The Detroit Free Press (and just about every other media outlet on planet Earth) reports that U.S. presidential hopeful John Edwards wants you to surrender your SUV. Speaking at a forum sponsored by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Mr. Edwards said if he was emperor president he would order ask Americans to turn in give up their gas-guzzling SUVs and "drive more fuel-efficient vehicles." Of course, the millionaire friend of the working class didn't address the exodus' impact on the United Auto Workers, or how he might dispose of all these abandoned vehicles. On a related topic, Edwards defended his $6m energy-sucking 28,000-square-foot mansion by saying he's worked hard all his life and has always supported workers– especially those who built, clean and maintain his energy-sucking 28,000-square-foot mansion. (OK, I added that last part.) And all those people who worked hard to buy a gas-sucking SUV? Apparently, that's different.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
It’s so nice to see such a privileged wealthy southern hypocrit admit that he’s entitled and better than the rest of us (I wonder how many gas-sucking SUVs adorn his 12 car garage or various vacation homes across the world) or how many SUVs are in his motorcade or how many his personal hairdresser / makeup stylist owns in order to travel with our baby Kennedy look alike.
jaje :
I wonder how many gas-sucking SUVs adorn his 12 car garage or various vacation homes across the world
From FOXNews.com:
Edwards’ campaign concedes he does own a hybrid Ford Escape SUV, along with a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV, but says he uses that less often now.
It doesn’t say what if anything else he owns/drives.
Our reliance on coal burning electricity generation is a much bigger contributor to greenhouse emissions than SUV ownership – I would be much more interested to hear what Mr. Edwards has to say about it than his populist criticism of SUV drivers.
Between candidate Edwards and the Senator Craig fiasco…screenwriters couldn’t write stuff this unintentionally hilarious.
Worked hard all his life? He is an ambulance-chasing parasite who has the ability to charm 12 pretty-boy-adoring, idiot housewives on a jury into sucking the financial life out of corporate America…Then he became a taxpayer teat sucker. Yeah, hard work.
My wife and I own a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. I would gladly turn over my vehicle for a $30,000 tax credit.
I love the Jeep, but if the government is asking me to drive something else, they better have an economic incentive to get me into another vehicle.
How about taxing homeowners for every square foot of livable space above, say, 4000 square feet?
We all use energy, if the middle-class has to suffer, so should the upper-class.
-ted
Unbelievable. No wait, very believable. When will politicians quit knowing what’s best for all of us?
Speaking of coal, here’s a little story about coal and SUV’s:
Up in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming(where incidentally lie the greatest reserves of coal in the world) workers have to travel miles to get from town to the mines, often well over 100 miles round-trip. Several commercial operators have stepped in to provide efficient means of travel for the miners using none other than Chevrolet Suburbans. It’s more efficient to transport six passengers in a Sub than 1 passenger in any hybrid there is.
Just for grins, I do happen to work in the coal industry. I could go on and on, but I better open up my own website called The Truth About Coal.
Wait a sec, a contradiction from a politician? No way! Personally, I could care less if he builds himself a skyscraper to live in. But this type of extravagance negates him as the “green” choice. What a hypocrite.
I’m no fan of John “my daddy was a millworker” Edwards, but this has got to be the most overblown, out of context quote so far in this campaign. All the SUV-hating autobloggers are suddenly rushing to defend SUV’s from Edwards’ evil intent, when all he really did was point out the obvious: Americans are buying fewer SUV’s in response to higher gas prices, so clearly they are willing to make rational economic tradeoffs in the face of obvious incentives. Asking Americans to accept a gas tax is the only logical thing the government can do to legislate reduced fuel consumption, as has been pointed out many times on this site, so why exactly is everyone so worked up?
The whole thing does sound overblown. Edwards apparently made a generic statement that Americans should be asked to “drive more efficient vehicles.” When someone in the audience asked whether SUV’s were included on that not-so-efficient list, he responded in the affirmative.
The irony is that the rabid responses in the blogosphere to this fairly innocuous statement illustrate the need for more people to be making this statement. This collective ostrich routine, where we pretend that all of this excessive oil consumption doesn’t come with a high indirect price tag, needs to end at some point.
If Americans want to be stereotyped as a collective of overweight, resource sucking primadonnas, then having a tizzy over Edward’s comments is a good way to encourage it.
Maybe he should go a bit further, and connect the dots between being a gas guzzler and the byproduct of that behavior: If you want to drive a land yacht, no problem. You can pick it up at the dealership after you’ve done your combat tour in Iraq.
brownie:
Asking Americans to accept a gas tax is the only logical thing the government can do to legislate reduced fuel consumption, as has been pointed out many times on this site, so why exactly is everyone so worked up?
Because he isn’t “asking Americans to accept a gas tax.” He’s mandating what Americans can or can’t drive. From the article cited:
The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically whether he would tell them to give up their SUVs, and he said, “Yes.”
So as president, he would “tell” – not “ask” or “suggest” – Americans to give up SUVs? If he thinks the president has that kind of authority, he needs to retake a few classes in Constitutional Law.
Any politician who says he can “tell” the citizenry what they can or can’t drive is dangerous. What will he “tell” the American public they can’t own after that? Sports cars? Pickup trucks? More than one TV per household?
Thanks, but no thanks. I personally don’t like SUVs and think most of them are useless extravagances. However, I defend anyone’s right to own one if that’s the way they want to waste their money.
The last time I looked there’s nothing in the Constitution giving the president the power to mandate what citizens can own. We’ve already given up enough personal liberties in this country. Electing a politician who thinks he (or she) can “tell” us what to drive will only guarantee the loss of more.
Unless this comment was taken completely out of context, Edwards has lost a bunch of credibility with this one…
It is telling that all of the candidates jump on the SUV hating band wagon, but have little else to say on creative energy solutions. Sure, they’ll spew a bit about needing to be energy dependent, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. Haven’t heard anyone draw the line on traffic congestion (after all, if you’re getting 5 miles to a gallon or 50, it won’t matter if you’re in grid lock). All of these candidates are little more than media whores. Those defending them ought to think twice.
I guess its the same everywhere Here in the north we have a party on the far left,or loony left some say, called the N.D.P.
The N.D.P.hate all cars not just SUVs they would have us riding bicycles.Not whole lot of fun in the Canadian winter.
Of course the N.D.P. don’t like cutting trees down either.
The N.D.P also claims to be “a friend of labour”
Its kinda funny in a way when a car hater and tree hugger
asks the autoworkers and the lumber/pulp and paper unions for support as in,vote for me and write me a check while your at it.
The good news is,the rank and file don’t vote N.D.P.
The bad news is ,the union writes the check.
Go figure.
According to the Associated Press, this is what Edwards actually said:
“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice…One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.” [Emphasis mine.]
Edwards never stated that he believed that Americans should be forced by statute to give up their SUV’s, but that they wanted to make sacrifices and should be asked to do so. The “tell” is the verbage of the reporter, not from Edwards himself.
Funny. When the US fought in WWII, citizens were required by law to sacrifice, and did so willingly. Now we have two simultaneous wars that have lasted longer than WWII, with far fewer casualties, yet we demand that we give up nothing. It helps to illustrate why the outcomes of these conflicts are so different…
Frank, I see the words “asked” and “told” in that quote, not “legislated” and “forced”. John Edwards is the first person to “ask” or “tell” Americans not to drive so many SUV’s? Really?
mikey,
correct me if i am wrong but I didn’t think that the NDP have enough ridings to win enough seats to get a majorety government. I know they do in Ontario (oh Bob Rae, how i loathe thee) but at least there they can’t do near as much damage nationally that way. I know here, in Ontario, all polititians talk out of both sides, promising to keep unemployment low (in a province who’s major industry is auto-manufacturing) and clean up the environemnt by mandating this and that about the use of cars.
You can’t trust any of them, ever.
It doesn’t matter if Edward’s implied asking Americans to give up SUV’s or telling them to. His attempt to position himself as a green candidate is ridiculous and hypocritical. If he starts flying commercial, driving a prius, and moves into a solar powered cabin, or if he could even show an equivalant reduction in actual C02 to his CO2 footprint via his carbon offset dollars then I’ll accept any preaching he wishes to do on carbon footprints.
brownie:
John Edwards is the first person to “ask” or “tell” Americans not to drive so many SUV’s?
No, but as far as I know he’s the first who has openly stated he would do so from the Oval Office.
As far as the “tell” part is concerned, I looked at a number of reports on that meeting from various news agencies and every one of them said that he was asked specifically if he would tell us to give up SUVs and his answer was “Yes.”
I’m looking for a video clip, sound bite, or transcript of the session. If anyone knows where I could find one, please let me know.
Edwards was pressed on this issue after he said he would ask folks to give up SUV’s.
Quoted from an AP article on this subject:
“The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, “Yes.””
I would have to say that we’ve heard things like this from candidates in the past where they claim they will do something, but because of the process of creating bills and getting them passed into laws it never happens.
Common sense kicks in and says that no one will dictate that we can or cannot own SUVs. Ever. Stop spreading stuff like this. It just makes everyone that buys into this FUD look bad.
As for people complaining about his lifestyle and having it “easy”, lets not forget that ALL of our past politicians in the last 60+ years have had it easy, most notably our current president.
I found the video clip if anyone cares to see it.
http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=11155
You have to go to 38.00 minutes into the clip to where he talks about it. The audio sucks, you have been warned. He says “ask” but then talks like he is going to make us. None of this really matter to me since I don’t trust him one bit.
If any of you care he talks about giving the big2.8 a MINIMUM of one 1 Billion dollars to keep cars made here buy union workers at about 36 minutes in. That statement means more to me than his little “green” pedistal BS.
cgraham said it perfect, “You can’t trust any of them, ever.“
From the way sales sales are going.Big SUVs and full size high end pick ups,are gonna die with or without government intervention.
Oshawa truck is losing a shift in Jan.With 85% of our production exporting to the US,the American consumer has spoken.
Not only has the US home construction has hurt us.
So much of our production of very high end pick ups went to the guy that just had to have it.Never mind the 50.k price tag and the 14 MPG.
Well that guy finally got smart,perhaps he was shamed into it,or he ran out of money.Whatever now GM is stuck with a whole lot of 40 to 50K gas hogs that nobody wants to buy.
Point is you don’t need to force people to do whats right.
The SUVs and big honking pickups are gonna be around for a while,just a lot less of em.
CGRAHAM the N.D.P is just about dead in Ontario we are heading the same direction as Michigan with our car industry in shambles.I can’t see a car hating tree hugger geting elected.
As far as the “tell” part is concerned, I looked at a number of reports on that meeting from various news agencies and every one of them said that he was asked specifically if he would tell us to give up SUVs and his answer was “Yes.”
The word “tell” is the choice of the AP reporter who wrote the original wire story. It’s not a quote of Edwards himself.
The real subtext here is that Edwards is going to offer up platitudes on this subject but make no particular demands. It’s the usual bipartisan twaddle — we will ask Americans to behave differently, but do absolutely nothing about it when they don’t. In other words, business as usual.
In the same pitch to the machinists’ union, he did propose a carbon cap. But a specific targeting of SUV’s is not one of his proposed legislative changes.
Interesting comments here. There again, the simplest, fairest solution lies in a uniform gas tax. That way, anyone can drive anything, but will simply have to pay extra for gas-hogs, regardless of whether they are SUVs, V8 sedans, or sports cars.
Of course, like any other uniform tax (VAT, tolls…) the upper class will suffer comparatively less from it. Redistributive, progressive taxes are here for that, depending on the political and sociological preferences of the nation.
The job he seeks would make him the user of the largest SUV fleet in the nation.
Pch101: If you want to drive a land yacht, no problem. You can pick it up at the dealership after you’ve done your combat tour in Iraq.
Seeing as how the whole “war for oil” meme has been long discredited – if we wanted the oil, it would have been easier and cheaper to take France’s route and make a backdoor deal with the old leadership – I’m not quite seeing the connection.
Unless land yacht owners have also been the staunchest boosters of nation-building attempts in countries where all of the populace may not necessarily appreciate the outside “help.” In that case, okay.
Mikey,
Will you be affected by the cancellation of the 3rd shift? Hopefully not. I read at least 1,000 jobs lost not to mention suppliers. That hurts!
oboy Yes it hurts the hurt gets deeper cause untill GM can convince folks to buy cars the trucks keep the cash register running.
I don’t think its our place to comment on US politics.Sufice to say if you kill the SUV/pick up market with a law.Such action would be like pulling the plug on GMs life support and followed by FORD.
With 35 yrs in I,m safe but losing trucks is the worst possible news.Thanks for your concern oboy lepr
Here is what a real smart cookie, me, said about Edward’s remarks on another site:
“That’s pretty rich coming from a guy who wasted more fuel flying around his hair dresser last year than I did driving my old truck.”
Once again, attacking a type of vehicle is just the sort stupidity I expect from a socialist. The best solution is always to allow choice. If you want people to use less gas, tax it.
The only reason the left can hold both the socialists and the environmentalists in the same party is because they are both groups full of completely gullible idiots. They should really be cutting each others throats over the incompatibility of their positions.
The income tax is bad for the environment. Consumption taxes are good for the environment.
Taxing new car purchases bad, taxing old polluting cars, good.
Weak private property rules, bad. Strong property rights, good.
Subsidizing children, healthcare, farming, and just about anything else – BAD!
How do they get along? I don’t get it?
far left = socialism
far right = facist
So both parties = bad
I got it now.
A gas tax would be a better solution IMHO
I think we should imposs a $10 per gallon gas tax so to starve-off those that advocate a $10 per gallon gas tax.
Let me state my bias up front: I support the privileged wealthy southern hypocrit (sic), ambulance-chasing parasite, taxpayer teat-sucker, dangerous media whore and socialist fuel waster with a personal hairdresser/makeup stylist, John Edwards.
Good to see Fox News’ ratings are holding up okay.
The underlying theme of the coordinated Republican Attack Machine® assault on Edwards (and for that matter, Al Gore) is that a rich person who stands up for the poor is a hypocrite. I would respond that a rich person who stands up for the poor is admirable. It’s the rich person who devotes all his energies to needlessly stealing even more who is truly contemptible.
As for the SUV question, I encouraged my better half into a CR-V because I wanted to give her the SUV space she was after, but thought the profligate use of gasoline by most SUVs was simply a stupid waste of money. It has met her needs just dandily. I agree with those who suggest here that a gas tax, combined with some restoration of the progressive income tax structure, is the logical answer — the goal is the thing.
Seeing as how the whole “war for oil” meme has been long discredited – if we wanted the oil, it would have been easier and cheaper to take France’s route and make a backdoor deal with the old leadership – I’m not quite seeing the connection.
Simple. It’s about maintaining a long-term military presence where the oil is, so a hostile regime can’t threaten our supply. If our goal was to restore freedom to the Iraqi people, why did we originally plan to build 14 “permanent” military bases in the country?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm
Frank: They concede only the 2 cars he will admit to owning. Now we need to know what cars he really owns. His motorcades are have the typical Tahoe / Suburban sized SUVs.
I sacrifice in order to save money, reduce waste, recycle, and conserve. Edwards has a 28,000 sq/ft mansion which probabaly costs more in one week to cool/heat than my house does in 1 year. He asserts we need to sacrifice but what does he do in return? It’s the age old “practice what you preach” cliche that I see this hypocrisy. It’s like Bush saying we need to overcome our partisanship in order to get along when he never heeds his own suggestions.
Frankly, the whole “ask” or “tell” aspect doesn’t matter, its just something he came up with on the spot and I doubt he really gave each word much thought.
What difference does it make if he’s a hypocrite? We should be focused more on what he’s saying rather than if he has the moral authority to say it. For my $.02 I don’t think it would be bad if people gave up their suv’s. But the market’s forcing that outcome anyway.
I think a gas tax is a wonderful idea, but it’s about as likely to happen as Chrysler becoming profitable in the next 100 days.
It’s about maintaining a long-term military presence where the oil is, so a hostile regime can’t threaten our supply. If our goal was to restore freedom to the Iraqi people, why did we originally plan to build 14 “permanent” military bases in the country?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
It’s not about stealing the oil for ourselves, just ensuring that supplies remain stable for future use. The last thing that the US wants is to get into a resource war with China (1.2 billion people) or India (1 billion) decades from now because some Islamic fundamentalist or OPEC cartel decides to shut off the tap. Not only do they have growing appetites for oil, they also have nuclear weapons.
Yep, and where would we be without that supply?
Certainly not having a conversation on a bulletin board. The American civilization is oil based. I wonder if there was a big fight in Rome about using the military to secure supplies of stone or wheat?
Oil saves lives in this country. It increases the life span drastically. Why is everything about the oil industry so demonized?
My favorite answer to the oil conspiracy folks is to point out that nothing in petroleum is rocket science. If you don’t like the price, start an oil company. People do it every day.
Complain about it if you want, its your right, but without oil you couldn’t be complaining here!