The elections are fixed.

The media (those that run polls notedly) are owned by big business interests and consortiums.

The public is deliberately being manipulated by faceless PR firms.

Appointed candidates will fit the needs of Neo-Conservative groups that deal the cards.

When your country will be fully developed into the modern day communist ghetto they want to create with your ressources, maybe you will understand this message. Maybe.

It has already begun...

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

Jordan, has it already begun?  If so, you and I are in for some fun-fun-fun as the November "election" approaches.  I've got an idea but keep it between us, okay?  Let's pretend like we don't already know the outcome of the presidential "election."  Let's just have a jolly old time playing as if we're going to "rock the vote" this November and, after it's over, that those rockin' votes are going to be counted.  AND that no one -- not even Price-Waterhouse -- knows the final result.  (coff, mccain) It would be like those days before you knew your baby's sex before he/she was born and you actually had to wait to check it out in the delivery room. 

Neo-con snickers and mars bars.  

This could be a blast!  I am always humored by how naive the losing candidates seem to be with all their strategists, political punditry and volunteers.  You'd think they actually believe there's an election that decides their fate.  Hahahaha.  It's too rich!

As for myself, I know I'm going to be in as one who never saw that modern day Communist ghetto coming to the AmeriKKKa.  D'oh! 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I agree with alley on one point. This election season has been influenced by the majority of the big media-NBC, ABC, CBS. I think they embraced Obama with little vetting, as I did with his refreshing "one America" theme. A great speech maker, affable guy, but as I learned his approach to the problems facing us I decided he was not the candidate for me. Taxing, punishing the oil and natural gas industry, spending ( maybe worse than the Reps this decade! ) and I believe he is a neophyte in the international arena.

Now I am tempted to stay home,  "waste" a vote for the Libertarian candidate , or eventually even vote for McCain. I am lost.

How do you Susan and Jordan see the outcome in November? Thanks guys.  

Susan are you, bolstered after your "Hillary will not be the Dem candidate" win taking bets ? :)

Raymond - as Susan said, we already know who is going to win. It's been fixed for at least 6 months. We all got our secret meeting invitation in the mail and we met in a top-secret bunker in the middle of nowhere to determine who the real winner was going to be. The "fixed" voting machines are being built as we speak and will be shipped in August and September.

But let's pretend that we don't already know who the winner is going to be - just for fun.

I'll be honest with you -- I'm really at a loss as to the winner on this one. It's 6 months and as we all know, a lot can happen during this time. There's no doubt Iraq is a non-issue now at this point in time. Might change, but now that it looks like some big oil companies are talking about moving into Iraq to start drilling, then I'm thinking we may very well be seeing a huge light at the end of the tunnel. Shoot, by the time Obama or McCain wins, we might very well be able to start pulling the troops out! :)

Speaking of drilling, something tells me that this is going to be an election about oil, and i know that sounds strange -- something as simple as oil and drilling. But if prices continue to go up and if they stay up there in November, this might very well be the best thing for McCain. I think we all want to get away from using gas to fuel our cars, but the fact of the matter is that unless McCain or Obama can strike a fire under America, like Kennedy did with the moon which made the space race a national agenda, I just don't see alternative fuels taking off immediately, and people are going to be clamoring for a president who is willing to push more oil drilling to get these prices down. As we see with teh floods and the growing price on corn, ethanol isn't an answer. Electric cars might be, but we got to get that electricity from somewhere - nuclear, coal, wind, water, etc. So that leaves us with drilling and $4+/gallon gas. Anyone who knows basic economics know that if you increase supply the price WILL go down, unless it's being falsely inflated which could be the result of illegal actions by some. Politicians who say differently are pandering to the environmentalists -- ie Obama.

If the price of oil doesn't start going down, and going down soon, it's going to be one huge domino effect that will cause major issues for everyone worldwide! Oil Prices could very well be the single issue that McCain could come away a winner.

It's rare that the VP pick affects the vote, but this year, that very well could also be the difference. If Obama doesn't pick hillary, I think many Hillary voters will be hurt and either not vote or go to McCain. If he picks Hillary, then McCain will need a strong VP also to excite both conservatives in the GOP and even some moderates. I hate to say this because I don't think anyone should be picked for their race, gender, etc, but a smart political move for McCain would be to pick a minority as his VP.

Many GOP conservatives are already talking about staying home, but when push comes to shove, they will still vote and they will pull the lever for McCain as a vote against Obama. In the end Raymond, I think you'll probably do the same as a libertarian knowing where Obama may take us with a Democratic Congress.

So to ansewr your question, Raymond, I have no earthly idea! I think it's 50-50 at this point and will come down to: oil and the economy, VP pick, and terrorism/war (in that order). And if oil fixes itself and the war continues to go well, then it's going to come down who screws up the less! :)

Oh, and BTW - McCain's wife needs to soften her look also. I know that Obama's wife is going through a softening stage with her appearance - so does Cindy. This is a horrible picture of her!

Jordan .

The election will go to whoever runs the better campaign.  My early guess would be the Republicans pull this one off, with McCain side able to use the "extreme liberal" label with more success than the Obama side can use "four more years of Bush."

Suggestions for VP:  Sam Nunn for Obama, John Chambers for McCain. 

Hopefully oil drilling dies out quickly as an issue, with people realizing that it means neither energy independence nor noticeably lower gasoline prices.

Thank you Jordan for your response. And B-I agree Sam Nunn would be the best choice for Obama. Do you mean the John Chambers CEO of CISCO ? He would fill a hole in McCain's ecomonics. But who knows him and he is not a pol. Maybe that could be a bonus : )

I am concerned with the energy problem and I believe a significant, immediate -a year or three- source should be nat gas as one way to buy us time for new methods. Frac the gas and you have a home grown clean burning source. So clean my heating is run on nat gas flames-so it is relatively benign.

With the Netherlands, Brazil and many others including Canada who is drilling in the Great Lakes as well as the Alberta all out push for oil sand and other methods, I think for energy independence the fastest addition to our energy is nat gas. You know we ask Saudi Arabia and the others to increase their production while we refuse to tap our own huge cache. I want to leave my kid and his kids as clean and sound an environment as possible. We do have an emergency here and now. Also the extraction process is advanced and tech based unlike 25 years ago. 

Go solar, wind and electric cars, I'm all for that, but now let's supply more of our own stash with environment protection in mind as much as is possible and realistic. 

B, we disagree on any drilling. I suggest we should use it with other methods and conservation. With a collar on futures trading in oil ( requiring a higher percentage of funds in order to buy contracts we would force out the 10% speculators ). Another item in a total approach.

Interesting to note the big integrated (those with refining plants) oil companies are not profiting very much with the 130 oil! They incurr costs to find, produce, import, refine and deliver oil. No one wants oil companies with a significant refinery operation right now. Their stocks are underperforming.

Cisco's Mr. Chambers could be the ideal candidate, especially without the political baggage.

Speculation in oil goes beyond futures trading.  Pension funds, retirement accounts, mutual funds and individuals now hold the commodity itself. 

So much misinformation seems to be floating around about drilling lately, with people believing talk about energy independence and immediate lower prices.  Oil is an internationally traded commodity, with big suppliers like the OPEC nations able to control prices.  If a company like ConocoPhillips is able to drill in ANWR, assuming it can be done economically, the additional oil becomes just a small part of the total world supply.  The Department of Energy study frequently cited by Republicans optimistically predicts oil prices could, within ten years, fall by 75 cents a barrel, on a current base price of $135 per barrel. The resulting change in the price of a gallon of gasoline would be two cents.  It may be the right thing to do, it just won't change anything much.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html. 

But, B, doesn't that depend entirely on how that oil drilled in the US is used? Yes, if that oil just gets stuck into the world supply, then yes, prices won't change. But if you drill oil in the US and keep the vast majority of the oil in the US, wouldn't that decrease the price? Let's get rid of OPEC and make a "NAPEC" (North American with Canada for example). Competition between another organization and OPEC would decrease prices.

If our US oil companies can drill for their own oil then wouldn't they not have to buy as much from foreign sources thus changing the equation of the cost of oil for these oil companies, and as a result, they are no longer tied to the world cost of oil.

 Granted none of this is a quick fix and we won't see anything anytime soon. But if we had started something just 3 or 4 years ago when we first saw signs of oil problems, we'd be ahead of the curve today.

Meanwhile, we search for alternative fuels that aren't based on crops that can be destroyed in a flood.

Jordan .

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

I thought we believed in free trade on the Gazette.

A commodity like oil will always trade on world markets.  Why would US oil companies choose to sell product at a low domestic price when they can get a higher price outside of the country.  And, as Danwhy points out, most of the US oil needs will continue to be met by non-US production.  I suppose we could subsidize oil like China does, but I doubt anyone wants to go in that direction.

Whatever happened to the American Spirit?

 Whatever happened to the United States?

 All I see is deception and submission (all in good humor of course) 

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

I'm just proposing a possibility that could create a scenario where we could remove our dependence on OPEC oil by creating a NAFTA version for oil.

there's nothing that says we can't find our own oil and KEEP our own oil for ourselves, or more importantly AND BETTER option, create a free trade oil agreement with Canada and others and kick OPEC and other countries out of the equation. It creates competition which will drive all oil prices down.

If we can increase oil supply and create more competition in the oil world arena, prices will fall because we no longer have to rely on OPEC having such a huge say on supply and price.

But let me go back to what B said - bringing more oil into the supply won't change much. So B, what is the real reason for the rise in oil prices? Gas companies? I don't think so because they still are making the same profit margin as before. OPEC? Possibly. Future Traders? do you know exactly? (because I don't 100% know)

Jordan .

The first oil event was around 71? Anyway all gas pumps only went up to .99 at that time. After a slooow flatline for the economy thru the eighties we made cheap little less gas consuming cars that were outclassed by Japan and Europe. By 1994 the SUV sales began to ramp as gas was once again cheap. I'd use new tech,environment easy equipment and processes. Hey we are animals on the planet too. We need oil and gas now and for the next three years and more fossil feul is our bridge. And I disagree with D that more US domestic supply will increase gas and oil prices. 

27 years ago ALL new off shore oil extraction-AND any rearch, just search for oil possibilities on the cont. shelfs and east gulf coast was outlawed. And Anwar that Jimmie Carter envisioned as a future source for oil ! So Is there a downside to an off shore and on shore recovery of fossil feul? Yes. There is always a trade off. The downside to asking all the other countries to produce more is one sided and keeps our resources dead-not helping us at all. 

Heck, I will accept the dividends and stock appreciation I have had for the last 8 months in nat gas and oil. So, I am insured for now on feul prices plus with serious gains. I have also done well with fertilizer companies. But I would prefer to invest/trade other industries and US oil and gas drilling will IMO lead to seriously reduced gas and oil prices which are good for everyone. I'd be happy to sell most of my gas/oil holdings knowing the whole economy is in better shape.

I choose enegy needs over global changes for the time being. Now , I don't want oil rigs off the beach in Miami !

It would be good to see reputable climate change folks inputting with the exploration companies.

Jordan .

We need a $300 million prize, umh, because no one is working on this now?  Because the multi-billion dollar free market opportunity out there now isn't enough?  Between this and the summertime gas tax holiday, I'm already tiring of McCain's cute little attention grabbing ideas that make no sense at all.

Jordan, I think the feeling is that additional current and anticipated demand from China and India has been the driver of higher fuel prices worldwide.  The problem is much greater in the US because of the weakness of the US dollar.

Those that can in the  rest of the world are offshore and onshore drilling. Like hand over money filled hand. Brazil has got it all. They had the unused not for popular crop land for ethanol without an empty stomach. And they located and are devleloping a huge off shore find as quickly as they can. All these countries are using advanced american technology. Note that with all the rampant worldwide drilling no story about a spill an explosion etc. Our technologies have advanced since the 70's. Not just in vid games.

The drilling is field tested by the other countries and we have not done one thing for thirty years.

Side light: I notice nuclear is not the automatic knee jerk worst word in the dictionary. Man, France and I believe Norway get over 75 % of their elec from reactors. I have heard of no problems since 3 mile harbor in which a big problem was minimized. And Chernobyl- hey those things must be built and maintained !! Built when in 1959? And maintained during the collapse of the Soviet Union. And no I wouldn't want a nuke site in my neighborhood.  :)

Note : Our good neighbors in Canada are massively developing and supplying oil with great success and no PAC or Caribou stopping them. The same all over the globe-but not here.

I will vote for pro environmentally safer modern methods of drilling. IMO the fight over the drilling has been muted by time and oil retreival technology.

B- your VP picks are good and you are correct that the demand is in large part due to China and India. I agree the weak US dollar figures in too. I mentioned futures trading as just one minor area where for as little as 5% down to cover a futures trade the speculators are able to have some effect on price. Yes, pensions etc. have commodities inc. oil and that is fine.They are not would be manipulators or traders. Pension funds and the retired also own alot of Big Oil companies. So you hurt the oil industry it trickles down to pensions and the income of old people as a side effect.

Don't drill there in the U.S. Raymond.  Let us do the offshore oil work for you here in Scotland, leading to the inevitable independence from the U.K., and we can live fat and sassy for the next 50 years with a comfortable state welfare system like Norway.

As far as I can tell, I'm being serious. 

First any program that benefits Scotland is a good thing in my book. Hero, the US asks Saudi Arabia and other oil/gas exporters to increase the supply of their valuable resources, while the US does next to nothing to add to the US and therefor world oil supply.With advanced environmentally conscious procurement I believe the US should reap it's supply !! Cuba is drilling 45 miles off Key West, Florida.

Off Topic: I appreciated your friend Log Weasel's comprehensive explanation of the Scotland/Great Britain situation and possible moves towards more independence a while ago. I felt a tad more educated and had a great breakfast discussion on the subject with an old English gent. Log took the time to show me the situation, rated the possibilities of changes as reading of media articles did not,that was cool of her to do that. She could write on the subject and run circles around the " professionals".

In the same way that Nietzsche said he wanted to do 'philosophy with a hammer', I think the Weasel does 'politics with a laser beam.'

So....election anyone?  Still no prediction from me.  Unable...to feel.....zeitgeist. 

I just don't get it right now either Hero.  A big part of me feels that even though people in polls say race doesn't matter that in fact they simply won't vote for Obama for race reasons when the time comes so I'm thinking it could be JM.  I've been known to be wrong, don't make any wagers based on my prognostication.

It may just come down to who puts their foot in their mouth the farthest.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

I don't think McCain can win.

That's the way I feel today.

The polls at this stage are pretty meaningless and subject to a lot of fluctuation. Republicans are (I think I can safely speak for the group even as a whole) pretty uninspired by McCain, even those of us who voted for him in the 2000 primary. Lotsa water under the bridge since then.

Although I disagree with much of Obama's spoken campaign promises to date, I always believe a rational person will come to their senses when/if reality slaps them and a program enacted is shown to be a failure. It's all about adjustments.

I have not decided as of this moment which of them I'll vote for. Although once announced, the VP slots become a bit of a tipping incident one way or another, soon we become accustomed to the pick and VP candidates don't matter too terribly much.  If it's not a Clinton.  And we all know it will NOT be a Clinton.

Then there are the debates. These could influence me greatly. But it is John McCain who has the ground to gain in order to receive my vote. And everyday I find him less and less appealing. Made for the Senate, if you ask me. And that's another Obama plus -- he's only spent a short time in the Compromise Chambers.

If I had to place my twenty-spot wager today, I'd go with BO.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Would anyone object to Kathleen Sebelius (sp?) as Obama's running mate?  If so, why?  From my position of almost total ignorance, it seems like the right choice to me.

The most I ever saw of her was Jon Stewart ripping apart her response to the State of the Union for being boring.  But following the primaries as closely as I did, I note that she was a very early prominent Obama supporter.  

I would object, Hero!  That would mean a woman would be a heartbeat away from the presidency!  (let's not forget 1968 either...)

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I wouldn't! That means we would probably get a KS governor with an R behind her/his name. :-)

She'd be really great for the VP slot, I think. She's been a pretty decent KS gov minus a few minor issues, IMO. One of our local talk guys suggested that she might be the pick a couple of months ago because she's been a HUGE Obama cheerleader.

Jordan .

Okay, here's my prediction:

Obama wins with Kerry states plus Ohio, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada.

Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, the Dakotas, Florida etc. all stay red.