Obama calls McCain a Washington insider, blames him in part for U.S. foreign oil dependence
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
27 Comments
Login to comment
0
SushiSake3
Sen. McCain - “When you cut through all the smooth rhetoric, Sen Obama’s policies would make it harder for women to start new businesses, harder for women to create or find new jobs, harder for women to manage the family budget, and harder for women and their families to meet their tax burden.”
Wheras Sen. McCain simply wants to burn through $15 billion+ per month fighting useless war that will benefit American women exactly how??
0
Betzee
Except for the oil part, GWB made the same "Washington insider" charge in 2000 when he was running against McCain.
0
adaydream
george bush and the republican congress had 6 years to change the use and sourses of energy in this country. they had 6 years to start drilling if they wanted to. But no, they cry now about the democrats who have only had the congress for a year and a half.
I recall that dick cheney had a secret meeting with the energy giants and the American people were to low on the totem pole to be allowed to know how we were about to get screwed.
Let's see how our engery policy has panned out.
Enron - bankrupt and guilty of raping the American public.
**The george bush Memorial Iraq War **- We know how that has turned out.
This is what you can thank the republicans and george bush for. < :-)
0
adaydream
Ps-s-s-st.
I hate to leave him out of the above post. John McCain never put forward a bill to re-open up drilling while the republicans had the congress.
So let's not bad mouth Obama and the democrats when you ain't got the cajones to do it yourself. < :-)
0
Betzee
It's lucky for McCain that Phil Gramm's "whiner" interview stole attention away from the candidate's own response to an issue raised by his campaign co-chair Carly Fiorina, a former Hillary supporter, that probably is of interest to many women. Specifically, the complaint that insurance companies which cover Viagra often don't cover birth control. The thing was, Fiorina neglected to check McCain's own voting record in this regard or she would have realized he disagreed. For one of the most painful responses of all time, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGXhCUHo
0
skipthesong
I would agree that McC is an insider of DC, but make no mistake, O is part of that Chicago ring. It's not notorious for nothing you know.
0
sailwind
Interesting post and video Betzee. He didn't really have an answer but promised to get back and give an answer after he had looked into it.
I rather like that, instead of making promises than well you be the judge,
Change we can believe in, or Politics as usual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceHhRdaO_Gs
0
sailwind
Dang just saw the negative ad Obama ran, it's viscious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREIkkhJJBY
0
Alphaape
Obama may be new to D.C. but he still plays the same old game. How is it that a man who says he is for "change" will change his stand on issues as soon as the first negative report hits him. Case in point, one day he made a comment on I believe the war and foreign policy, and then later that day he had to have another press conference to clarify the points he made. If that is not someone who has a pulse on the "opinion polls" and the inside track in D.C. then I don't know what the difference is.
Both parties are to blame for the current energy crisis. Experts have been saying that the amount of fossil fuels is finite, and from the first indication back in the 70's, we have been talking about the need to ween ourselves from them. Under Ford (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), Bush 41 (R), Clinton (D), Bush 43 (R), Congress and the Presidency have failed to act. Yes McCain has been in Congress for many of those years, but so have some of the Obama supporters in key Senate and Congress positions. So for them to now act as if they have been in the dark on this is I think a disgrace to the American people.
0
Helter_Skelter
Huh? Why do we need to learn foreign languages? I took four years of German in high school and you know what? I've never needed it. Not even on my visits to Germany. If circumstances were to arise that require I learn a foreign language or I choose to learn a foreign language, so be it. Until then, mind your own business Obama.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
Were you serious about that? "the negative ad that Obama ran"? Looks more like a spoof to me.
0
SuperLib
heh that was a pretty funny commercial. "John McCain....uncooperative"
Yep, that and health care. I learned a long time ago that a politician's promise on those two issues is nothing but hot air.
0
sailwind
Sez,
It's a spoof, but pretty darn funny no matter what your politics are. My point though about Obama making a pledge not to run any negative attack ad's and then runs one is valid though. For the record I think both McCain and Obama's energy plans stink. Nowhere near what I was hoping for, all out one hundred percent commitment to get us of foreign oil and mobilize the entire nation behind the effort.
Both their plans for all intensive purposes is just playing around the margins to mantain the status quo as all the other Presidents have done since Carter.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
Your point may be valid, but I haven't seen any negative attack ads that Obama has run.
Obama's criticism of McCain on energy dependence here is not a negative attack, not any more than any attack is negative. I'll not hold my breath waiting for a positive attack ad.
Nonetheless, his criticism of McCain on this account strikes me as being silly and pointless. Congress has never been noted for long-term thinking. Even those capable of it cannot afford it.
They do silly things like bend with the wind today and vote for immunity for the telecoms but promise to fix it when the wind dies down.
0
sailwind
Sez,
Here it is the actual Ad the article refers to. It's a negative attack ad pure and simple. I wish he would have stayed with his pledge to take the high road instead of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-lxXsrgaE
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
I have to disagree with you on that. He certainly does attack McCain's policies and his voting record. He does not attack the man himself.
Furthermore, I think that it is permissible and even necessary to criticize (or "attack" if you will) your opponent's plans. I also note that this ad appears as a response to a criticism (or "attack" if you will) of Obama's plans.
What's more, even if it were a negative attack ad, it couldn't possibly be one "pure and simple" in my view. Obama spends 16 of the 30 seconds telling us what he plans to do if he becomes President. It's still more about him than it is about McCain.
I think we've gotten so used to an absence of civility in politics that we're all a bit confused at how to distinguish scurrilous attacks from legitimate criticism. Criticism is and must remain legitimate.
In point of fact, I think Obama's criticism of McCain is weak in this ad because a drilling plan that does not produce oil for 7 years is not necessarily the only thing McCain would support. Moreover, while McCain favors tax breaks (and I do not), there is no demonstration that tax breaks would not be effective. It's an appeal to emotion. And voting with Bush 95% of the time is not a clear statement (on everything? on energy?) and we have no idea how that compares to other voters.
So, I think any wise voter would take this ad with a grain of salt. But it certainly doesn't meet my definition of negative attack ad. "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" does that. Or Bush 1's Willie Horton offering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o
0
sailwind
Sez,
First 14 seconds of the ad call McCain a Washington insider, has him and Bush holding hands together (subtle tie-in there). And tells us he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. Pretty much wasted 14 seconds when he could have spent flushing out his own policy better. It's an attack ad on McCain with the message vote mccain and get Bush again.
And Obama endorsed the Ad.
Move-on ran the General Petraeus garbage and has every right to as an independent organization their ad's are not endorsed by the candidates.
Willie Horton same thing.
http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1988.html
It's a negative ad that Obama promised not run. You may not think so but you are in the minority in that view. AP not known for its radical stance when reporting the news even called it a negative ad.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
Where are the statistics that show that the majority believes the ad in question to be a "negative attack ad pure and simple". And even if the majority did believe it to be so, so what? Are we suddenly going to make decisions based upon what the majority think?
It doesn't make any difference that the Petraeus ad and the Willie Horton ad were funded by independent groups. These ads were offered as examples of what a negative attack ad truly is. It attacks and attacks and attacks without offering any positive remedy.
This ad by Obama could have focused entirely on his own plans, but as the article points out, it was a direct response to an ad in which McCain "wasted" a similar amount of time suggesting that Obama only intones "no" to energy solutions and does nothing more than cleave to the party line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrbSO6flDQ
That ad is prettified version of McCain's web ad of Dr. No, in which there are no talking points in favor of McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r22SQ1EYlo
Obama can't play nicey-nice if McCain isn't going to. McCain says of Obama, "just the party line". Obama says of McCain, "voted with Bush 95% of the time". That sounds like a fair rejoinder to me.
Yes, the ad does show Bush and McCain arm in arm. (They aren't holding hands, I think. That wasn't a homophobic complaint was it?) But Bush has endorsed McCain I believe and has indicated that McCain is the right candidate to carry on after him. There's nothing subtle about this. It's a direct reminder of what Obama says every day--that a vote for McCain is a vote for no change.
0
Madverts
YAWN
Can't they just swear Senator Obama in already.
This is becoming so mind-numbingly B-O-R-I-N-G.
0
Madverts
"voted with Bush 95% of the time"
That's 95% of the nails in the coffin.
0
sailwind
SEz,
Wrong about this.
This ad by Obama could have focused entirely on his own plans, but as the article points out, it was a direct response to an ad in which McCain "wasted" a similar amount of time suggesting that Obama only intones "no" to energy solutions and does nothing more than cleave to the party line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrbSO6flDQ
McCain had nothing to do with the RNC ad. Notice you don't hear his endorsement on it.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180977.aspx
Qoute from the article
An important (yet inside-baseball) note: While the RNC is paying for this advertising blitz, it is coming from its independent expenditure unit. What that means is that the RNC has nothing to do with the ad's message or content; a vendor -- in this case, Brad Todd -- is responsible for that.
This, in fact, was an issue in that infamous RNC "Call me" TV ad against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee in 2006. It was an ad paid for by the RNC, but they were able to deny --legitimately -- that they had anything to do with the message. Both political parties utilize independent expenditure TV ads.
Now for the Dr. No ad.
The Dr. No ad that his campaign did endorse is a pretty hard stretch to meet an attack ad, but what the hey if that is the best you can do to distinguish the use of Obama's own statements about his views on energy policy as an attack ad on him so be it.
Heck, let's make this real easy to follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceHhRdaO_Gs
The ad he endorsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-lxXsrgaE
The ad that McCain endorsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O85jpuFKT4
Any questions who went negative and attacked.
0
SuperLib
I don't think the ad really crosses the line into an attack ad. Yeah, there's some criticism, and yeah, saying that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time is a bit undefined at best, but I didn't really see any of the fear that I usually associate with an "attack ad." Maybe I associate creating fear as the biggest driving force behind negative campaigning...? I guess it really depends on the context of things as a whole. If the campaigns were more negative overall maybe I'd see each commercial in a different light.
I watched the other ads by Sez, too. Close to crossing the line, but not quite. I think if you're giving actual positions on the issues for the other guy then you're allowed some latitude. The ads use Obama's own words that he's against nuclear power, for example, with him saying it's not optimal. Some will agree and disagree with that but the door is open for others to make their own decisions. That's different than saying Obama doesn't support nuclear power by showing a family living in their car because the lost their house due to rising energy prices...heh.
0
Betzee
This is not a new issue for him, the reporter was simply asking about his own voting record, which was not to require health insurance providers to cover birth control, after Fiorina pointed out women perceive this as unfair given that Viagra is covered.
Carly Fiorina was a big catch for his campaign, a former Hillary supporter. But how familiar is she with McCain's actual record? Apparently not very well. That points to the problem McCain is having given his greatest strength against Obama should be that he is a known quantity against a first-term Senator. The veteran of an unpopular war with several decades in the Senate where he compiled a voting record that, despite its reliable conservatism, has been periodically punctuated by principled stands as well as real efforts at bipartisanship. Washington-insider should, in short, be a strength in uncertain times.
But his flip-flips to gain the support of the Republican base have left many wondering who he is and what he really stands for. Off-shore oil drilling, waffling on immigration, is the economy in good or bad shape? It's not reassuring when the guy has taken different stands in front of different audiences. Ironically, flip flops are less damaging to Obama precisely because he doesn't have such a long record to defend.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
No, you're wrong. Now can we put the unprovable assertions aside?
You obviously believe the ad in question to be a "negative attack ad pure and simple". I'm OK with that. I have argued, though, that Obama's exposition of his position means that if it is a negative attack ad it is not one "pure and simple". You haven't really responded to that point except to say that Obama "wasted" time he could have used to support his positions. He could have shown himself bowling for 14 seconds, too, and wasted time that way. It's his choice on how he wants to use his time.
Next, lets disabuse ourselves of this term "negative attack ad". This is a silly bit of language. Can you show me a positive attack ad or a neutral attack ad? What flavors do attack ads come in? By their nature, attacks are meant to be destructive. They are meant to cause real damage to an idea or to the campaign of a person who espouses that idea.
So, is it an attack ad? Yes, in so far as it is criticism of McCain it is an attack. I don't think Obama ever pledged not to criticize his opponent, however. And why should Obama not mention his notion that McCain's energy plan won't produce a lick of oil for 7 years, or that it will give tax breaks to oil companies, or that McCain has pretty much voted down the line with a guy who is following a secret energy plan that we are not privy to?
Saying that the Dr. No ad is a negative ad is hardly a stretch. Using a bullseye background and having shadowy images of Obama loom up into the bullseye is quite negative. The real stretch is the notion that McCain has no responsibility for the publicity that goes out for him by the RNC or by John McCain 2008.
Which candidate went negative? If you're telling me that McCain is not responsible for Dr. No Obama, then I'd say neither one.
0
sailwind
Sez,
Thank you. Nice post in response to my position.
To be honest with you, I think McCain is a decent person who has run a decent campaign and I give the man credit for that. I also think Obama is a decent person who has run a decent campaign until this ad in response to the RNC and I wish he wouldn't have.
That was my whole point I wanted to make on this discussion.
I also want to say to you thank you for listening to my reasoning on this.
0
teaabe
rest assured obama's not going to win. ya'll can count on the south to do him in, as well as nader, and the cadre of hillary haters.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
You're welcome.
There are a host of things I wish Obama hadn't done--starting to wear a flag lapel pin, calling on God to bless us, calling on folks to pay down Hillary's honestly incurred debt, recalibrating his positions after seeming to win the nomination, supporting the surveillance bill. I no longer have a candidate I can vote for and am reduced to either identifying the one I will vote against or trying to fathom whether the Flat Earth Party candidate is my new hope.
What I have been saying is that this particular ad does not trouble me. I believe that the general rule for competing with ideas is that first you weaken your opponent's position and then you make your own case. I think that this is what Obama has done although, as I alluded earlier, I think he could have done it better.
If this were an election for student council president, we could put up posters wear ribbons and smile, and we could rest assured that inappropriate attacks would be censored by the principal. But I imagine the stakes to be somewhat higher here. Of course, that may be only my imagination.
If McCain felt this ad to be unfair, he should have responded to it and pointed out how and why it was unfair. Instead he sent his publicity people to make an unsupported accusation.
Back to top