home

McCain Blames Obama for Rising Gas Prices

I had the tv on in the background and this new ad came on. On my TV, the "Obama, Obama, Obama" (in response to the question, who's to blame for rising gas prices, was louder than it is in the video released by the McCain campaign.

It's clever to use real Obama supporters as the chanters but will anyone buy that Obama is responsible for ourrent high gas prices? A better argument (although also not true)would have been that if elected, Obama won't make prices go down. As a Senator, and one who has rarely been there to cast votes the last year and a half, it's just silly to blame our current gas prices on him.

< DNC Musical Guest Update | John Edwards in Denver Today, Promoting Anti-Poverty Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by pie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    As a Senator, and one who has rarely been there to cast votes the last year and a half, it's just silly to blame our current gas prices on him.

    :)

    Yup - BO hasn't put in an appearance for... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    ...so long, he can be blamed for a lot.  Just think what they can say about his failure to hold committee meetings!!

    By the way, I had a 25 year successful advertising career...and this is a good ad...for McCain.

    Parent

    This is a good ad (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Roz on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    Much better than the political headlines indicate. When I read "McCain Ad Blames Obama for High Gas Prices," I thought, you gotta be kidding me. But this ad addresses voters' fatigue with high gas prices nicely, linking prices in the minds of voters to energy policy, just where McCain wants their focus to be. McCain's tag line also takes on the hopey-change thing very well, I think.

    Parent
    And the chants grate on voters nerves (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:02:05 PM EST
    so as rising gas prices grate on their nerves poof, there's Obama laughing having a good time at big rallies with chanting crowds.

    It's not logical, but it doesn't have to be.

    Parent

    Worse (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:17:32 AM EST
    than grating on people's nerves IMO. It's downright creepy. It makes Obama look like a cult leader.

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    and with a thin resume and "no history" to help inform the voters, the creepiness of the chanting -- the messianic branding being something I remember turning people off as we left February and headed into March -- is a very effective tool McCain is using to raise doubt in the Average Voter's mind (whoever that is).

    As I said down-thread, McCain is turning Obama's one strength -- his popularity -- against him.  The magazine covers, the fawning coverage, the supporters chanting his name ... eventually people will hit Obama Overload and begin to openly express strong doubts (and "eventually" being September/October) about who Obama actually is and if they're ready to hand over the keys to the Country to a rock star newbie with one incomplete term as US Senator and no foreign policy experience (wait, he had his passport stamped in a few countries recently, so ... ) under his belt.  Plus if he stumbles as badly in the debates as he did during the Primary, voters may wonder what all the fuss was about and turn away.

    I think the Change Election was 2006 and the Dems failed badly.  To now elect a first term Senator of a Party that is more unpopular than Pres Bush (judging by Congress' recent approval rating) may be more than the Country is willing to do.

    Parent

    Well, I disagree with that argument (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:58 PM EST
    because the sins of omission of our Congress still are sins.  Perhaps if he had done his job, if he really was a leader, he could have accomplished something about oil prices -- and more.

    Parent
    Who? Obama or McCain? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    In the context of this thread (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    and of the argument, as well as in the context of which party is in power in his house of Congress: Obama.

    And McCain has a much better attendance record.  

    Parent

    That's why I specially named Obama... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    in my comment.  He can't very well counter this McCain ad because he has be AWOL in Congress since day one...of his time in the US Senate.

    Parent
    Cheney Energy Bill (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CST on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    This part of your post just isn't true.

    "He also voted for the Bush Cheney Energy Bill which did nothing to promote alternative fuels."

    This was a complex bill, far from perfect, it DID however, do something to promote alternative fuels.
    In fact, a lot of the money went toward developing alternative sources and producing fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids.

    Please, factcheck before repeating campaign talking points.

    There were many other problems with this bill, mainly the tax breaks for oil companies.  Criticize all you want about that.  What you are talking about just isn't true though.

    Parent

    It depends on the definition (none / 0) (#108)
    by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    of "alternative energy fuels" and "nothing". In the bill it included subsidies, mandates and tax breaks for "clean coal", nuclear and ethanol production as "alternative fuels". It did provide minor support for wind and solar development, but that was miniscule compared to industry-supported non-environmental friendly give-aways.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    My definition of "nothing" is "nothing, zero, nada, zilch".

    I don't think this is a good energy bill, mainly for the reason you list.  It is also not as bad as people want to make it out to be.

    Parent

    Exactly! Obama is very deceptive (none / 0) (#76)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:57:38 PM EST
    iirc - Hillary and McCain didn't vote for Bush's energy bill that gave HUGE tax breaks to the oil companies.


    Parent
    Its true... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    McSame has been there quite a bit to support his fair share of anti-choice legislation.

    Parent
    McCain's is worse. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST
    They both have bad attendance records as all presidential candidates from Congress over the years have had, but McCain's is worse. It has become a total non-issue though as the general public knows why they aren't there. You can't campaign across the country and be in DC too. If you want all members of congress voting, only the Fred Thompson's of the world would be running for President.

    Parent
    Your source? Not so, says govtrack.us (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    Barack Obama missed 287 of 1268 votes (23%) since Jan 6, 2005.

    John McCain missed 719 of 4085 votes (18%) since Feb 4, 1993.

    Both are rated "Exceedingly Poor relative to peers" in terms of voting/attendance -- but one has a more substantive record in the Senate in other ways.  Holds meetings and such.

    Parent

    How bout (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    you measure their attendance records during the past 3 years instead of including 10 years in which McCain wasn't campaigning?

    Parent
    Thank You (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    Thank you Flyerhawk. Compare head to head from the time Obama took office if you want to make a valid comparison.

    Parent
    Here ya go (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    Using the website you suggest and tracking both candidates for the exact time frame since Obama took office...Obama has missed 287 of 1268 votes and McCain has missed 451 of 1268 votes.

    Parent
    Well, isn't that an interesting (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    way for a newcomer to Congress -- or any job -- to make quite an impression!  Of course, they're running on their records, en toto . . . and there's the problem.

    But I hope you feel all better now about a guy who misses a fourth of the time in his first year on the job.  We wouldn't stand for it in my state, but then, we have the Senator with the perfect attendance record year after year after year. . . .

    Parent

    It's part of the process (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    I agree it would be terrific, but you can't campaign across the country and be in DC at the same time. If you are a current member of Congress, seriously campaigning for your party's nomination means missing a lot of votes. It's an accepted part of the process. Hillary missed in excess of 200 in the same time frame. If you are trying to win a nationwide vote you can't do it from Washington.

    If Russ was a serious candidate for President he would have been traveling just as much...but I applaud his attendance record.

    Parent

    Russ travels a lot (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM EST
    and in this state alone, he visits every one of the 72 counties at least once annually for town halls.

    And when he was considering his national run, he was off to the South and the West as well -- and still never missed a vote in Washington.

    I haven't looked up Clinton's record lately, but it was better than Obama's or McCain's.  As I recall, her ranking was "average."

    Parent

    And both Russ and Hillary (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:04:31 PM EST
    do a lot of work aside from voting. Wasn't Obama bored with being a Senator?

    Parent
    I find it hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:17:01 AM EST
    that Obama is supposed to consult regularly with Al Gore.  Al Gore said that the power of politicians to actually Get Things Done on their own is over rated - Senator, VP or Prez.  Gore says the power is with the people and that the people need to put the squeeze on their elected officials in order to Get Things Done.

    Obama seems to be the exact opposite of that, unresponsive to the people, and happier playing with his pals in the Beltway, Village and Establishment.

    When it comes to Getting Things Done, I have more faith in my Representative and Senators than in Obama.  

    Parent

    We (none / 0) (#104)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    have a little rule amongst my friends at work.  Always beware those who manage up.

    Parent
    so many committees (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    so little campaign time.  Wait, that was backasswards.

    Parent
    Well, I think it's an effective ad (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:16:36 PM EST
    Keeping in mind that such ads are generally directed at ill informed undecided voters, I think it has a chance to make an impact. That's especially because, for the first time in memory, Obama is being cheap on TV time.

    Why he hasn't really gone negative on McCain about this and other issues, I just don't understand.

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:23:07 PM EST
    about the effectiveness. It plays to a wide swath of people who haven't a clue what "drill now" means on the time axis of relief, but it sounds reasonable to them.

    Parent
    I'm fascinated by the voice talent (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    that McCain uses. So far has had what I think was a black announcer, and now a white woman.

    Honestly, his campaign is terrible--except for the TV ads.

    Parent

    Don't worry. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    Honestly, his campaign is terrible--except for the TV ads.

    Most Americans don't watch teevee.

    Parent

    pie, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    you're a peach.

    Parent
    Do you know who's doing them? (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    One of my very favorite travel writers (Stuart Stevens -- he also had something to do with that show about Alaska) is a Republican media consultant.

    Parent
    I do not know who's producing his ads (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    I see that your writer did the windsurfing ad, so he's obviously pretty good.

    I think Markos and Jerome made this observation in their book, but Republican ads tend to be far better than Democratic ones. Generally speaking they are punchier, nastier, funnier, and more effective. Dems just come across as cheap wimps.

    Parent

    Stuart Stevens is certainly nasty. . . (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    and funny (which I guess is natural 'cause I like his writing so much).  To bad he's a Republican (I heard him interviewed once, and he's much more a Tom Ridge Republican than a nutter, but still).

    Oh, and the TV show was called Northern Exposure.

    Parent

    A Tom Ridge Republican (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    sounds like this? He believes that W is destined to be remembered as a great President. I think that qualifies him as a nut.

    Parent
    Thanks for the link. . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    he could well be a nut, I don't know that much about him aside from his books.  However, the "as I do" reference in that article is just a quick aside from the wider point -- and it's possible he was still on the Bush payroll at the time.

    More interesting, I thought, was this:

    My advice to Republican candidates is that they first must come to grips with the rationale for their own election: Why me? Why now? If in their hearts they disagree with the Iraq war, they should call it like they see it, but without trying to nuance a response seven ways from Sunday in hopes of pleasing all sides. That's French for ending up like John Kerry. Elections are littered with losers who have a need to be loved by everyone.

    which I think well expresses the blogosphere / BTD anti-unity-schtick concept pretty darn succinctly.

    Parent

    Yes and no (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    The problem with Democrats is that they seem to have a very hard time reading the mentality of undecided voters. "Strong and wrong" always wins over fluttery and weak.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:45:15 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has been very weak with the ads. Here in NM, I see ad after ad by McCain, and the rightwing "Vets for Freedom". The ads paint McCain as a maverick, a steadfast military leader, and even an environmentalist. Nobody is challenging that. The media certainly isn't doing it.

    Contrast this with the occasional Obama ad, who is still at the boring, vague, "bio ad" stage.

    McCain is defining himself and Obama, setting the playing field.

    The Obama campaign has been pretty weak overall since he secured the nomination.


    Parent

    When (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:22:13 AM EST
    you said McCain has an outstanding Media shop you were right. Really, Obama's ads look like cheap imitations to me. Nothing really original.

    He's probably cutting back because of money.

    Parent

    What do you expect? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    McCain paints Obama the devil, and Obama paints McCain the devil.

    It's the wonderful state of American political discourse.

    And the corporate powers laugh all the way to the bank while their candidates suck up more and more money in order to manipulate the public, including their most ardent supporters, with the most clever marketing tools available.

    The dysfunction described by Bill Moyers with respect to our system is alive and well.

    Good to see (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:15 PM EST
    that the usual suspects are finding new and creative ways to attack Obama.

    It is a dishonest ad.  Nothing surprising about it.

    It is likely to turn off as many voters and sway.  Honestly simply having a picture of Obama and his name being chanted while asking an open ended question?  

    Anyone who is willing to buy that was never voting for Obama in the first place.  Accepting the implication of the ad would require that you are already predisposed to believe it, which likely means you find all Democrats to be DFHs.

    On the contrary (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    You just have to be looking for someone to blame for high gas prices. McCain proposes that Obama is to blame. Forget about whether that's true or the charges even make any sense; this is the only message many voters will be seeing on the issue.

    Parent
    You're right! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:37:45 PM EST
    A commercial has about 10 seconds (at the most) and a single, repeated message with which to communicate.

    The message here - through words and visuals - is that BO is bad...McCain is good...when it comes to gas prices.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:30:05 AM EST
    that McCain acts, where Obama talks.

    Parent
    Logical disonnance. (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    While I agree that the validity of the charges are  largely irrelevant, the ad does nothing to actually support the implied insinuation.

    If McCain had an ad suggesting that Obama was from Mars, no one would believe it because it is ludicrous.  

    Even low information voters realize that politicians tell lies about their opponents.  And with no general reasons to believe this particular lie I don't see why anyone is going to buy it that doesn't already believe it.

    I think that too often we assume that low information voters are mindless sheep.  They aren't.  They are simply less informed.  Doesn't mean they can't detect blatant B.S.

    Parent

    But an ad doesn't have to spend... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:49:45 PM EST
    time "proving" its claim...it simply makes the claim and dashes off...leaving the other person to defend.

    Parent
    That's the game (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    Accuse your opponent of molesting goats, and let them take the time to deny it. It's an LBJ thing, I believe.

    Parent
    and this charge (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:39:01 AM EST
    is difficult to defend once people discover Obama, and NOT McCain, voted for Bush's Energy Bill that gave those evil oil companies obscene breaks.

    It'll be interesting to watch Barack "uh" and "um" his way out of that one.

    Parent

    You think McCain didn't focus group this? (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    Who knows, maybe McCain is just throwing everything at the wall, figuring that the time before the convention is his only shot to change the situation. But my feeling is that this ad is just plausible enough that it will be effective.

    Do you believe most of the junk claims you see on TV? I'd guess not. But can you tell me how a Dyson vacuum cleaner works and why it's supposedly better than a Hoover? I'll bet the ads, if you've seen them, probably gave you some idea.

    McCain is selling drilling, attaching himself to that "solution," and saying that Obama is standing in the way. Obama needs to respond.

    Parent

    That's the thing -- seeking scapegoats (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    rather than turning in their own SUVs, voters will respond to the messages they hear.  And the Dems are considered more responsible for environmental restrictions that are adding to the cost of gas in a lot of states like mine.  (I walk, anyway -- just saying how it will be heard by the unhappy.)

    Parent
    Actually people have been turning in their SUVs (none / 0) (#55)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:29:02 PM EST
    and bought smaller cars  thanks to the higher gas prices.

    I am speaking for SouCal where without a car one is stuck - but I assume the same is happening in other states. Hummers are feeling the pain.

    But will the American Car industry respond and come up with gas saving cars? So far the foreign cars, esp. the Japanese benefit.

    Gas prices have levelled off here for the moment - prices were going up and down in the last months.

    Compared to what the Europeans had to pay in the last four decades American gas prices have always been ridiculously low and folks kept buying huge gas guzzlers. Schwarzenegger owned about six hummers when he was elected governor and was proud of it.

    Drilling is not the answer. Saving Gas is the answer. But no pols will put that in their ads.  

    Will the Dems, i.e. Obama, pressure the American Car industry to design smarter cars. Will Obama tell folks to turn down their thermostats? We have record heat but houses next to ours are empty for months at a time with the $$$ airconditioning roaring nonstop. This has always been the case no matter what kind of neighborhood I lived in. Some people simply have too much money or don't suffer enough yet. They care less what happens to the environment in the meantime.

    No matter who is elected. McCain and Obama won't do a thing about it except drill IMHO.

    Parent

    Welll, people here can't afford (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    to buy new cars, and the trade-in on SUVs sucks.  Like the economy here, especially for the thousands who have been laid off from factories that closed.

    One of those factories, with thousands out of work now, made SUVs.

    I agree that it needed to happen.  I hate SUVs.  I walk to work and almost everywhere.  But -- it ought to have happened with planning and incentives and transitions and such, not for the reasons it did: mismanagement of our environment and our economy by government and corporations.

    Parent

    I so agree with you (none / 0) (#66)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:29:57 PM EST
    re ....."mismanagement of our environment and our economy by government and corporations."

    Nobody should be surprised about any of this. For four decades pols and industry ignored the problem. The gas lines in the 70s were quickly forgotten. Instead of designing smarter cars they made SUVs which got bigger and bigger.

    I still remember the times when a sports car was the cool thing to own. Not gas savers either by any means but what is so cool about these huge SUVs? I feel nostalgia overcoming me when I see a Porsche zipping by on the freeway. A rarity these days. Times sure have changed along with fashion. No hair for men, pants falling down (was just thinking about that verboten underwear thread from a couple weeks ago ;-)

    Parent

    Some one needs to do something (none / 0) (#67)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:37:13 PM EST
    T.Boone Pickens says oil will be at $300 in 10 years.  Today it was $147. Ten years ago it was $11.00 and 2003, before invasion, it was $36.00.

    With the prices increasing so rapidly, people will ok the drilling for oil in Yellowstone.

    Parent

    Think of the global ripple effect (none / 0) (#91)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:26:04 AM EST
    on various economies.

    Imagine what the price of food will be.  People worry about ethanol production driving up food costs when they should worry about the price of oil driving up food costs.

    Parent

    Ford (none / 0) (#86)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:44:54 AM EST
    is getting ready to announce that they are retooling plants to produce smaller cars and bringing over several smaller models from their non-US line.

    Of course, this is reactive rather than proactive, hence the pain still ahead. How many people can afford to replace their vehicles right now?

    I wish I could walk to work. Unfortunately, I live in a very suburban (read: bad public transportation) location in the NE and work in the city. Lots of people are in the same boat.  Even driving relatively a relatively fuel-efficient car doesn't seem like enough. But trying to find a comparable job closer to home is a bit of a challenge.  As is trying to move my elderly parent closer to where my job is.  So now what I'm really facing is a lifestyle change in the midst of trying to hold onto my job in the worsening economy.  Lots of people are worse off so I'm not complaining but the complexity of trying to basically re-engineer the American lifestyle of suburban living is going to be challenging.

    Parent

    Ford retooling truck lines to make small cars (none / 0) (#87)
    by wasabi on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:08:31 AM EST
    Ford announdced today:

    Ford Motor (F) plans to revamp some U.S. plants and bring six small vehicles to the U.S. market from overseas to meet customers' growing demand for more fuel-efficient options, a person briefed on the company's plans said Tuesday.
    Ford has no immediate plans to close U.S. plants despite overcapacity in a slumping market, the person said. Instead, the automaker will retool plants to increase production of smaller cars and engines. The person requested anonymity because Ford isn't confirming details until Thursday, when it releases second-quarter earnings.

    The market rules.


    Parent

    Markets are mostly reactive (none / 0) (#93)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:28:14 AM EST
    and rarely proactive.  That's the job of government - to plan and prepare.  Right now the government isn't doing so well.  (I hate the Iraq mess - partly for what it is and partly because it distracts people from bigger problems.)

    Parent
    Also, it plays on the preexisting riff that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    Democrats prioritize the environment over the average person's economic concerns.  Lots of people are very pro-environment until it costs them directly.

    The part of Mass. where I grew up contains a resevoir that supplies a significant part of Boston's drinking water.  Boston politicians are constantly passing protection laws that restrict land uses, drive down property values, and create tons of regulatory compliance paperwork.  Many, many people HATE them for it.  (and yes, this is in liberal Massachusetts).

    McCain's building on an existing theme here, which adds to the ad's effectiveness.  There's a perception that Democrats are anti-business and anti-'the little guy' based on some silly theoretical advantage to the environment.  I'm not saying the perception is correct, but there's an ideological anti-Dem resonance here that lowers people's filters or skepticism.

    Parent

    Preexisting rifts... (none / 0) (#103)
    by RNKay on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    Kinda like the way Republicans prioritize War over the average person's economic concerns?
    Or, the way Republicans prioritized the war in Iraq over the war in Afghanistan, which is actually where Bin Laden was hiding?

    Hmmmmmm....

    This is the first war in history where taxes have not been raised to offset the cost of fighting a war.  
    Instead our current administration prefers to borrow money overseas and raise our national debt to its highest level in history.

    And, of course this has no effect on the economy, right?

    No wonder people spend beyond their fiscal means. The government, regardless of party affiliation, sets the perfect example for all.

    The existing theme, and I'm not saying the perception is correct, is that the Republicans don't think that the average citizen can think for themselves.  
    Without a viable eco-system for life, all life, to thrive, we won't have much left to concern ourselves about.

    Parent

    Yes, it's a dishonest ad. Duh. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    So are most political campaign ads.

    The question is whether that will matter.

    Parent

    Ain't that the truth! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:32:30 AM EST
    If you want to see a fair and balanced campaign ad - don't ask me.  I've never seen one.  That's why I despise them, too much bovine excrement for me, even if I support the candidate.

    My first question for any campaign ad or ad campaign is:  Who is the target audience?  Is it a Rally The Troops ad for the party loyalists?  Is it going after the undecideds?  Libertarians? Independents?  Security Moms?  Blue Collar workers?

    Parent

    Who are the usual suspects (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    and how are they attacking Obama?


    Parent
    He's attacking Jeralyn, if I read correctly (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:37:25 PM EST
    Huh (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:39:26 PM EST
    Jeralyn isn't attacking Obama.  I think he's referring to republicans.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:39:47 PM EST
    When I criticize Jeralyn, I specifically mention her.

    I refer more to the silliness that Obama can't possibly be responsible for the current gas crisis because he doesn't even bother to vote.

    Parent

    He bothered to vote for the (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    Bush/Cheney Energy Bill . . .

    McCain skipped it if I recall correctly. It's interesting that Obama accuses McCain of voting with Bush 95% of the time when they both have crappy records on voting and he (BO) voted for the EB.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#31)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:47:49 PM EST
    And nobody was buying that Kerry never did serve admirably in Vietnam. Right?

    You overestimate a lot of voters.


    Parent

    You many be right, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:20:08 AM EST
    I think the fact that so much of this ad is almost subliminal with only fragments of details given that will hook people psychologically rather than bombard them with facts and spoken sincerely by Mrs. White Homemaker... I think it's very powerful and will sway voters without their even really thinking about it. I thought it was quite well done.  

    Parent
    You many be right, but (none / 0) (#81)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:20:57 AM EST
    I think the fact that so much of this ad is almost subliminal with only fragments of details given that will hook people psychologically rather than bombard them with facts and spoken sincerely by Mrs. White Homemaker... I think it's very powerful and will sway voters without their even really thinking about it. I thought it was quite well done.  

    Parent
    apologies for the double post (none / 0) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:22:34 AM EST
    please delete that and this

    Parent
    Well, couple this with Obama's vote (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    for Cheney's Energy Bill, and you've got a stickyball that Obama has to try to explain in small, one-syllable words for those who would fall for this ad in the first place.

    I'm thinking the Energy Bill vote will be the other shoe to drop in this series. McCain just has to mention he didn't vote for it, and it separates him from BushCo in an important, sound-bytey way.

    Bingo (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    This is precisely the problem: Trying to explain something to people who will buy the kind of nonsense McCain is shoveling.

    I know it's a paper-thin cliche, but it's still pertinent: If American voters are so engaged and smart and insightful, then why in the world was George W. Bush ever within about 20 percentage points of Gore or Kerry?  Why did so many of us (NOT including me, I hasten to add) fall for Reagan's idiotic "Morning in America" line?  We all know the answers, and it's painful to contemplate.

    I swear, I'm going to make and sell bumper stickers that say, "Enjoying your beer with President Bush yet???"


    Parent

    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    He is using this to attack Obama's position on energy, probably mainly his anti-drilling position.  However, McCain voted against drilling, so by his own logic, he is, in fact, to blame for high gas prices, not Obama who wasn't in the senate to vote.  But most people probably don't pay that much attention, unfortunately.

    I like this take (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TChris on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    from today's Times:

    Aside from correctly stating current gasoline prices, "Pump" is misleading on nearly every substantive point.

    The ad is so dishonest that I think it will backfire on Sen. "Straight Talk" McCain.

    even before the recent spike, oil prices had been rising for a decade, the result of a variety of political and economic factors in places as far afield as China, India, Venezuela and Nigeria. So it is difficult to understand how Mr. Obama, a first-term senator, can be held responsible for that phenomenon.

    No kidding.

    The most effective part of that ad, (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    and it's making an appearance in some form in all of the McCain ads I've seen, is his tag line of, "Don't Hope for _____, Vote for it."

    He's turning Obama's own theme against him, making it sound like "just words," and I think that's what will pique people's interest, to the point where it may not matter if McCain has all the facts right.

    Parent

    The tag line is the best part (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by angie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22:17 PM EST
    I also think the chanting of Obama is so creepy {shudder} that it is also likely to turn the average Joe off of Obama (also effective for McCain).  

    Parent
    You think the chanting is creepy?? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:46:43 PM EST
    Either you're not serious, or you've been creeped out by every major presidential candidate in recent memory.  Chants are standard fare at political rallies -- I remember a lot of "Hill-a-ry, Hill-a-ry!" and "Ed-wards, Ed-wards!" when I saw them speak this past year, for example.

    Parent
    Yeah, I must be the idiot (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by angie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:09:59 PM EST
    because I have a different opinion then you. I purposefully said the "average Joe" in my comment -- clue -- average Joe is somebody who isn't that involved in political rallies. And the fact is it does sound creepy -- if you can't hear that the producers of the ad have manipulated the sound to purposely give the chanting a creepy effect then you really should not be lecturing anyone on anything.

    Parent
    and since you seem slow on the upbeat (4.25 / 4) (#75)
    by angie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    let me explain a little ad manipulation 101 to you -- the chanting in that ad is sped up -- so much so that in the beginning one is unable to make out what is being said -- even at the end of the chanting, where it is slowed down enough to actually make out the "Obama" it is still sped up, as his entire name is in one beat -- at every politically rally since the dawn of time, as you must know since you've been to so many of them -- the name being chanted is done to the beats of the syllables in the person's name (Oh-bah-mah -- 3 beats; Hil-ah-re -- 3 beats; Ed-wards -- 2 beats). Speeding it up makes it creepy because it is not normal. Also adding to the creepy factor is hearing disembodied voices -- a very different experience from actually being at a rally. Both manipulations give the chanting an overly frenzied, creepy effect. This effect is subtle, so it is no surprise you missed it -- but so will the average Joe, who will just be left with a lingering negative association with the name "Obama" that he can't quite put his finger on. Voila -- Madison Ave. wins again.

    Parent
    absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM EST
    McCain -- in this ad and probably in future ads -- is turning arguably Obama's one strength (his popularity) against him, making it a burden in some people's eyes.  As it's something Obama can't stop or wouldn't want to stop, his rallies and his supporters and perhaps even his stadium speech become more like albatrosses than signs of people "loving" him.

    The Average Joe will find this chanting creepy and, with that, will be even less likely to trust this man who came out of nowhere with a thin resume and may now be placed in the Most Important Job in the World.  They may not agree with McCain on a lot of things, but, in their eyes, at least he's "earned" his spot at the table and isn't being glorified by the Liberal Press as some sort of Messiah.

    Have you noticed the words "cocky", "presumptuous" and "messianic" popping up in the coverage now?  Woe be to anyone who believes the Media's love affair with Barack will last past September.

    Parent

    Boy.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    .....the McCain supporters sure jumped at this red meat.

    McCain's other new ad (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:09:16 AM EST
    Obama Love

    I was laughing out loud, especially because it was mocking MSM and a few key MSNBCers in particular.  Put together like that really brings it home.

    It makes me sick (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:55:38 AM EST
    that he is still talking about more drilling as a solution. Does anyone care at all about solutions to our environmental problems?

    I live in West Georgia and see an Obama (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    ad every half hour or so. I certainly do not support mccain, but Obama's are so full of bs my head is spinning. The current commercial has obama claiming that he SINGLEHANDEDLY PASSED A LAW TO KEEP WEAPONS OUT OF TERRORIST HANDS!!!! I did not know that as a senator (state and U.S.) he has the power to enact legslation at will. He truly is SUPERMAN!!!

    Actually, Obama did some work with Lugar (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by beachmom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:00:39 PM EST
    so the ad is actually true.  Remember when the Russians detained Obama and Lugar?  Does that refresh your memory?

    Senators Lugar and Obama detained in Moscow for several hours

       

    "I am in Ukraine with Sen. Lugar," Lugar's spokesman, Andy Fisher, said in a message sent from a personal messaging device Sunday afternoon.

        He said Russian officials refused to let the plane take off for three hours and insisted on boarding it. "They did not. The border patrol finally got orders to let us go," Fisher said.

        "We were treated just fine," he said.

        A spokesman for Obama also confirmed the plane's arrival in Ukraine.

        The senators and their aides spent three days in Russia visiting sites where warheads are stored before destruction under the U.S.-funded Comprehensive Threat Reduction program.

        The spokesmen did not have information on the nature of the dispute that resulted in the senators' being held. Telephone calls to the Russian border guard service and Foreign Ministry were not answered Sunday evening.

    Look, I realize you're skeptical, but do the legwork, and check out his record.  It's true that he worked on nuclear proliferation with Dick Lugar.

    Parent

    Well, that doesn't sound single-handed. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
    yeah, but Obama's been hanging out with Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:12:46 PM EST
    because he wasn't at foreign relations committee meetings and left NATO and all to Lugar.  How comforting.  If you compare Obama on foreign policy, with Lugar, especially NATO and "energy security" issues they're nearly identical there and American Enterprise Institute, brothel of Cheney, doesn't much disagree that "energy security" should be considered a weapon, i.e. an extention of Rice's funky national security interests.  If the next "wars" are for pipelines (Afghanistan, Pakistan), bioterror (Judy Miller) and "energy security" all over the globe, including Africa, then Obama really is Republican.  And considering his nearest Sec. of State nominee is Susan Rice, don't think Africa will be a bloodless letting.  


    Parent
    Oh, and from a fellow Georgian, the ad is true (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by beachmom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/568/

    We checked into Obama's legislative record with Sen. Lugar, a Republican from Indiana.

    Obama's first foreign travel as a U.S. senator was with Lugar in August 2005, when the two men visited nuclear weapons storage and dismantlement facilities in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

    The following spring, Lugar and Obama authored a Senate bill that authorized the president to carry out a program to provide assistance to foreign countries to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The bill does not specifically list different types of weapons of mass destruction, but we'll take as a given that it includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

    The larger part of the legislation was a separate measure to stop the spread of conventional weapons, notably shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles that the legislation refers to as man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS.

    The bill's provisions were incorporated into a House bill that passed later that year and was signed into law in January 2007.

    The Lugar-Obama initiative is modeled after a 1991 bill authored by Lugar and former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn. The Nunn-Lugar program provided U.S. funding and expertise to the former Soviet Union to dismantle stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

    We'll note here that the legislation Obama and Lugar sponsored did not deal solely with nuclear weapons, but rather with all weapons of mass destruction, and that a good bit of their legislation focused on conventional weapons. But it does seem like part of the legislation's intent is to "help lock down loose nuclear weapons." For that reason, we find Obama's statement to be True.

    I'm in North Fulton County.  

    Parent

    sorry, but you are wrong (none / 0) (#106)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    no one legislator enacts laws by themselves as obama is claiming to do- No matter what a left-leaning, obama supporting watchgroup says.

    Parent
    Reading chain e-messages on fuel costs (none / 0) (#8)
    by wurman on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    Sen. McCain's ad will resonate with about 3/4 of my professional colleagues, friends, & family.

    The collective "borg" wisdom runs like this----

    -Environmentalists stopped new nukes
    -Environmentalists hinder/preclude oil shale extraction
    -Congress protects US gas firms from imported Canadian natural gas
    -Environmentalists preclude burning coal & "gasification"
    -Old laws & executive orders prevent(ed) offshore drilling
    -Congress prevented drilling the ANWR

    Variable statements of those points arrive at my inbox about 2 per week in degrees of completion.  Many have all the words spelled correctly, with punctuation in some places &, usually, with a plausible story line.

    When T. Boone Pickens (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    is advocating for alternative fuels choices, you have to wonder how effective these ads really are.

    Parent
    Pickens? (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:37:17 PM EST
    That hippy?  Who listens to him?

    Parent
    That SOB MUST hate McCain (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by beachmom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    He already swiftboated Kerry (Pickens:  donated $1.5 million to the SBVT in '04), and now, he seems to be undermining McCain's drilling message.  Let's be clear, though, that Pickens is advocating cars be powered by natural gas, a clearly boneheaded idea that will line Pickens's pockets, but I digress.  His message is NOT helping McCain, that's for sure, but ah, um, watch your back with Pickens.  It's always about M-O-N-E-Y for him.


    Parent
    What happens if McCain "boldly" accepts (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    Picken's plan at the convention?

    Yes, I can see that happening.

    Parent

    He may be (none / 0) (#68)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    whatever name you want to call him but it seems every time he says something about oil, the market reacts....like today

    Parent
    Lots of people in Europe are (none / 0) (#84)
    by laurie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:20:27 AM EST
    turning to natural gas to power cars. Here in Italy gasoline costs 1,525 euro a litre this week.
    That's $2.399 a litre. 1 gallon equals 3.78 litres)
    that makes $9.06 a gallon.
    Natural gas is about a third cheaper.
    Obviously this is a big issue over here.


    Parent
    What is the relative (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:39:16 AM EST
    energy density of natural gas vs gasoline/diesel?  I'd be guessing that natural gas has a lower energy density than gasoline.  Comparing price at the pump isn't the same as comparing cost per 100 miles.  One example is that a tank of E85 won't take you as far as a tank of gasoline, no matter what you are driving.

    Parent
    I can't tell you technical details (none / 0) (#107)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    but I can tell you that friends of mine who have tended to drive diesel or to a lesser extent gasoline are now seriously considering natural gas. Chevrolet is marketing a small model called matiz very cheaply at the moment. These cars are dual-they run on both direct injection gasoline and nat gas, and they use very little fuel.
    Twenty or more years ago nat gas cars were more or less locally converted, and you went slower up hills, and pumps were few and at times difficult to find. But even then people did it because of the money to be saved-especially people living out in rural-small town areas.

    Parent
    The largest natural gas producer (none / 0) (#109)
    by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    is the United states with Canada in third place, A switch to natural gas could lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil, although it could lead to a preemptive war against Canada to overthrow their tyrannical terrorist government and help birth a new and vibrant democracy north of our border. Blame Canada!

    (Yes, Virginia, that was snark.)

    Parent

    The other day I saw a rather long (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:01:13 AM EST
    'clean-burning coal' ad that plays into this as well.  I have tivo so I don't usually see ads -- I have no idea whether it was a one-timer or they've been all over the place.

    Everyone has a predisposition toward the things they want to be true (yes, even college-educated liberals who follow every heartbeat of a 17-month long campaign -- what's that I hear?  oh, it's the pitter patter of little hopey-changey new politics feet).  

    People really, desperately want to believe in anything whatsoever that will drive down oil prices.  Gas prices are killing them.  Everyone I know for whom money isn't exactly overflowing (pretty much everyone I know) is already getting pretty freaked about how to afford heat next winter.

    For Obama, mocking drilling and talking about research blah blah blah will not be enough.  Heck even I was thinking, clean coal? wow! for a couple seconds.

    Parent

    Anyone with a solid fuel furnace (none / 0) (#96)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:40:53 AM EST
    (not a fireplace) could burn coal if they wanted to.  It's probably illegal in many places, but it's what we used to heat the farmhouse for years.

    Parent
    Agreed this is laughable (none / 0) (#38)
    by beachmom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    I mean, McCain voted against offshore drilling.  So if it's going to be "blame Congress", isn't McCain even more responsible than Obama?  Plus, Obama only came to Congress in '05.  It's just a joke, and I think in this case, even low info voters are going to see right through this ad.

    If this isn't off topic, what's up (none / 0) (#52)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:18:36 PM EST
    with T. Boone Pickens and his energy plan?

    I caught very little (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST
    He was talking about using natural gas to run large scale tranportation (goods etc) and developing other alternatives (he's big on wind).  I have no idea if his numbers are true... 700$ billion leaves this nation for foreign oil, we have moved from importing 20% in the 80's to now importing 70% of the oil we use.  There was a question about large gas guzzlers, and that GM makes nat gas cars in other countries, but Boone wants nat gas for heavy equipment and the govt to use.  If ng is used, the amount imported could be reduced 38% and would keep 300$ billion per year in this country.

    So natural gas for transportation and wind etc for electricity.  Still waiting to hear more.


    Parent

    If you ever did block walking prior to an election (none / 0) (#92)
    by wasabi on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:27:07 AM EST
    You would know that there are many people who one could rightly call "low-information" that have some of the craziest viewpoints regarding why they lean towards voting for A instead of B.

    Current gas prices are a BIG problem for lots of people. This is a throw the bums out election with over 80% of the voting public unhappy with the direction the country is going in.  The Bum is being defined by McCain to be Obama.  He is the cause of your pain and anxiety.

    It has legs if the meme sticks.

    "Desperation.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    is a stinky cologne John."

    Now if you seriously wanna talk about whose blame for gas prices, we gotta talk about ourselves and our usage, a billion Chinese and Indians who want to enjoy our same quality of life, the speculators, OPEC...because we are all to blame.

    Lie (none / 0) (#102)
    by thentro on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    I think while it is a "good ad" in visuals, people should point our more that it is a complete and utter lie, and McCain knows it. Off shore drilling and ANWAR combined would lower gas prices by $.10 max and would not be available for 10-15 years!

    McCain knows this, but choses to lie to get elected. Dirty.