McCain: States should set fuel efficiency marks

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

Sen. John McCain said this morning that states should be able to determine their own fuel efficiency standards.

The policy, which a dozen states are pushing, is strongly opposed by the domestic auto industry as a job-killing proposal that would seriously harm the industry.

McCain made his remarks before an audience of about 500 General Motors employees in Warren.

"It's hard for me to tell states that they can't impose whatever standards they decide to impose," McCain said. "I want to see Rick (Wagoner, GM's CEO) sit down with the governor's and ask them what they need."

Wagoner said after the meeting that the company would prefer a national standard rather than state-by-state standards.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-18-candidates_N.htm

---

Now that's stupid McBush! Even GM's CEO doesn't want this! You Repukes f'ed away nearly 30 years! It's stupid that many vehicles today have mpg's that are no better than gas-guzzlers in the 70's. It's simpler to produce vehicles that meet the standards in the nation, not individual states.

[NightWatcher]

1. 29 years and 3 days since Carter said the SAME FUCKING THING, you War Pig

[hatrack]

2. So, mileage standards should be set by states, but NOT air quality standards?

:wtf:

[Texano78704]

17. Exactly!

BushCo helped kill California's proposed zero emission standard as well as their current standards.

[Captain Hilts]

3. It's a GLOBAL oil market you idiot! What a stupid thing to say.

What happens in one state affects all states, and the global market.

[razors edge]

4. It's a global arms market too.

Do you support no state having the right to legislate firearms outside the federal regulations?

[Captain Hilts]

6. Arms sales and petroleum sales do not have comparable market patterns. nt

[tridim]

5. What does he think about states deciding other important issues..

Like medical Cannabis, and Gay marriage?

I assume he believes we can't be trusted with those issues.

[Indenturedebtor]

8. Don't worry they'll be a policy retraction soon

This is the McBush Camp's response to Obama's actual "straight talk" to the auto industry heh.

[harun]

22. I completely agree. Not in a million years would McBush's donors

allow states to pick their own mileage standards.

[hendo]

11. I actually think

he spoke out saying gay marriage was an issue for the states to decide. In fact, he called a "gay marriage ban" ammendment, "un republican", saying, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/


and thats older, but check out this: http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=19589
"McCain Won’t Oppose Gay Marriage, Because He’s a Republican"
"In an interview published on Sunday in The New York Times, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain made his feelings clear about gays and lesbians adopting children—he’s totally against it. However, he stated the subject of gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, not the federal government and he won’t attempt to overturn same-sex marriage in California if elected."

and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&sq=mccain%20gay%20marriage&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=3&adxnnlx=1216400649-Iv8Br3ji7jOLMcGzCM2KPw#

"Many social conservatives strenuously oppose California’s decision to allow same-sex marriage. But Mr. McCain, who also opposes same-sex marriage, has always said that the issue is up to the states, and in the interview he said he would stick to that position as president even if California chose to continue allowing gay marriage after putting the matter to a statewide vote in November. “I respect the right of the states to make those decisions,” he said."

[Indenturedebtor]

26. Huh that's surprising. Maybe one of his 3 remaining marbles has a conviction about something inside

Who'd a'thunkit :shrug:

[hendo]

32. yeah

he may be a nut, but every so often he has a decent idea. We should at least recognize that, even if we do not agree with the reason for his decisions, or with any of his other stances.

Reward him when he is good, maybe he will be good more often.

[hendo]

7. Think about it

After a while all auto manufacturers would have to build cars that were up to California's high standards. This could lead to more fuel efficient cars almost over night.

[MindMatter]

9. With each passing day, it is more obvious Gen. Clark was right

McCain is not a smart person. He is not a leader. He doesn't understand the most basic issues. The only thing he has had working for him is the sympathy and associated national guilt trip about his captivity in 'Nam. We can all respect that, but as Clark said, that does not quality a person for the most important job in the world.

Maybe it DIS-qualifies a person for the job.

[phantom power]

10. Except when CA sets a zero-emissions goal. Then it's *bad*!!!

[iamjoy]

12. That's Stupid

For one, it's passing the buck. The federal government is too lazy or disorganized to do anything, so we are going to foist the responsibility on to the states.

But, let's say one state passed a law requiring higher fuel efficiency standards on every car sold in the state. People would just drive across the border to a neighboring state and buy a car. No state wants to give up that tax revenue.

If some states have it and other don't, auto manufacturers will not switch over their production lines appropriately, which could drive the cost up on fuel efficient vehicles for everyone.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Well, except the states likely to lead the way are the big ones

especially CA.

When they put something like this in place, sheer numbers will pretty much dictate that automakers start getting serious. It won't be cost-effective to make more efficient cars only for CA, and there you go: what the federal gov't - and both parties - have been unwilling to do over years and years.

I say if a state is willing to lower the boom, good on them. Someone has to force this issue. Should have been done decades ago.

[iamjoy]

28. It's Still Passing The Buck

it's the federal government avoiding responsibility under the guise of "state's rights"

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Sure. But isn't it more important to get something done

than to worry about passing the buck?

We've been at this since Carter's administration, and the big automakers and oil companies have our gov't - Dem. and Rep. in a headlock on the issue. If this is what it takes, then I'm all for it.

I don't think this is one of those situations where we're dealing with critical Constitutional issues - like civil rights. Let's just get the damned mileage requirements way up and soon!

[BearSquirrel2]

13. I predict a flip flop coming ...

Sounds like McCain was shooting from the him again. There will be meetings and McCain will "clarify" his policy stance.

[Tempest]

15. He'll tell the auto executives just the opposite

Since they are strongly opposed to it.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

14. So manufacturers could conceivably have several versions of each model ...

... to sell in states, based on each state's own bottom-line standard? Sounds like a lot of law suits to me (cheaper to pay an army of lawyers to file petitions than re-tool the factories), which will delay everything a decade or two.

With $4 per gallon gas, I don't think it is a real issue, anyway. Dealers are near the point where they have to stack SUVs on one another. Purchasers are waking up (finally) to the reality of gas prices from here on out. A few more quarters like this one and we will see auto manufacturing management scrambling to meet the demand for fuel efficient cars. We saw it in the '70s.

[awoke_in_2003]

21. Only thing is

if we ever get the speculation under control, and the price drops, we will do just what we did in the 70's- go back to business as usual.

[redqueen]

16. Is he kidding?

He can't really be that stupid, can he?

Are his advisors secretly working for Mitt? Ron Paul perhaps?

[Historic NY]

18. Just what we need 50 seperate standards.....

the cost per vehicle would be crazy.

[harun]

23. The industry would be forced to simply make all their vehicles match

the standards of the most strict state. I actually disagree with the states setting it but the problem is the Federal Gov't is bought and paid for by Detroit and big oil. So it won't set good standards. Letting states set it would be a good as a kick in the gut to Detroit and big oil but it will NEVER happen. McCain is bluffing on this and there will be a retraction shortly on what he "really" meant.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. I brought this up the other day

the fact that republicans love to talk about "states' rights". Yeah, they believe in them, except for when it comes to marijuana and gay marriage.

[harun]

24. They believe in "states" rights only for racists rights

When it comes to regulation of any other kind for the states they are against it.

[SteelPenguin]

20. Brilliant! I support this move!

then we just push through a bill in California requiring sane and incredibly high fuel efficiency standards, and then ALL our cars wil have to be made that way. That's why GM doesn't like it.

[damntexdem]

27. Oh, how smart: an international industry to be ruled by state standards.

Concern for the nation's companies that are hurting in competition in the international market, to be addressed by individual states.

California has tried to uphold higher standards for years, but that hasn't changed the idiocies of Detroit.

At least McCain told the truth when he said he didn't understand economics. But this shows that he doesn't understand anything about business, markets, nor the environment.

[excess_3]

30. states can 'fine tune' the numbers for local conditions .n/t

[Canuckistanian]

31. Didn't McCain vote AGAINST tougher CAFE standards?

Why, yes. He did:

Although John McCain has supported CAFE standards more than many Republicans, he has repeatedly opposed the toughest standards.

Here are three votes against such standards as cited by the Obama campaign:

2005: McCain Voted Against Increasing CAFE Standards. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate phased increases in CAFE standards. Passenger vehicles made before 2008 would have to average 25 miles per gallon, and the standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2016. By model year 2016, the standard would rise to an average of 27.5 miles per gallon. The amendment failed 28-67. <2005 Senate Vote 157, 6/23/05>

2003: McCain Voted Against Raising CAFE Standards. In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate an increase in CAFE standards. Passenger vehicles made before 2006 would have to average 25 miles per gallon. After that, the standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2015. Non-passenger vehicles made before 2006 would have to average 17 miles per gallon. By model year 2015, they would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon. The amendment failed 32-65. <2003 Senate Vote #309, 7/29/2003>

2002: McCain Voted Against Directing The NHTSA To Set A New CAFE Standard Within 15 Months. McCain voted against passage of a bill that would overhaul the nation’s energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would encourage the use of alternative energy and require utilities to increase their reliance on renewable fuels. <2002 Senate Vote #94, 4/25/2002>

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccains-opposit.html