New ads and spin worthy of "1984"
This ad will damage Obama particularly among two groups. One, those on the left (and the right) who are tired of the war and supported him due to his promise to immediately withdraw the troops were already exasperated by his repositioning to an 16 month withdrawal timeline, and now he appears to be moving more and more away from that promise made in the primaries to "it depends." What it depends on changes from speech to speech, as sometimes its 'the advice of the military commanders,' other times its his own 'evaluation of the situation' and others 'when it becomes safe for the troops.' The only consistent standard followed thus far seems to be that it depends on the current state of polls.
Two, this will hurt Obama among those who are seeing more and more position changes by him, and may be particularly struck by such a shift on what had been a signature platform for him during the primary when he outflanked Clinton's left.
McCain meanwhile made the following statement on the contrast between Obama and himself on Iraq:
"Well, I think you know that I opposed the failed strategy of the Bush administration. I argued for the strategy that is succeeding. I have been to Iraq 8 times. I know the situation on the ground. I predicted we would succeed and we are succeeding. And, we are winning. That victory is fragile, it can be reversed. Sen. Obama opposed the surge. He said it would fail. He still is saying that it would fail. Now, last Thursday or Friday, it seemed for a while there he was agreeing with the surge, then maybe he's not. So, I'm glad he's going to Iraq for the second time. He hasn’t been there in 900 days. I'm glad, for the first time, he’s going to sit down with General Petraeus -- for the first time, a sit-down briefing, if you can believe that. And, I hope that he will reach a position. I don't know what position, because he's been all over the map, calling for immediate withdrawals, back in the primaries to now saying you know -- so it's hard to know. I hope that he'll go over there and get the kind of information he needs that he hasn't requested in the past...But, have no doubt what my position was when I called for additional troops, it was a very unpopular thing to do and many people said my campaign was dead and I said I'd rather lose a campaign then lose a war. He said it would fail, it has succeeded. [The] American people should take notice of that. So, I'll see what he has to say when he gets back from his visit to Iraq. And, I'm sure he'll be impressed with a sit down with one of the greatest generals that America has ever produced, General David Petraeus."
Here's the ad:
Obama has a new ad out as well. First, here's a link to one of his many earlier speeches in which he promised not to run any negative ads:
Added to the list of reversals from the previous post, we can add:
26. His promise to not run negative ads.
27. His pledge to debate McCain anytime, anywhere and then refusing a series of 10 debates, 1 a week until the conventions, counteroffering a proposal that included the standard 3 debates of every recent Presidential campaign, plus one, and a single town hall.
28. In another recent ad Obama claimed credit for welfare reform in Illinois that moved many individuals off the rolls and back to work. The ad has backfired, however, as fact checkers have pointed out that he voted against the reform bill he is touting the success of, and he was never a sponsor nor author of it.
29. Obama has declared that abortion should never be for an emotional reason. As a Constitutional law professor, however, he knows that supporting Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton means exactly that, and he has supported every single type of abortion procedure, including those up through the third trimester and partial birth abortion, and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who are accidentally born during an attempted abortion and vests them with the full rights of personhood, stating it was superfluous. Pro-Life fact checkers cite numerous examples, however, as to incidents where such a law would not be superfluous.
In any event, the new Obama ad is here:
Obama clearly runs a negative ad against McCain for high gas prices, but he does not make clear anything McCain has done that has led to high gas prices. Indeed, the GOP has not even been in control of the Congress during the last 18 months when gas prices have gone from about $2.30 to $4.10 a gallon. The one thing he does cite to is McCain's support of tax breaks for oil companies, but that is very disingenuous here. McCain's "tax breaks for big oil" here would come in the form of incentives to invest in alternative energy sources that would increase our independence from foreign oil, and Obama addresses none of those specific incentives. It is intentionally deceptive and misleading to suggest McCain just wants to give money to big oil. The ad is also rather negative in that it portrays McCain's 26 years in Washington as a bad thing, whereas presumably Obama's 3 years in Washington is an advantage in a Presidential candidate. The link to voting with Bush "95% of the time" is also problematic. First, Bush does not vote, he can only veto or not. Many bills get passed that are not controversial, and by a similar calculus one might say Obama voted with the Democratic leadership in the Congress 95% of the time, or perhaps closer to 100% of the time, where some polls now have the approval ratings thereon down into single digits.
Obama is claiming that he will lead to independence from foreign oil but almost all of his positions run counter to that. He is against drilling in ANWR, against offshore oil drilling, against increased domestic drilling, against non "clean coal" fossil fuels, against developing nuclear power plants, against tax incentives for oil companies and/or anyone else to develop alternative energy sources such as a cost-effective, market-feasible battery powered vehicle, is against dipping into our oil reserves and against a summer gas tax holiday which would at least lower gas prices temporarily. The justifications for these stances have included both that the relief in gas prices would be only temporary as well as the price in gas relief would not be seen for some time. The environmental interest groups' every stance he has prioritized over moves that would concretely move us toward energy independence. That is fine if that is his policy position, but it is duplicitious to simultaneously claim he is the energy independence candidate in an attack ad.
He mentions in the ad he would make energy independence a priority and break the grip on foreign oil, but the only ways he proffers to do that are to "fast track new technologies", "a $1000 middle class tax cut", and "raise mileage standards." Fast track new technologies does not sound like a policy stance at all, unless he were to support tax incentives for those developing such technologies or some other reward or government incentive or enabling program for them to do so. He has voted against all these initiatives, however. It will be an entrepreneur and/or scientists who drive the next big development, which will not occur sooner because Obama is hoping in such futuristic dreams without supporting anything conducive to achieving that objective.
The tax cut for the middle class sounds nice, but is not related to independence from foreign oil. It could help pay for gas, but its insufficient to roll that out against every issue as if it addresses it. Further, McCain's proposed tax credits ($5000 for health care coverage), ($3500 increase in exemption for each dependent) far exceed the $1000 tax break he proposes.
Last, to "raise mileage standards" may be yet another boon to the environmentalist cause, but its relationship to independence from foreign oil is tenuous at best. If we had more fuel efficient vehicles, then people would consume less gas and the law of supply and demand might decrease the price of oil somewhat, though we would still be dependent on it. A gradual increase in gas efficiency, however, would not likely significantly affect the cost of gas. Further, in the absence of any tax incentives for doing so that would instigate the necessary R&D, it is unclear if car companies can produce an economical mileage efficient vehicle. Even if such a regulation were to lead to better technology, (and it might not, in which case it is unclear what penalties Obama would set against our American manufacturers and foreign owned but American operated manufacturers), but the cost of vehicles would likely skyrocket, which is certainly not lower class or middle class friendly.
Both candidates support a number of other measures such as solar power, wind power, etc., but even there McCain is offering tax incentives to those who can develop it, which encourages scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to get involved in that effort, while Obama gives it mere lip service.
In short, Obama does not have a plan for energy independence - he has empty talk, proposals thin on specifics, a consistent policy of cowtowing to every environmentalist position on the issue that is at odds with measures that would help achieve energy independence, and general plans that forebode making things worse for the American people in other ways.
As attack ads go, this is a particularly disingenuous or inappropriate one. Further, it certainly betrays his promise of "no attack ads" and a "new kind of politics."
