Thursday's ad war revolved around energy, as MoveOn.org announced a 30-second television ad labeling John McCain's energy plan a "gimmick."
McCain has been traveling the country touting his energy plan, which includes lifting the ban on offshore drilling. The ad by MoveOn, which backs Democrat Barack Obama but has no direct connection to the campaign, has a father telling his son how McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, seemed like a principled man.
But the offshore drilling idea, the father said is "not a solution, Mr. McCain. That's a gimmick. We expected better."
Republicans quickly fought back.
GOP spokesman Alex Conant noted that Wednesday, Obama told a Missouri audience that “There are things that you can do individually though to save energy; making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”
Thursday, Conant said, "a day after Barack Obama told voters to inflate their tires and reject domestic exploration, his special-interest friends are echoing his anti-drilling message on TV. Attacking John McCain’s solutions to America’s energy crisis and offering nothing but tire-maintenance advice will not reduce prices at the pump."
To see the MoveOn.org ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O5fFcM59eY
These aren't ad wars as much as skirmishes (if that).
Obama calls for Americans to use less energy (which would also be less expensive), and McCain retorts with 'tire-maintenance ... will not reduce prices.'
Of course maintenance, less driving and better planned trips will reduce prices. Why even argue that?
McCain's not pushing his drilling scheme (other than mentioning it) because he knows it won't happen. If it was a good idea we'd have more than eccentrics like McCain calling for it.
Posted by: Ivanv | July 31, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Seems to me you can both do the conservation things and also do the drilling. The thing is, as Barack says, the conservation efforts are things that we can do individually, so the person in office doesn't affect that at all. Energy policies on the other hand, such as offshore drilling, require government action and therefore the person in office does make a difference. Does Obama think the government doesn't need to do anything because we as individuals can solve the problem ourselves? He needs to tell us what things he is considering or planning to help solve the problem.
Posted by: mike | July 31, 2008 at 07:51 PM
Mike,
I agree that conserving while finding other answers to our energy problems is the right way to go.
Only in major policy speeches will either Obama or McCain mention many of their respective energy items. The platforms are too long to list anywhere other than in their websites.
Compare their energy positions and you'll find much similarity.
Some differences are McCain's call for drilling, his 'gas-tax holiday' and his $300 million battery development prize to the creator of a battery 1/3 the size of today's batteries.
Drilling has made the news and is polling well because it's an easily understood idea, regardless of its cost or results.
None of these three ideas will appreciably lower today's gas prices.
Few people are saying that 'conservation' is the answer for everything. But just calling for something, "More drilling!" or "$300 million prize!" won't work.
The difference you make between individual and government roles is correct. I would add though that leaders' words and acts make a big difference in what we do.
Obama is calling for conservation as well as short- and long-term government goals that will reduce our costs and save the US energy.
You're also right when you say Obama should speak more of his views on energy. I'm sure he'll speak more in the coming months, but remember that his website has many of his ideas, under "Issues."
Posted by: Ivanv | July 31, 2008 at 11:45 PM
In the 1970's we conserved so much that gas prices DID come down. That was when smaller fuel efficient cars were a fad. When gas prices came down we started buying bigger cars. Even smaller cars started being offered with bigger engines.
Increasing supply will lower prices (if demand stays constant). And lower prices will stimulate demand - which will put upward pressure on prices. That's marketplace economics at work. What won't work is gimmicks like a gas tax holiday since it's not the gas tax that's driving up prices.
It's a mystery to me why McCain who speaks so much about free markets would pitch a gimmick that contradicts free market theory. Perhaps it's easier to give speeches about market economics than to live up to those words.
Posted by: FletcherFramer | August 01, 2008 at 03:59 PM
FF,
I agree with you. Do you remember being allowed to buy gas depending on the digits on its plate?
We did conserve, and we did save (both money and energy), but we soon 'forgot' and went back to bigger cars (SUVs) and abandoning any thought of working toward reducing our consumption.
I blame it on several things: 1) it's in the oil and car industries business to make and sell more, bigger products - I'm not saying they're 'evil,' only that as a business they try to make more profit - so when we (US) felt somewhat more comfortable we went back to large vehicles;
2) Conservation isn't sexy; without an overpowering (apparent) need and without a celebrity salesman to suggest we do so, it fell mostly on deaf ears, and;
3) The US is ahistorical. Of course we say, "I like history" but that usually means we like reading about 'far off' times like the Civil War period, or WWII. It's uncommon for recent history to be read. Question: how many books are well-written and well-known about our time in Vietnam?
I'm sure there are more reasons, but the above 3 together make a case for "more oil" and not for "conserve."
Even today the arguments for drilling and for keeping high MPH limits is "better technology."
Rita and Katrina destroyed over 100 wells in the Gulf and over 100,000 of oil was spilled (- I'll get the precise nos. if you want), and just because we've improved technology doesn't mean that cars save more fuel at higher speeds.
Posted by: Ivanv | August 01, 2008 at 06:42 PM
CORRECTION for the previous entry:
The second line should end with, "... the digits on [the car's] plate?"
Posted by: Ivanv | August 01, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Many politicians are no friend to the payday loans industry. In order to raise voter support they choose to ignore what is best for the citizens. Some states including, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon have completely driven out the payday loan companies. Politicians still choose to disregard the benefits of the industry even though statistics in these states show a spike in bankruptcy filings, bounced checks and foreclosures. Even though these negative statistics have come to light, several governors are still trying to follow suit. If the efforts to wipe the industry completely off the map prove successful, some possible repercussions might consist of increased unemployment rates, more debt, more foreclosures and an even more inapt economy.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate | October 01, 2008 at 02:07 AM