John Edwards and SUVs: Do the Math

john edwards and suvs do the math

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 [s]emperor[/s] president he would [s]order[/s] ask Americans to [s]turn in[/s] 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.

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 38 comments
  • Jaje Jaje on Aug 30, 2007

    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.

  • PerfectZero PerfectZero on Aug 30, 2007

    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.

  • Pch101 Pch101 on Aug 31, 2007
    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.

  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Aug 31, 2007

    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!

Next