We just got off a conference call with Camp McCain, defending their new ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
They said they thought the ad was legitimate because Obama is a big celebrity (which happens to be what John McCain was, too, when he came home from Vietnam and started to build his political career), and Britney and Paris were Number 2 and 3.
The problem: Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news. Here's a link to Forbes' Celebrity 100. Paris and Britney don't even make the list any more.
Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt.
So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married.
What they picked was two sexually available white women.
But it must have been a coincidence, because we know John McCain wants to run an elevated campaign focusing on the serious issues that America faces.
Comments (54)
DUHH.................they used paris Hilton and Spears because the public perception of them is BRAINLESS..................
"The problem: Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news."
Don't you think that being out of touch is a more plausible explanation than the "sexually available white women" one? John McCain brags that he is "aware of" the Internet, so it wouldn't surprise me if he just didn't know better.
The implications in the ad are obvious (and on par with McCain's so-called "dignified" campaign). The examples of Britney/Paris are meant to equate Obama with vacuous, self-obsessed preeners who are perceived to be ditzy and shallow...in spite of their outward attractiveness.
In other words, Obama may look good and speak well, but inside he's an empty shell. That this is blatantly untrue and specious is irrelevant.
What's also obvious is that McCain has surrendered the operations of his campaign to the GOP mud-slingers and reprobates he vowed would NOT represent him. McCain is now the puppet, and any talk of him as 'maverick' or 'straight talker' are dead and buried.
Anyone who thinks this ad isn't playing on America's basic racial fears needs to go watch Birth of a Nation immediately.
The Forbes Celebrity 100 is a red herring... Forbes rates importance by $$, not by press coverage or "in-ness." There are a million ways you can denounce the ads, but complaining re not using the Forbes list is simply bone-headed. The Police at #8 in pop culture, you've got to be kidding me!
Anon
Uh, the Forbes Celebrity 100 also looks at press coverage, web site hits, TV/Radio exposure, not just earnings.
Furthermore, anyone who doesn't think that the "geniuses" who thought up this ad didn't realize they were using two young, "sexually available white women," who incidentally happened to be "vacuous, self-obsessed preeners who are perceived to be ditzy and shallow...in spite of their outward attractiveness" is kidding themselves. Indeed, the message is that these are the types of women who would go for a person like Obama.
I live in Memphis and watched the Republicans run the "call me" ad against Harold Ford Jr. Sexual innuendo is as natural to the Republican attack machine as breathing. They honestly don't care where Brintney/Paris are on Forbes or any other chart. Young, white women displayed in conjunction with a young, black man is all that matters, particularly in the deep South. If you don't believe that, then come down and listen to the chatter.
Especially interesting since a "Kathleen Hilton" from Beverly Hills gave $2300 to John McCain's campaign this year. Surely that isn't Paris's mom, is it?
Obama is in the enviable position that any criticism of him can be construed as racist by his supporters. As to the specific ad's intent, Matty is correct. If the McCain campaign had used Jay-z (a hip hop artist) , some wag would claim the McCain campaign was trying to associate Obama with thugs, misogyny or some other racial undertone. I am surprised the tv personalities have not discussed this strategy of the Obama campaign/surrogates.
Anyway, McCain makes these ads because he is losing. He has to go negative, if he wants to win. Politics 101. Obama has such a thin record, what else is there to attack? He has been preparing to run for President at least since his Law School days (not that there is anything wrong with that). Obama's mature life has been a cake walk. That NY Times article on his time at UC Law school reveals that he has some quality that enables people to support him despite his lack of qualifications. He has always been perceived as the rising star. It will be interesting to see what he does with real power (for the first time) in January. He will have reached his ultimate goal and no longer have to be as cautious.
Make a list of the five celebrities which you most associate with this phrase
"slut"
and tell me who is on your list.
So are you trying to tell me it is a coincidence that the two celebrities chosen for the ad are in the top five (top two)? Two blonde white women who the public highly associated with 'slut' are just chosen as the 'celebrities' by chance. Think of all the other non-women, non-white, non-blonde, non-slut celebrities who might have been chosen but weren't.
Really, just a coincidence?
Really?
This race might take the prize as the one generating the most monumentally stupid comments by the punditry.
To those who think this was in some way crypto-racism or something like that, all I have to say is this: you are mentally ill. You clearly are suffering from a form of monomania involving race, and should seek psychiatric assistance.
Anyone with unimpaired cognitive abilities can clearly see that the ad is intended to mock Obama's celebrity without accomplishment, and in this regard the ad IS an insult--to Britney Spears. Whatever else you might think of her, she became first became famous by her accomplishments, even if only singing and some acting. Obama's accomplishments are so thin that he has had to try to claim credit for bills he had little to do with, even going so far as to claim, as he did on his world tour, to be on a committee he isn't on.
Obama's pretty speeches may be more dignified that Hilton's sex tape, but in the end neither is a qualification for president.
P.S. As for McCain's "celebrity" status, would that be the celebrity he acquired as the result of enduring years of torture in the service of his country? Hmm. Yes, I can see the equivalence Riley is trying to draw between that and Obama making a few pretty speeches.
Yo, Scott.
Obama hasn't accomplished anything? That's rich.
How was your editorship of the nation's most prestigious law journal? Served you well?
And all that time in public service? You sure were lauded for that.
Nonsense. Racist nonsense.
Well, I didn't edit a law journal, but I did write around 2 dozen articles for an Ivy League newspaper (Obama apparently didn't do much actual writing while editor), and one of my articles was quoted favorably by a Soviet dissident visiting campus. I've also been published in peer reviewed political science journals. Now, I haven't gotten a $40,000 advance to write a book, but, in my defense, neither have I gotten money under false pretences (such as getting a $40,000 advance to write a book about race relations and turning in a memoir instead--nor have I been arrogant enough to think when I was 28 that I could justifiably write a memoir--or at least one that would warrant that fat an advance).
And as for public service, I suppose I've never held a position as prestigious as "community organizer," but at least I've shown up every day and done my job -- unlike Obama, based on his voting record in both the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.
Oh, and I'd like to add, I'm not saying I'm qualified to run for president, and I'm DEFINITELY not acting like I've already been elected.
As for your bizarre comment seeming to accuse me of being a racist, please reread my comments on seeking psychiatric help. Unless, of course, you would care to elaborate on what, exactly, I said that was racist. I presume you have a more intelligent response than simply any criticism of Obama is racist.
Because criticizing Obama isn't racism; it's religious bigotry, what with him being the Messiah who will heal our souls and lower the oceans and all.
Of course McCain would use Paris Hilton in an ad. He has a thing for young blonde heiresses.
All she needs is a pill habit and he'll leave his wife for her!
well done! this is how you do it. there is absolutely an implicit allusion to both race and miscegenation subsequently, and its disgusting. but its even more funny, because, really, the people McCain's age do think mixing of the races is bad. hell, they think dancing is bad. music is bad. let him pander to these folks, that's fine, they're a tiny minority.
"Because criticizing Obama isn't racism; it's religious bigotry, what with him being the Messiah who will heal our souls and lower the oceans and all."
That's a good one! Did you cut-n-paste it directly off one of those jolly 'Obama is a Stealth Muslim' emails? Those are a riot!
Look, clearly you are a McCain supporter and much like your candidate of choice you can give us reams of information on why Obama is the anti-Christ. But can you tell us what is so great about John McCain?
Is it his bold, mavericky way of blowing with the political winds? Is it his calm and even temperment? Is it his goal of blessing us with a third term of Bush policies?
Since your candidate has yet to enlighten us, perhaps you can.
@Scott:
Can you point to McCain's accomplishments? I mean, getting his plane shot down could possibly count, but I'd think that's not what you were shooting for. Simple fact is that McCain has not held a real job in his entire life (he went from coasting in the Navy to coasting in Congress to coasting in the Senate), and that he has been a "kept" man all that time. So OK, he was a prisoner of war (just like thousands of others); how exactly does that qualify him to be president?
As for the "legislative accomplishments" we so often hear about, name a single one which McCain has not reneged on... I'm waiting... Still nothing? (Big Tobacco, nope. Campaign reform? Broke that as soon as it became inconvenient. Pork spending? Under his watch, pork spending shot through the roof. Torture? Well, he hasn't really called for Bush to be tried for treason yet, has he?).
McCain is the one with no accomplishments to point to. That's why he's now going so negative so early: he has nothing else to work with.
"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, about Barak Obama. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."
This ad airs as Rove's team is taking over McCain's campaign. If you think it's a coincidence that they put Paris and Britney (blonde sluts) in the ad, you aren't paying attention.
I'm surprised McCain didn't compare Barack Obama to someone from his own era. Say, Mae West.
They compared Obama to a young, blond heiress... the precise sort of person McCain fell in love with an married. Does this mean McCain is secretly in love with Obama? Inquiring minds want to know.
"the message is that these are the types of women who would go for a person like Obama."
But that was the type of woman who *actually* went for a person like John McCain.
I'm a democrat, and an Obama support, but I don't buy this racial angle. The reasoning put forth here is an intellectual bank shot. McCain's methods and messages are not that sophisticated.
The ad contains young white women with loose morals. If you think this will cause the typical person to infer that Barak Obama is some threatening virile black archetype, then you are holding Occam's razor by the wrong end. Yes, that sentence was kind of a train wreck.
Why these two? Because they are vapid. It is as simple as that.
Why not Opera and Tiger? Because they are respected, and by comparing Obama to black celebrities it would be even easier to claim foul on injecting race into the issues.
Let's face it. They're not just "sexually available", they're notorious sluts. I think the point is obvious.
And speaking of sluts, there's another dumb, rich blond and former drug addict they could have gone with. Cindy McCain!!!
Howard writes:
"John McCain brags that he is "aware of" the Internet, so it wouldn't surprise me if he just didn't know better."
John McCain doesn't write his own ads. They're done for him by hirelings. The man is competely packaged.
In a vacuum, I suppose you could claim that the racial overtones of this ad are inadvertant. Unfortunately, the people who created the ad are the same who created the "Call me, Harold" ad that torpedoed Harold Ford in Tennessee. A pattern of behavior implies intent.
As they say: fool me once, shame on you, fool me... can't get fooled again.
Um, can someone explain what my comments about Obama being the Messiah have to do with stealth "Obama is a Muslim" emails? Because I'm reasonably sure Muslims would take offense at anyone claiming to be a messiah.
Moreover, why would I want to suggest Obama is a Muslim, since doing so would absolve him of his twenty year association with a radical, America-hating Christian minister who was his spiritual advisor?
And why do people think I'm a McCain supporter? I really don't like the guy; to name just two reasons, his position on campaign finance reform is repugnant to both the letter and raison d'etre of the First Amendment, and he seems to take perverse joy at times in sticking a thumb in the eye of his putative allies--though in his defense he seems to do so out of a overweening sense of his own rightness, rather than just to get applause from the New York Times (like Chuck Hagel).
But on the point of this ad, he's right on the money, and that's why I'm going to be holding my nose and voting for him. Because he has the character built from personal adversity (his demonstrated willingness to self sacrifice for others is the important thing to come out of his POW days, for those of you wondering). Because, contrary to the idiot who claimed he's been "coasting" in Congress, he has been a major, influential lawmaker for over 2 decades. But mostly it's because I'd rather have an old, cantankerous curmudgeon I disagree with at least half the time than a vapid, egomaniacal, inexperienced prettyboy whose main accomplishments to date have been the ability to read a teleprompter (his off the cuff comments at times make Bush look like a paragon of coherence), a willingness to rewrite history with a zeal that even the word "Orwellian" fails to accurately encompass (see his various comments on Wright, the surge, etc.), and the ability to get a bunch of brainless sheep to chant his name over and over.
In a nutshell, I'm voting for the cranky, disagreeable, old bastard largely because I don't want the cult leader who seems to cause people to turn off their cognitive abilities--as demonstrated by the moronic responses to my earlier posts.
Maybe Schmuck Talk is lusting after them himself?
Cindy is getting kind of old.
No, Scott, you're voting for McCain because you're an ignorant Republican jackass. No doubt you voted for Bush twice too.
"No, Scott, you're voting for McCain because you're an ignorant Republican jackass. No doubt you voted for Bush twice too."
Hey! That's "ignorant, CONSERVATIVE jackass," to you, mister.
Seriously, though, I am in awe of your rhetorical skills. Your insightful reasoning has won me over.
Pass the Kool-Aid; I'm voting for Obama.
Who better to symbolize the ditziness of celebrity than yesterday's news? McCain wasn't trying to build up Obama by comparing him to a hot new star. He's comparing him to shallow celebs whose celebrity burned out. Could have used Lindsey Lohan, or maybe Amy Winehouse if he wanted to go international.
Scott-
Please re-read your posts, and then take a few minutes for some reflection. Ask yourself if you know the real McCain and the real Obama, because from you have said, it is obvious that you are willfully ignoring their actual histories. I don't feel like taking any time in doing your work for you, but ask yourself two simple questions?
1. If Obama is a pretty-boy empty-suit who happens to be able to give good speeches, how is it that he has done what he has done? You know, constitutional law, quick rise from local politics to the top of the party, beating the Clinton machine in one of the best run campaigns in history. And even if you are right, and it is all just nice speeches, at least he has the good judgment to pick those speeches to give. By snarkily discounting everything this obviously accomplished man has done, and by calling those who support him 'cultists', you show your own uninformed prejudice. (prejudice doesn't necessarily mean racist, though it can).
2. Has McCain been honorable, true to himself? Whose interests does he serve now? What are the reasons for the wild swings of his stated political beliefs these last few years. Do you know his actual history in politics, including the Keating 5? Maybe you do, because you say you are holding your nose when you vote for him.
Well gee whiz, Scotty boy, I guess we'll just have to miss your illustrious presence at President Obama's inaguration next January. Rest assured, we'll miss you terribly :), but will know that you are off consoling yourself somewhere by posting more of the type of drivel you've proved you're capable of. Of course, as is the case now, no one will care. Nighty, night, idiot.
Scott, please post the URL of the issue of NewsMax that is the foundation for your knowledge of facts and issues.
Hmm, can't believe they didn't compare him to Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Go figure.
Apparently being a celebrity is only a bad thing some of the time.
I saw an internet ad the other day with a comment of Brittany Spears fawning over George Bush, with her "i think we should just trust the President no matter what he does" bullcrap, then it cut to a blip of McCain on Meet The Press saying that he trusts George Bush implicitly in this war in Iraq. Who's the REAL Brittany Spears of this election?
Scotty Boy-
So smug, so easy to take down...
"Um, can someone explain what my comments about Obama being the Messiah have to do with stealth "Obama is a Muslim" emails?"
They're called GOP talking points. For someone as smart as you purport to be, I thought this would be a logical connection. The whole 'Obama is the Anti-Christ/Religious Figure/Cult' comes from those happy little viral e-mails, or did you really think your snark was an original thought?
"Moreover, why would I want to suggest Obama is a Muslim, since doing so would absolve him of his twenty year association with a radical, America-hating Christian minister who was his spiritual advisor?"
Because folks like you are none too bright. Conservatives are casting Obama as a scary Muslim AND a Christian extremist that goes to scary black churches. It doesn't matter if the concepts contradict each other - they're both SCARY!
"And why do people think I'm a McCain supporter?"
Because you talk like one. Hence:
"In a nutshell, I'm voting for the cranky, disagreeable, old bastard largely because I don't want the cult leader who seems to cause people to turn off their cognitive abilities."
This is not logical. This is not rational. This is pure demagoguery based on ignorance. You are not voting for McCain -- you are voting against Obama based on a distorted picture painted for you by your Republican overlords. That much is quite clear and makes all your rhetoric even more ridiculous.
"Pass the Kool-Aid"
Why? You already have plenty, and seem to have drunk quite a bit of it -- except yours is conservative flavored.
Have a nice day, sport.
Observer, I am sure that an ordinary citizen like Scotty will be more than welcome to attend Barack's inauguration parade. I was able to attend Bush's 2005 parade. Only problem was that I had to get there really early and stand in the ANSWER coalition area because the rest of the route was reserved with bleachers for wealthy Bush contributors. But it was fun watching some of the Bushites anxiously wander through that standing area on the way to their seats.
ust in case any latent racists didn't get the implications of this ad, tack on Joe Lieberman's comment to those who object to its contents:
Relax and Enjoy It.
Anybody who doesn't recognize THAT implication is willfully idiotic.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
* Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
* Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
* Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
* The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
* Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
* Foreign Policy (10 bills)
* Voting and Elections (9 bills)
* Education (7 bills)
* Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
* The Environment (5 bills)
* Homeland Security (4 bills)
* Discrimination (4 bills)
Taught constitutional law for 12 years.
Too much attention is being placed on this advert. Kudos for McCains Campaign for getting maximum mileage from it.
To Lyla's point, and I guess depending on where you live, the ad is pretty blatant. I wonder how old Terry here would read the ad:
'Whether in the Dairy Queen or the dollar store or along the sidewalks of a courthouse square ringed with shuttered businesses, people speak freely of their dislike for the lanky senator from Illinois.
Terry Jordan, 47, who runs a year-round garage sale in front of an old filling station on Main Street, put it simply: "It's his color."'
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-kentucky-votersmay20,0,3690855.story)
Looks like another page in the Southern Strategy playbook to me.
And Scotty, the Republican and Conservative labels are the same and indistinguishable to most people now. You can try to make a distinction, but it has completely blurred.
Surely it's because they so strongly resemble Cindy McCain?
Could it be that McCain is attracted to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Barack Obama?
Sometimes, when a person loves something more than they ought to, they hate it. Because it controls them. It makes them feel excited, and that makes them feel guilty. McCain heads back to his trailer, watches an Obama or Paris tape, breaks a little sweat, slips into a little funk, then rants against Obama for what he made him do, and buys Cindy some flowers.
If you have heard McCain talk lately, he cannot get a sentence out without uttering Obama's name.
Sure it's kind of gross. But the Republicans are kinky devils who have taken kissing babies and interrogating militants to new levels.
The psycho-logical association is:
White racist men FEAR
+ Black men WHO ARE AROUSED BY
+ Pretty Blond White Women
Translates into McCain virtual-speak:
"Horny black Obama want to fk your women. He's a typical n-word."
Well. I've managed to push some buttons.
Given all the tired old tactics to avoid actual debate (use of the dimunitive to discredit me, accusing me of recycling GOP talking points, accusing me of just parroting NewsMax--what, is invoking Fox News or Rush Limbaugh too old school) it's clear that minds here are just closed, they're hermetically sealed. Consequently, actual debate would be pointless. Just a couple of points, though:
I keep hearing about these viral emails but I've never gotten one, which is odd given the volume of political spam I get from across the ideological spectrum. That's right, I was able to view the dozens of images of Obama artfully composed to show a halo around his head (my favorite was the "new hope" one in Rolling Stone), the videos of people fainting in his presence, etc., and come up with my snark about him being the messiah all by myself. That others have also come to this snark is merely a heartening proof that there are still some people of functioning mind and cynical nature in this land.
However, while I'm not 100% certain, I do think I was the first one to come up with that religious bigotry crack.
As for trying to claim that he's both a Muslim and the spirtual godchild of a radical Christian minister, while I can see that some of you have the remarkable ability to reconcile fundamentally contradictory positions (i.e., he's a new face and force for change AND an experienced politician), I've never mastered the ability to do so--particularly when one position is so demonstrably false that to use it would be stupid, as its presence distracts from valid attacks.
I happen to know about the Keating 5 case. In particular, I know that the Democratic counsel to the Ethics Committee recommended against going after McCain and Glenn, but that the Democratic leadership, apparently for the first time in history, chose to ignore their own counsel, primarily because letting McCain off the hook would leave the Keating scandal a wholly Democratic affair, and they wanted none of that. Supposedly then the Republican leadership insisted on running Glenn through the mill as well in retaliation.
But I'm not inclined to waste much time on defending McCain because, as I've already stated, I really don't like the guy. And, yes, it is perfectly rational and logical for me to vote for him nonetheless, because all the alternatives are worse. One of the things that worries me about Obama is that he doesn't seem to think that there might be negative consequences to some of the policies he proposes (for example, he doesn't quite seem to understand that hiking up taxes, even on the rich, during an economic downturn isn't all that smart). No one particularly likes having to make a "least bad" decision, but at least I understand the occasional necessity of doing so. And I have no illusions that that's all my vote for McCain is.
Scott doesn't like McCain, but he won't vote for Obama because... why exactly? Because you think he hasn't done anything? Why don't you listen to his speeches, go to his website and look at his positions, he lays them out. And McCain has missed far more votes in the senate lately than Obama. And he and his campaign release ads that say absolutely nothing. His campaign has only made progress when they do the Rove thing and attack the dem. And that ad may give some cover to those who claim it isn't racist, but cutting the images of Britney and Paris with Barack does send a message. It doesn't have to be out there completely like the ant-Ford ads. Ever hear of subliminal advertising? As far as the Muslim or savior or anti-Christ thing, it's the old mudslinging way, throw a bunch of garbage and see what sticks. So, Scott, try and look at things objectively instead of bashing people who have found a candidate who speak to them, or go back to repeating talking points and claiming you coined them. No one believes it.
I find it hard to believe that people are so willing to admit they know nothing of the history of racism and blacks in the USA, which is what you are doing if you claim that two blonde white women juxtaposed with a black man approaching power is anything but an old, old, old weapon designed to scare white racists and incite loathing of black men. Ignorance loves to shout...
Scott-
HANG IN THERE...and ignore the comments of the haters on this site. I completely agree with you 100%. in our brave new world, any criticism of Barack Obama is construed as racist and you and I are racists because we haven't fallen down and worshiped at His feet.
I can see that McCain picked Britney and Paris because, as others have pointed out, they too are "empty suits." but the liberal left has a need to be outraged, so they say the ad's really about "black men raping our white women" or some such nonsense. (hey, what if Obama wins? what are the liberals going to be outraged about then? I probably shouldn't worry, since they will always find something to "prove" that old mean anti-affirmative-action Republican toads are discriminating.)
I am a Democrat but I haven't decided if I'm voting for Obama or not. he was not my first (or even my 5th) choice. reading the idiots on boards like this is not making me feel like voting for him more, I can tell you that!
I also am really offended by all the "old" jokes. oh yeah, McCain's an old geezer, he doesn't use the internet, his wife is a crazy pill-popper heiress, she's not anywhere near as cool as Michelle Obama. is there any chance we could talk about issues?--thought not.
"Is there any chance we could talk about issues?--thought not."
We'll all wait patiently, Ruth, while you and Scottie boy come up with some to discuss.
Once you two get past all your tittering about those awful 'lefties' and their celebrity 'messiah' (and how awesome it is to compare him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton), I'm sure we can all have a truly spirited debate on the issues!
Oy vey.
I must be a masochist for even responding, but apparently my repeated statements that I find Obama an egomaniacal cult leader with disturbingly Orwellian overtones (that's not even a complete list) is insufficient to explain why I don't want to vote for the man. All right, then, let me give you one specific policy based reason why I don't like Obama:
He derides expanded drilling on the grounds that it will take too long to provide any short term benefit. Well, a) that's factually wrong-- some sites could be putting oil into the system within 2 years; b) since talk of offshore drilling intensified about a month ago, the price of oil futures has declined over twenty dollars a barrel--in other words, the markets are already responding in anticipation of future supply (I could go into more detail, but since someone is undoubtedly going to throw a hissy fit and insist that the two events are unrelated, I'll hold off until then); and c) most of the options Obama favors are based on speculative technologies that may not pan out and, if they do, won't generate any benefits until long after expanded drilling would. So he's against policies that he thinks (incorrectly) won't generate benefits for seven years, but favors instead policies that won't generate benefits for 10, 15, 20 years or more, and possibly never. He's either irrational or he has motivations he isn't sharing with the public.
Scott, you should go to work for the repubs as a spinner. Or perhaps you already do? You are a natural-born liar. I doubt you could get out an honest sentence if your life depended on it. And demeaning Obama comes naturally to you, you seem to take joy in the game. This is your time, buddy, go for it. Obama = Paris Hilton. Obama thinks he's Moses. It's a tidal wave of GOP crap, get yours while it's hot, Scott. We know you love it.
On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."
McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".
Scott:
Another Repub talking point with no factual basis whatsoever:
"since talk of offshore drilling intensified about a month ago, the price of oil futures has declined over twenty dollars a barrel--in other words, the markets are already responding in anticipation of future supply"
How about the demand decline due to slowing economic activity (i.e., recession). I presume you at least studied basic macroeconomics and know that there are two curves. You don't need Econometrics 415 to get there.
Please provide the supporting evidence on your above quoted assertion. At the same time you could also include some analysis regarding the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts in increasing tax revenues and stimulating economic activity. I won't wait for the latter; I know it's unfair. I have requested the same from a number of so called supply side experts along with my Congressman for at least four years, and only receive angry slights or total BS in response. Seems like folks get a bit defensive when you start examining the money trail.
"And demeaning Obama comes naturally to you, you seem to take joy in the game. "
Well, not quite; I take joy in reducing people like you to mindless name calling (such as saying I'm a liar without providing so much as the slightest crumb of proof that anything I've said is a lie). It's not exactly a challenge--rather like shooting fish in a barrel with a bazooka--but I'll take modest pleasure where I find them.
See? I told you someone would take issue with my economic analysis. As I said above, I could have said more then, and if I had, I would have stated that some of the price drop can be explained by decline in demand. From what I've read, some can also be explained by fluctuations in the exchange rate of the dollar. It's also just because oil prices were a bubble and all bubbles burst. And some of the decline can be explained by the increased drumbeat for more drilling. The oil futures market deals with the anticipated future price of oil, which is a product of both demand and supply. If supply increases, price declines. And if traders, reading the political currents, believe that there is going to be more drilling, then they're going to place their bets on the price of oil going down.
Do I have numbers in support of this? Well, anyone who is familiar with economics knows that if you ask 5 economists a question you'll get at least 6 different answers, so no, I don't and even if I did, I wouldn't bother because you could take issue with them. Just as you could claim the fact that after the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts the economy improved and tax revenues increased was mere coincidence.
I could rant at some length about economics as a less scientific form of voodoo, but I won't. Instead I'll just note that you had nothing to say about points (a) and (c), which I consider just as important (if not more so) as to why I won't vote for Obama.
No, I gave you no proof that you are a liar. I feel no need to feed the mini-
Rove act you got going on here. While you imagine in your cleverness you are shooting fish in a barrel, coming out on top every time, you make a total fool of yourself for the rest of us. I will give you one thing though: compare what your national party is doing now with Obama (belittle, diminish, mock, turn into a joke) with the tone you take with everyone here. Is that a coincidence do you think? Or is it the sickness at the heart of what republicanism has become? Yeah, you win by making me call you a liar. I used a name, oh my. You have reduced me. I'm a mindless fish giving you modest pleasure while you use your bazooka. This is what I mean by saying you are a liar, everything you say is twisted at the root. Fine if that is what you choose to cling to, it's your hell and your choice, but people with your sort of mind have been running the country for way too long, and look where it has left us. A change is coming, you and your kind have had your day and thank god it's over. Spin that away, clever boy.
You have to relish the irony of John Riley insinuating that Britney Spears and Paris Hilton AREN'T celebrities by finding some recent PUBLICATION that says they're not.
I imagine John, tasking himself with repudiating the McCain ad, trotting down to his local library to figure out what it means to be a "celebrity." Oh, look! Britney and Paris don't make some list in some publication; therefore, they're not celebrities!
I mean, really. It just makes me convulse with laughter. When people--including John Riley--saw the ad, they knew EXACTLY what it was about. But John would have us believe that the only reason we all "knew" this was because we weren't well read on pop culture--as described by the freaking Forbes 100! Oh, silly me! I GOT what the ad was saying, but I didn't realize that Britney and Paris were no longer considered to be celebrities. I therefore take back my immediate and visceral reaction to the ad and declare that reaction to be in limbo.
I shall now stare blankly at the wall until John tells me what to do next.
I'm voting for Obama in November, and I'm sending his campaign money whenever I can. He's a fellow Kansan, and he's got the right ideas for America.
He is going to win this election not by pandering to out-of-touch idiots like John Riley and Josh Marshall.
I'm amused by this "he can really communicate well, but he can't lead" trope. How else does a president lead? He communicates his ideas. He chooses his team, but to get the people behind him, he has to convince the people that what he is doing is right. That takes the ability to speak well and communicate well. Actually, Obama will make a better president than McCain because he can inspire the American people. To make "just makes a good speech" a negative in the presidential race is to misunderstand how a president leads.