Campaigns/Elections

Are Science Geeks the New Soccer Moms?

|

science

A little science for you on this fine (indeed, Super) Tuesday: The New York Times' always-correct, always-reliable John Tierney has a great wrap-up on where the candidates stand on various science-related issues.

All the candidates support more R&D (surprise, surprise) and more reliance on biofuels (yes, ethanol's appeal extends even after the Iowa caucuses). None of the candidates endorse my favorite policy, a carbon tax. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do support another approach favored by economists, a cap-and-trade system. They both also support an array of other subsidies and mandates ( many of which remind me of the boondoggles of the plans in the 1970s and 1980s that were supposed to lead us to "energy independence.") Mrs. Clinton's plan calls a doubling of money for basic energy research a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund financed in part by oil companies. Mr. Obama's plan calls for $150 billion to be spent over 10 years but doesn't say how it will be financed.

Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Romney, explicitly supports a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions. Both of the Republican candidates acknowledge that global warming is a problem but are less specific than the Democrats in saying what they'll do about it. They do, however, look to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by more reliance on nuclear power, a form of energy that is conspicuously absent in the Democrats' list of promises.

For more, including health care and InTrade elections futures markets, read the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: West Virginia is Romney Country (Almost) Huckabee Country

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are Science Geeks the New NASCAR Dads?

  2. many of which remind me of the boondoggles of the plans in the 1970s and 1980s that were supposed to lead us to “energy independence”

    These failed not because they were boondoggles but because gas got cheap and funding got cut for them. I’m not saying they were the right way to go, but lets attribute the failure appropriately.

  3. Are science geeks the new sex symbols?

  4. Mo- one could argue that it is inherent to government-run programs that they will be directed towards objectives that do not stick around to be met. This is one major aspect of the whole argument that government operations are not agile. Of course, this happens privately too sometimes.

  5. I was pretty relieved to read that both Barack and Hillary propose a cap and trade system in which all credits are auctioned. I was a bit worried that in the near future we’d be facing an unprecedented new business-government alliance in the form of free carbon credits to favored companies. (I do suspect somehow gasoline and diesel will escape equal taxation anyway, however.)

  6. Ventifact – You really have to love the increases in corporatism coming from the democrat’s policies, don’t you? At the very least it makes for amusing irony. Plus you get to watch them later blame corporations for all our problems – like Edwards… Sweet.

  7. What about Security Moms, Episiarch?

    Are Science Geeks the new Security Moms?

  8. Indeed, Sean. NPR did a good piece last week (?) about Hillary’s “35 years of experience.” They very pointedly noted that the first big chunk of her “experience” was providing legal representation for large corporations. (Not that I have anything against that kind of work per se, just that it’s not what most Dem voters think of as proud years of “experience” for a public servant.)

  9. NPR did a good piece last week (?) about Hillary’s “35 years of experience.”

    I have been asking for months just what experience she has that is relevant to being President. I have yet to get an answer.

    The implication, of course, is that as irst lady she was co-president. But the Clintons spent the last 6 years of Bill’s term (post the national health care fiasco) assuring us that was not the case.

  10. If Scooter Libby wasn’t a convicted felon, would his time in the White House count as relevant experience?

    Hillary was a top presidential advisor. She didn’t spend eight years hosting dinners and heading up church-lady good work ventures (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

    So I’d count her eight years in the White House as relevant experience. The question is how much to count it.

  11. I have been asking for months just what experience she has that is relevant to being President. I have yet to get an answer.

    Yeah, I know what you mean. Apparently working as an attorney for large businesses, being someone’s spouse, and then having rich aristocrat friends buying you a mansion in a state you’ve never lived in so you can become its senator qualifies as respectable experience. Well, like I said, it was nice to hear NPR be explicitly critical about all that.

    The thing for me is that of course she’s an extremely accomplished person. Her accomplishments just don’t quite seem genuine. E.g.: how did she end up being “from” New York?

  12. how did she end up being “from” New York?

    Look at it this way, Nebraska had as congressman, former Husker football coach, Tom Osborne… Osborne’s congressional seat was from way out in the sticks, Western Nebraska (3rd Dist.) He’d never lived there either – but because everyone loved him so much in that part of the state (and everywhere else), they didn’t mind that he wasn’t from there nor had any legitimate political experience. Hillary works the same way in New York.

    I don’t think I’d count the 8 years as first lady. She may have been a “close advisor”, but she had none of the responsibilities that fall on the hired advisors shoulders and none of the blame… except for the political blame for Hillary-care. I am honestly rather shocked anyone even remotely trusts that woman. She is so damned shady…

  13. Wait. Science geeks aren’t the new MILFs, are they? Because that would be confusing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.