Hundreds of conservatives should show at every one of her book signings and bring up the subject of her abandoning the American people. If you can't get in, carry a sign and protest outside each event. If the price of admission is buying a book, buy it and after you question her pi** on it and put it in the garbage.

I'm going to play the cynic here. And believe me, it brings me no pleasure. But to listen to to the words being spoken here, it's easy to get caught up in the wave. The question is - will they follow through with an aggressive pursuit of alternative and renewable energy, or will they get all complacent once they've achieved the short term goal of using what oil and gas we have available domestically? All for political gain. It's been a few years since I felt I could defend the Republicans without highlighting the alternative.

This is their chance. I don't want them to blow it.

Obama is right!

According to time magazine Obama was correct in stating that by inflating tires properly we would save more gas oil then new offshore drilling would produce!

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

And the best part is we do not have to wait 10 years and it would reduce CO2 emmisions!

The Republican Congressional Plan to Decrease Oil Prices: Focus on increasing the supply of oil.

The Democratic Congressional Plan to Decrease Oil Prices: Focus on reducing the demand for oil.

Note that while the Democratic Plan is basically ongoing, the Republican Plan only kicks into gear when oil prices go up notably over a short period. Note too that the Democratic Plan is augmented by going after record oil-company profits (to return some of these to the people), and that the Democratic Plan diminishes harm done to the environment.

Oyster -

I think once gas drops to below $3 a gallon, we're going to probably dump a lot of government-funded alternative energy development. It's very short-sighted, but it's typical - after all, you have to have money to promise the people who got you into office, and $250 million bridges to nowhere don't finance themselves, ya know...

By the way - I think this will happen whether there's a Democrat OR a Republican in the White House, and whether Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

Getting alternative energy up and running on the government dime is always going to be iffy for several reasons. First - there's a desire to draw the program out as long as possible. The longer you take, the more money you get. So things like fusion become long-term PhD jobs programs, who don't ACTUALLY have to come up with something workable - just something plausible that can be used to insure funding.

Second, the attention span of the voter is pretty short and there's ALWAYS some new problem coming along that needs money thrown at it. Energy's on the back burner? Oil's down low? Cut funding to alternatives, and toss it at the cause du jour!

Third - there is NEVER enough money to fund everything in the federal budget. Even if tax revenues rose to cover the deficit, the same band of Beltway Bozos will EAGERLY raise spending to compensate.

No, I think the alternative energy sources will have to come from the civilian sector. THEY, at least, are used to the idea of actually producing workable results in order to get paid.

Dave:

Obama (and apparently you) don't quite "get" why we're making fun of him about the air pressure thing, so let me explain it to you:

The article DOESN'T say that EVERY DRIVER would save 3% if they checked the pressure, and 5% if they properly maintained it... it says that it could save A driver 3% or 5% - that ASSUMES that a vehicle needs attention to begin with.

I notice things on vehicles when I'm on my bike. I have a 2nd job as a motorcycle safety instructor, and I am very hypervigilant when it comes to noticing cars and their condition, and what the drivers are doing etc, because when I'm riding, cars present the most danger to me. In my observations, I've noticed maybe 1 in 20 cars with one low tire. What the article is saying is that on that 1 out of 20 cars that they could save up to 3% of fuel if they aired up. Sometimes I see a car that's obviously running poorly, and maybe even belching smoke. That's likely to be the worst case scenario for poor mileage.

If you take your vehicle into to "jiffy lube" (or whatever quick lube place you have in your neck of the woods) once every 3 months, for generally less than about $30 they will change your oil and check your tire pressure, and let you know if there is something majorly wrong with your vehicle or if it needs service according to the manufacturer. I would imagine that there are some dirtbags out there who treat their cars like crap and drive them into the ground who would probably save 8% on their fuel bill - but that's not everyone.

The problem with politicians (Democrats and Republicans) is that many of them want to tell the American people what to do and how to think. Their REAL job is to listen to the American people tell them what to do and how to think.

Their REAL job is to listen to the American people tell them what to do and how to think.

lead-er: a person who guides or inspires others

I've noticed maybe 1 in 20 cars with one low tire.

According to a government study the figure is 27% not the 5% you observed.

Tire Pressure Special Study

The article DOESN'T say that EVERY DRIVER would save 3% if they checked the pressure, and 5% if they properly maintained it... it says that it could save A driver 3% or 5% - that ASSUMES that a vehicle needs attention to begin with.

The article takes that into consideration,

"Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right. "

So, can you tell me again why you are making fun of him?

I keep waiting for the "Hey lead foot get off the gas!" and the Indian chief with the tear running down his cheek commercials to be revived.

Anyway, Brian said:

Their REAL job is to listen to the American people tell them what to do and how to think.

lead-er: a person who guides or inspires others

Brian, in this case, the leaders to whom we're referring are ELECTED OFFICIALS. *THEY* are supposed to be working for us, not the other way around. *WE* pay their salaries. *WE* pay their mortgages. *WE* pay their car payments. *WE* buy their gas. So, yeah, THEY WORK FOR US and if they want to continue to work for us, then they are to be listening to us.

Dave, If the study is accepted at face value, and 27% of autos have at least one underinflated tire, and we assume that every one of them will save 5%, we then get a net savings of slightly over 1% nationwide. Given the generous assumptions, that's a very small amount of savings.

I think a four-day work & school week would be a viable answer, as would bringing back the old "blue laws" that prevented most businesses from opening on Sunday. A slight inconvenience (buying one's football-party supplies on Saturday, for instance), but that sort of thing has potential for pushing usage down by around 20%, maybe more.

If there were a shotgun-style attack on the problem, to include measures to decrease demand while aggressively seeking to increase supply that we control, I don't think any right-thinking person would object. Unfortunately, that's not what B.O. is suggesting.

What do you suggest would be wrong with conserving AND drilling, Dave (and others)?

Jamie -

Re blue laws - I think you're simply shifting the 20% to other days of the week, not eliminating it.

Conservation AND drilling? Works for me - but not, apparently, for Pelosi and crew.

Dave -

"So, can you tell me again why you are making fun of him?"

Because it's easy, appropriate and fun. The guy's a clueless shell, spouting what sounds good AT THE MOMENT, and he's got no thought at all for what comes next.

And if he can't stand having fun poked at him, he doesn't have a thick enough skin to be President. Or is the entire world supposed to go easy on him, because "He Is Obama!"?

It's a funny thing - 8 years of the left constantly making fun of Bush just doesn't make me feel all that willing to give Obama a pass when he's MUCH more 'articulation-challenged' and stupidly clueless than Bush ever was.

I'm a little baffled. Can someone clear this up for me.

It's wrong for the government to tell people what to do. Therefore the government should not recomend that people properly inflate their tires.

However, it's OK for the governments to force states to allow oil companies to set up oil rigs along their coast line?

Dave - "Obama is right!"

Ans so... Obama and Time mag tagging along behind him are just restating something that has been WELL KNOWN for decades.

The point of The Chuckle is this... the Gov mandates seat belt usage does everyone use them? They govern how much you drink and are legally able to drive yet their are 10's of thousands of drunk driving arrests every year.

Do you HONESTLY think the average American who isn't already diligent about auto maintenance will take ObamaMessiah's "suggestion" on tire pressure will be heeded?

If you do... slowly back away from the Kool-Aid pitcher. It's led you to delusions of grandeur.

Dave, If the study is accepted at face value, and 27% of autos have at least one underinflated tire, and we assume that every one of them will save 5%, we then get a net savings of slightly over 1% nationwide. Given the generous assumptions, that's a very small amount of savings.

But that slightly over 1% would still be slightly more than the amount of oil produced by expanding offshore drilling.

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now.

Plus:

1. We don't have to wait 10-20 years
2. The $ saving go straight to the American people instead of the oil companies.
3. It won't cost anything to implement, as opposed to the billions it would cost to build the rigs.

Dave - "I'm a little baffled."

We noticed. ObamaMessiah will do that to ya!

Dave - "3. It won't cost anything to implement, as opposed to the billions it would cost to build the rigs."

Just what gov agency will drain their budget to fund the construction of oil rigs Dave?

Oh wait... silly me, their built and funded by private enterprise, i.e. "Big (evil) Oil" and have the potential to produce thousands of additional jobs for the U.S. economy plus subtract X amount from the oil we must now import from very unfriendly sources.

Marc,

If it's so clear to you then perhaps you can clear this up for me.

If both have the same net affect(1% reduction if oil consumtion verse 1% increase in production) why is it OK for the federal government to infringe on State Rights but wrong for Obama to ask citizens to voluntarily keep their tires properly inflated.

Dave... the single thing that is clear to me is you think it's the govs responsibility to fund oil drilling off the coastlines of the U.S.

Funny how you skipped right over your stated lunacy to query me on an unrelated subject.

However, considering your so insistent on getting the smackdown... here have at it.

It's called NATIONAL INTEREST!

A simple concept really and the same concept used by the gov to enforce what I suspect you would be in favor of a national 55mph speedlimit to lower consumption.

It's also the same concept in use when the national gov dictates to the states when and where interstate highways will be built and or repaired.

National interest, learned it... live it.

Now, answer my question: Just what gov agency will drain their budget to fund the construction of oil rigs?

Or will you now claim to having had a Homer Simpson moment and in fact are clueless? D'OH!

Just what gov agency will drain their budget to fund the construction of oil rigs Dave?

Oh wait... silly me, their built and funded by private enterprise, i.e. "Big (evil) Oil" and have the potential to produce thousands of additional jobs for the U.S. economy plus subtract X amount from the oil we must now import from very unfriendly sources.

Marc,

If the Oil companies have to spend billions to increase oil production by 1%, the cost will have to be passed down to consumers.

If automobile owners properly inflate their tires the savings go directly into the auto owners pockets.

Dave - "If the Oil companies have to spend billions to increase oil production by 1%, the cost will have to be passed down to consumers."

Oh dave, the gloves are off. You're a disingenuous nitwit.

And so? What cost of any products manufacture or production isn't passed on to consumers? Answer...none, up and including ObamaMessiah's "windfall tax" proposal on oil companies.

That aside your arguing over apples and oranges, one side is cost associated with oil production as opposed to a completely (presumably) voluntary effort on the part of comsumers to check tire pressures.

It's a BS comparisan and argement and one would hope you realize it rather than just being a lock-step ObamaMessiah lemming.

I doubt it though.

Marc,

You're missing the point. The point is that both conservation and an increase in production have the same affect in that they reduce our use of foreign oil by approximately the same amount. In this regards it's an apple to apple comparison.

Conservation has additional benefits:

1. We do not have to wait 10-20 years to feel the affect.

2. It results in extra cash in the consumers pocket.

3. It reduces CO2 emmisions.

I can understand someone supporting both conservation and an increase in production but it's just fool hearty to dismiss the benefits of conservation. Conservation should be the first step because its benefits would be imediately felt.

"but it's just fool hearty to dismiss the benefits of conservation."

You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?

Never said a single peep about conservation or lack thereof.

Go talk between yourself because your lost in ObamaMessiah's blather and attempting to assigned to me something I haven't broached in the slightest.

the liberal/leftist/socialist mindset:

"Everything that's wrong with the world is the result of something that other people are doing, so I want the government to step in and correct their behavior".

Before you get mad, tell me exactly why this isn't the case.

From what I understand, the dems are also up in arms because the republicans are doing things like sending out tire "Obama tire gauges". If what he said was so smart and insightful, then wouldn't doing that be helping Obama, not hurting him?

OK, lets talk about this tire pressure guage. Those pen shaped analog guages are virtually worthless, some being off by as much as 15 psi. An accurate digital guage is required, and those cost about $50 (and use batteries :O).

The numbers being thrown around here are ambiguous at best. The 27% number comes from a survey conducted in 2001 by the NHTSA. You can read the survey documents at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/

So, if you read the data 27% of 6,393 cars had at least 1 tire under inflated by 8psi or more. That is about 1726 cars, or $86,305.50 worth of digital air pressure guages. If those drivers increase their mileage by 3%, then they will have to burn 432.9 gallons of gas (or about 30 tanks) each (747,184 gallons total) on properly inflated tires before they break even on the purchase price of the guage. And they MUST check the pressure every morning, and if it's low they need to fire up their air compressor to fill up (which uses electricity). Or if they dont have an air compressor they have to make a stop at the gas station even though they don't need gas, thereby reducing their milage. And if they live too far away from the gas station they have to wait till their tire cool off because you MUST check you pressure on cold tires. Now, do you think they will sit in their car while they wait for their tires to cool? Some will, but they will idle their engines to run the AC if it's hot outside, or go inside and probably make some impulse purchases of soft drinks and candy bars which will only lead to increase medical costs.

You see where this is going. The reason we are making fun of the statement is that it's ridiculous and will not produce any real results.

Other numbers I've heard batted around lately are $11.7 billion Exxon profits. But they neglect to tell you that that was on an expenditure of $138 billion. Their profit was only 8.4% while their tax rate is around 47%! Exxon Mobile will pay almost $40 BILLION in taxes this year and that will be passed on to consumers!

Oh and while those well inflated drivers are burning almost 750,000 gallons of gas just to break even on their guage purchase, the Feds will collect about $430,000 in taxes on those gallons.

Get real, we need to drill here and drill now. OIL is a resource, but if you don't use it then you in effect don't have a resource. Alternative energy will make it's way to market once it is economically feasible and not a moment before.

Pelosi says it's not a supply problem but wants the pres to release oil from the strategic reserve to increase supply?!?

The oil reserves in Alaska belong to the people of Alaska, not the federal government. They should just drill anyway and let their governor call out their National Guard if the Feds object.

Read the Constitution because it's obvious you never have!

1 tire with 8 lbs low pressure probably isn't going to save 3% of gas mileage.

"The experts" are all saying it can save up to 3%, but that's some very specific circumstances. In a recent test, the savings was not noticeable:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/article.html

The reason that under inflating your tires doesn't affect your gas mileage that much is that when tires are under-inflated, they run hotter than than when at correct pressure. When the air inside gets warmed up, the pressure increases. As long as the tire is hot, the pressure will stay up. Running tires hot gives you more traction also - but tends to wear the tires out more quickly.