The past week has poignantly illustrated the truth of this recent comment: “[John McCain] used to think it was more important to be right than President; he seems to have reversed that completely in 2008.” How true. To the new, over-spun, hyper-negative, Rove-powered McCain campaign, Obama can do no right – even when he calls for personal responsibility in solving the energy crisis.
By now, you’ve seen, or heard of this clip, in which Obama calls for Americans to inflate their tires & maintain their cars to save gas:
And you’ve also heard McCain’s response: relentless mockery, accusing Obama of misunderstanding car mechanics, to the tune of, “Silly elitist liberal professor! Automobile maintenance doesn’t affect mileage!”
McCain’s attack is triply wrong. The candidate attempts to wear three hats – first the auto mechanic, second the orator, and third the leader – and fails catastrophically at all three.
First: mechanically speaking, auto maintenance does affect mileage, and proper maintenance could cut down on America’s need for oil – significantly more than would the production of 200,000 extra barrels of oil, 30 years down the line. This is my problem with offshore drilling: McCain and others present it as the one-stop shop solution to America’s woes, when there are better, easier, quicker, enduring solutions all around. Even Paris Hilton understands the futility of drilling alone: why can’t Obama or McCain get that through their heads? Oh, wait. Obama can. But McCain needs the “oil only” talking point to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to the detriment of America, requiring him to lie on this point. We’re already off to a good start.
But wait! There’s more dishonesty ahead. Rhetorically, the attempt to reduce Obama’s ambitious & comprehensive energy plan to one catch phrase – “conserve resources” – is doubly dishonest. As Matt has said, it’s a work of “malicious rhetorical synechdoche,” whereby the orator hopes to make the part stand for the whole, in an effort to obscure the whole. And it’s also a quote mine (forget hybrid cars – let’s go for hybrid dishonesty!). Obama offered his conservation advice not as a part of his energy plan (note that it’s not in his prepared remarks), but as a response to a question, about what individuals could do to help:
This is a message about personal responsibility, about what we can all do without waiting for Washington to feed us the answer, not an attempt to articulate conservation as The National Solution to the energy crisis, contextual clues that McCain conveniently ignores. Interestingly, you won’t find this vital context for Obama’s quote anywhere else: I checked. Nobody’s covering the sheer intellectual dishonesty of McCain’s attack, either as a quote mine or as malicious synechdoche. A lie by any other name…
But third, and most damningly, McCain’s focus on the alleged “gaffe” in the tire gauge line is a fundamental failure of leadership. By (dishonestly) attacking Obama for (allegedly) making conservation a key part of his energy strategy, McCain comes periously close to mocking the inclusion of conservation as a part of any energy strategy, and invites others to do just that. Unsurprisingly, Fox News (as we shall see) has jumped on the bandwagon, mocking those crazy conservationist liberals and essentially encouraging wasteful behavior, just when America can’t afford it. Obama’s call for personal responsibility in the face of an energy & climate crisis was a chance for McCain to show his quality and his “maverick” style by agreeing with Obama, and calling on each and every American to do their parts to save energy. But why settle for a moment of leadership and independent thought, when there’re political points to be scored by mockery? McCain is willing to go as far as cultivating the dangerous – and fundamentally un-conservative – myth that the government can snap its fingers and solve the energy crisis without personal sacrifice, just to get a vote.
Bottom line: the “tire gauge gaffe” is a distraction, and a particularly evil and dangerous one at that. By mocking conservation and playing down the true elements of either candidates’ energy policy, McCain makes the election more about spin than substance. Watch Hannity, Female Colmes Stand-In, and Gingrich debate energy policy, and see how Hannity deftly turns the issue away from policy, towards mocking Obama, just when the talk gets tough:
Hannity & Gingrich’s back-and-forth, to the detriment of real debate, offers a disturbing glimpse into a future McCain presidency: misdirection, spin, and lies in equal parts. In other words, Bush. All over again. Can any doubt that the respectable McCain of 2000 is truly dead?
McCain and others present [drilling] as the one-stop shop solution to America’s woes…
Ames, I find it ironic that you titled this post “Lies, Misdirection and Dishonesty…” The above statement is completely inaccurate and I think you know it. McCain has never said that oil was a ‘one-stop’ solution or even implied it. As recently as June 18 he gave a major speech on energy where he said the following:
“Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources. This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar, biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented. It will include a variety of new automotive and fuel technologies, clean-burning coal and nuclear energy, and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to put the power of the market on the side of environmental protection.”
The speech is there to read, for anyone interested in the facts.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 8:30 amThat’s what McCain says in his speeches, but not in his ads, and the ads are what I’m referring to. McCain has presented the issue as if it’s drill tomorrow, problem solved.
Posted by Ames | August 6, 2008, 10:05 amSo let’s look at some of Obama’s ads:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135665
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
I know you are a smart guy Ames, so I won’t contribute your one-sided posts to a lack of research. So then it has to be a concious choice to only present half of the issue. The truth is that BOTH of the candidates have been accused of ‘mis-leading ads’ and the evidence here seems to confirm that Obama is no less guilty than McCain. I haven’t even their speeches, but you get the point.
The point I hope I am making here is that citizens should educate themselves because neither campaign can be relied on to spin the other’s positions (or their own) accurately. Also, it would be nice if we could all quit whining about ads and move on to the actual issues. On energy McCain and Obama only differ significantly on two major points: 1) Obama believes in increasing taxes on oil companies and McCain doesn’t. 2) McCain likes nuclear and Obama doesn’t.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 10:30 amThis is just getting me depressed.
As much as I like reveling in the soap opera inherent in politics, this stuff just makes me want to tune out. Which I guess is partly what they want.
I just always have a vague glimmer of hope it won’t come down to attack ads and distortions. Maybe that we could talk about things like adults.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 6, 2008, 10:53 amIt definitely disgusts me. I think Obama’s responses, calling McCain on the negativism, aren’t the right replies, either. If he maintained a focus on the issues, it’d prove his chops as a leader and elevate the discourse. I think we can trust Americans to get the “hey, that was a dick move” thing by themselves
Posted by Ames | August 6, 2008, 11:11 am(I posted this comment one before but it apparently got lost in space).
Let’s look at Obama’s ads:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/94900
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135665
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
Ames, I know you’re a smart guy, so I don’t understand why you are choosing to only tell half the story. Progressivism is about fairness and complaining about McCain’s misleading ads while ignoring Obama’s strikes me as a bit misleading in itself.
The point I hope I am making is that neither candidate can be trusted to give us the facts without spin. Furthermore, any American with the smallest amount of common sense should question the message when one candidate tries to explain the other’s position. We have to educate ourselves better on the issues and we have to quit getting hung up on ads while ignoring the issues. What is more important, that we spend a day debating McCain’s less-than-honorable shift in his ads or discussing their actual positions on energy?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 11:53 amI thought that Obama’s response was pretty good, actually. Not so much for the content, though “it’s like they take pride in their ignorance” is a good line, but for the delivery. It almost sounded like he was doing a routine in places. Given that we’re just coming down off of the “Obama is humorless” thing, I think this is pretty good for him. Especially as it provides a framework for responding to future attacks, as well as an opportunity to set up a “there you go again” moment in a debate.
Also, remember that Kerry tried to ignore the cheap shots. You have to make some sort of response. Swift-boating was also a dick move.
Posted by Gotchaye | August 6, 2008, 12:02 pm(I posted this comment one before but it apparently got lost in space).
Let’s look at Obama’s ads. Go to FactCheck.org and they have all kinds of info that discredits ads from Obama’s campaign. (I tried to post the links here but the comments keep disappearing).
Ames, I know you’re a smart guy, so I don’t understand why you are choosing to only tell half the story. Progressivism is about fairness and complaining about McCain’s misleading ads while ignoring Obama’s strikes me as a bit misleading in itself.
The point I hope I am making is that neither candidate can be trusted to give us the facts without spin. Furthermore, any American with the smallest amount of common sense should question the message when one candidate tries to explain the other’s position. We have to educate ourselves better on the issues and we have to quit getting hung up on ads while ignoring the issues. What is more important, that we spend a day debating McCain’s less-than-honorable shift in his ads or discussing their actual positions on energy?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 1:03 pmSorry your comments got lost – I just checked Akismet & found them both (despammed both). Anyways, I’m sure Obama’s are misleading to a certain degree: a certain amount, I think, is expected. But I really think this McCain ad crosses the line of irresponsibility in a significant way. No doubt actual positions matter more, and I hope Barack steers the dialogue back there.
Posted by Ames | August 6, 2008, 1:08 pmHm. But you’re right. I can’t deny my bias towards Obama on this, and I admire your commitment to pointing out where Obama gets things right. Perhaps it’s time to re-explore my moderate roots. This last week of negative ads, and McCain’s thorough sell-out to Rove, just has me really angry. You’ll see a call for moderation & issue-based debate soon.
Posted by Ames | August 6, 2008, 1:28 pmI’m scared to death that either of these candidates will be in charge of our energy policy going forward. Right now, I don’t trust either of them to really get us out of the mess. But, we’ll see in hindsight I guess.
But, what really infuriates me about the Republican’s sudden ‘drill here’ attacks, is the fact that they’ve had 7 full years since 9-11, 5 of which where they controlled congress, and yet they did absolutely nothing. So, all their stupid grandstanding last Friday after recess was called, was just empty politics. All those same gentlemen, plus a few more allies, could have easily rammed drilling legislation through in the mid 2000s.
One of the main reason I have been against our military efforts in the fight against islamic fundamentalism, is that we are the root cause of it. Until we stop dumping billions of dollars into the hands of the middle east, we have no chance of resolving the issue.
It just boggles me that as important as energy has been since at least 2001, nothing was ever done, until now, when it is just being used as a blunt object of political manipulation.
arggh!!
Posted by FCD | August 6, 2008, 1:46 pmAnyways, I’m sure Obama’s are misleading to a certain degree: a certain amount, I think, is expected. But I really think this McCain ad crosses the line of irresponsibility in a significant way.
In one from just a couple of days ago Obama states that McCain is, ‘in the pocket of Big Oil’. The ad claims he received $2.1 million in donations from oil interests. Well the actual number (per FactCheck) is $1.3 million. It’s still a lot of money, but facts should count.
In March Obama said, “I don’t take money from oil companies,” which is true, but then no one does, since it has been illegal to do so since 1907. What both McCain and Obama have accepted are donations from individuals within the industry. Obama has accepted $394,465 from oil interests. Not the amount of McCain but certainly enough to wonder if his switch on offshore drilling might have been similarly motivated.
There’s nothing wrong with rooting for someone to win. I do it every weekend during football season. But ignoring it when they play dirty is a hollow victory in my book.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 1:59 pmLooks like those spam -posts trickled through…sorry for the multiple posts!
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 6, 2008, 3:31 pmHaha! No worries. And yeah, I’ve heard those allegations on Obama’s part, but <$400,000 is pennies compared to McCain’s receipts from the same. You’re right that those are less than true, but they’re pretty close to true.
Posted by Ames | August 7, 2008, 7:51 pmBut he is still taking money from the oil companies! I think it’s more than a bit hypocritical to say anything about McCain just because he raised more. Sounds more like sour grapes than principle.
“Pretty close to true…”
Really? A caveat? You’re losing your progressive cred Ames.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 7, 2008, 9:48 pmI appreciate you for calling me on it. You’re right, not good. I credit it to low blood sugar (hungry Ames is not smart Ames). It isn’t that close to true at all, and the point is that he’s not “talking straight.” I still consider it “straighter” than McCain.
Posted by Ames | August 7, 2008, 11:22 pmI’m sure we all agree that people shouldn’t be banned from giving because they’re involved in a certain industry. If I worked in oil, I would want to still be able to donate to politicians I supported. So I would first say that $300,000 isn’t that much or abnormal for an industry of that size, but if you have other info please share.
Yet the amount given is important, and I think if you look at percentages of the amount given to the campaign versus total campaign funds…that’s when people start wondering on how much influence the industry has on the politician.
Also if you look at the broader issues on the topic…one is looking to give oil companies billions while the other is trying to charge taxes on oil companies profits.
So I think it’s a bit…off…to try to say these are similar situations and shows a bias in our blogger here.
So one situation looks much more suspicious than the other while still not necessarily meaning wrong doing.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 8, 2008, 1:40 amYet the amount given is important, and I think if you look at percentages of the amount given to the campaign versus total campaign funds…that’s when people start wondering on how much influence the industry has on the politician.
If there is a concern that money = influence, should we start going through both of their donor lists to see how much money each industry donated, then cross-reference that to their policies?
For example, as of June 2007 Obama had received $518,410 from investment bankers. (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/obama-donations-show-strong-wall-st-support/)
If during the same period McCain only raised $110,000 should we assume that Obama will be more influenced by Wall Street than McCain?
Industries usually hedge their bets and donate to both candidates but they usually give more money to the one they think will help them the most. Still, if a candidate wants to claim the high ground the only solution I see is to accept nothing.
Also if you look at the broader issues on the topic…one is looking to give oil companies billions while the other is trying to charge taxes on oil companies profits.
A better (and more accurate) way to put it is that one is wanting to give tax breaks to ALL corporations (not just the oil industry as Obama implies) and one wants to take money from the oil industry and give it to the public.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 8, 2008, 9:06 amLike I said previously, it doesn’t actually mean he did anything wrong.
I just think that lobbyist influence, industry influence, is something that we try to hold our politicians accountable for and something that McCain has railed against.
But do you really think that we shouldn’t be concerned with the issue? If it begins to look suspicious, when are citizens allowed to criticize/warn our politicians?
My point is, that it’s a real issue Americans have with their politicians, and what level of it warrants suspicion to you PC?
Posted by Oneiroi | August 8, 2008, 10:12 amIt ALL warrants suspicion on my part….but the post by Ames concerned supposed mis-direction on ads. As proven, Obama is just as guilty, so he shouldn’t get a pass.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 8, 2008, 10:51 amAnd I was saying it isn’t the same situation.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 8, 2008, 11:03 am