Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > July > 09 > Entry
Eye On Ohio: Obama ‘New Energy’ ad
By Gregory Korte
Cincinnati Enquirer
The ad: “New Energy,” 30 seconds.
Producer: The Obama campaign.
Where to see it: It was released Tuesday, July 8, in four Midwestern battleground states, including Ohio. View it at DaytonDailyNews.com/eyeonohio.
Script: (Announcer): “On gas prices, John McCain’s part of the problem. McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years. McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He’s voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. Barack Obama will make energy independence an urgent priority. Raise mileage standards. Fast track technology for alternative fuels. A thousand-dollar tax cut to help families as we break the grip of foreign oil. A real plan and new energy.” (Obama): “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”
Video: The ad starts with a gas sign at $4.14 a gallon, followed by 10 seconds of video and photos showing McCain arm-in-arm with President George W. Bush. (They’re so cozy that, at one point, Bush appears to kiss McCain on the head.)
Halfway into the ad, the tone of the music changes and Obama appears, giving a speech and talking to voters. Video of a wheel in motion, a hydrogen-cell electric engine and a sandy foreign desert illustrate Obama’s energy plan.
Analysis: This ad is almost a direct, point-by-point rebuttal to two Republican National Committee ads portraying Obama as a predictable liberal opposed to offshore drilling, nuclear power and lower gas taxes. (One commercial, ironically, praised McCain for bucking his own party — the party producing the ads — on climate change.) And while it focuses squarely on issues, it’s also Obama’s first negative ad of the season.
It’s fair to say that McCain’s energy plan addresses the supply side — developing new sources of energy — more so than Obama’s, which focuses more on technologies that could reduce the demand. Indeed, even the RNC ads conceded that it’s hard for McCain to outdo Obama on conservation.
McCain does oppose the “windfall profits” tax on oil companies, which he said would hurt their exploration and research efforts. And Obama’s claim that the McCain energy plan “won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years” is accurate as it pertains to offshore drilling. That’s because of a shortage of deep-sea drilling ships, experts say.
Neither plan would have an immediate impact on gas prices — except for McCain’s proposed “gas tax holiday,” which would temporarily save 18.4 cents a gallon in the summer. In the ad, Obama counters with a $1,000 “middle-class tax cut.” But that has nothing to do with gas prices, except that middle-class families are paying more for gas.
There’s a third character in this drama: President Bush. He’s mentioned as often as either candidate; the subtext of the ad is clearly an attempt to tie McCain to the soon-to-be-former president. And as far as it goes, that’s a fair shot: McCain’s “95 percent” voting record comes from a highly respected Congressional Quarterly voting study.
Gregory Korte is a staff writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer. Contact him at gkorte@enquirer.com.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Eye on Ohio
Comments
By Ethel S.
July 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
I just heard Sen. McCain’s Town Hall meeting in Wisconsin on the radio this morning. Among many issues, Sen. McCain discussed his Energy Security programs. Someone asked about nuclear energy. Sen. McCain was intrigued by an idea he thought was worth looking into and that was Russian offered the USA a remote area in Siberia to deposit the waste. The reason Sen. McCain offered a $300 million reward for an inventor who can make an efficient battery operated car is that it represents every person in the US population. Besides offshore drilling, I like these bold issues. And where is the Do Nothing Democratic Congress on all this? It was a very informative session. Sen. McCain said he had disagreements with his party on global warming and the environment to name a few. Sen. McCain is definitely part of the greatest generation with his knowledge and experience.By Savanation
July 11, 2008 7:31 AM | Link to this
You are rather obtuse, TRS. Gramm is the major architect of McBush’s economis and energy policies. (McBush couldn’t do it himself, he isn’t “that knowledgeable” about those things). So it stands to reason that if the guy who tells the other guy what to say is a jerk then what does that say about the guy who listens and repeats what he is told? If Gramm doesn’t have any idea of what is going on in America, I don’t think McBush does either.By TRS
July 10, 2008 11:39 PM | Link to this
Don’t know what Gramm said has anything to do with the posts except to change the subject. That being said, the only logical answer was that he’s been reading your posts because they certainly reflect a recession of the mind only in your case its congenital and not economic. Old saying in legal circles - when you can’t argue the facts you try to baffle them with BS. Nice try.By Savanation
July 10, 2008 9:54 PM | Link to this
Yea, TRS, I guess you must be correct. Gee, I just heard Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain cheif economic advisor, tell me that America is a Land of Whiners and we all have a “mental Recession” in our minds. I guess I should stop whining about $4.00 a gal. gas and $4.00 a gal. milk and try to have my mental condition attended to. You know it is sincerely touching to be able to listen to a man who so understands the plight of the poor serfs who toil on his plantation. #$%@&%%$@@!- Excuse me while I try to get Sen. Gramm out of my mouth. There has never been a more complete embodiment of what it means to be a Republican than Sen. McBush’s best friend and chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm. What a F…… Jerk!By TRS
July 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this
Speaking of “not in my backyard”, its worth checking out Boone Pickens plan (pickensplan.com). At 1st glance it seems to have merit; but, the problem will be getting power lines and grids built in the “back yards” of America, heading both east and west. You can almost hear the “I don’t want it my backyard” - but if this whole energy issue is to be solved, something is going to have to give.By TRS
July 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
There have been no new refineries because of the “not in my backyard” syndrome. Both politicians and community members say “that sounds like a good idea” but put it someplace else - we don’t want it; thus, it has been next to impossible for refineries to be built. As an example, currently a group is trying to build a refinery in the middle of the Arizona desert. So far, they have 6 years and 30 Million invested, have been chased away from one location and are in the midst of the “environmental impact study” for another. A company has a fidicuary responsibility to its stockholders and making a risky investment that in all likelihood will not provide a return for a long time down the road would be considered a very bad business decision. Its not that they haven’t wanted to build refineries; rather, the enviornmentalists and Democrats have created an atmosphere in which it wasn’t possible to do so. What has occurred? Currently there are 149 less refineries than in 1981. Simply put there became obsolute and needed replaced which wasn’t possible (see above). Because companies have upgraded their existing refineries the capacity only shrank 10%; but, such a shrinkage in the face of today’s demand is one reason for the prices we have today. Same applies to alternative energies. As an example, a company wanted to put wind mills near the home of the Kennedys on Cape Cod to generate electricity. Senator and Congressman Kennedy are supposed to be strong advocates of alternative energy but when it gets to close to them what do they say? Not in our backyard! Same applies with Nuclear. In the middle of the desert is Yuca Mountain. It has been prepared for the safe burial of nuclear waste. Yuca Mountain is in Nevada and good ol’ Harry Reid says “not in my back yard” (notice how it is Democrats who seem prone to this hyprocracy). During the Clinton years little was done to address alternative energies. He vetoed opening up 80 arces of ANWR which would be producing 1M barrels of oil by now had he not done so. He used the same argument used today by the Democrats - “aw, it just wouldn’t make that much difference”. Some of the Democrats ideas RE dealing with the energy issue - (Obama) well, its OK for the price to go up but not this fast; lets sue OPEC; lets launch an investigation into speculators; nationalize the refineries (let the government run them!); use oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a reserve kept for National Defense) and of course the infamous Windfall Profits Tax which ultimately will be passed along to the consumer and/or diminishes company stocks which affects the portfolio of millions of people pension funds or 401Ks. These are not political cliches or hyperbole - they are the facts. Everyone agrees that we should pursue alternative fuels and creative incentives for their development; these are long term solutions. We need a combined policy which includes all things including drilling now. This stuff about already having leases to drill is silly - why? Because no oil has been found on these lands! I suspect that what we’re seeing now is the Democrats trying to hold off doing anything until after the election. Rising fuel prices have greatly effected an otherwise decent economy and they know historically a poor economy is a problem for any incumbant party. Should Obama win, the Dems can no longer pontificate - they have to govern. At that point they will have a “light bulb” moment saying we need a comprehensive policy including drilling and then take credit for their brilliance. In the meantime they are perfectly content to let the American people suffer.By Savanation
July 9, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this
Of course the demand for oil will not be completely gone in 7 years. The problem is that even if we did do more drilling, the oil companies have refused to take any of their massive profits and build new refineries. Our exsisting refineries are already at capacity. Plus this “new” oil would only make a small dent in our massive needs and might only lower gas costs, maybe 3 cents a gallon. Besides with the vast expansion of China and India and their need for oil, the world market prices for oil will continue to escalate, as will the final cost to us for our gas tank. Saying do more drilling domestically sounds nice, but it is no solution to the problem. the solution has been blocked by the Republicans in Congress and in the White House for years. Being controlled by Big Oil and Big Car money, the Rpebulican party has stopped all tries to bring up to speed all sensible alternative energy solutions and even passive solutions such as making car manufacturers build smaller cars and more fuel efficient cars. McBush has been a Republican Senator for 21 years. Please show me where in the past 21 years (not in the last month) he has led his party to common sense proposals about energy. I haven’t seen the Republican party do one thing about this problem, other than try to blame it on the Democrats. Is that what you call a leader?By sgargal
July 9, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Will demand for oil be completely gone in 7 years? This criticism of domestic drilling makes no sense to me. McCain’s voting record may be predominantly republican, but he’s at least challenged his party on several important issues, while Obama’s stayed way left.