from Obama. Have you?

Actually, I have. What's fairly obvious here is that you're dodging my question. What policy positions IN PARTICULAR do you find of his to be less solid than John McCain's?

Silly Partha. Embar asks the questions. He does not answer them. Do you seriously imagine that he would ever make a firm declarative statement?

[Embar Angylwrath]

How is his policy insubstantial to McCain's?

What policy?

[Partha]

Here Embar I'll help, Gas Tax Holiday.

McCain:For
Obama:Against

For the most part debating any major specific policies from any of the candidates is a Sisyphean proposal, because they will largely be bastardized by the house or senate, assuming there is not a clear majority for either party. However this is topical, they both have stances on it and they both have history with this topic. I'll even help you out more Embar, Obama's been faced with this choice before at the state level.

What I don't think is pointless is talking about how the candidates will face the envitability that they can't push through their proposals unchanged, what do they do then. McCain (and Clinton) are fairly clear, they cave to public opinion or cry about it to the media. Even McCain's vaulted finance reform seems to be gaining plasticity. I am less certain about Obama, only because without living in Illinois I don't feel I can adequately understand all sides of the issues.

Obama supported the gas tax cut in Illinois and now says that seeing the results from it causes him to oppose it federally, since it takes badly needed money from road funds. The only study done disagrees, but the authors helpfully tell you that they excluded Chicago data from much of their number crunching.

As far as pushing stuff through, people outside of Illinois seem to think that the Democratic Party in Illinois is a monolith - in fact, there are two factions involved whose heads don't get along well with each other and the governor, which is one more reason why Blagojevich has been so unsuccessful in anything he's tried.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Here Embar I'll help, Gas Tax Holiday.

McCain:For
Obama:Against

For the most part debating any major specific policies from any of the candidates is a Sisyphean proposal, because they will largely be bastardized by the house or senate, assuming there is not a clear majority for either party. However this is topical, they both have stances on it and they both have history with this topic. I'll even help you out more Embar, Obama's been faced with this choice before at the state level.

What I don't think is pointless is talking about how the candidates will face the envitability that they can't push through their proposals unchanged, what do they do then. McCain (and Clinton) are fairly clear, they cave to public opinion or cry about it to the media. Even McCain's vaulted finance reform seems to be gaining plasticity. I am less certain about Obama, only because without living in Illinois I don't feel I can adequately understand all sides of the issues.

Ok... maybe this where we are getting off base. I don't see Obama's position on this matter as a "policy". Nor do I see Clinton's and McCain's statements a "policy" either. (I do agree with Obama that the gas tax holiday is a mistake, and nothing more than a gimmick). To me, a "policy" is a broad, well thought out plan on how to deal with complex issues. Like... what is Obama's PLAN on dealing with some of the negative opinion the US is suffering in the world foreign policy arena? What is his economic policy (his plan) with regard to involvement in US markets (stock, housing, export, import, etc)? What is his policy on the use of military assets?

I just don't see much development in these areas. It's one thing to preach about how we can be better as a nation, its another to chart the course.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

I'm gonna have to agree with Embar, Obama is being very subtle about what exactly his broad-scope policies are. Clinton, on the other hand, is preaching this way and that, and I think it's hurting her.

Regardless of who's the better candidate, I think Obama is being the better politician.

As far as my vote goes - so far I'm (as a registered independent) favoring McCain. I'm usually all for social reform and more taxes, yadda yadda, but I don't know if our economy can handle it. Our economy needs help, yes, but not so much help as to require drastic liberal action. As much as I'd love to pull out of Iraq, too, I wonder what kind of damage that would do to the country over there.

But hey, what do I know. We don't even have political commercials in Oregon yet. Our primary actually matters about three times a century.

[Kulaf]

There is a reason you don't see it Embar.....it's because Obama is still thinking like a Senator.....not a President. His stance on issues is all legislative.

Helpful hint to Senator Obama.....the Executive branch doesn't pass laws.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think that's an astute observation Kulaf.

To put it mildly, Obama seems more concerned with the type of bandaid, rather than leading so that bandaids aren't necessary.

[Partha]

So why don't you show us how McSame is different?

[Ddrak]

Helpful hint to Senator Obama.....the Executive branch doesn't pass laws.

I've yet to see a President in my lifetime that doesn't give the impression that they create the laws rather than just rubber-stamp them.

Dd

[Partha]

More importantly, I'd like to know which specific policy examples that McCain has are MORE SOLID than Obama's, so I can compare and contrast the two here. (And, coincidentally, show that Embar's talking out of his ass...yet again.)

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well.. lets see, off the top of my head.

Policy on climate change: He wants to use market forces to address issues he thinks are causing climate change. He wants to use more nuclear power, and would return to the Kyoto table. He would use cap-and-trade to bring down emissions (which is an excellent market driven idea, as long as caps continually fall).

He's pretty much anti-restriction when it comes to guns, and I think he's offered legislation on the matter (could be wrong there thoug)

He's weighed in on his philosophy for appointing judges, and his plan to move towards a bench that is constructionist. (expect to see more Scalia's if McCain gets his way)

He would work to overturn Roe v Wade.

Start with those Partha.

Or, go to his website and read them yourself. That way you don't get my interpretation of his policy initiatives. You can get it straght from his campaign.

[Partha]

Policy on climate change: He wants to use market forces to address issues he thinks are causing climate change. He wants to use more nuclear power, and would return to the Kyoto table. He would use cap-and-trade to bring down emissions (which is an excellent market driven idea, as long as caps continually fall).

Ok, I want this understood now - this is what Embar says McCain is more solid on than Obama.

From the McCain website:

The people of this country have a genius for adapting, solving problems, and inventing new and better ways to accomplish our goals. But the federal government can't just summon those talents by command -- only the free market can draw them out. A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. The market will evolve, too, by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also by allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement. Entrepreneurs and firms will know which energy investments they should make. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices. A cap-and-trade reform wi ll also create a profitable opportunity for rural America to receive market-based payments -- instead of government subsidies -- for the conservation practices that store carbon in the soils of our nation's farms.

We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt -- and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.

As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system. This will broaden the array of rewards for reduced emissions, while also lowering the costs of compliance with our new emissions standards. Through the sale of offsets -- and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real -- our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions. And in the short term, farmers and ranchers can do it in some of the most cost-effective ways.

Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use. Under my plan, we will apply these and other federal funds to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy. We will support projects to advance technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. We will assist in transmitting wind- and solar-generated power from states that have them to states that need them. We will add to current federal efforts to develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. We will also establish clear standards in government-funded research, to make sure that funding is effective and focused on the right goals.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That's the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.

Next post will be from the Obama website.

[Partha]

From the Obama website:

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

* Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

We will also explore safer ways to use nuclear power, which right now accounts for more than 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. We should accelerate research into technologies that will allow for the safe, secure treatment of nuclear waste. As President, I'll continue the work I began in the Senate to ensure that all nuclear material is stored, secured and accounted for - both at home and around the world. There should be no short cuts or regulatory loopholes - period.

So, to sum up - Obama not only pledges to attempt to reduce greenhouse gases more than McCain (80% vs. 60%), he also demands a 100% auction of the credits, as opposed to McCain offering 'some' to be auctioned with 'more' later. Further, both support the expanded use of nuclear power. If you'll go look at both websites for more than a minute, you'll see that Obama offers a much greater amount of specifics on what he wants to do.

I'm disappointed but not really surprised that Embar couldn't find this. I mean, after all, it took me all of three minutes to get it all cut-n-pasted with commentary. I shouldn't expect much from Embar.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What's you agenda, Partha? If you REALLY want to dissect McCain's and Obama's policy positions, compare and contrast tham I think you said, why do you need me? Seems you can do that all by yourself.

Hey... maybe you're not really interested in doing that! Maybe that was all just another dishonest Partha ploy to engage me (I'm flattered by all the attention, by the way) in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying neener neener. (Go on, I know you want to)

But I'll cut you some slack. If you ARE really interested in comparing and contrasting what you think are Obama's policy positions, with what you think McCain's are, then I await your detailed analysis.