Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Ad for Florida

By Jonathan Weisman
The new Republican National Committee-John McCain campaign ad isn't so new at all: Another mocking jab at Barack Obama's celebrity, another assertion that the Democratic nominee will raise taxes.

What is new is the target: Florida.

After months of letting Obama saturate the Sunshine State's airwaves alone, Republicans are finally moving in. The new ad, entitled "Temple," will be running in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a significant expansion of the playing field for the GOP with an ad buy that RNC officials insist will be substantial.

Obama has spent more money and run more ads in Florida than any other state. Most recent polling shows McCain still holding a narrow lead there, but a Mason-Dixon poll taken Aug. 25-26 showed a tossup, with Obama leading 45-44.

By Lexie Verdon  |  September 5, 2008; 5:26 PM ET
Categories:  Ad Watch , Barack Obama , Battlegrounds , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Plane Not Sold on eBay
Next: Playing Politics -- With Oprah?


I love this add and believe this is going to be a big hit in comming days. Given that MSNBC and other yellow media is in tank for obama camp, he is still going to loose big this fall.

Posted by: linda | September 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Rove and Scmidt are attempting to brand our mainstream media, our favorite pundits and writers as “Piranhas!” which only means one thing The Republicans are trying to steal the fish pet Voters or the Nature Lover's Vote? Or is this a Rove, Schmit and Davis Freudian Slip – They chose Piranhas - deep down they see themselves as Piranhas?

Democrats are courting all Republicans and Independents Goldfish, Dolphin and Killer Whale fans!

Trained Goldfish Performs Amazing Tricks!

Dolphin play bubble rings.

Killer Whale and Trainer.

Change we can believe in.

Vote Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: Eagle Ch’áak’ Ora | September 8, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

If you people, on both sides, would stop caring more about appearing right than being right; if you'd forget sensationalism and take a look at the sober truth from a wider angle, you'd realize how ridiculous both sound.

Neither McCain nor Obama is the devil, neither are plotting these grand terrible schemes. The paranoia on the internet is absolutely unbelievable.

Chill out and think about things for a second, and watch with an open, but critical mind. Go out of your way to find good things about the candidate you dislike (and that doesn't mean repeating the talking points that preface an insult from either campaign, such as 'his service is respectable' or 'he tells an inspiring speech'). You'll be surprised about what you learn.

Posted by: Thomas | September 8, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse


Barack and Howard Dean are using a company called Donor Services Group in Los Angeles that has an outsource call center in Manila, Philippines to handle their fund raising efforts. This isn't the only company they are using that is open about sending American Jobs to foreign soil. Both Obama and Dean know this but they are getting great rates on with low wages and this works in their efforts to mislead the public on jobs.

Donor Services Group is a minimum wage company that does not pay a fair wage to nearly 150 staffers and refuses to pay for all hours worked and makes WalMart look like a very generous company!

Both DNC and Barack know this and don't care that the company uses harsh tactics on the staff to get money raised.

Posted by: Corwin | September 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the voters in Florida know that, according to an investigation by the New York Times, ***McCain married into an organized crime family***:
Key words: Felony convictions, race tracks, asasination (msp on purp),… and it doesn’t even get into Keating or, more importantly, ***who Marley and Hensley worked for and with.*** The word is that the mob's regional network was Phoenix/Vegas/LA and that it included Meyer Lansky and other well known hoodlums. Bonanno retired in Arizona.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey Rosie, you have the wrong ticket if your looking for truth. Which genius in Obama's campaign picked those styrofoam columns for a backdrop to his speech? It really reminds us of Dukakis's tank! Why make a big deal over a prop?

Styrofoam columns and hairplugs just represent lies and feelings of UNREALISTIC SELFIMPORTANCE- you know, like Obama -Greek Emperor (with no clothes) or Young Biden- whose lies are getting really sad by now-
case in point:

"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008

Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a big liar, but people believe him .

Posted by: ROSIE | September 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted 12 hrs ago- Still no response from Camp Obama-

Who is Obama?

What has he done for our country?

Posted by: rick | September 6, 2008 10:22 PM

Rick, I'll tell you.........

I don't know- but that's not the problem. The problem is that you can ask his supporters those questions and THEY don't know. There are large portions of Obama's life- in Indonesia and at Harvard Law for example that we never hear about....why? McCain has fellow veterans vouching for his character at the convention. WHERE ARE OBAMA'S FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES? (other than quid pro quo politicians). I have asked dozens of times on these blogs for any Obama supporter to quote one act of any significance (you know what I feel about his weak ethics and loose nukes bills- not much) that he's performed for our country- name one family he helped organize and how???? They can't. They tell ME to go find out for them! Perhaps the best thing Obama did for this country was to admit on Bill O'Reilly's show that the surge worked- honesty is a good start. In admitting this fact, he provides one of many answers to the question of what John McCain has done for this country.

Obama is the Emperor and Camp Obama is embarassed to say that they don't see any clothes (accomplishments).

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 11:01 PM

Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Who is it that McCain keeps looking up to for approval in the last frame of these ads?

Bush, maybe?

Posted by: 2mature2bHornswoggled | September 7, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

yes i hope biden starts attacking palin, then the democratic party can find out teh real reason that mccain chose her, not because shes a woman, but because like many women, shes a trap.

the sexist card worked well for hillary, and teh racist card for obama, as the election plays out and obama continues to hit palin on being small town, he proves once again his elitist views that bigger is better.

biden already appearing in the past to be somewhat sexist will only seal the lid on obamas political coffin.

sure in teh height of anti-republicanism a staunch left wing democrat made teh ticket. but now, even the democrats are seeing the error of thier ways.

Posted by: dale | September 7, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Biden needs to be attacking Palin. Don't do it in a polite tone of voice, hammer at her hard and fast before she can get feed back from her micro ear plug. Do it.

Posted by: justada55+ | September 7, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

To the crier in Florida. No one stopped your votes. There are laws and your politicians thought they could bend them. To bad for you. Don't blame it on Obama. Pathetic. Vote in some responsible leaders.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 7, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

When ignorance reins,life is lost. Republicans =Hypocrites. Raise your own family,don't tell America how to raise theirs.

Posted by: lou Vetere | September 7, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Florida voters know that Obama kept their vote from counting in the Primary.... when it mattered. They also know that he is not qualified to be President of this country. They also know he beleives in Black Liberation Theolgy which is a slap in the face to just about everyone in the whole state of Florida. Don't insult their intelligence to say Obama will carry this state!

Posted by: NOBAMA in Florida | September 7, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Scott, The Gallup Poll doesn't mean squat. It is based on old turnout models and a small sample size. And don't forget that 538 electoral votes elect POTUS not a national poll. Obama is getting Kerry's 252, plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado (end game, over!) and more from Virginia, Ohio, NC, GA, IN, MO, etc.

You should read this article, carefully. It's written by a very smart - and, rare these days, ***honest*** - conservative.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey Deep Karen- It looks like other people are becoming more concerned with accomplishment than rhetoric as well- Those styrofoam pillars are exactly what the Emperor would use to construct his castle:

Gallup Daily: Obama’s Edge Shrinks to 2 PointsElection Preferences Nearly Tied Again, 47%-45%USA Election 2008 Gallup Daily Americas Northern America PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's advantage over John McCain has been shrinking since the start of the Republican National Convention, and is now down to just two percentage points -- 47% to 45% -- too close to call. This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Wednesday through Friday, Sept. 3-5.

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Deep Karen-
First of all, it would be refreshing to read something you've written that doesn't sound like every smear email I get from both sides. I am voting for McCain and have said so since the 2 parties gave us our choice. Hre is the reason: I have a family, and I have not been convinced from word one that Obama can deliver much of what he promises. To be fair, he has no record of Accomplishment, other than good grades, job interviews and elections. I have been introduced to no families he helped as an organizer, no scholarly works of note as a law professor, and no really significant laws as a senator. His ethics bill makes it forbidden for lobbyists to sit with Senators, but not for them to stand and have lunch together (inserting index finger inside cheek and pulling)....and I don't see many terrorists in former soviet states handing their loose nukes into Sen. I'm betting my families future on walk not talk. McCain is the most middle of the road republican for whom I can vote. He has shown independence and good judgement in most of his 26 years in the Senate. I suppose I am secretly hoping some of his move to the Right has been, as it was with Bill Clinton, in hope of getting elected. I see him appointing Souters and O'Connors. Anyway- you asked- I believe we might get our points accross better with civil discourse....but one way or the other, I see it as my responsibilty to my family to do my part in trying to prevent what I believe is a reenactment of "The Empereror's New Clothes".

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Scott, I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Sen. McCain married into an organized crime family with links to Kemper Marley and Meyer Lansky.

He is crooked.

If right wingers would rather be idiots than Patriots, that's fine. But the reality is that McCain is crooked.

He didn't hook up with Keating or Gramm by accident. He's a crook who supports a business network of crooks.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

SCOTT is the Republican Troll...he has copied and pasted those same articles on every blog regardless what the topic is about. Do not feed the TROLLS.

Posted by: Karen | September 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

People let us be serious McCain had such a large audience because most of us...Democrats where curios. I was curious to see what the Crypt keeper was going to say. Needless to say I was so bored that I left the room waiting for CNN talking heads. Really, that is how boring that speech was that I wanted to listen to the talking heads instead. People only watched to laugh or see how uncomfortable he was going to be with the teleprompter and believe me the jokes keep rolling from all my contacts. Obama got that audience because people where excited to hear what he had to say and they where all impressed and inspired all over again.

Posted by: Karen | September 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Undecided Voters-

Barack Obama saved by every estimate $300,000 in personal funds on the purchase of his home by allowing Tony Rezko's wife to purchase at full price the land adjacent to it.

In order to clear his name on this transaction, he donated approximately 150,000 dollars of Rezko donations TO HIS CAMPAIGN (NOT personal funds) to charity.

Is this theft, creative accounting, or is America so used to our politicians being crooked that it's business as usual?

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Deep- Obama was schooled in Indonesia in Islam, but still not a Muslim...McCain's father in law built a business from nothing- was he a crook...who knows? Did Obama applaud Rev wright when he said "G-d Damn America"? Who knows???

THIS I do know-

Barack Obama voted FOR THE BUSH CHENEY 2005 ENERGY ACT

John McCain went against his party and Bush and voted AGAINST it!

Public Citizen on the Cheney- Obama supported 2005 Energy bill

"The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28,the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill.

Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

This energy bill will do nothing to address America’s energy problems; rather, it will make matters worse. The United States is one of the largest producers of energy—for example, we are the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world—so our problem is not that we don’t produce enough energy, but that our rates of consumption are among the highest of all countries. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia typically use half the energy per person than we do, which helps explain why the United States alone uses 25% of the world’s energy every day. Reflecting the fact that energy companies helped write the legislation, the energy bill lavishes these lucrative corporations with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, while doing little to curb energy demand.

In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers.

Below is a summary of the major components of the energy legislation:

Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6
This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383
Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

This proposal has its origins in Bush’s National Energy Policy, which requested that the Secretary of the Interior “explore opportunities for royalty reductions.”

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, however, criticizes the current royalty-in-kind program, concluding that the government is unable to determine whether taxpayers receive a fair shake from the program. For example, the GAO notes that the pilot program currently “relies upon royalty payors to self-report the amount of oil and gas they produce, the value of this oil and gas, and the cost of transportation and processing that they deduct from royalty payments” (emphasis added). The reporting system caused the GAO to express concern about “the accuracy and reliability of these data.”

Indeed, the industry’s cheerleading for the royalty in-kind program stems from recent court decisions that found U.S. oil companies, equipped with an “honor system” self-reporting system, routinely underreported the volume of oil and natural gas removed from taxpayer land, therefore allowing the companies to cheat the public. By seeking to end cash payments for the privilege of drilling on public land altogether, it appears as though the oil companies are attempting to hedge their losses from the embarrassing court decisions.

In 1998, the Mineral Management Service estimated that similar provisions would cost taxpayers between $140 million and $367 million every year.

There was a vote on April 21 in the House to strike the section providing a suspension of royalty payments for offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed, 227 to 203.

Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the “program consortium” to dole out taxpayer money to corporations. The Texas Energy Center has strong ties to Tom DeLay, with six different executives (Herbert W. Appel, Jr., Robert C. Brown, III, Philip E. Lewis, Thomas Moccia, Ronald E. Oligney, and Barry Ashlin Williamson) giving a total of $8,000 to DeLay’s campaign since March 2004. In addition, three of the Center’s executives have given a total of $4,500 to President Bush’s 2004 re-election effort.

The Center’s lobbyist is Barry Ashlin Williamson. In 1988, Williamson went to work for the Reagan administration and became principal advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the creation and formulation of a national energy policy. President George H.W. Bush later chose him to be the U.S. Department Interior’s Director of the Minerals Management Service, which managed oil and gas exploration and production on the nation’s 1.4 billion-acre continent shelf. Williamson then served as Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission from January 1993 to November 1995.

The Texas Energy Center will play host to The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, whose members include Halliburton and Marathon Oil.

Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

Section 1307
Provides $1.612 billion in tax credits to invest in new coal power plants.

Section 1309
Provides $1.147 billion in tax breaks for owners of coal power plants to install pollution control equipment.

Section 401
Authorizes the appropriation of $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 421
Authorizes the appropriation of $3 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 962
Authorizes activities that will cost $1.137 billion of taxpayer money to help make coal power a cost-competitive source of power generation.

Section 963
Authorizes the appropriation of $90 million to research ways to sequester carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants.

Section 964
Authorizes activities that will cost $75 million to help develop new coal mining technologies.

Title XVII
Authorizes spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees to build new coal and nuclear power plants. The Senate voted on June 23 by a vote of 76 to 21 to keep this section in the bill.

Section 411
Provides taxpayer-guaranteed loans for a coal project. The most likely beneficiaries of this provision are North Dakota-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Ohio-based Nacco Industries. Basin Electric Power Cooperative owns the Great Plains Synfuels facility in Beulah, North Dakota, an alternative fuels plant originally financed mostly by the federal government and later sold to the Cooperative for a fraction of the amount invested in the plant. The plant gasifies lignite coal to produce synthetic natural gas as well as fertilizers and other chemicals. Nacco Industries would benefit from the loan guarantees because it has long-term contracts to supply Basin Electric with lignite from the nearby Freedom Mine, which Nacco owns. In addition, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries co-own the Antelope Valley Station, a coal-fired power plant at the same location as the Great Plains Synfuel Plant and the Freedom Mine. Since 2001, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries have contributed over $100,000 to federal politicians, with contributions evenly split between Republicans (51%) and Democrats (49%).

Section 412
Lends $80 million to the Healy Plant in Alaska to convert an existing “clean coal” plant into a regulator coal plant.

Section 413
Senator Larry Craig, on behalf of Senator Ken Salazar, got Section 413 into the energy bill by unanimous consent on June 23. Corporate lobbyists representing Pacificorp and Xcel recommended the language to Sen. Salazar. While the intended recipient may be Pacificorp and/or Xcel (for unannounced projects), another company qualifying for the loan guarantee is the Medicine Bow Fuel & Power project in Wyoming (the section requires that the project “be located in a western State at an altitude greater than 4,000 feet”) The section explicitly states that “the demonstration project shall not be eligible for Federal loan guarantees”—making the relationship between this section and the very similar-sounding loan guarantee project outlined in Section 1703 a little unclear. Medicine Bow, Wyoming is at an altitude of over 6,500 feet. Medicine Bow is owned by DKRW, a Houston-based firm led by four former Enron executives, including Thomas White. White served as Secretary of the Army from May 2001 to March 2003. Prior to that, he served as vice chairman of one of Enron’s largest divisions, Enron Energy Services (EES).

Under White’s tenure, EES played a major role in the California energy crisis. In 1998, the year he became its vice chairman, EES was America’s 61st largest energy trader. When he left, his division was the 28th largest energy-trading firm in the country. Until March 2001, the trading operations of EES were separate from the rest of Enron’s Wholesale Energy unit—meaning White was responsible for a huge trading operation that played a significant role in California’s energy crisis.

Also, under White’s direction, EES severed at least two large retail contracts in California in January and February 2001 during the height of the energy crisis, which Enron helped create. Based on the evidence on hand, it appears that EES took the power that had been obligated to serve these retail consumers and sold it in the wholesale market where EES could fetch higher prices than it could by continuing to sell power at lower, fixed rates to retail customers. This significant wholesale trading operation, combined with White’s decision to break retail contracts in California, made the division a major player in California’s deregulated wholesale market.

Section 414
The recipient of Section 414, has not yet been identified. The provision authorizes the federal government “to provide loan guarantees for a project to produce energy from a plant using integrated gasification combined cycle technology of at least 400 megawatts in capacity that produces power at competitive rates in deregulated energy generation markets and that does not receive any subsidy (direct or indirect) from ratepayers.”

Section 415
This section provides “loan guarantees for at least 5 petroleum coke gasification projects” which have not been identified.

Section 1703
Subsection (c)(1)(B) describes a project almost exactly the same as what is described in Section 413, except that the demonstration project grant outlined in Section 413 does not allow the recipient to also receive a loan guarantee. So, the most likely recipients are the former Enron executives with DKRW or Xcel Energy.

Subsection (c)(1)(C) provides $800 million in federal loan guarantees to controversial Excelsior Energy for a coal power-generating plant (ConocoPhillips is a partner in the project). The DOE awarded the company a $36 million in October 2004 during an event that appeared to be designed to boost the image of President Bush in Minnesota just weeks before the election.

Subsection (c)(1)(D). There are two general possibilities for the recipient of this federal loan guarantee. One could be Lexington, Kentucky-based EnviRes to build a coal gasification facility to create fuel in East St. Louis, Illinois. The total cost of the project is $254.2 million. EnviRes is a joint venture of three companies, including Triad Research, which is controlled by Robert Addington of AEI Resources, a huge coal conglomerate.

The other possibility is Pennsylvania-based Waste Management & Processors Inc. On October 26, the Bush Administration announced a $100 million grant for a “clean coal” project in the swing state of Pennsylvania, benefiting Waste Management, headed by John Rich. His family and company employees have contributed over $60,000 to candidates for federal office since 2001.

While Waste Management is the lead company on the project, they have teamed up with several other companies: (1) Shell Global Solutions U.S., as gasification technology supplier; (2) Uhde GmbH, a Dortmund, Germany-based global engineering company; (3) Sasol Synfuels International, as liquefaction technology provider; and, (4) Nexant, Inc., as owner’s engineer.

Section 1306
Production tax credit of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry.

Section 638
Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for six new reactors, including delays due to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or state agencies, litigation, sabotage or terrorist attacks, or other events. The payments would include interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, the price of power, and taxes.

Section 951 and Section 952
Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for nuclear energy research and development (R&D), including the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs.

Section 951 and Section 953
Authorization of $580 million over three years for DOE’s program for R&D of nuclear reprocessing and transmutation technologies, which reverses the long-standing U.S. policy against irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing and needlessly augments security and environmental threats.

Section 951 and 954
Authorization of $149.7 million over three years for DOE to invest in human resources and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering fields through fellowships and visiting scientist programs; student training programs; collaborative research with industry, national laboratories, and universities; upgrading and sharing of research reactors; and technical assistance. This program would further subsidize the nuclear industry and entrench nuclear power research within the university system.

Section 951 and 955
Authorization of $420 million over three years for DOE to develop a plan to improve infrastructure at national laboratories and for nuclear energy R&D, including a plan for the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Section 951 and 957
Authorization of $18 million over three years for DOE to survey industrial applications of radioactive sources and develop a R&D plan for developing small particle accelerators.

Section 971 and 972
Authorization of $1.1 billion over three years for the Fusion Energy Sciences program for fusion energy R&D. Authorization for DOE to negotiate an agreement for the United States to participate in the ITER (International Fusion Energy Project). Requirement of DOE to submit a plan for a domestic burning plasma experiment if ITER becomes “unlikely or infeasible.” The fusion process requires deuterium and tritium, and would produce low-level radioactive waste.

Section 1001
Requirement of DOE to use 0.9 % of its applied energy R&D budget for matching funds with private partners to promote “promising technologies” for commercial use, which could include nuclear power technologies.

Section 1101
Authorization of $60 million over three years for DOE to give grants to train technical personnel in fields in which a shortage is identified, including the nuclear power industry, which has been very vocal about its shortage of skilled workers.

Title VI, Subtitle C
Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Section 625
Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review.

Title XVII
Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of an “innovative” energy technology project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated).

Title VI, Subtitle A
Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry’s liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years.

Section 608
Incentives for “modular” reactor designs (such as the pebble bed reactor, which has never been built anywhere in the world) by allowing a combination of smaller reactors to be considered one unit, thus lowering the amount that the nuclear operator is responsible to pay under Price-Anderson.

Section 1308
Will allow a monopoly electric industry to save $1.239 billion over the next ten years by depreciating property at a much faster rate. This makes no economic sense because current owners of transmission lines qualify for the tax break, meaning that no additional investment to improve reliability is required.

Section 1305
Provides $452 million in tax breaks to owners of transmission lines from 2005-08 (it will raise $471 million from 2009-15) if they sell their lines to anti-consumer Regional Transmission Organizations. These multi-state organizations seek to control transmission for use by power marketers, and not for consumers or reliability.

Section 1311
This is a provision inserted by Senator Max Baucus, and it only benefits one company: Xcel Energy. It will cost taxpayers $134 million from 2006-08 (and claims to raise $81 million from 2009-15, for a net loss to taxpayers of $53 million). This allows Xcel to get tax credits for transmission and pollution control investments the company had already been required to make and was already planning on making.

Section 1221: Siting of Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities
Overturns nearly a century of local control over the siting of electric transmission lines. It authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to overrule local and state governments in the siting of transmission lines and allows such projects to acquire rights-of-way through eminent domain. The section also authorizes the FERC to issue a permit for a facility if a state takes longer than one year to review the application, or if a state places certain conditions on the permit for approval.

Section 1241: Transmission Rate Reform
Allows a monopoly industry—transmission line owners—to charge consumers more by replacing cost-of-service ratemaking with incentive-based rate making. But cash “incentives” are meaningless in an inherently monopolistic industry like transmission. Rather than improve reliability (as is its stated purpose), this incentive-based ratemaking will simply act as a tax increase on consumers—with consumers receiving no guarantee that the higher rates they will be paying will lead to better service. This rate increase on consumers will be charged not only by builders of new transmission lines, but owners of existing lines will be able to now pass on higher rates for routine maintenance and operation costs. The August 2003 blackout was caused not by inadequate transmission line capacity but by poor management...

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Scott, I don't expect an apology from you any more than I expect the mainstream media to publish the truth about McCain or any more than I expect McCain to have any shame whatsoever about his ruthless pursuit of power. Pro-life in politics; Merder Inc. in business. Nice...

For the less literate types, here's a primer:

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to stop being Mr. Nice Guy, and address McCain's character problems. This is more important than facts and policies for undecided voters. McCain has shown his lack of character plenty of times, but now Obama's job is to contrast this effectively to McCain's supposed image. Not in an intellectual way, but in the same way you'd talk about a fellow worker at your factory. "He's a wimp" or "He's an old blow-hard". This is what the Republicans do so well. The Democrats need to get smart and address McCain's character issues, not just his factual ones.

Posted by: gpbrown | September 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse


Believe what you want, but Sen. McCain married into an organized crime family with links to Kemper Marley and Meyer Lansky.

If right wingers would rather be idiots than Patriots, that's fine. But the reality is that McCain is crooked.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Guess what? Now John McCain's latest idea is that he is "the candidate for change." Well, he certainly knows a lot about change. He's changed his position every time the wind has shifted. At first, McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Then when the hard-core convervatives put the heat on him, he changed his position -- now he's for the cuts. McCain voted against every significant bill to help working women, but then when he needs women voters, he suddenly changes -- and picks a woman for VP. McCain has changed so many times, even he doesn't know who he is any more. A maverick? More like a desperado.

Posted by: gpbrown | September 6, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's 7 Glass Houses
1. Supports corn Ethanol and therefore global warming (7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol)
2. Against Infant Protection Act- preventing doctors from providing medical attention to survivors of abortion attempt
3.Never held a hearing on the one subcommiitee he chairs
4. Voted for Cheney's Energy Act of 2005- removing restrictions on hedge funds buying utilities and trading on their assets
5.Tony Rezko- saved $300,000 in personal funds on the purchase of his home, voted for 14 million to Rezko's businesses, donated $200,000 of campaign funds to charity...huh?
6. Claimed his kids played with William Ayres' the American terrorist's kids who are 20 years older...what were they playing
7. Attended Rev. Wright's Church for 20 years and never heard a discouraging word

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Palin won't speak to the media because she can't...

I get a kick out of all of the goofy Wingnuts acting like Palin is all of a sudden credible because she read a coherent speech that was written for her by Karl Rove. What a bunch of crap, she's an ethics challanged creationist thug who's used to bullying here way around in small little ol Alaska where no one notices it. She's a small time Dick Cheney and she knows that she can't go off script or she'll be sunk.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect- McCain married into an organized crime family. (You could google it.)

Deep Blue- You have all the credibility of those geniuses who email me saying that Obama is a MUSLIM- YOU CAN GOOGLE ANY SLIME ON THE INTERNET MORON

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect- McCain married into an organized crime family. (You could google it.)

Of course, he's crooked and of course he supports the sort of deregulation and lack of oversight that has allowed all of the big scandals of our time: savings & loan (with keating), iran-contra-crack cocaine, enron, subprime mortgages etc.

Republicans don't want to tax you, they want to steal your money via government bailouts (taxpayer funded) of their crooked schemes.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

It has been reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be seized by the Feds this weekend - before they fail.

Nice going with the de-regulation GOP.

All you folks in economic doodoo out there in the rust belt states - if you vote for right wing "values" again instead of your pocketbooks, you deserve everything you get. Let Johnnie boy's "patriotism" put food on your table, send your kid to college, pay your medical bills, help you keep you home. Stay with that church and keep your gun - you will need both the soup kitchen and a means to hunt for food.

You will get no more sympathy for me.

Posted by: toritto | September 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I think it is very ironic that Palin is all for Raising TAXES on BIG OIL in her state... however the Republican party is against it Nationally.

She is all Obama's Wind Fall profits tax... But McCain is against it.

Strange eh?

Posted by: Clint H | September 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden needs to be attacking Palin. Do so in a polite tone of voice. But do it.

"She's been on the national stage a week. We're starting to learn some things about her..."

You can take it from there, Joe.

Posted by: Joe | September 6, 2008 10:12 AM

We hope is does attack her Joe, with all the voracity he summoned during the '88 campaign and on his law school finals...he will then achieve the sama measure of respect he gave to Indian American 7 Eleven cashiers. After all, a man with 3 degrees must be believed!

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey Florida- Did you know that the Cheney- Obama supported Energy Act of 2005 changed our energy policy in the following way? According to Public Citizen...

"In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers."

Did you John McCain voted Against Bush and the Republican Party on this Bill? How can Obama lie to us like this? How can you be believe in him?

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Joe Biden needs to be attacking Palin. Do so in a polite tone of voice. But do it.

"She's been on the national stage a week. We're starting to learn some things about her..."

You can take it from there, Joe.

Posted by: Joe | September 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"Obama had 38 MILLION viewers for his acceptance speech. Any guesses on what McCain will pull in?

If you go by past examples, McCain will be lucky to get 2 Million people to tune in.

Posted by: Tim | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM"


Hey Camp Obama- Keep underestimating McCain- Your candidate's novelty has worn off- Palin's hasn't and her presence on the ticket merely highlights Obama's realtive inexperience (you know, executive- he's running to be the next Warren Harding)....makes people feel that they should be debating as VP candidates, while the adults top the the way, who IS running for dem. VP? Oh, yeah Joe Biden, who's newest gaff is really sleazy- he's on the trail looking for sympathy by telling audiences that the truck driver involved in his family's fatal accident was driving drunk: the man was tested at the time and was exonerated of alcohol, drugs, and all wrongdoing. The man's family and a superior court judge in Delaware who was the ADA on the case are speaking out against Biden....keep it up Joe- I'm glad You'll be debating Palin!!!

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Jackie, please. Don't you realize that if McCain/Palin is elected that virtually extinguishes Hillary Clinton's chances of being nominated in 2012? John McCain is not going to run for a second term -- presumably it would be Sarah Palin, the Mayor of Wasilla, stepping into the driver's seat of the newly energized right-leaning Republican party. Anybody who used the canard that a vote for McCain now helped Hillary in 2012 has had their whole argument shot out from under them. And, by the way, isn't it a bit odd that the $100 Million Man and his beauty queen, Vogue cover running mate who pulled more viewers than Obama are claiming HE'S the celebrity? After Mrs. McCain's outfit cost $313,000 (including the big diamonds?). Elitist .... right. HYPOCRITES.

Posted by: Did I mention I'm a POW??? | September 6, 2008 4:21 AM | Report abuse

"No We Can't" (break the glass ceiling that is)

That's what Obama has made REALITY by not choosing the best Democrat to be his VP, Hillary Clinton! How could he mop the floor with her, pimp her out for his campaign, and then not even put her on the ticket? Was it arrogance, was it fear, was it spite? How about all of the above?

The Biden choice was one made out of fear and inexperience.

So here's how to fix the problem:
Vote for McCain / Palin this round. Why not? Lots of other women will!

Here's why:
Once you smash the glass ceiling by voting in Gov. Palin as your VP, the ticket for 2012 will most surely look like this:
Hillary vs. Palin vs. Napalitano vs. ?

Give Hillary a chance, sooner! Vote McCain / Palin 2008!

Posted by: Jackie | September 6, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse


Senator McBush 3rd term wants to distract US with silli ads and ENGAGE OUR AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE WITH FEARS, SMEARS, AND LIES.

FactChecking McCain
September 5, 2008
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.
We checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:

McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.

He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.

He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul on Sept. 4 was couched more in generalities than in specifics, offering fewer factual claims to check than we found in other speeches to the gathering. But we found some instances where the nominee strained the truth.

Insurance Claims

McCain mischaracterized Obama’s health care plan:

McCain: His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

The claim that “small businesses” would have to “cut jobs, reduce wages,” runs counter to Obama’s actual proposal. Obama’s plan would require businesses to contribute to the cost of insurance for employees or pay some unspecified amount into a new public plan. But his proposal specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” And it offers additional help to small businesses that want to provide health care in the form of a refundable tax credit of up to half the cost of premiums. We’ll note that neither man has defined what exactly a “small business” is.

Furthermore, Obama’s plan wouldn’t “force” families into a “government-run health care system.” His plan mandates that children have coverage; there’s no mandate for adults. People can keep the health insurance they have now or chose from private plans, or opt for a new public plan that will offer coverage similar to what members of Congress have. Obama would also expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. His plan certainly expands government-offered insurance – and McCain’s doesn’t – but it’s not a solely government-run plan, as McCain implied. And if Obama's public plan turns out to be similar to what federal employees have, as he says it would be, we're not sure how "a bureaucrat" would stand "between you and your doctor." The possible exception would be persons covered by Medicaid or SCHIP.

McCain also made this boast:

McCain: My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance.

Fair enough. But McCain's plan wouldn't do nearly as well as Obama's. One comparison, by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, finds Obama’s would reduce the uninsured by 18 million people in its first year, compared with a 1 million reduction under McCain’s plan. TPC made various assumptions about the plans to fill in details each proposal lacks, so those numbers aren’t definitive. We await more comparisons from other experts.

Oily Words

McCain attacked Obama for supporting "corporate welfare" for oil companies:

McCain: [I]nstead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies.

The bill McCain is talking about here is the 2005 energy bill, which actually raised taxes on the oil industry a little bit overall – by about $300 million, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Meanwhile, McCain himself proposes to cut the corporate rate for all companies – oil included – and that would result in an estimated $4 billion cut for the five largest U.S.-based oil companies, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Obama, on the other hand, is promising that he'll strip oil companies of "tax breaks" to the tune of an amount yet to be determined.

It's true that Obama voted for the 2005 bill. He said he favored the $5.8 billion (over 11 years) that it contained in tax incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels. McCain voted against it on the grounds that the $2.6 billion it contained for oil and gas incentives was too much, even though the bill also took away $2.9 billion from the industry, for a net tax increase of $300 million. Describing such a complex measure as "corporate welfare" is misleading.

More Oily Words

We found other exaggerations in McCain’s claims about his plan for energy independence:

McCain: We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much.

In fact, the U.S. doesn't pay nearly that much for oil from hostile nations. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imported 4.9 billion barrels of oil in 2007. At today’s prices, that works out to about $536 billion, still a hefty chunk of change, but considerably less than $700 billion. More important, that's what we pay to all exporting nations, not just those that “don’t like us very much.” We note that 32 percent of U.S. oil imports came from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

Just Wind

McCain also made sweeping claims about green energy that aren't actually backed up by his policy proposals:

McCain: We will attack the problem on every front. ...We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

McCain has been quite specific about his proposals to clear the way for building 45 new nuclear power plants, opening offshore areas to oil drilling and spending $2 billion a year for so-called "clean coal" technology. He has also proposed a $300 million prize for developing the first practical plug-in electric car, although General Motors already is working on that and is aiming for delivery of the Chevrolet Volt by 2010, prize or no prize. McCain has also proposed a $5,000 tax credit for consumers who purchase zero emission vehicles

But when it comes to power from wind and tide, McCain's words are blowing in the breeze. His energy plan, which he calls the Lexington Project, proposes no new spending for renewable energy programs. Instead, he proposes to "rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits," but hasn't said what he means by that. As we’ve written before, spokespeople for the wind and solar industries are unsure what this actually means. Finally, we’ll note that McCain himself told supporters at a July town hall meeting that he doesn’t think that renewable energy is likely to be "as much of the solution as some people think." Perhaps not, but if McCain is right his own words are contributing to the public misperception.

Pig in a Poke

McCain repeated his vague promise to make spending cuts:

McCain: Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit.

McCain has not said which programs he considers to be "failed programs." He thus makes the spending cuts sound less painful than they will be should he fulfill his previously stated promise to balance the federal budget by 2013 while also making all Bush tax cuts permanent and adding new cuts of his own. McCain repeated his promise to eliminate "earmarks" from federal spending bills, saying "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it." That drew applause, but the fact is that earmarks amount to only $16.9 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the deficit is expected to be more than $200 billion in 2009. And McCain's tax cuts will add billions more to future deficits unless offset by spending cuts, which he so far has not been willing to identify. What would he cut?

A McCain adviser, former CBO chairman Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has said that McCain "will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint" and "will perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government" to find programs to cut or eliminate. But that, of course, will come after people have cast their votes.

Trade Talk

McCain said, “I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them."

McCain may be alluding to Obama’s threat earlier this year to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico and Canada won't open the deal to renegotiation. Obama said at a Democratic primary debate in Cleveland in February:

Obama, Feb. 26: I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.
But that's far from a threat to "close" markets to U.S. exports.

An expert from a pro-trade group agrees. “It's a stretch to take the heated comment from the Cleveland debate to pull out of NAFTA if it wasn't revised as indicative of a protectionist policy,” Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told “In any event, the position on NAFTA has since been clarified."

In fact, Obama has said he thinks it's unwise to repeal the trade deal, because to do so "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains." And in a June interview with Fortune magazine, he stated that he didn’t plan on pulling out of NAFTA. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.

It's true that McCain has been a stronger advocate of free trade agreements than Obama, who supported the trade deal with Oman in 2006 and one with Peru in 2007 but opposed the one with Central America and another with Colombia. But saying he would "close" markets is nonsense.

Planet Plans

Finally, we note that McCain and the Republican delegates applied a different standard to the Republican nominee's lofty rhetoric than they did to Obama's.

McCain drew applause with this line:

McCain: We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.

The previous evening, however, McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, ridiculed Obama for using similar high-sounding words:

Palin, Sept. 3: What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

That crack drew jeers and laughter. Perhaps Republicans see a distinction between "healing the planet" and "restor[ing] the health of our planet," but it escapes us.

–by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller and Emi Kolawole
Obama, Barack. "Plan for a Healthy America.", accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

Office of Management and Budget. "FY 2008 Appropriations Earmarks Summary," 28 January 2008.

Congressional Budget Office. "CBO's Baseline Budget Projections," March 2008.

Congressional Research Service. Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis. Washington: GPO, 2007.

"The Lexington Project.", accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

"U.S. Imports by Country of Origin." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

"Spot Prices, Crude Oil in Dollars per Barrel." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

The New York Times. "Transcript, the Democratic Debate in Cleveland." 26 Feb. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. "Obama Knocks Clinton, but Wouldn't Ax NAFTA." ABC News, 24 Feb. 2008.

Easton, Nina. "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all." Fortune Magazine, 18 June 2008.

Obama, Barack. "Why I Oppose CAFTA." Chicago Tribune, 30 June 2005.

Elliott, Philip. "Obama says rivals have failed." The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2007.

"Remarks for Sen. Barack Obama: AFL-CIO." 2 April 2008., Web site accessed 5 Sept. 2008.



Posted by: ned4trth | September 6, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

"McCain Has Record To Keep His Promise Of Beltway Reform"

Obama on the other hand, well, he has promises, and some friends you might not want to meet.

Posted by: Judge | September 6, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

The election is not about Sarah Palin or celebrity or the culture wars. It's about
energy, education, taxation, health care, the economy and the war in Iraq. The Republicans have said, if it's about the issues, they lose. Don't take the bait.

Bush/McCain. No More Years!!!

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 6, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey Barbara W. You said "Citizens who have been brainwashed always pay the price." HOW RIGHT YOU ARE! You and your "friends" have all been brainwashed by GW! And you all paid the price. Look at the price of gas, food, airline travel, and almost everything else.

You're so insulated from the truth and from reality that you are about to vote against your best interests. The economy stinks, the war is going to cost you, your friends, your children, your children's children, and their children, their education, their retirement, clean air, clean water, etc. etc.

I bet you think drilling in ANWAR will lower gas prices. What a tool! The oil companies aren't drilling the rights they've got, they aren't ordering the equipment to do so, and if they start tomorrow, it will be 10 years before a drop gets into the oil pipeline, and best of all (here's something the conservative owned media won't tell you), by contract, that oil has to go directly into the world supply! YOU'LL NEVER SEE A DROP.

Yes, Palin has more experience than Obama. More COLLEGE experience. While he was busy graduating from Harvard at the top of his class, Palin was transferring to get more education - to the tune of 5 colleges in 6 years.

Palin has more organization experience? Her state is smaller than the south side of Chicago, where Obama went to help people improve their life. Now the right is trying to vilify that! Palin has been too busy covering up her trail than to help people. Well, if that’s your criteria, then she has more experience than McCain, too.

Grampy McSame has integrity? He’s flip-flopped on more issues (including the immigration bill he sponsored) than all the sandals on Malibu Beach. Just because he and the RNC repeat the lies loud and often doesn’t them it true.

BTW - 4 and 8 years ago I was hoping to vote for him. Then he flipped hard to the right to get the RNC to back him for president. Now THAT'S integrity!

So why don't you tell all your college educated friends to help you read the paper, do your own investigations (hint; Faux news may not be good source - neither is CNN, a network that has Glen Beck and his buddies and not a single show with a liberal host), stop listening to ads (try - they'll point out that most of the RNC speeches were lies), and come to an erudite, fact backed decision.

I AGREE - If you make over $250,000 you SHOULD vote for McCain. It's in your best interest, I wouldn't fault you for that. But if you don't make that kind of scratch, you have to be seriously ignorant of what's going on in the world to vote Republican.

Question - Whoever heard of a racist liberal?

Question - Do you want to be in the same party as Rush and Hannity? Do you think these small minded slugs hold allure with all their lies?

Lastly, if you voted for GW twice, you should clearly be able to see that you do not have the good judgment to vote in this election. Either stay home or take my advice (I majored in Jazz, so I'm not some elitist braniac), vote for Obama.

By the way, if you think Obama is an elitist braniac, and that's a good reason not to vote for him, look what happened when we let some good ol' boy with no brains run the country. Sure, he'd be a great person to have a beer with, but don't try to have a conversation while your drinking it.

Posted by: Mr. Biker | September 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

The republicans are going to lose. That is because Americans will realize what a bunch of phonies McCain, his VP pick and his low-hitting, manipulative campaign advisers and other advisers are.

They care only about themselves and making profits by shipping your jobs overseas where foreigners work for pennies.

McCain claims to put America first, before himself. What a bunch of hogwash. By choosing Sarah Palin and bypassing other, much more competent people with Washington who could much better help him run the country, he put himself first, and the country last.

I do not believe a word he says. If he wins, the wealthy lobbyists will again have his ear and he will yield to them as he has in the past. The wealthiest in the country will get wealthier, and the rest of us will be the worse off.

Don't be stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

A man of integrity,John McCain!

Posted by: scoobydee | September 5, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Palin is just another Jesus-freak nazi (Bush). Palin believes Jews deserve to die for not converting to Christianity. Palin also wants to teach creationism drivel in public schools.

Our latest headline reads: "Stocks fall as jobs data stirs fear about economy".

Good job Republicans. I love these arsholes that say our economy is only screwed up because Bush inherited an economy that was already in recession, as if 8 years wasn't enough time for him to fix things. Not only have things not improved since Clinton left office, they've gotten much, much worse. Go ahead and vote for McCain so things can continue getting worse.

Posted by: Ethics Challenged Creationist Cheerleader | September 5, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I kind of liked this add..seems to be in line with original hit add celebrity

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Here is the REAL reason why McCain chose Palin. He has no shame... Check it out of you are into religious stuff. It's a pretty unique perspective.

Posted by: LaRae | September 5, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Actually, McCain is UP in Florida.

Having Republican Governor Charlie Christ there will help out.

I love the way sorry liberals are realizing they are not going to win. Obama is just an empty suit with no experience who has'nt done a thing and Biden is a racist/sexist. Combined, they are dangerous and should never be allowed 1000000000feet from the White House.

McCain/Palin '08

Posted by: Mindscape | September 5, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

its laughable that blogger are providing references for unreliable sources and polls.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Have you seen these numbers?

Obama 1028554 McCain 433680

Team Obama is just not in the game yet.

Posted by: acarponzo | September 5, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

toritto you are the man! tell these punks the real deal!

You want to know the interests that run this country?

Months on end of completely in-factual phonied up news about "Disenfranchised Clinton supporters". Yet the Republicans had their roll call vote after hours while no one was watching, and while the Honorable Senator McCain (R)AZ was giving his acceptance speech to 3500 cheerleading sycophants and party partisans, less than a mile away Congressmen Ron Paul (R)TX was rallying 14000 cheering reformers! Where was the media on that?

Posted by: Average joe | September 5, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Barbara: That University teach you how to spell?

Posted by: toritto | September 5, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

My husband graduated from one of the best know and best rated universities in the country; our friends are all college grads, from large universities. Al of us are voting for the man with honor, intelligency, self sacrific, love of country, vast experience in government and foreign policy.....that man is John McCain. He chose a female for his running mate who is extraordinary. It seems that the Democrats are running scard now and are posting such nasty comments. To them I say, you have been brainwashed by the biggest, most talented brainwasher who has ever walked the face of this earth. I sincerely hope that you come to your senses before November. Citizens who have been brainwashed always pay the price.

Posted by: Barbara W. | September 5, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Francis: Great minds think alike!

Posted by: toritto | September 5, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Very well said, Toritto. Who are the poorest states in the U.S.? The Red States. Who voted for Bush, and now poised to vote for McCain? The Red States. Who got hurt the most during the past eight years of horrific economic and political policies? The Red States. Good luck with your family values and flag-waving. Don't blame the immigrants. The biggest threat to American security and prosperity is the electorate who cannot discern fact from fancy. The ad is dead-on-target for this electorate. It's a sad commentary.

Posted by: Francis | September 5, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the world's biggest celebrity extremist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm an old retired guy and I can honestly say it won't matter to me in the long run who wins this election. I do believe however that the current administration has been the worst in my lifetime (born during FDR).

If "small town working class" rust-belt voters in Ohio, Pa., Michigan and Indiana help re-elect the GOP then I don't want to hear anymore whinng from them about their disappearing jobs and livlihoods, the high cost of college and gas, lack of health care etc. Let Johnnie's "patriotism" put food on your table.

Screw 'um. Cling to your guns and religion. Pray to Jesus when you go hunting for a meal. You will deserve what you get.

I got mine already. I live comfortably in the sunny south on a golf course, got my steady income, my "socialist" medicare and prescription drug coverage. We won't run out of gas before I go and the planet won't get too hot.

As Johnny Carson used to say - I upped my lifestyle - up yours!

God helps those who help themselves - if you're in deep doodoo economically and you vote Republican for their "values", you deserve it.

Posted by: toritto | September 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This add will definitely click in southern state as the "celebrity" did nationally :)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Before Palin, the McCain campaign had framed the race as a referendum on Obama, all about Obama. Now, the race seems more like a referendum on Palin, everything about Palin. Whatch out McCain: That is a double-edged sword!!!

Posted by: Carl29 | September 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Wonderful add.. Actually if you look at it, that exactly is the truth about obama.. he has no clue on how to move us forward. I am not saying this, His running mate Biden said it. Hillary said it. Bill said it.. God bless america

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

What the?? I am confused? Please say it aint so Sarah??? How could you.! Well Ok, I will over look it just this one time. McCains speech wasnt anything compared to Huckaboo or Sarah Moose! Now those two Conservatives know how to give a speech. Sarah Palin is the new Obama, The new most famous person in the world. Uh Oh, Wonder if she is a Muslim too? Or worse, the anti-christ?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio Pics Videos

This site has everything about her scandals and Levi BF of her daughter

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret

Its all about Palin for the next few weeks. It might be a bad thing that she is more Popular then McCain.

Posted by: pastor123 | September 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Shannon | September 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company