Pistonheads' Presidential Primer Part Two

Glenn Swanson
by Glenn Swanson

They want your vote, but they drive you crazy. More specifically, passionate posting pistonheads don’t seem well pleased with America’s current crop of presidential aspirants. Part One of this series examined four presidential candidates’ websites to winkle out their auto-related policies on issues ranging from Corporate Average Fuel Economy to E85 to “oil addiction” and, uh, back. Judging from your comments on Hillary, Barack, Rudy and Mitt’s plans, you were about as impressed as pyromaniacs at a swim meet. So, in that spirit of world-weary cynical analysis, let’s have a look at what Fred, Mike, John and Bill have to say about all things automotive.

Fred Thompson is the son of what he calls a “little educated” used car dealer. If that doesn’t raise any alarm bells, Fred’s also an attorney, Red October hunter, fictional prosecutor and former US Senator (for real) from the great state of Tennessee.

An “Issues” page on Thompson’s site includes an “ Energy Security” section. Within, Thompson declares that our “dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk.” He offers the usual list of tasks required to overcome our “oil addiction:” increase domestic oil supplies, invest in alt. fuels, etc.

In an August press release titled “The Gas Tax,” Senator Thompson mentions the tragic highway bridge collapse in Minneapolis MN and adds: “Whoa now. Let’s hold our horses and think about calls for new [federal] tax increases to fix our infrastructure problems…we can’t let it [the bridge collapse] be used to compound other problems— which is what will happen if we’re scared into raising gas taxes.”

Senator Thompson says local governments, not the feds, should deal with such issues. “Why can’t we leave infrastructure issues to the people closest to where the rubber literally hits the road?” (Geddit?) Policy stands regarding cars, US automakers or specifics on energy issues? No comment.

The former Governor of Arkansas known as Mike Huckabee also has an Issues page. In his “Energy Independence” sub-page, the Gov says “The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.” Two terms and we’re free! How’s that then?

“We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass (ethanol subsidies are go).” Huckabee will “set aside a federal research and development budget” that would be “matched by the private sector” to find new energy such as alternative fuels. And then… “Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences.”

John Edwards is the infamously mansion-dwelling former US Senator from North Carolina. His “ Issues – A New Energy Economy” page sings a familiar tune: “Our generation must be the one that says 'yes' to alternative, renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil.”

Senator Edwards would create a “New Energy Economy Fund” to support R&D, invest in efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve. He’d also “repeal subsidies to big oil companies and require oil companies to install biofuel pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations.” Senator Edwards would require all new cars sold after 2010 to be ‘flex fuel’ cars.

While in Iowa, Senator Edwards praised “biofuels innovators” and announced he’d “accelerate the use of biofuels on America’s roads and highways…” That’s cause he “believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy.” To that end, Edwards would raise federal fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2016.

Bill Richardson is a former Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations (under Bill Clinton) and the current Governor of New Mexico. His Issues / Energy page calls for a “New American Revolution– an energy and climate revolution.” His vision would see oil imports reduced “from around 65 percent to 10 or 15 percent.”

Governor Richardson says “getting the 100 mile per gallon (mpg) car into the marketplace” is key, and hey, why not double current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards to “50 mpg by 2020?"

While he’s at it, Richardson would also like to see renewable energy resources increase to 50 percent by 2040: “This is aggressive, but necessary as we start using more electricity for automobiles.” To help pay the bills, he’d raise “some revenue from the sales of carbon permits” and “get out the ‘green scissors’ to cut back on wrongly-placed tax subsidies.”

Richardson would like to see the US become “energy independent and combat global warming” because— yes, you guessed it– our “national security and our planet depend on it.” Seems like a theme, or, if you prefer, just another par-for-the-course sop to environmentalists and consumers fearing higher gas prices and foreign entanglements.

Click here to go to Part One

Click here to to to Part Three

Glenn Swanson
Glenn Swanson

Glenn is a baby-boomer, born in 1954. Along with his wife, he makes his home in Connecticut. Employed in the public sector as an Information Tedchnology Specialist, Glenn has long been a car fan. Past rides have included heavy iron such as a 1967 GTO, to a V8 T-Bird. In between those high-horsepower cars, he's owned a pair of BMW 320i's. Now, with a daily commute of 40 miles, his concession to MPG dictates the ownership of a 2006 Honda Civic coupe which, while fun to drive, is a modest car for a pistonhead. As an avid reader, Glenn enjoys TTAC, along with many other auto-realated sites, and the occasional good book. As an avid electronic junkie, Glenn holds an Advanced Class amateur ("ham") radio license, and is into many things electronic. From a satellite radio and portable GPS unit in the cars, to a modest home theater system and radio-intercom in his home, if it's run by the movement of electrons, he's interested. :-)

More by Glenn Swanson

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 30 comments
  • Tankd0g Tankd0g on Dec 08, 2007

    That sort of proves my point, I was thinking $110 a barrel oil in 5 years would be cheap, not going back down to $60 which will never happen. If someone had said to me 5 years ago that oil would go that high in 10 years and we could still function normally in the western world I would have laughed at them. If fact we'll probably still be buying 30mpg cars when it hits $150 as long as the price creeps up slowly enough.

  • DearS DearS on Dec 08, 2007

    I do not believe I or anyone is necessarily Oil "dependent". I am "reliant" on oil. I rely not depend on oil. "Depend" I think sounds to much like a victim statement. I think its usually used as such when I hear it. As oil prices vary, what do I need to do to be happy to the best of my ability? Worry? usually not. Life is a challenge and also an adventure. I need to continue progressing to accept that I cannot control life or others as I understand them to be. I cannot control the future and I'm better doing what I think I can do for the time being to prepare for what I believe may be possible outcomes. Also try not to figure everything out ie. have faith.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next