Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Jindal says he won't run for POTUS in 2012

Obama will win in 2012 (regardless who runs against him). I'd be willing to bet money on it. Jindal would be smart to wait for 2016.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Jindal says he won't run for POTUS in 2012

Obama will win in 2012 (regardless who runs against him). I'd be willing to bet money on it. Jindal would be smart to wait for 2016.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Jindal says he won't run for POTUS in 2012

Obama will win in 2012 (regardless who runs against him). I'd be willing to bet money on it. Jindal would be smart to wait for 2016.

President Mario Cuomo likes the way you think.

dajafi wrote:I'd like to think that Jindal's priority is doing a good job in Louisiana--a state with a lot of needs, I understand--rather than how best to position himself for a future national run. In fact, one could argue that the biggest reason to pull himself out of the 2012 conversation now is so people will stop $#@! asking him and let him focus on the job at hand.

Probably this is laughably naive on my part.

gr wrote:i think it's a bit early to say obama will win in 2012. just sayin.

jerseyhoya wrote:As to the bigger issue of taking your shot or waiting, I think you look at Cuomo 1992 and Obama 2008 as two prime examples of taking your shot when you can. Bush looked unbeatable 18 months out, and so did Hillary. One guy waited and ended up losing his reelection race somewhat pathetically. One guy took his shot and won. I imagine there are counterexamples of people who ran too early and never got back (Edwards? But would he have even won reelection to the Senate in 2004?) But really, if you have a window, and you want the job, take your chance.

Werthless wrote:

gr wrote:i think it's a bit early to say obama will win in 2012. just sayin.

His youth, personality, the terrible economy he's inheriting, and the recent success of incumbents makes it a good bet.

Mr. Jackson was described in an affidavit filed in (governor) Blagojevich's arrest as one of at least six people being considered by the governor to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s unfinished term in the United States Senate in exchange for money or a (high-paying job for Blagojevich or his wife).
...

Of those alluded to, the affidavit’s implications seemed especially troubling for Mr. Jackson, or Senate Candidate Five. According to the document, Mr. Blagojevich told advisers last Thursday that he was giving Mr. Jackson "greater consideration" to replace Mr. Obama because Mr. Jackson would raise money for him, "upfront, maybe."

"We were approached, pay to play," Mr. Blagojevich was recorded telling his advisers. "That, you know, he would raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him a senator."

The tragedy of GM and Ford is that, inside each, are perfectly viable businesses, albeit that have been slowly murdered over 30 years by CAFE. Both have decent global operations. At home, both have successful, profitable businesses selling pickups, SUVs and other larger vehicles to willing consumers, despite having to pay high UAW wages.

All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don't want in high-cost UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. In the U.S., except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren't bought for high mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.

Under a law of politics, such truths were unmentionable in last week's televised circus because legislators are unwilling to do anything about them. They won't repeal CAFE because they fear the greens. They won't repeal CAFE's "two fleets" rule (which effectively requires the Big Three to make small cars in domestic factories) because they fear the UAW. They won't hike gas prices because they fear voters.

If saving gasoline and Detroit are both worthy goals, let's ditch CAFE and institute a gasoline tax to make consumers value the cars government is forcing auto makers to build. If Congress doesn't have the tummy for that, at least ditch the "two fleets" rule so Detroit can import small cars to meet the mandate.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not CAFE standards, it's the fact (conveniently ignored in the face of sub-$2 gas) that when gas prices spiked, people stopped buying enormo vehicles. And it isn't as if the demand for those vehicles came out of thin air--it was a conscious decision on the part of the Big three to create demand for such vehicles, because they could be imports when it came to SUVs and trucks.

Now, I'm against CAFE standards, because they're a dumb way to encourage fuel efficiency. (Increasing the federal tax on gasoline will do the same thing much more efficiently.) But they've been so weak that they are largely irrelevant anyway.

Japanese manufacturers are in big trouble right now as well--nobody is buying their cars either. The difference is they don't have the same legacy costs as the big three.

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not CAFE standards, it's the fact (conveniently ignored in the face of sub-$2 gas) that when gas prices spiked, people stopped buying enormo vehicles. And it isn't as if the demand for those vehicles came out of thin air--it was a conscious decision on the part of the Big three to create demand for such vehicles, because they could be imports when it came to SUVs and trucks.

Now, I'm against CAFE standards, because they're a dumb way to encourage fuel efficiency. (Increasing the federal tax on gasoline will do the same thing much more efficiently.) But they've been so weak that they are largely irrelevant anyway.

Japanese manufacturers are in big trouble right now as well--nobody is buying their cars either. The difference is they don't have the same legacy costs as the big three.

The public has no understanding of the gasoline tax. that's why it's still so low, and that's why you don't see any talk of it being raised on federal or state levels. it's easier to sell standards than taxes.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not CAFE standards, it's the fact (conveniently ignored in the face of sub-$2 gas) that when gas prices spiked, people stopped buying enormo vehicles. And it isn't as if the demand for those vehicles came out of thin air--it was a conscious decision on the part of the Big three to create demand for such vehicles, because they could be imports when it came to SUVs and trucks.

Now, I'm against CAFE standards, because they're a dumb way to encourage fuel efficiency. (Increasing the federal tax on gasoline will do the same thing much more efficiently.) But they've been so weak that they are largely irrelevant anyway.

Japanese manufacturers are in big trouble right now as well--nobody is buying their cars either. The difference is they don't have the same legacy costs as the big three.

In Europe there are 2,000 models available with 30 mpg or more, and three dozen with the mpg of a Prius, but the U.S. government blocks their import.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Now, I'm against CAFE standards, because they're a dumb way to encourage fuel efficiency. (Increasing the federal tax on gasoline will do the same thing much more efficiently.) But they've been so weak that they are largely irrelevant anyway.

The public has no understanding of the gasoline tax. that's why it's still so low, and that's why you don't see any talk of it being raised on federal or state levels. it's easier to sell standards than taxes.

Oh I understand why the preferred political tool is CAFE rather than a Gas tax, but it's still dumb.