Agreed! It was also helped by a 50 state approach. Governor Dean said it best last night, "You have to ask people for their vote because anything else is insulting."

I live in a precinct with a strong opposite party presence. Unless we get out and visit the voters, even those we don't agree with, we are treating them as 'less than worthy of our time.' It is not easy because we'll have to face a lot of rejection and that takes a strong character. But it is the right thing to do.

Bob Wilson

 

I'm not sure quite what you mean by saying we should be more interested in what these laws mean for hybrids. Most of the bills I mentioned are full of stuff that is relevant to hybrid drivers and would-be hybrid drivers in the US. Grants of money for technology research definitely impacts hybrids. It might spur the next generation of engine development - what do you think the 'hybrid premium' pays for? Mainly, the costs of research and development! So if the government puts money into research, the end consumer doesn't have to foot the bill, in the grand scheme of things- the costs are shared out among us all, which means SUV drivers, too.

Yes, new car development is slow- money invested that way, public or private, doesn't pay off for hybrid buyers in the very short term like a tax credit might, but let's be real. A tax credit is not the ultimate answer to our energy problems. The market for hybrids is growing, so people seem to have incentives to buy them. What we need are more cars for them to buy, more types of environmentally friendly cars on the roads, better technology up and down the industry. Tax credits are nice and have great short-term benefits, but research is critical in the long term.

 

I mostly agree with you. My problem is if the government gives grants or what ever to encourage development it doesn't mean the money will actually be spent on the developments. There is no real incentive to produce anything.

Now, if people are using tax credits to by a vehicle it is in the manufacturers interest to develop products they can make money on and sell. By creating a demand for hybrids with tax incentives to consumers, companies have no choice but to advance the technology and make it cheaper and better so they can compete against the other companies.

 

That is what I am hoping happens, but knowing them, they will probably make things worse. They make always big promises to get elected, but they never deliever on their promises, which is either a good or a bad thing, depending on exactly what they promise.

 

Lets not hope nothing happens. Even if you disagree with them you have to hope someone does something even if it means they were right and us nay sayers were wrong. This is one case where I would be happy to eat crow. Of course they will blame nothing happening on the executive in office without even giving him any sort of bill to sign. I actually heard this today "we can't do anything or come up with ideas. We don't hold the presidency." Umm. I nearly fell out of my seat. If they can't do anything why were they elected into office?

For all our sakes I hope we are wrong. There are some good people in office from both sides that would like things to change for the better. I hope they have luck getting through to the close minded (on both sides) and can affect change.

 

The president has both a veto pen and makes 'margin notes' when signing bills. Regardless, nothing much happens until January.

Bob Wilson

 

When the Democrats said that, they were not saying that they cannot get bills signed into law, rather, they were saying that they cannot make bills period, precluding the possibility of them reaching the President's desk, or at least that is what I got from that.

 

I'm seeing an unattributed quote, a republican strawman, that I can't find via news.google.com nor news.yahoo.com. It echos of a Republican talking point, "Democrats don't have any ideas." Regardless, I can find and attribute a Democratic position:

http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/11/howard_deans_st.php

It is easy to backup this Democratic quote from the head of Democratic Party. Where is yours?

This is what we can find at the RNC:


At least Mehlman sees reality but this unattributed claim, "we can't do anything or come up with ideas" is insulting and poisonous to the debate. It doesn't even meet the minimum requirements we follow in the "Journalism and News" forum for attribution. Thank goodness it is in "Anything goes." To make such blanket claims only invites my fondest hope that this remains the Republican strategy for winning future elections.

Bob Wilson

ps. A life-long, partisan Democrat, I'll offer what Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

pps. Sue Bell Cobb (D) won the Chief Alabama Supreme Court Judgeship over Nabors by running a positive campaign, answering Nabor's smears and pointing out that Nabors is an insurance company lawyer. Also, Jim Folsom (D) beat the Strange (R) by offering humor, answering the smears and not being a Republican lobbist. As long as our friend, the Republicans continue to offer smears and what Colbert calls "truthiness", acting instead of facts and data, we'll have an easy time in future elections.

 

Your right. I can't attribute it. But I did hear it. I'm just saying what I heard. If the Democrats ever want me (an independent) to vote for them then I will say again "come up with ideas." It's great to say "you can't prove it so we didn't say it (kind of like what Clinton said until the blue dress). But I'm sure there are a lot of independents like myself that "hear" things regardless of being able to prove it.

Sure, I may lean more conservative, but to put as someone that spouts "republican talking points" is unfair. BTW, when you quote those that speak for the democratic party, aren't you quoting "talking points?"

My thinking is that often times in interviews or ad hoc conversations you hear what they are really thinking. When they prepare notes and give speeches they are basically just trying to say what people want to hear.

If the quote you posted doesn't sound like a talking point I don't know what does.

I guess it's not a smear calling someone an insurance company lawyer. I mean how can you smear someone using the truth right?

Anyway. I'm still taking a wait and see attitude. Sure, I can't prove my arguments as well as someone learned like a lawyer or journalist. I'm just a normal person with normal opinions. I need proof that the Dems can do it better than anyone else. Until I see actions instead of talk I'm going to stay cynical.

I really wish people wouldn't lump anyone that is centrist as being a Republican mouth piece.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if they only ever represented one insurance company in a current suit against, say, a local city council trying to force one of their local agency's office to install a sprinkler system to meet a newly passed ordinance, then technically, they are an insurance company lawyer, and for the opponent to make that completely truthful claim would be a pathetic smear.

Granted, this kind of smear is much more dastardly and reprehensible and far below the belt than actual smears found this now-past campaign for a well proven misdialed number for a single, less than one minute call resulting in a smear claim of the incumbent using their office for calling a sex hotline!

-- Alan