is a primary example. That edge cutting through the honest way to ask questions based on facts, not skewed opinions, and misleading statements, with just a grain of truth as the basis for the question.
No wonder Obama favoring respondents didn't answer the way Zogby poll or Zielglar believed they should have answered. The questions were based on inaccurate portrayals of Obama speeches and statements.
Go back and revisit Obama videos and obtain transcripts. Use factcheck.org and politifact.com to check the poll's line of questioning.
On the assertion in the question 'his energy policies would bankrupt the coal industry.'
No wonder respondents didn't answer the way pollsters wanted.
Obama was speaking of his overall energy policy. He clearly explained his policy of a cap and trade system. He allowed a coal company could go ahead and build a new power plant - without regard for new greenhouse gas emissions standards and an Obama favored cap-and-trade policy - and if ignoring such - the fines for non-compliance would bankrupt them.
What is striking is how the conservative media has takien all out of context of Obama's overall energy policy which doesn't seek to bankrupt any coal industry that is in compliance with standards, and engaging in the cap and trade system, but does seek to curb what has been admitted by conservatives as Bush and McCain and Palin - existence of pollution and greenhouse gasses caused by the production of coal!
Maybe McCain's policy would have been different, but the recognition for clean coal vs unclean coal and some standards for curbing pollution and greenhouse gasses are going to have to be applied in any new administration.
the wording of the poll question is based on the conservative interpretation of what Obama said and not a neutral portrayal of what Obama stated, clearly stated.
Unfortunately, most of the sites which feature the video of the SF Chronicle interview make their own skewed interpretation prominent.
Just look at what Obama said before and after, in total. Tyler 09 gives an important summary worth a read as well. tyler also reference Political Punch which includes more of the transcript than otherwise obtained.
http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
The SF Chronicle notes the audio and video of the interview have been available all along.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?blogid=42&entry_id=23562
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2008/11/02/shocking-audio-obama-said-he-will-bankrupt-the-coal-industry/
http://www.shopfloor.org/index.php?s=coal+obama+chronicle
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/03/video-of-obama-coal-bankruptcy/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-well-bankrupt-any-new-coal-plants/
Obama began his political by attending a range of coffee clatches or gatherings in the homes of his supporters, among which were the Bill Ayers couple, who have been reported as members of the Weather Underground. So wording the question as if Obama began his campaign for state office in only the home of the Ayers is misleading. That question is misleading as well even though it uses the wording 'former members of the Weather Underground' Obama has claimed he was not aware at that time of Ayers connection with the Weather Underground. He addressed he became aware of such sometime in the 90s.
Net the Truth Online
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
"Pal Around"
The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:
Palin, Oct. 5: Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.
She's repeated the charge again and again at different campaign stops since then, citing the Times. What the Times article actually says, however, is this: "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers." The Times says its review of documents and interviews with key players "suggest" that Obama "has played down his contacts with Ayers," but describes their paths as having crossed "sporadically" since their first meeting in 1995.
And far from palling around with Ayers, the two haven't spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the Senate in January 2005, according to an Obama spokesman. He said the two last saw each other more than a year ago, when they accidentally met on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.
Obama addressed Palin's claim on Oct. 8, when questioned by ABC News' Charlie Gibson:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Tyler 09
Full Quote Here: Political Punch
Quote:
But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.
-Apparently he does know what he's talking about, Mr Payne
Quote:
But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”
The line that "under my plan, energy rates will skyrocket" does not mean that energy will cost more for everybody. That is just a, for lack of a better word, misleading thing to say.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/591878-how-obama-will-discourage-new-coal-plant-construction.html
No comments:
Post a Comment