RNC enters the fray, tackles energy policy

The only financial edge the Republicans currently enjoy is with the national parties — Obama may be raising more money than McCain, but the RNC has a flush bank account compared to the DNC.

And the Republican National Committee began spending some of its money on this ad:

“Record Gas Prices, A Climate in Crisis,” the narrator says. “John McCain says solve it now, with a balanced plan — alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax, and more production here at home. He’s pushing his own party to face climate change.”

“But Barack Obama?” the ad continues, “For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes. No to nuclear. No to more production. No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line.”

The RNC ad, technically paid for by the newly-formed “independent expenditure” arm of the party, is on the air in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and may end up elsewhere.

If the specific charges in the ad sound kind of familiar, there’s a good reason. Two weeks ago, the McCain campaign unveiled a web video, calling Obama “Dr. No” for his opposition to coastal drilling, a “gas-tax holiday,” and nuclear energy, which, coincidentally, the RNC’s ad repeats.

Of course, the RNC’s ad doesn’t appear as foolish, stylistically, but it’s still wrong.

Let’s take these one at a time.

The RNC says McCain supports “alternative energy.” In reality, McCain opposed financial incentives to produce clean wind energy, said no to subsidies for alternative fuels, and voted against tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Funny, the RNC left these details out.

The RNC says McCain supports suspending the “gas-tax holiday,” while Obama would leave it in place. That’s true, but it neglects to note that even the McCain campaign concedes that it wouldn’t lower the price of gas for consumers.

The ad goes on to argue that Obama opposes coastal drilling. That’s true, too, but it neglects to mention that McCain agreed with Obama as recently as May, and that coastal drilling wouldn’t affect prices at the pump until 2017 at the earliest.

The RNC argues that Obama has said “no to nuclear,” but in our reality, Obama was actually the only candidate in the Democratic field to suggest that expansion of nuclear power should be on the table as part of a broader discussion on energy policy.

And as for the notion that Obama offers “no new solutions” on energy policy, that’s clearly not the case.

I’d add, though, that the Republican National Committee deserves at least some credit for lying about something substantive, instead of lying about something personal. Four years ago, the RNC sent out direct mail arguing, among other things, that liberals are trying to ban the Bible. In this sense, the RNC’s shameless and pathetic style of campaigning now includes a higher class of deception. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations, but I found the RNC’s new message merely insulted our intelligence, instead of being morally repugnant.

For that matter, wouldn’t it be fun if the campaign actually included a real debate about energy policy? It’s unlikely, since Republicans know their ideas won’t work and can’t withstand even surface-level scrutiny, but it would be a delightful change of pace, wouldn’t it?

Missing from the ad is energy independence.

I would think that that an energy independence plan is something the Neo-con wing could get behind and shill for hardcore. They could whip up fears of Iran and China controlling all the oil or some other nonsense.

  • Over the weekend, I saw a 30 second spot from McCain that tried to cram in as many buzz words as possible. The phrase that stuck out was ‘energy security’. The ad never mentioned how McCain planned on managing national security or energy, or even securing energy.

  • Yeah, the ad told me to elect John McCain so the fox can continue to guard the hen-house for the next four years. The RNC is gonna hafta try harder this time around cause we Americans know the stuff they are saying is the shit the Bush Adminstration has given us these past 7 years.

    I keep wondering just what McCain and the Republican leadership are trying to convey to us. Their all over the map, and seeming lost on the campaign trail. -Kevo

  • Sorry, “Their campaign imagery is all over the map, and seemingly they are lost on the campaign trail.” is the way I originally articulated my last observation @ #3. -Kevo

  • “Their campaign imagery is all over the map”

    I’m still trying to figure out if that’s a picture of John McCain in the ad or a fossil fuel.

  • The Republican party is remarkably consistent. As with Iraq, their energy policy is “stay the course” — continue consuming oil and paying lip service to conservation, continue burning coal and accelerating global warming, continue trying to bring back nuclear power (and the enormous profits the financial houses can make selling bonds to build the billion-dollar plants), and continue to allow solar and wind power to whither on the vine.

    Unfortunately, Obama’s energy plan is only slightly better. It would have been adequate 20 years ago, before the explosive growth of the economies of China and India made those countries competitors for the finite supply of oil and before global warming became a critical threat. But with conditions today, Obama’s proposals will not halt our ecomony’s march off the cliff.

    It’s too late for “intermediate” steps. We need to focus on a goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels. We need to phase out every sort of internal combustion engine. And we need to decentralize our power generation, putting solar or wind generating devices on every home and building.

    It’s going to be painful. But we’ve put off the hard choices for too long. It’s like avoiding going to the dentist — the longer you delay, the more painful and expensive fixing the problem will be.

  • I’d like every Obama ad to be 60 seconds long, and just him next to a TV playing an RNC anti-Obama ad, so Obama can check off each lie as it comes: “nope, that’s crap…that won’t save us any money for at least 15 years…funny I vaguely remember saying I was for the expansion of nucelar power…notice McCain doesn’t say how he’d pay for that, does he…well, THAT was filled with all sorts of horsecrap, wasn’t it? Please remember, the Republicans lie because it’s all they have. G’night America!”

  • Unfortunately, that looks like a pretty effective ad to me. I don’t think people realize that offshore drilling would be completely ineffectual, or that the gas tax holiday would just line the pockets of gas companies, because the main-stream media is once again asleep at the wheel.

  • Missing from the ad is energy independence.

    I would think that that an energy independence plan is something the Neo-con wing could get behind and shill for hardcore.

    Since the puppet masters behind the neocons are Big Oil, I don’t think energy independence is a winner for them.

  • From today’s WSJ via TPM:

    “Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, faces dissent from dozens of top fund-raisers and other supporters of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who are angry over how she was treated during their bruising primary battle and are hesitating to back Sen. Obama.

    Some leading Clinton supporters are starting new Web sites or political action committees aimed at prodding Sen. Obama on issues or pressuring him to give Sen. Clinton a big role in the general-election campaign. People familiar with the matter say the effort involves dozens of the roughly 300 Clinton “Hillraisers,” individuals who raised at least $100,000.”

    ————–

    Notice the phrase “prodding Sen. Obama on issues”. Notice also that it is many of the top fundraisers engaged in this effort, not a bunch of crazies (as portrayed by Obama supporters and the media).

    I am accused of using anything as a stick to beat Obama with. Actually, I have been opposing CB’s use of any slightest opportunity to praise Obama. The Obama-love here at this site is nauseating. Yesterday it was poker — and as expected, you entirely ignored my comment about the key role that deception plays in that game and my point that anything unpleasant indicated by Obama’s choice would be ignored, as it was. The comments about McCain and craps were just plain silly, but any excuse to say something negative about him too — ugly trivialities instead of real issues. Because anything is fair and no blow is too low when aimed at a Republican, just as we saw you do against Hillary in the primary, where all Democrats not Obama were spawn of the devil and thus fair game.

    Obama needs to be held accountable for his statements by his supporters. He has been selling out those of us who were assured that we’d be happy with his campaign. He has been selling out Democrats in order to court the religious right, independents and wayward conservatives. He is selling you guys out too, but you are more than happy to go along with it — you help him do it. Why?

    You all seem to believe that whenever Obama says something you disagree with, he doesn’t really mean it and he will turn around and be a real Democrat once he is elected. Where is the evidence of that? It isn’t in his record and it isn’t in his current actions, and it certainly isn’t what has happened during this campaign. Once he was sure of the presumptive nomination, he has been doing nothing but drifting away from the things he apparently promised just to become the nominee. For example, if Obama plans to end the war in 16 months, why is he calling for an expansion of military recruiting to add 46,000 more troops (as he did in his call for service last week)? What will you tell me when he calmly assesses the situation on the ground and does nothing whatsoever to end the war? Obama is making it clear that he cannot be trusted on any of his promises. He is also showing his true colors on important issues. Hillary supporters are upset because that is not what we voted for. You should be upset too, because I doubt that is what you voted for either.

    When Bush lied during his campaign and then showed his true colors, you know what we got. Obama watched and apparently learned something about how to win an election. Be all things to all people. Appear to be a pleasant, cautious good natured and friendly man who will govern with compassion. Control the press and never allow an unscripted moment. Manipulate symbols and work those photo ops (who needs a convention platform when you can address a huge crowd at a sports arena, speak at Gettysburg and Unity NH so you don’t have to mention the words, just as Reagan launched his campaign in Mississippi so he never had to mention race). Chase the big money. And then, after the election, do whatever you damn well please –because what are they going to do about it? Nothing!

  • Mary,

    Kindly keep your vitriol on topic, please. What does you mind numbing rant have to do with the RNC ad at all? Nothing.

  • Yes, Mary, it looks like I got swept up in Obamamania. I really thought that finally, for the first time in my life, I would have a candidate for president that I could enthusiastically, unreservedly support. And so far I’ve been disappointed by the reality of Obama’s national campaign.

    But you have never, during the entire primary process, offered us any reason for us to believe that Hillary Clinton would have been a better, more progressive-friendly candidate than Obama.

    Clinton started out her political life as a supporter of Barry Goldwater.

    Clinton was a founding member of the DLC, which promoted a “Rebublican-lite” agenda — all the policies, half the meanness.

    Clinton was a member of the board of directors of Walmart, the most anti-worker company in America.

    Clinton embraced her husband’s economic policies, including trade agreements that moved American jobs overseas. And she embraced Alan Greenspan, who believed that anytime any worker earning less $100K got a raise, it was a dangerous sign of inflation that had to be stamped out.

    Clinton defended her husband’s support of the Defense of Bigotry Marriage Act.

    Clinton stood by while her husband did nothing to oppose racial profiling and inequalities in sentencing for minorities.

    Senator Clinton enthusiastically supported the Iraq invasion (see her Senate floor speech).

    After Bush proved he couldn’t be trusted, Clinton voted anyway for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment that gave Bush an excuse to attack Iran.

    When has Clinton ever demonstrated that she will be other than a center-right defender of corporations and the status quo?

    And please note that I have not here, nor any other time, suggested that Clinton’s gender had anything to do with my feelings toward her.

  • You know mary, I’ve asked you, a number of times, what Obama can do to prove…TO YOU…he’s patriotic enough to be President. I’ve asked because, on a prior article, you actually said he hasn’t proved his patriotism. And yet, you’ve never answered.

    I suspect the answer is: Nothing. And your vote for McCain in November will prove me right. But for now, come one, have a little fun. What could Obama do or say to prove…TO YOU…he’s patriotic enough to be President?

    You have plenty of time to bring up anti-Obama rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, so I KNOW it’s not like you have better things to do with your time.

    Come on, for once, don’t be such a chicken-shit. Enquiring minds want to know. Give us some details. let us know how the mind of mary “works.”

  • “Notice also that it is many of the top fundraisers engaged in this effort, not a bunch of crazies (as portrayed by Obama supporters and the media).”

    Kindly explain how donating a lot of money to a campaign makes one less of a crazy. One of the Republicans’ best fundraisers was responsible for both the Swift Boat ads in 2004 and the more recent attempt to divide California’s electoral votes by district.

    Obama’s entire campaign (to say nothing of John Edwards’) was based on the fact that many Democrats don’t see their party’s big moneymakers as reliable supporters of a progressive agenda. (Hint: “DLC”)

  • It’s Amazing that the republicans claims they want to have energy independence, first who is behind this so called energy Crisis, isn’t Phil Gram who introduced the ENRON loophole into the TRADINMG of the OIL at the request of his wife wendy gram who was the head of the CFTC, so did any of you read the story this morning in the WashPost about how hedge funds are rigging profit.
    There is no Energy Crisis, we have being robbed by Goldman Sachs and the Hedge Funds and the Bush’s Administration(justice Deprtment) looked the other way, so now the GOP pretent that they have sollutuion. hah

  • Unnoted, of course, is McLame’s previous opposition to offshore drilling and the fact that he knows that the gas tax holiday would only have a “psycological” effect on gas prices. So the RNC doesn’t let people know that McLame’s stances have done a 180 on 2 of the 3 biggest points in the ad.

  • Comments are closed.