VIDEO: McCain ad tries to pander to all sides simultaneously
The John McCain presidential campaign has started running a new TV ad in Michigan that simultaneously tries to pander to everyone. Earlier this year, while campaigning in the primaries, he told voters in Michigan and Ohio that "those (manufacturing) jobs aren't coming back." In that bygone era of six months ago, McCain was opposed to any kind of protection for American businesses from free trade policies. Now the new ad proclaims support for federal loans to help automakers re-tool to build more efficient vehicles and presumably compete with certain foreign automakers. Right after that, the ad supports tax credits for clean vehicles. This, of course, is followed by the mantra of "drill baby, drill!" It doesn't actually use that phrase, but does express support for off-shore drilling on the grounds that it would "reduce the cost of gas and spur truck sales." The primary reason there is suddenly so much interest in electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles is because of that high cost of fuel. Reducing the price of fuel would reduce the demand for more efficient vehicles and act counter to that re-tooling the ad mentions only seconds earlier. After all, it is the same plants that build those trucks that McCain says he wants to spur sales of that are being re-tooled. Tell us Mr. McCain, what is it you stand for?
Watch the video after the jump.
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Paul 12:12PM (9/24/2008)
"Reducing the price of fuel would reduce the demand for more efficient vehicles and act counter to that re-tooling the ad mentions only seconds earlier."
And skyrocketing oil will tank the economy, reducing the ability of the automakers to build those new vehicles in the first place, and the average person's ability to buy them.
Reply
Matt 12:26PM (9/24/2008)
And the amount of recoverable oil estimated to be offshore will do little to nothing to impact the global price of oil (or keep it from skyrocketing) since it would amount to only a couple percent of the global supply.
Wise Golden 2:55PM (9/24/2008)
Matt, if you think that a couple of percent change in world supply or demand would not have an effect, then you don’t understand the oil commodity market. A change of one percent could cause the price of oil to double, or fall by half.
tekd 9:32AM (9/25/2008)
A couple percent can indeed drastically shift the prices...for example, the price of a dozen eggs has approximately doubled since 2 years ago. Why? The egg companies (which, due to consolidation, means there's really only like 5 egg producers in the whole country) purposely exported about 3% of their eggs out of the US supply. At much lower prices than their US egg sales. Why? For the sole explicit purpose of jacking up US egg prices. If they were really competing there would be no reason to sell things at much lower prices, except they purposely dumped those eggs out of the US market so they could make double on the 97% of eggs left.
Oddly enough it may not even be illegal due to farm protection acts, but the Justice Department is already on the case.
Point is though, a few percent can very well double the price of a product.
Alric 12:10PM (9/24/2008)
To spur truck sales???!!
Clueless.
Reply
Tim 12:09PM (9/24/2008)
Nobody with any sense is listing to the Republicrats anymore. American has degraded into a one party totalitarian state.
If you vote for McCain or Obama, you're saying to them that you are an ignorant fool who believes anything the media spoon feeds you and you are dumb enough to trade your real rights and freedoms for a false sense of security.
Voting for McBama is a wasted vote because either way... WE LOSE!
Vote for ANY 2rd. party to send a message that We, the People aren't listening to their BS any more!
Reply
EnviroBob 10:01AM (9/25/2008)
And that's exactly why I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party this time around...
srue 12:31PM (9/24/2008)
I know this is a blog, and I don't expect the kind of journalistic neutrality of a newspaper, but I would prefer that the political commentary (of the staff writers) be kept to a minimum. I do want this site to cover relevant governmental developments (EPA standards, tax breaks, research funding, etc.), but criticizing a campaign ad does not qualify.
If ABG wants to cover the policies of candidates, I understand. But let me decide what to think. Don't tell me McCain is "pandering." Just give me the facts in a neutral voice. And if it can't be done neutrally, I'd prefer it wasn't done at all.
Obviously the writers at ABG don't have to listen to me - nor am I threatening to stop reading or anything silly like that. I'm just giving my thoughts as a reader. Thanks.
Reply
Mike Z 12:46PM (9/24/2008)
Agreed,
This post by Sam Abuelsamid was very unprofessional and lacked any effort to drive a meaningful discussion.
Wise Golden 3:04PM (9/24/2008)
Usually it’s Sebatian that makes the unnecessary (and often false) political comments. I’m with you though – I just want to hear the facts about new technologies. I read the story today about the Chrysler EV’s and it was great because it didn’t get clouded with rhetoric surrounding the election. These guys (Sam, Sebastian,et al) live in an internet boiler room and they spend their whole day sitting in a chair going from blog to blog feeding off of each others negativity. The McCain ad is straight from the Huffington Post and in fact, Sam basically stole the post. He liked it because it agreed with his political leaning and he felt that it would change someone’s opinion of McCain. Now I ask you, how likely is that?
Woodenbee 3:13PM (9/24/2008)
next time your watching Glen Beck or fox & friends be sure and tell them that and see if they can keep a straight face
f1tifoso 8:50AM (9/25/2008)
I agree - while this site is dedicated to the green side of cars - it's cars and facts about them, not opinions that I want to spend my time reading.
I don't need some dumba$$ to feed me opinions, just facts - that's what most liberal journalists forget, isn't it!
jd 12:52PM (9/24/2008)
Tim is obviously a McSame plant working to peel away Obama votes... don't fall for it. We don't need another trillion dollar war and his energy answer: "drill drill drill".
Don't throw away your vote and do a Nader.
Reply
Paul 12:40PM (9/24/2008)
"And the amount of recoverable oil estimated to be offshore will do little to nothing to impact the global price of oil.."
"estimated." We won't know what's really there until we go and actually try to get it. Just look at Brazil if you want to discuss the track record of estimated reserves.
Reply
UH2L 12:46PM (9/24/2008)
Vote for any 3rd party and end up with 8 more years of the same Republican failed leadership? Be realistic.
You know that the Republicans have no clue about what to do in terms of energy policy. If they do, then they don't want to because they are so tight with big oil and other corporate types who got them to push for deregulation. Even if you don't agree with the Democrats, they are the lesser of two evils. Vote Democratic and get them to lean more towards your way of thinking by being actively involved in politics.
A quote I wrote a long time ago is "Republicans stand for corporate freedom while Democrats stand for personal freedom." Look at their stances on abortion, gay marriage, the nature of proposed tax cuts, welfare, social security privatization, universal healthcare, etc... and you'll see what I mean. After this financial crisis, we all know that corporations have much more capacity to do harm than individuals.
Reply
Richard 12:51PM (9/24/2008)
Off shore drilling to spur truck sales? WTF? If we have to drill it's because of too many truck sales in the first place. I'm really confused what that statement was aiming for. The only thing, maybe, is that it would promote a vote for the autoworkers, since they would now have to produce more trucks and therefore promote more work for closing auto factories. That's just ridiculous though.
Reply
Tim 1:58PM (9/24/2008)
Those prostitutes in Congress are too busy paying off their thieving friends on Wall Street with taxpayer debt while they are debasing our currency and destroying our country. YOU idiots think that THOSE idiots who CAUSED this problem will solve it.
Sheeple say BAAAAA, BAAAAAA!
(Man, some people like (jd#10 & UH2L #8) are dense!)
I like the idea of skinning the politicians, bankers & lawyers. Then rolling them in salt and leaving them out in the sun to dry STARTING with McBama.
THEN we can do the same to their families, friends, dogs, cats, fish etc.
Once this is done, we can replace them with Statesmen who understand FREEDOM and the Constitution!
Keep reporting on BOTH sides of this single party coin, Sam and...
Keep your powder dry!
Reply
DaleMcC 10:15AM (9/25/2008)
There is no simultaneous pandering here. You can both drill for oil domestically and pursue alternatives at the same time. Do you suppose we could purchase more of our oil domestically to offset the 70% we purchase from questionable foreign sources? Or, heaven forbid, employ more people here and export it to other countries? Obviously yes. Heck, preferrably yes, seeing as everyone thinks the price of oil will continue to climb. Liberals never seem to realize this. They simultaneously argue there's no oil to be found and at the same time fight to have bans placed on drilling where we know oil exists. Yeah, no conflict there.
For those of you arguing about the timeframe in getting oil to market, remember how President Clinton put the ban on drilling in ANWR? As Rev. Wright would say, "The chickens have come home to roost." "Drill, baby, drill" is the nations response to "Don't drill, we may kill a bird", that we've heard far too long in this country. Yes, electric cars are coming, but in the meantime there's about 250 million registered vehicles in this country that run on gasoline. And yes, we still need trucks to run deliver goods. Preferrably domestically-made (Michigan) hybrids seeing as nobody else makes them.
Reply
Domenick Yoney 11:13AM (9/25/2008)
The ANWR issue has nothing to do with killing birds and was an issue long before Clinton.
Wikipedia has a history of the controversy if you're interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
DaleMcC 12:00PM (9/25/2008)
From your own link:
"In 1996 the Republican-majority House and Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWR, but this legislation was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. Toward the end of his presidential term environmentalists pressed Clinton to declare the Arctic Refuge a U.S. National Monument. Doing so would have permanently closed the area to oil exploration. While Clinton did create several refuge monuments, the Arctic Refuge was not among them."
At best, Bill took a hands off approach to the suggestion. The bird comment wasn't specifically applicable to this situation, however underlines the overly emotional reaction environmentalists take to tie the hands of Congress and the american people.
Why do environmentalist argue drilling domestically increases our dependence on foreign oil, when clearly the opposite is true?