Last week I noted that McCain is scoring political body blows with a compelling message on energy and that the Obama campaign has not responded to the massive shifts in public preferences that have occurred on the issue since early spring of this year.
The message gap on energy grew wider this week as McCain released his latest television spot (clip above). McCain knows "that we must drill more in America and rescue our family budgets" claims the ad. Obama on the other hand--while staging rallies for adoring and chanting supporters--is personally responsible for rising gas prices and opposes "drilling in America" and "independence from foreign oil."
"Don't hope for more energy, vote for it," is the ad's signature line. A second ad titled "celeb," plays on growing resentment over Obama's perceived messiah and celebrity status and then quickly connects his perceived elitism to an absence of policy on energy (see clip below.)
Both TV spots are deceptive and play loose with the facts while advocating a solution to gas prices that cuts against expert consensus. Some media outlets, such as the USA Today, have run editorials fact checking the ad claims, but these media responses will do little good unless Obama is out in front with his own equally compelling narrative on how to tackle the energy problem.
- Log in to post comments
I think this is indeed a perilous issue for the Dems this election. With Iraq fading from salience, (it looks like we will begin a gradual withdrawal process no matter who wins), energy could become an important issue. The Repubs know how to tap into sentiment against extremist environmentalists (the kind that oppose nearly all energy projects), and try to tar all liberals with this brush. The charge doesn't have to be accurate, just the linking of something the voter dislikes with Democrats in the unconscious part of the brain is all they need to do.
The Dems need to allow some drilling, and then push very hard a program to reduce our need to use oil, which is the only way we will make substantial progress on the problem. The charge that liberals have made energy expensive by disallowing drilling ought to be turnable into, we saved the oil until it is really needed (the near future), otherwise it would have been produced when oil was cheap....
Another part of the potential framing disaster: GWBs masterful timing of his drill/drill/drill speech. He timed this with the opening with Iran, (actually talking to them), and with the emerging consensus that the US will not be occupying Iraq much longer. These have allowed oil (and gasoline) prices to noticeable dropped. And you can bet the Republicans will attribute this to the talk of drilling. The Dems need to take credit, (we have been proposing talking to Iran, and gradual withdrawal from Iraq, and see what good results flow when our policies are implemented).
Drilling in undesirable places such as off-shore and ANWAR is not a solution to the nation's energy problem any more than the so-called gas-tax holiday is. In fact, it works against real solutions, as more drilling is just another perk to the oil industry. What people are not quite focused on is that as oil becomes very expensive, other solutions such as wind, solar and nuclear become more price-competitive and feasible. Al Gore's plan for renewables has been met with much skepticism in many circles but in some ways it is just facing reality. If we have a choice over the next ten years between investing in renewable technology [which may likely be the next big thing in the world economy and so getting a head start on it] or doubling down our investments in carbon-based fuels, which is the smarter strategy? Obama has spoken highly of Al Gore's plans, which we can take as some kind of philosophical endorsement of these strategic goals, if not explicitly advocating each specific policy prescription Gore has outlined.
McCain has tied himself to business as usual, oil-centric approach, framing the problem as a "gasoline-price problem" not a more broad national energy policy or energy independence problem.
To meet the needs in the short run, shouldn't we be looking to getting more oil from our old friends in Kuwait and our new friends in Iraq?
I live in Texas, where I think McCain has got to have some of his strongest support in the country. I also have a devious habit of listening in on people's conversations, especially if I think that they are conservative.
At least in the Dallas area I have not heard any apologetics of John McCains oil policy. What it seems people are most sold on is his perpetual yapping about "The Surge."
Both sides may be a bit undercut with today's announcement by the Gang of Ten that they will offer a fine compromise that will seriously require changing what we drive and use on the road and how we will confront the energy crisis.Lot os money being called for but ilt attempts to get support from both political parties and, for me, seems a healthy approach.