How pathetically dumb and desperate is the right wing at this very moment? Pretty damn dumb. Woke up this morning to see Memeorandum linking to a Newsbusters article (your first clue) that reads:
EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO— Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!
Being an truth free orgy, Cappin’ Ed gets in on the action:
So, here’s the deal: the audio and video of this interview has been available since January 18 2008, the day after Obama sat down with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board.
It’s not hidden at all.
Newsbusters is wrong, Gateway Pundit is wrong, and so is Sarah Palin, who said today:
“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin asked, leading someone in the crowd to shout, “Liberal media!”
“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”
Newsbusters gets the source correct, but it’s not hidden audio if the video is available is it? We don’t have to go into how the fear mongering obsessed Gateway Pundit skews it to “Obama promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!”
And, truly pathetic… Palin just parrots the lies from the blogs that the audio was not available! What tools. They’re being led to their doom by the right wing blogs!
Here’s the full text of the quote in context:
“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote — despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.
“But … let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal — I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”