Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Invokes Chavez in Latest Spanish Attack Ad

By Ed O'Keefe
John McCain's newest Spanish-language television commercial calls out Barack Obama for his vow to meet with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "without preconditions." The campaign says the ad will air in Florida, where it seems designed to remind the state's significant Cuban voter population of Obama's vow during the July 2007 YouTube primary debate to meet with the leaders of Cuba, as well as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.

At the time, Hillary Clinton called Obama's statement "naive"; McCain has expressed similar criticism.

The ad shows Chavez saying, "Go to hell, you filthy Yankees," and threatening that "If any aggression were to come against Venezuela, then there will be no oil for people or the government of the Unites States!"

"Do you believe we should talk with Chavez?" the ad's announcer asks after those clips.

"We, you filthy Yankees, know that we are resolute to be free, no matter what happens, and at any cost!" Chavez continues.

"In November, you decide" the ad concludes.

This ad is the latest salvo in a Spanish ad battle that began last Friday when the McCain campaign released a TV message in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico that blamed Obama and Senate Democrats for the failure of comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and immigrants rights groups called the ad misleading. It continued with Obama ads in the same states that tied McCain to anti-immigrant comments by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, which the McCain campaign called "offensive."

No word yet on the topic of new Spanish-language commercials that the Obama campaign has said it will release next week in the Sunshine State.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 19, 2008; 4:24 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Channel 08 , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Calls for Rescue and Stimulus
Next: Palin's Pay Cut as Mayor Followed by a Raise

Comments

Its still upholding the rich white colored latin americans reding evil in USA.
History in Latin america shows white colored citizens hold wealth and colored in sheer poverty.
Now, USA will not stand this just like the republicans wont stand Obama taking White House...yeah, White House for ...????
COLOR IS THE GAME !!!!

Posted by: awangkassim | September 21, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Doubtless the idea to attack Chavez like this in Spanish language media came from a white Cuban.

Hispanic society is color coded. To white, upper class Hispanics Chavez is a hated figure. To brown and black Hispanics, i.e., most Hispanics, he is absolutely nothing of the sort. That is why repeated American attempts to destabilize him have failed because the brown and black masses love him.

Posted by: koremori | September 20, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Posted by: Caroline | September 20, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

http://www.bsf4o.com/index.php

BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA

The folks who are fighting and dying in this war are for OBAMA!

Posted by: SueMVetforObama | September 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Helen-
McCain's bill sounds quite prescient
to me, but hey, I'm not an economist...
BUT HE his-

The Atlantic
September 18, 2008
An economist explains why he thinks McCain's economic policies make more sense
by Steven Landsburg

(Steven E. Landsburg (born 1954) is an American professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. From 1989 to 1995, he taught at Colorado State University.)


Betting on John McCain

My whole life I've been mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." I've never had any problem choosing my candidates and didn't see how anyone else could either. But this year, I've been genuinely on the fence, partly because I haven't been paying close attention, and partly because there seemed ample reason to dislike all of the options.
But over the past few days, as McCain and Obama have ratcheted up their rhetoric over each others' "disastrous" economic policies, I decided to do a little research. Along the way, I had a few surprises about John McCain's voting record, some but not all of them pleasant. Now I don't think I'm undecided anymore.
Here are some of the things that made my decision easy, and some that made it hard:
1. Free trade and immigration are my top issues, and McCain wins on both.
These are my top issues for several reasons. First, trade is the engine of prosperity not just for the United States but also for the poorest of the world's poor. Nothing matters more than that. Second, the instinct to care about the national origin of your trading partner (or employer, or employee, or landlord, or tenant) is an ugly one, and the instinct to care about the national origin of other people's trading partners—and on that basis to interfere forcibly with other people's voluntary transactions—is even uglier.
Finally, protectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Some intervening presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and to a lesser extent Bush II) have been weak in their commitments to free trade, but none between Hoover and Obama has so explicitly rejected it.
2. McCain is not Bush. This came as a surprise to me. I'd been assuming, in my ill-read, uneducated way, that McCain had been complicit in most of the great travesties of the Bush administration and the execrable Republican Senate. I've learned that's largely untrue. He voted (to my great surprise!) against the prescription drug entitlement, against the Farm Security Bill, against milk subsidies, against Amtrak subsidies, and against highway subsidies.
Obama, by contrast, is in many ways a continuation of Bush. Like Bush (only far more so ), Obama is fine with tariffs and subsidies. Like Bush, he wants to send jackbooted thugs into every meatpacking plant in America to rid the American workplace of anyone who happens to have been born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Like Bush, he wants a more progressive tax code. (It is one of the great myths of 21st century that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code less progressive; the opposite is true. If you are in the bottom 38% of taxpayers, you now pay zero income tax—and therefore have an incentive to support any spending bill that comes down the pike.) Like Bush, he wants more regulation, not less.

3. But there's a lot about economics that McCain just doesn't get. This shows up most significantly in his energy policies. Every economist knows that the best way to discourage carbon emissions (or anything else for that matter) is to tax them. But McCain rejects a carbon tax in favor of one slightly inferior policy (cap and trade) and one grossly inferior policy (direct regulation, such as the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency).
In a world of perfect capital markets and perfect information, a cap-and-trade system (provided the government auctions off the permits rather than giving them away) is exactly equivalent to a carbon tax – same effect on everything down to and including the prices of consumer goods. In the real world we live in, it's inferior for two reasons: First, small firms might find it difficult=2 0to raise the necessary capital to buy a permit; this gives an inappropriate advantage to big firms over small ones. Second, I believe it will be harder (for technical reasons I won't go into here) to calculate the efficient number of cap-and-trade permits than to calculate the efficient per-ton carbon tax. Aside from that, the two policies are equivalent in every way. McCain presumably doesn't get this, or he wouldn't have such a strong preference for cap-and-trade.
Worse, he endorses the CAFE standards, which are just a terrible way to control carbon emissions. While a carbon tax gets incentives right at every decision point, fuel efficiency standards give people no incentive, for example, to bike to work instead of drive (in fact, they flip the incentive in the wrong direction). Worse yet, they concentrate brainpower on improving fuel efficiency when there might be far more effective ways to control carbon emissions; with a tax, all innovations are rewarded.
In his support of CAFE standards over carbon taxes, McCain betrays a serious failure to understand how incentives work. The same problem shows up when he thinks you can simply mandate campaign finance limits, as if people who are competing for control of a $15 trillion economy won't be creative enough to find some way to spend hundreds of millions in the effort, no matter how you write your laws.
4. McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Am ericans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
Of course, there are other things that matter. Foreign and defense policy might matter more than anything, and if I were sure that one or the other candidate were far wiser about these issues, that might be enough to win my vote. But I have no expertise on these matters and no particular reason to trust my own judgment.
I'm sure I'm right about trade and pretty sure I'm right about taxes and health care, but that's because I've thought long and hard about these issues for decades. It seems to me that we ought to be humble about the things we haven't thought hard about, and for me that includes foreign policy. The best I can do is bet that whoever's getting most of the other stuff right is getting this right too.
The bottom line is that I support John McCain. With trepidation.

Posted by: Scott | September 20, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Scott, are you aware that a far better bill was introduced in 2005 by several senators, including Sen. Oxley, and met broader support in the Senate, but failed after the WH threatened a veto?

Or that the purpose of McCain's bill was to do the bidding of such honest brokers as subprime lenders like Countrywide?

Or that McCain and the Republicans were at the forefront stalling efforts to curtail predatory lending -- the tactics that led to subprime mortgages? Or that the Bush Administration voided all decent anti-predatory lending laws on the state level?

Or don't you care?

Posted by: Helen | September 20, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Republican dirty tricks in Florida...


Republican Mailing Leaves Florida Voters Confused

""I thought, well that's strange, because I'm a Democrat. And when I opened the envelope, there was a card that said I was listed as a Republican with my registration number. So I immediately got my Democratic card, and the registration number was not the same," she says.

She thought the mailing — labeled "Party Affiliation Voter Registration Card" — was a little fishy — especially when she found out two of her friends who are Democrats had received the same thing but a Republican friend had not."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94818483

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc

Posted by: Surge This | September 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

This ad from mccain who doesn't know that Spain is not in Latin America, doesn't know who the prime minster of Spain is?
And speaking to nutty chavez is the right thing. Doing so will totally blow his nonsense out of the water in the eyes of the world. Funny, we talked to Kruschev when he said the USSR would bury us. We taled to Breshnev when he was ssupplying arms to the North Vietnamese. We talked to the Red Chinese. So what, are we now afraid of some tinhorn despot? Aren't we supposed to be the Home of the Brave?

Posted by: stryker | September 19, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

No hablo espanol. Pigs really can fly. No more McSame from McCain!

http://www.boppoll.com

Posted by: mgultch | September 19, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear John McCain...


Given the events of the last week, are you still in favor of privatizing Social Security?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainsocial14-2008jul14,0,1786903.story


It is, after all, part of the 2008 Republican Platform. And back in 2005, you travelled the country with President Bush in order to try to sell Bush's privatization plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56913-2005Mar22.html


But at the moment, your answers seem to be a bit... muddled?


"Wall Street turmoil left John McCain scrambling to explain why the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remained strong. It also left him defending his support for privately investing Social Security money in the same markets that had tanked earlier in the week. [...]"

"[McCain] aides tried to soothe voters concerned about the bankruptcies, takeovers and bailouts on Wall Street by declaring McCain favored only the option of such accounts, just for younger workers, and most likely in a conservative investment vehicle such as bonds".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwHGMYappR5eiPj4JoZ8L-7YUacAD939UIJ00


Mmm-hmm. Just for the "young folks" -- and "trust us", we'd only do it in safe investments. You know, with big, reputable companies that wouldn't take insanely foolish risks in order to squeeze out an extra half-point of returns.


So let's talk about this, McCain: do you still think we should be putting people's retirement-savings-of-last-resort into Wall Street, or don't you? It sounds like some folks just think it's just a question of marketing...


Private accounts for Social Security are "always an easier sell when the markets are going up instead of going down," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's. "I don't think this is a good week to sell that one politically, but you're looking at the long term here. You're investing your retirement funds for 20 or 30 years down the road."


I'm dying to hear the answer (mavericky staight-talk?) to this one. Or answers, as the case may be.

Posted by: DrainYou | September 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Could McCain get away with this reckless ad if it were in English and picked up by the cable networks?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | September 19, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Chavez is a foul demagogue who sees an American conspiracy under every plot and behind every tree. He has been claiming for years that the US is out to kill him and that oil to the US will be cut off. Neither has happened and I doubt either will. His diatribes are more about him having a verbal punching bag than anything else.

Obama's comment about meeting with hostile foreign leaders wasn't any endorsement of Chavez. He merely said nothing was being gained by refusing to talk to foreign leaders and he was right.

Posted by: RealChoices | September 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I cant wait for the debates, I want to watch Obama out shine McCain Loved watching the primary Debates These two Obama and McCain are going to be great to watch debate. the two choices this year are way below the barr. But the debates are still entertaining. http://www.watchdebates.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

But why not enhance economic and political ties with Uribe too? Oh, right, because the unions told him not too. HopeChange forever!

Posted by: Truth | September 19, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather have Obama talking to Chavez than McCain at war with him.

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's also not forget that Sen. Obama has turned his back on Colombia - one of America's greatest allies in Latin America and a sworn enemy of Hugo Chavez - through his opposition to the Colombia FTA. Colombian President Uribe has done everything we've demanded, and has begged for Dems in Congress to pass the FTA, but Obama refuses because it would give Bush a victory and upset his labor union supporters. That's bad politics, NOT "change we can believe in."

Posted by: Truth | September 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

GovTrak- Senate Record

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: DeadI join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company