Chamber of Commers After-Hours
Time to go back to school
Extreme Makeover: Home edition
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > June > 19 > Entry
McCain ‘Global’ ad
The ad: “Global,” 30 seconds.
Producer: John McCain campaign.
Where to see it: It began airing Saturday, June 14, on Ohio television stations. View it at DaytonDailyNews.com/eyeonohio.
Script: (Female announcer) “John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment. Reform. Prosperity. Peace. John McCain.
Video: Opens with a bang. The viewer hears car horns while seeing rapid black-and-white video of autos jammed on freeways, factories belching smoke and ice packs melting. Then the commercial dissolves into a color photo of McCain speaking; a newspaper headline underneath him declares: “McCain climate views clash with GOP.”
The viewer then sees wind turbines, power dams, solar panels and auto workers building new cars. The final shot shows McCain standing outside, with mountain peaks in the background.
Analysis: This commercial practically screams out the words: John McCain is not George W. Bush. It comes close to suggesting he’s not even a Republican. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has charged that a McCain presidency would amount to a third term for Bush. So McCain is picking issues on which he differs most with Bush and Republicans — the environment and global warming.
By doing so, McCain hopes voters will not focus on the many issues on which he agrees with Bush, including opposition to abortion rights, extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and refusing to adopt a deadline to remove U.S. forces from Iraq.
The commercial is reasonably accurate. In 2002, McCain joined with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in an unsuccessful effort to force automakers to build cars that use less gasoline. In 2003, McCain and then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, now an independent from Connecticut, backed a major bill aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, a measure that died on the Senate floor.
But the commercial does not mention that McCain this week backed oil exploration off the coast of the United States, a move opposed by environmentalists. Nor did the commercial say that McCain this month expressed opposition to a global warming package backed by Lieberman, even though the measure was similar to the bill McCain and Lieberman supported in 2003.
McCain contends that the bill did not include enough incentives to promote the use of nuclear power. Neither McCain nor Obama showed up to vote June 6 when the Senate killed the Lieberman bill.
Jack Torry is a reporter at The Columbus Dispatch. E-mail: jtorry@dispatch.com
Permalink | Comments (19) | Post your comment | Categories: Eye on Ohio
Comments
By Savanation
June 24, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
Ah, TRS, the good old Republican tactic of hearing facts and calling them partisan because they prove the opposite of what you would like. The numbers are the numbers. Live with it. Don’t try to belittle them.”Overall tax increase”(TRS) See, genius the analysis of the plans showed that there is no “overall tax increase” planned by either Obama or McCain. If you had read and understood, you would have seen that the poor and the middle class would be tremendously better off under Obama’s plan than under the silliness of the McBush plan. I know that given your narrow minded view of the American people, this would not be a good thing. But eight years of pandering to the rich has produced an economy on the edge of collapse. Thanks a lot. “an additional 150Billion” - Since you obviously don’t know, I will have to explain to you that that would be the return of the gift which Bush gave to his cronies. Nothing there about increasing taxes on those who can’t afford it. Just returning the tax structure to where it should be. Besides, why are ytou worried about $150Billion? You and Bush waste more that every three months in Iraq. Stop that crap and there would be no problem, right? “Capital gains”? A tax on the bounty gained by no sweat or labor. Gee, I would hate to your friend rake in $800,000 instead of $900,000. Oh the injustice of it! “alleged $700 difference”(TRS) I guess you are refering to the difference between what Sen. Obama would create for the $66,000 tax payer and the measy sum that McBush grudingly offers the same taxpayer. See under the McBush proposal, the $600K guy would get $45,000 versus the worker getting $300. Gee that’s only 150 times more. Don’t you think it should have been $70,000 for the $600K guy and nothing for the $66K guy. After all, the $66,000 guy should come in the “back door” shouldn’t he? Sen. Obama doesn’t think so. But that would be “partisan” wouldn’t it?By Alice
June 23, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
here’s a link to a good article that breaks down McCain/Obama tax policies for non-economists like us: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidatestaxproposalstpc/By Alice
June 23, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Savanation, you have no tact. I was actually impressed that Ethel had good things to say about her candidate of choice rather than her usual rant about someone she doesn’t even like. You’re wasting your time trying to prove your arguments by insulting everyone. And Ethel, not all Obama supporters are aholes just like not all McCain supporters are aholes. As for record gas prices, it was definitely the dems! or maybe this: Exxon Mobil Profit Sets Record Again By JAD MOUAWAD Published: February 1, 2008 The company reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries. I don’t know, maybe this a long shot, but maybe they could limit themselves to a standard profit instead of RECORD PROFITS??? Also, maybe instead of criticizing environmentalists twenty years ago as “treehuggers” and hippies and dismissing concerns over our energy policy that we would well be on our way to actually implementing an alternative instead of putting ourselves in a situation where we need to “increase domestic production” while looking for alternatives. Bottom line is, Americans have no vision when it comes to energy. As long as there is oil somewhere to be had, we will never seriously look at alternatives and expecting oil companies to do it for us is about as smart as if we had waited for Phillip Morris to help America quit smoking. On economics, private sector does so much better? I agree with you when it comes to buying a radio, but pretty much nothing else. I can not argue the efficiency of our congress or our president or the government, and I will not argue the benefits of socialized healthcare but I will argue that what we have now is broken. Period. A healthcare system based on profit with no accountability does not work. TRS, are you one of the lucky 35% that still believe in Bush and our entire system because you are lucky enough to have a good employer, never get sick, and has absolutely no one but yourself to be responsible for? You can say all you want about our “good economy” but most people know differently because they feel it not just at the gas pump, but at work when they haven’t had a raise in eight years or when they have to be thankful they even have a job because there are no others in their field or when they have to choose between dental care for their kids or themselves. You should count yourself blessed that you are thriving in this healthy economy. I am not an economist, and I don’t think anyone else on this thread is either, but we have had the Bush tax cuts and I don’t think they are responsible for our “great economy”. There are so many things wrong with our country right now, I can’t even keep track, or want to, and I look forward to being a part of the restoration of our country.By TRS
June 22, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this
Kinda knew this guy had to be a hack when he said the Brookings Institution was non partisan. Then I read this guy was a frequent letter writer and his comments about Boehner and I knew he was a probably a member of your Liberal Economic Club (boy is that an oxymoron). I know this is really, really hard for one who prefers socialistic economics to understand, but the way you increase revenue, especially in a tough economy is not an overall tax increase. That is a growth killer. The folks who really know how to run the numbers indicate that Obama’s overall economic package would cost an additional 150B. You will note he only talked income tax - the added tax he wants to put on energy, capital gains and other misc things the “average” person might need means that on a net basis that alleged $700 difference would be more than eaten up the additional “back door” taxes. Case in point - Senator Obama was a happy man that gas prices increased so drastically - he just thought they went up to fast. Are you sure this Mignerey dude isn’t some relation to you? He’s obviously clueless when it comes to overall policy. If I were you I would get my financial information from the WSJ and not the letters to the editor section of the Hamilton Journal. Folks in my neck of the woods have never even heard of it.By Savanation
June 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this
Eh, TRS, it is the Hamilton Journal News, not the WSJ. We are in Ohio you know. And this web site is on the Journal web site. And the name is MIGNEREY. I can understand , since you are a Republican , that you wouldn’t understand all else I said, but you at least should be able to copy 8 letters correctly.By TRS
June 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
Assume you were talking about WSJ - could not find anything from Mignanary(?). Went to a couple other sites including Detroit Free Press and even the Huffington Post as well as National Review. While they cleared up some details in a nutshell it boils down to a classic liberal perspective on economics, revolving around government spending trying to do what the private sector does so much better, ie develop a “green” industry. The government has proven itself time and time again incapable of such things. Dating back to FDR, his policies put folks to work in an emergency situation for a short time, for could not be sustained. The country was in economic trouble at the beginning of WWII and it was that which pulled us out (not advocating war as an issue, just stating a fact). The articles outline other efforts in Carter’s administration among others which just feel flat on their face. Everyone points toward the Clinton years and they were good ones, but he had the “Peace Dividend” to work with and no such thing exists now. While Ohio and Michigan has struggled in the past years due to dying manufacturing, overall the economy has done well under Bush. It survived 9/11, Katrina and would be OK now had the Dems had the foresight to see that energy would be tight and we needed to tap into our reserves which alternatives were being developed. I trust the free market much more than the government.By TRS
June 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
What Journal? No Mignarary column in the DDN. however, suggest you read Friedman’s column on Iraq. Perhaps that will clear up some of your misconceptions. The soldiers in Iraq are fighter terror. Ask them. I did. McCain supported a GI bill - his own. It provided for transferability to family members, greater benefits for those who were in longer - another dirty little liberal lie put to rest. McCain has changed position on energy because the facts surrounding energy has changed. Perhaps you’ll enjoy paying $4.00/gal for gas on your vacation - thank your party, sold out to the environmentalists, for that. Talk about flip flops - What happened to “I’ll will not refuse public financing” to “show me the money. That was worse than a flip flop - he broke his word. At one point, I thought Obama might be different, but he’s just a politician and a Chicago politician at that, he gives good speeches. As you travel along your merry way, remember you are fortunate to be traveling in a country which hasn’t been attacked since 9/11 - largely because President Bush took the war to them. Those 4000+ men you refer to did not die in vain - they died fighting terrorism. If there would have been a President Gore, he probably would have wet himself trying to figure out what to do, then offered Saddam and the Taliban some carbon credits and and a couple solar panels. I’d rather have a leader who aggressively seeks to fulfill his #1 obligation - keeping our country safe from attack which he has done. A Obama security team member recent described his philosophy for developing a security strategy by reading an excerpt from Winnie the Pooh. That, in a nutshell, describes that tough, statemenlike approach you claim they will take. Have a good vacationBy Savanation
June 20, 2008 6:48 AM | Link to this
I’m going on vacation for a week or so. Hope you can live without me. TRS, please read the column by Mr. Mignerey in today’s Journal. It will clear up your misconceptions about Sen. Obama and taxes. Not quite sure how to cure your misconceptions about Sen. Mccain. He wants to continue killing our soldiers in Iraq for no reason. He refuses to vote for a decent GI bill for those soldiers lucky enough to get their butts out of Iraq in one piece. Just on that basis I would say he hasn’t the “stones” to do what is right. Hell, if he had balls and did what was right then he couldn’t be the Republican nominee for President. So look what is more important to him. The clown who used to have some morals and a few good ideas (remember McCain-Feingold) has now flipped flopped on every meaningful principle he ever had. Just so he could say “I am the Republican Nominee for President”. Such a neat guy. Not sure if his mother is still alive, but I bet he would sell her for a few more votes. “A chance for success in Iraq” The only chance there ever was for a chance for success in Iraq vanaished the day Bush was told by Cheney to bomb those ragheads. Don’t you understand: there is no chance of success in Itaq (Whatever the hell that means, no one has ever made a logical statement of what the hell they are trying to succeed at). Iraq is Iraq and nincompoops like Bush and McCain and Cheney can not wave a magic wand and make the Iraqis all nice Republican sheep. Bush may dream of that but he will he and McBush will kill another 5000 fine young American men before they are impeached. But don”t worry about that. It won’t be impeachment, just trails for war crimes. President Obama will have taken care of the Iraq situation by then. Too bad President Gore couldn’t have saved the 4000 Bush already killed. Oh, by the way, tax cuts given entirely to the wealthiest do not stimulate the economy. They just make the wealthy, wealthier. But you knew that. That is the Republican way.By TRS
June 20, 2008 1:16 AM | Link to this
Whoever Way/null is, I don’t believe you have your facts are correct. I am not an Obama supporter, but I have seen photos of him being sworn in with a Bible as well as saluting the flag. I really do hate this kind of silliness. Ethel - speaking of silliness (and beyond) here are some good words from Proverbs - “whoever corrects mockers invites insults”. That sure has proven true, eh? Now for the facts, - tax cuts increase revenue - its been proven time and time again. If you want to pay for those roads, we better cut taxes. Free market concepts can be difficult to to understand, especially when one prefers socialism such as Savanation - but tax cuts cause the economy to grow which increases revenue. It worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush. Since you were so kind to give a free lesson, here’s one back. Just like a cut in the capital gains tax increased revenues, increasing the tax will decrease them. Senator Obama advocates such an increase. When asked, Obama didn’t seemed concerned with the economics of it all - he only said it would be fairer to have a higher tax. Lets see, lets decrease revenues because thats the fair thing to do?? Candidates are not allowed to communicate with 527s therefore they could not stop it if they tried. Case in point - has Senator Obama stopped the Moveon ad - I believe they are a 527. In your chiding of others, sometimes you take it a bit to far. Take for instance saying Senator McCain loves war. Savanation - you lack the “stones” to go through what Senator McCain did. He knows what war is. You only know it in your mind. This comment is about as low as you have sunk to date. He sees what many do - a chance at success in Iraq. That is far superior to a unstable one.By Savanation
June 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this
” Who are you to tell me to “grow up?”” Someone has to. Besides the advice is free. If I were i Republican, I probably would have charged you for it.By Ethel S.
June 19, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Here come the nasty Obama supporters once again. Who are you to tell me to “grow up?” And of course, I would use my very best manners to say thank you when someone does a kind deed. Last I checked democracy deserves to have a full discussion of the good and bad points of the Presidential candidates with respect for each side. Your insults do not suppress my freedom to speak. Keep looking for my comments. McCain 2008!By Savanation
June 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
By the way, Ethel, I don’t remember seeing you post a Thank You to me for correcting you and straightening you out on that other matter which you didn’t know what you were talking about. Well, I accept your thanks. I am always here to help you.By Savanation
June 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Well it seems that the weirdo factors has arrived in full force. Looks like we have the nut with two names and nothing to say and then we have Ethel. Hi, Ethel. Did you figure out where you went wrong about Obama’s stance on retirement accounts? Now it seems you are wrong about most everything you say, once again. I can’t be around to help you all the time. So try to find some intelligence on your own. Sen. McCain needs the money, that is why he is taking public financing. At the same time he refuses to stop PAC’s and all his lobbyist friends from financing 527’s, which spread all the lies the Republicans cook up and which you obviously eat up like a super market gossip rag. When he was at the Naval Academy he finished 387th out of a class of 389. I don’t historians are scrambling to get his opinion of any thing. This “Global Leader” didn’t know who is fighting who in Iraq and who Iran is sponsoring in the fight. And, gracious, Ethel, at a time of war(which he loves), what idiot would cut taxes when our national debt is already the highest ever achieved by a nation in the history of the world? I think you know which idiot would do that, don’t you, Ethel. Do you have kids, Ethel? Do you want their great grandchildren to still be paying for your tax cut? Do you drive, Ethel? Wouldn’t it be nice that there would be money to pave the roads and fix the bridges? Or do you think those things just happen to good little Republicans? As I have said before, Ethel, grow up and please post only when you know what you are talking about.By Ethel S.
June 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
I think Sen. McCain’s new ad is great. He did stand up to George Bush on issues even when the Dem Do Nothing Congress did not. Sen. McCain is willing to accept public financing of the campaign to limit the involvement of PAC and lobbyists. He has never been for “earmark spending” which makes him different from Pres. Bush. When he was at the service academy, he wrote a thesis on how to survive being a POW. His main theme was that you had to know about the history and culture of the many countries so that you know how to handle and talk to the leaders and people. He truly is a global leader. One last thing I would like him to distinguish himself from Pres Bush is to have tax cuts across the board.By way
June 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Did Obama really say these things? THEN THE BIBLE’ REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SWORN AS A SENATOR,’ I USED THE QURAN . THEN THE FLAG, REMEMBER, I WON’T SALUTE IT . THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE’REMEMBER I WON’T SAY IT. READY FOR A CHANGE? VOTE Democratic!By way
June 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Did Obama really say these things? THEN THE BIBLE’ REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SWORN AS A SENATOR,’ I USED THE QURAN . THEN THE FLAG, REMEMBER, I WON’T SALUTE IT . THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE’REMEMBER I WON’T SAY IT. READY FOR A CHANGE? VOTE Democratic!By null
June 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Did Obama really say these things? THEN THE BIBLE’ REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SWORN AS A SENATOR,’ I USED THE QURAN . THEN THE FLAG, REMEMBER, I WON’T SALUTE IT . THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE’REMEMBER I WON’T SAY IT. READY FOR A CHANGE? VOTE Democratic!By null
June 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Did Obama really say these things? THEN THE BIBLE’ REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SWORN AS A SENATOR,’ I USED THE QURAN . THEN THE FLAG, REMEMBER, I WON’T SALUTE IT . THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE’REMEMBER I WON’T SAY IT. READY FOR A CHANGE? VOTE Democratic!By null
June 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Did Obama really say these things? THEN THE BIBLE’ REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SWORN AS A SENATOR,’ I USED THE QURAN . THEN THE FLAG, REMEMBER, I WON’T SALUTE IT . THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE’REMEMBER I WON’T SAY IT. READY FOR A CHANGE? VOTE Democratic!