Cramer's Remorse, XIV: Pro-Coal Obama

It’s been quite a while since I wrote up an entry in the “Cramer’s Remorse” series.  It’s really not so much my lack of interest in the topic, as it is the fact that we’ve been in a rampaging bull market (the fundamentals of the economy notwithstanding) that has kept Jim Cramer in a jolly good mood and disinclined to be critical of much of anyone, save those who reasonably yet, thus far, very wrongly called for a retracement in the markets.

Indeed, so quiet it has become on this front that it hardly seems possible that just nine months ago Jim Cramer momentarily unseated Sarah Palin as the face of What’s Wrong With America in the view of the Democrat media.

With that in mind, today’s entry probably isn’t exactly good news for those holding out hope for a “conversion story” here, it does contain some observations that certainly came as a surprise to me.

Let’s get straight to the Money Quote:

“President Obama has not waivered[sic] one bit — despite the fact that we can’t find a way for carbon capture to work (and many have tried) — in his efforts to support the coal industry.”

(Let me quickly add, for the record, that the context of this comment of Cramer’s is the awarding of $3 billion by Energy secretary Steven Chu to various construction companies for the developement of “clean coal” production techniques.)

Now I can already guess what you might be saying: are we talking about the same President Obama here?  The one that said during the campaign that anybody building a new coal-powered plant would find themselves quickly bankrupted by all the governmental fees imposed upon them?

Apparently the fact that Obama hasn’t yet made good on that rhetoric is a disappointment to Cramer.  Perhaps this is partially because he made some substantial bets (verbally, if not monetarily) on natural gas filling the void left by the annihilation of the coal industry, which haven’t panned out the way he had hoped.

But mostly I think it’s that the rising stock market has allowed Cramer to settle back into his leftist roots and argue from the comfortable position that things are “obviously” getting better economically (after all, that’s what the stock market is telling us and God knows that’s never wrong…), so now there’s no reason not to dive headlong into Copenhagen and “get serious about global warming”.

Indeed, Cramer seems so comfortable about the economy that he uses the adverb “simply” in his suggestion that Obama demand the shuttering of older, coal-powered plants.  No worries about how that would impact the economy, in Cramer’s view, apparently.

And no, I don’t know how well informed Cramer is about Climategate, but I suspect that he’s not harboring a whole lot of interest in it if he does know about it, even though you’d think he, of all people, would be at least a fraction as sensitive to biased research about the environment as he is to biased research on stocks.

Cramer sums up by saying this continued pursuit of “clean coal”, which may well be, as Cramer claims, another dry hole in the Great Alternative Energy Hunt, leads him to declare that Obama’s trip to Copenhagen is something that he cannot take seriously.

I believe I said something like this in an earlier post, but I wish my optimism could match Cramer’s pessimism.