Spooky. He looks like he's trying soooo hard not to misspeak that he just rattles off words and hopes they make a sentence. Maybe he should pair up with "subject, verb, 9/11" Rudy! At least he'll be able to diagram a sentence.

The pandering walkback on energy policy is an especially sharp double-edged sword. Energy policy is one of those issues in which McCain has voted against the Republican party interest before. It could harm him with independents in Florida, for example.

With the sound off, he goes from "deer in the headlights" to "fish gasping for air" to "I'm about to cry."

Whenever McCain has to speak to an impersonal audience, rather than a specific individual, he always looks miserable and disengaged.

I can't wait for his acceptance speech at the Convention. I'm guessing it will be a complete disaster.

Maybe he's trying to say that it's not really a cap on any specific company since they could always buy credits? But I guess in theory a company that really loved CO2 could only buy the total amount of permits that were issued, then they would hit the overall cap.

"With respect, senator, my question concerned mandatory targets for renewable energy. That's a different matter from a cap-n-trade regime. However, it would seem that you favor a cap-n-trade without any emission caps. Would you now like to answer on both counts?"

Just like the economy, he has no idea about anything that requires some intelligent self-education.

I've known some smart, old people. He's not one of them.

Can we please have some minimal level of intelligence both from our candidates and the press covering them?

John McCain gets up in the morning and starts his incoherent rambling before breakfast.

Way to whip up the enthusiasm, John.

Is McCain confused again? Maybe, but more likely it's just politics as usual, a way of being all things to all people. He wants credit for taking climate change seriously but he also wants credit for being business friendly, so he offers up a cap-and-trade plan and then insists that it doesn't actually involve a cap.

I received a handy little mailer from the Sierra Club the other day. In it were listed the names of the 100 senators, with a little thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon indicating how they voted on what the Sierra Club considered to be the 4 most important environmental votes in the 110th Congress. Now you can argue over the merits of each of these bills, and there may be legitimate reasons for voting against the interests of the Sierra Club. (I'm disinclined to go along with that idea, but let's put that on the table for the sake of argument.) What stuck out about the votes, though was that McCain was absent for every single one of them. Every. Single. One. Now I realize he's a busy man, running for president & everything, but there's another candidate who's been pretty damn busy with his own heated & extended primary, but who's managed to vote on 3 out of those 4.

I'll put it as plainly as I can. McCain is nothing but a shameless opportunist, and if he has a single conviction, he's doing an excellent job of hiding it while he runs for president.

Barack laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one CAN'T believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said McCain. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Re: the second clip.

Did he say that a gas tax holiday would impact Americans who drive automobiles?

Sharp as a tack, he is.

Oh please, not another gas tax holiday. I still haven't gotten all the cards out for the first one.

Did he say that a gas tax holiday would impact Americans who drive automobiles?

At least he didn't say horseless carriages.

Wait, Kevin, isn’t Schmuck Talk Express™ the kind of “reasonable Republican” you said you would negotiate with by using ANWR as a negotiating chip? Did you not indicate that just 48 hours ago?

The Flip-Flop Blogger strikes again.

As for why Schmuck Talk Express™ looks tired, it’s because he hasn’t been taking Clayton Williams’ advice to “lie back and enjoy it” while here in Texas.

Junebug, did the Sierra Club try to sell you a Sierra-branded Clorox product? Effing sellouts.

McCain looks like a man who is selling out and who knows he is selling out. And now we know what the non-meeting but keep the money from Clayton Williams was all about? The money was for buying the right to drill off shore in protected areas.

I'm suprised that McCain didn't just want to keep his nice little senate job. I mean, why would anyone what to do the bidding of Cheney, because it just wouldn't be worth it. I'm suprised most Republican congessmembers aren't complete tired and fed-up with all the crap going on in this Administration.

What if they gave an election and nobody came?

McCain is in a horrible position. Since his BFFE, Joe Lieberman, is the author of the bill he knows what cap and trade means, but he can't tell anybody because he has to suck up to the Republican base which means he has to deny he is for cap and trade, but he is on record as being for cap and trade. It doesn't seem they are willing to cut him any slack.

If he adopts the hard right position he is going to be killed by independents who used to admire his independence. All in all playing dumb might be his only play. It isn't much of a play, but it is all he has.

THE DOUBLE TALK EXPRESS....

I didn't catch that at headline at first but it takes NO 1 prize for bumber sticker of the year award.

Double Talk Express - that is exactly right.

Can we please have some minimal level of intelligence both from our candidates and the press covering them?Posted by: notthere on June 16, 2008 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Is it possible to concoct some base level test that if scoring less then some intelligently determined score one could not (like age, location of birth) be able to run for president?

I suspect that if we could come up with some even basic series of qualifying questions, we could eliminate the doofi (McCain, Bush) for the betterment of humankind.

Man, he gets worse with every passing day. That was pathetic.

"...impacting low income citizens on a fixed income who are driving automobiles that consume gasoline at a greater rate and they're driving further and they need a break"

Whaaaa?

Is this guy even going to make it to the convention?

Speaking of double-talkers...

After we spin the entire Earth into gold, there won't be any Earth left, John.

McCain is going to get annihilated in November.

McCain looks ill to me. His cancer is supposedly in remission but I've known several cancer victims whose disease flaired again during or just following stressful periods. If McCain picks a VP, would that VP become the nominee if McCain is not able to continue? And what would happen if, say next week before selecting a VP, McCain has to step down?

the second clip is an example of why McCain's idea of "Town Hall" meetings with Obama will back fire. The comparison between him and the younger, more polished and more knowledgeable Obama will be the end of McCain.

Oh great, from the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton we go to the ageist coverage of John McCain. I honestly expected better of the Democrats.

Is this guy even going to make it to the convention?
Posted by: gypsy howell

And if he makes it that far, will he make it to the November elections? This guy is too old.

Beware of the substitute Republican candidates waiting in the wings and/or the Repub VP candidate who may be called upon to change jobs.

I'm with Barry at 8:33 AM.
There are plenty of reasons to not vote for McCain without making his age an issue. That's no different from deciding you can't vote for Obama because he's, well, a n*****r.

And Obama's plan?
From -
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/06/it-is-ba-ack.html
"Sen. Obama would auction those permits to producers of carbon dioxide, such as electric utilities, and figures the sales would yield about $100 billion a year. Most of that would go to consumers as rebates on utility bills, he said."

Pay someone not to emit so someone else can emit? How is that any kind of trade?

"...we go to the ageist coverage of John McCain"

'Ageist'... I haven't heard that since the SLA coined the term to justify beating the crap out of Patty Hearst's boyfriend.

>"...making his age an issue. That's no different from deciding you can't vote for Obama because he's, well, a n*****r."

It is different... (unfortunately) age matters.

The sad fact is that people wear out mentally and physically. Would you like your next airline flight to have an 85 year old as pilot... or perhaps a 14 year old?

Correcting my own post.

Obama is actually going to charge someone to emit and use the proceeds to encourage others to emit.

Essentially, Obama is saying that the federal legislature should determine who does or does not emit. So, you know that Obama will generate more inefficiency in fossil fuel use, and most of the fossil fuel increase in emission, yes an overall increase in emissions, will be because stupid environmentalists have teamed up with Obama to increase GHG problems.

One has to be awfully stupid if one is an environmentalist these days.

I don't think age it self should be an issue. I don't really care why McCain is sometimes incoherent, often clueless and forgetful; I just know that he is and to ignore that because some people wil connect it with his age is irresponsible

Matt, you are confused. Study up on what "cap-and-trade" as proposed by McCain (ostensibly) and Obama (in actual fact) means. Then come back. The plans allow emissions up to a mandatory total cap and if you need to emit, that's fine, as long as you have a permit for it. Over time, amount allowed under permits diminishes.

So everything you said in your last comment is false.

Cheers!

Surely the repugs could have found another AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict to run for POTUS instead of an obviously senile, incoherent old man.

"...but he can't tell anybody because he has to suck up to the Republican base ..."

Progressives have exactly the same problem. They cannot tell the truth to environmentalists because if environmentalists knew that Obama was planning to subsidize emissions the environmentalists would abandon the plan.

As it is, environmentalists are in quite a pickle with respect to warming.

At least McCain is willing to let oil prices work the economy toward efficiency, and if Obama keeps talking nonsense about using global warming to encourage inefficiency for some groups, then the environmentalists will slowly abandon the progressives.

The NY Times has it right, of course. /sarcarsm Elisabeth Bumiller today says McCain differs from Bush because he is in favor of mandatory GHG caps. McCain, of course, disagrees. Anyone with the time might write a letter to the Times (letters@ nytimes.com) to get the record corrected.

If you follow Kevin's link to the Grist article, you will see the question that McCain was actually asked:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration?

The question has nothing to do with cap-and-trade. The question was about mandatory targets for renewable energy, e.g. Renewable Portfolio Standards for electricity (policies that require electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date) or requirements for some percentage of new cars to use low or no carbon fuels (e.g. electricity or biofuels).

According to the US Department of Energy, twenty-four US states and the District of Columbia, who together account for more than half of US electricity sales, have Renewable Portfolio Standards. So this is a well-established approach to carbon emissions mitigation in the USA. And there has been legislation proposed and considered in the Senate to establish a nationwide RPS for electricity producers.

So, apart from McCain's double-talk about cap-and-trade not being "mandatory", his entire answer about cap-and-trade is a completely irrelevant response to the question, further reinforcing the impression that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, but only (confusedly) regurgitating scripted talking points. Much like Bush.

What's wrong with cap-n-crunch? I do hate it when I drop my teeth in the cereal bowl, though.

Buford: age matters
Yes, but there's not a direct correspondence. Some people stay mentally sharp into their 90's, others don't. Some people are incoherent in their 50's.

Criticize him for being incoherent and ill-informed, and I won't disagree. Tell me he's an idiot and I'll slap you a high-five. Say that he's in early-stage Alzheimer's and I'll consider the evidence. But lay off the "old" nonsense.

signed,
a guy that's way too friggin' old to be coding in assembly language, and yet somehow manages.

...and stay off my lawn, dammit!

Q: What if they gave an election and nobody came?

A: May I present President ME!

Of course it is double-talk. An actual cap is also a tax, but no politician advocating a real cap wants to call it a tax either, so the double-talk is pretty universal on this topic.

Secular Animist's point above is well-taken, and I understand that the McCain apologists are now trying to say that he didn't mean what he said, that his cap and trade wasn't mandatory, but meant that "targets on renewable energy" wouldn't be mandatory. I guess that's it anyway. Somehow, though, it's not very comforting that the "straight talker" doesn't seem to know what he's saying so much of the time.

And Yancey, think of it as a nice tax. Firms get to decide whether they want to pay more of it or not. And they are encouraged to find ways to avoid it. Indeed, it's a "market-based" tax. What's not for wingnuts to like?

"and if you need to emit" - David in NY

Does this means that we are restricted to having beans and weenies just once a year? I think that discriminates against weenies. I won't vote for that.

David,

A straigtforward tax on fossil fuels is a far superior way to. The cap and trade is charade, and so open to political innovation that no one should ever trust government with the implementation. It is not a "nice tax" at all- it is particularly pernicious one.

And trust me, when weenie needs to emit, it's time to cap.

Yancey Ward wrote: "A straigtforward tax on fossil fuels is a far superior way to. The cap and trade is charade ..."

Agreed. Recommended reading:

No justice, no cap: National environmental justice coalition blasts cap-and-trade, backs carbon tax
By Charles Komanoff
16 Jun 2008
Gristmill.grist.org

Condemning carbon trading as "fraught with uncertainties, lack[ing] transparency and creat[ing] large opportunities for emitting facilities to engage in fraud," a national coalition of environmental justice organizations has called for a federal carbon tax to address "the most critical issue of our time" -- the climate crisis.

The June 2 statement from the Climate Justice Leadership Forum is the latest sign of mounting disaffection with the top-down push for carbon cap-and-trade. It is particularly significant because the 28 signatory organizations, which span the country from Anchorage to New Orleans and from Oakland to New York City, have been the spearhead of a rising movement by communities of color to crack open the historically affluent and white U.S. environmental lobby, much of which has backed the cap-and-trade approach to pricing carbon emissions.

[...]

The author of that article, Charles Komanoff, is co-director of the Carbon Tax Center, which promotes revenue-neutral carbon taxes:

The next Administration and Congress will be called upon to address 21st Century climate realities. In a carbon-constrained world, a permanent, essential feature of U.S. policy must be a carbon tax that reduces the emissions that are driving global warming.

• A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).
• A carbon tax is the most economically efficient means to convey crucial price signals and spur carbon-reducing investment and low-carbon behavior.
• Carbon taxes should be phased in so businesses and households have time to adapt.
• A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral: government can soften the impacts of added costs through rebates or by reducing other taxes ("tax-shifting").
• Support for a carbon tax is growing steadily among public officials; economists; scientists; policy experts; leading business, religious, and environmental figures; and on the opinion pages of leading publications.

An actual cap is also a tax, but no politician advocating a real cap wants to call it a tax either, so the double-talk is pretty universal on this topic.

A cap with fines for violations is no more (and no less) a "tax" than a fine for littering is a "tax".

Cap-and-trade with fines for violations is arguably more distinct from a tax (though the cap-and-fine portion is exactly as much like, and unlike, a tax as that in a basic cap-and-fine system), since both sellers of surplus credits and buyers of those credits can trade by contract, which can include provisions aside from simply exchange of credits for cash, and since the cost of credits (while constrained, in a sense, by the consequences of violations [though there is no reason an assessment of the market price of credits couldn't be included in the calculation for determining fines]) is set freely by the market.

A cap and trade does not set emissions prices by what cmdicely thinks is a free private sector market.

The trade portion is initially set by the legislature, and it is not clear from the law whether a government agency like the defense department will buy credits on the open market, or will its cap is set partially within the legislature.

So, yes, you have a market, if you include the legislature in that market. We have already seen the legislature set aside emission credits for its own people.

In fact, one has the legislature setting the initial allocation for all sectors, meaning that the legislature has moved away from free market trades by mixing government and private sector allocations up front, which we do not do now.

The legislature, in its market arbitration over the last 10 years has managed to generate a 10 hour long allocation, for the first year, after ten years of trying. ANd even that effort failed.

Cmdicely thinks that things will work out after we get a law passed, but I doubt it, we will continue to make allocations every ten years as each special interest group gets lodged into the system.

Global warming will get worse under this scenario, and the money grab by progressives should give us all a big clue that we need a different method.

thersites,

Not to pick nits, but there are probably 14 year olds who could competently fly a 747. Does that mean we shouldn't hold age as relevant if some 14 year old tries climbing into the pilot seat?

Age does matter, exceptions to the rule are just that, exceptions. Not invalidation of a true generalization.

And this coming from someone who is probably not that many years younger than you.