Very Clever

You can tell that Republicans haven't really lost their touch for the political game because the RNC's latest ad on energy ends on a talking point brilliantly designed to appeal to the lousy instincts of the brain-dead campaign press corps:

No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line.

And it's true. Barack Obama's energy policies -- focused on improving efficiency and developing renewable energy sources -- are pretty much party line answers because the Democratic party line is largely correct. McCain, by contrast, is a mess. He wants a cap and trade system to combat global warming (good) but wants to organize it so that the costs are borne entirely by consumers rather than polluters (bad). He says he's against subsidies for renewable energy because subsidies are a bad idea (understandable if a little pie in the sky) but wants massive subsidies for nuclear energy (because nuclear firms give him campaign contributions). McCain wants to get us off our addiction to oil (good) but he has no record of improving mass transit or fuel efficiency (bad) and his big idea is to wreck the economy of the coastal United States through offshore drilling which he falsely claims will lower short-term fuel prices. On top of all that, he proposes to lower gas prices through a "gas tax holiday" that's been denounced by experts across the ideological spectrum.

It's true, though, that this mish-mash of ideas is far too incoherent to be anyone's party line. And that, I think, will be incredibly impressive to campaign reporters. The voters, I think, are pretty open to a more-or-less orthodox Democrat given the state of the GOP brand but that's another matter. Meanwhile, note the irony of an ad paid for by the Republican National Committee lauding John McCain for his willingness to break with the Republican line. If only the RNC had spoken up sooner on how terrible Republicans are!

Comments

It's only a matter of time until the Rethuglicans latch on to the fact that Senator Obama has posted a phony birth certificate on his web site. Then the folks on this blog who have been poo pooing the issue will be laughing no more.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12959.htm

Here's a sample from the article as some commentors have objected to the length of previous posts. It's very simple, Senator Obama put up or drop out.

"Why, indeed, does not Obama make this issue go away? At this point, there's no good reason -- unless he doesn't have a birth certificate, or has one he feels compelled to hide. But now, after more than three weeks, with the affirmations of his campaign spokesman that the Fight the Smears birth certificate image is "real", he is in an even tighter corner: the real paper birth certificate of the candidate for President had better look a lot like the one on the web site, or he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

It is a matter of time now before a legal challenge is issued in one of the 50 states, or the call for paper proof is issued by a major pundit, publication, or political figure. The longer the candidate waits, the higher the risk. "

Posted by SLC | July 7, 2008 11:26 AM

Well, OK Matt, I get your point, but Obama did open himself up to this attack by putting himself forth as a new phenomenon. If he hadn't come up with that flimflam the McCain people wouldn't have had anything to work with in the first place.

Posted by Stuart | July 7, 2008 11:34 AM

It's only a matter of time until the Rethuglicans latch on to the fact that Senator Obama has posted a phony birth certificate on his web site.

Why on Earth would anyone believe that's anything but a Republican smear in the first place?

Posted by Chet | July 7, 2008 11:35 AM

SLC - If you truly believe that the Obama campaign forged a birth certificate, I have a wall in China I want to sell you.

Posted by David Weigel | July 7, 2008 11:37 AM

What are you thinking, SLC--that he'll turn out to have been born in Panama or something?

Or maybe just never to have been born?

Posted by rea | July 7, 2008 11:37 AM

Let's be clear. Any increased cost, irrespective of how it increases or who "ostensibly" pays for it will be borne by the consumer. Not saying these aren't good ideas. But, to think that "business" will pay is nuts. The costs will be passed on to consumers in one form or another.

Posted by swells | July 7, 2008 11:44 AM

Oh, for fuck's sake. Here is a wingnut with half a brain fairly effectively demolishing the birth certificate nonsense.

Posted by John | July 7, 2008 11:45 AM

I still want McCain (or one of his supporters) to answer my question on offshore oil. He says that even if we open up coastal waters to oil exploration, the final say on whether or not it actually occurs lies with the states themselves. Sooooooo, what states have exhibited any interest in this issue? What governor or legislature has asked the feds for relief from the drilling ban?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Posted by LFC | July 7, 2008 11:45 AM

This line of attack in the ad will probably help Obama. Not only is there no actual evidence that people care about bipartisanship but DEMOCRATIC IDEAS ARE QUITE POPULAR THESE DAYS.

So, I say, Republicans, please run this advertisement a lot! It's great to keep promoting Obama as a good Democrat.

Posted by FSA | July 7, 2008 11:55 AM

You forget: in a post 9/11 world, being right, smart, and effective is not enough. You must also be stupid, duplicitous, and zealously harmful.

Posted by El Cid | July 7, 2008 11:55 AM

Sooooooo, what states have exhibited any interest in this issue?

Florida, Virginia and South Carolina.

On point to this post, of course the ad is an answer to Obama's claim to be a new kind of Democrat - which has been a large part of his appeal to independents and Republicans. But as Matthew points out, Obama's just been lying about that. Obama isn't a new kind of Democrat at all; he's the same old thing we've seen from the Democratic Party for decades - Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, Carter...

Posted by Al | July 7, 2008 12:00 PM

I'm not sure there's too much to worry about here. If Obama's position was much different than the Democratic platform, he'd be too radical for his own party. As it is, the Republicans have no choice but to tie Obama to the mainstream Democratic party. The only flaw in that plan is that the Democratic party is quite popular at the moment. In any case, if a counter-slogan is required, here's my suggestion:

Nothing changes. John McCain: An Iraq approach abroad, a Katrina strategy at home. Talk about the party line.

Posted by southpaw | July 7, 2008 12:11 PM

Al,

As a Floridian, I can tell you that off-shore oil drilling is not popular contrary to what our governor says.

Posted by Micheline | July 7, 2008 12:12 PM

Interesting, Al. Florida has repeatedly vehemently said "no" to offshore drilling, but now Crist reverses himself to support it? Might this have something to do with bucking for the V-P spot? And notice that he didn't say Florida wants it, he says he wants to let the states decide. That's not asking for permission to drill.

Virginia does have legislature support, but the bill was vetoed by the governor.

I can find no evidence that South Carolina has asked for drilling.

It was interesting reading some of the views of the neighboring states. I think if this goes through and any state allows drilling, then they should be responsible for the cost of any environmental impact on another state. Seems only fair.

Posted by LFC | July 7, 2008 12:14 PM

FSA,

But the popularity of Democratic ideas doesn't necessarily translate into popularity of the Democratic brand. People might prefer brand X to brand Y in blind taste tests even if brand Y sells more than brand X due to better branding.

The Republicans may have killed their brand, but decades of "even the liberal media thinks both sides are flawed and the truth is somewhere in the middle" means that the game has a negative rather than zero sum -- losses for the GOP don't mean people'll like the Democratic brand even if they like Democratic ideas.

People still think Democrat = "effete dirty hippy who'll spend all your hard-earned money to make sure gay-married terrorists have a right to have abortions".

Posted by DAS | July 7, 2008 12:17 PM

Neither party has the slightest idea how to increase fuel supplies. Nor can I think of a pundit who knows jack about it.

Posted by gcochran | July 7, 2008 12:22 PM

"And it's true. Barack Obama's energy policies -- focused on improving efficiency and developing renewable energy sources -- are pretty much party line answers because the Democratic party line is largely correct."

Oh? You mean wind and solar can replace oil, natural gas, and nuclear?

You do realize that Electricity is an "always on" thing, and that neither wind nor solar are capable of being complete answers for it? The Democratic party line is a correct answer only if you assume that the answer means "everyone needs to use a lot less energy and we need to have lower lifestyles than we have now"

Posted by James Robertson | July 7, 2008 12:25 PM

No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line.

BTW -- this is standard issue GOP campaigning -- attack your opponant on your own weakness. In spite of McCain's "maverick" image, he's no RINO. So the GOP will attack Obama along the lines of "in spite of Obama's maverick image, he's a party-line Dem" no matter how little sense that attack actually makes.

Pace Al, Obama's claim of being a "new kind of Democrat" is not that he's some "even the liberal New Republic" sort of politician who triangulates between the Democratic and GOP line (indeed, by now, that's an "old kind of Democrat" ... which is part of why us young, liberal Democrats support Obama). It's that Obama is not going to triangulate because he's not a linear thinker who views the Democratic line and the GOP line as two poles of some simplistic spectrum.

To the extent that Obama is not living up to his promise it's not because he's a "party line Democrat" but because he's triangulating -- "trying to find the golden median between two extremes" and engaging in the same linear thinking that has plagued our body politic for some time.

Of course the ad itself is standard GOP projection (just take a true claim about the GOP candidate and swap in the Democratic candidate's name) ... and if this has taken team Obama by surprise -- as such attacks generally seem to take Dems by surprise in spite of their predictibility -- he really is a disappointment and not a new kind of Democrat.

Posted by DAS | July 7, 2008 12:28 PM

James, you need to read more and react less. A major issue in the plans for wind, solar, tidal, etc. is storage. That is true both at the macro level (e.g. wind farms) and the micro level (e.g. solar panels on an individual home).

BTW, do you have any idea how long it takes to bring a coal plant back online? Over 24 hours so the boiler isn't heated too fast. I believe it's even longer for nuclear. It's why peak load turbines (oil or natural gas) have become so popular. The need to be prepared for peak load generation would not change whether we used more wind and solar, more nuke, or more coal.

Posted by LFC | July 7, 2008 12:32 PM

The possibility of all electric cars using greatly improved battery technology may not be so far in the future. Attached is a link to an article about a new technology which would make battery storage of electric energy competitive with hydrocarbon storage of energy and thus battery powered cars competitive with internal combustion powered cars.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Posted by SLC | July 7, 2008 12:41 PM

LFC,

At this point in time, it looks to me like the only feasible sources are coal (lots of it in North America) and nuclear (again, lots of Uranium from reliable sources). We could - if we wante dto - build plants quickly. All of the hurdles are political, none are technical.

As a practical matter, if the left gets what it seems to want (no new power sources that scale at all), then there will be blackouts and brownouts sometime in the next 5 years or so - all along the eastern seaboard, in the west, and probably in the midweat as well. When heat and/or A/C get to be a problem for people, all of these things will get fast tracked.

Posted by James Robertson | July 7, 2008 12:46 PM

Of course the policies of the presidential nominee are party-line. He is the leader of the party. It's practically a tautology.

Posted by solarjetman | July 7, 2008 12:50 PM

Micheline: Recent polling shows about 60% support for drilling in Florida -- see here. Rasmussen and Democracy Corps have similar numbers.

Also: Isn't John McCain a sitting Senator? Can't he introduce his gas tax holiday whenever he likes? And wasn't it supposed to be from Memorial Day to Labor Day, which means there's already less than two months left on it and it's not even been introduced?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | July 7, 2008 12:53 PM

LFC - while it is true that offshore oil exploration has potential environmental problems, the same is true for sources like solar. I oppose destroying fragile desert ecosystems simply to put into place gigantic solar panel farms. Do you support destroying fragile desert ecosystems?

Posted by Al | July 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Attack your opponent's strength from your weakness. Of course Republicans are going to attack a coherent energy policy. If they were to do otherwise, they wouldn't be Republicans.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 7, 2008 1:10 PM

Al's question is actually a disguised one. What he's really asking is, "Wouldn't it be better if oil interests are the ones to benefit while the planet is trashed?"

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 7, 2008 1:17 PM

How can we make polluters pay without them passing off the costs to the consumer?

Posted by Tim K | July 7, 2008 1:20 PM

Barack Obama's energy policies -- focused on improving efficiency and developing renewable energy sources -- are pretty much party line answers because the Democratic party line is largely correct.

Mr. "Change you Can Believe In" has the Dem Party line from the 70s onwards on energy.

1. Improve efficiency while demanding Open Borders and "family reunification" of whole villages. Gore lightbulbs and other "symbols" are mostly meaningless savings negated by a couple hundred thousand new energy users jumping the Border. More significant efficiences like eliminating all the oil-fired peak electricity plants we used to have that caused real drops in per capita oil use were also completely wasted by adding 80 million new Americans from 1973 to 2000.

Less oil per capita, but more net energy and oil use overall due to illegal immigration, Teddy Kennedy "tribal reunion here in the USA" policy - at mostly Democrat insistance initially - until the corporatists saw it as a way to depress wages and increase profit enjoyed only by the Richest 1% back when Clintons were in office.

2. Similarly, worshipping Jimmy Carters idea that cardigan sweaters and "doing with less" and "recycling more" would "save us from OPEC's ability to set price". A joke then, a bigger joke now as what we do "as sacrifice" does not have the same effect as it did 30 years ago when the US was still able to shape the global market. And conservation gains were also negated by immigrants and spawn free to come here.

But it does allow the priceless opportunity for Gore, Hollywood celebrities, the liberal Big Bucks elite to ride around the country in private jets from mansions where 3 weeks of energy use equals a whole year of use for average Americans and feel morally superior to tell the Great Unwashed "Do with less. It's our moral duty. Try using only 1 sheet of toilet paper a day. Try using less heating or AC - or none at all, as we have done in the quarters of our Mexican nannies in Malibu and Beverley Hills." Then off they fly to a Global warming "emergency conference" in Switzerland...

3. Aside from the usual insipid exhortations of Lear Jet wealthy for the masses to use less - Obama's energy plan except for coal (because he obeys Illinois coal State politics), is right out of mid-1970s liberal Democrat policy.
a. No drilling anywhere.
b. No nukes unless anti-nukes can be assured that it is perfectly safe and a long storage facility is acceptable to locals and environmentalists.
c. Even then, no nuclear recycling reprocessing to reuse long-lived transuranics.
d. No new coal unless it can be "carbon-sequestered".
e. No drilling for natural gas in or near any water or "potentially sensitive federal land".
f. Oppose imports of LNG as "just too risky".
g. Oppose hydro, and take down existing dams that SF real estate magnates and lawyers wish to white water raft on.

h. Support "exciting, blessed, renewables" like ethanol and biodiesel from leftover grease (enough that all the unused fat from food, restaurant dining by the average family, less energy used collecting and processing it, is enough for 10 days commute by the average person going into LA or Atlanta.) The 70s love affair with "miracle,cheap, easy to make ethanol" was finally able to be implemented on a large scale.

It is an ongoing disaster of tax subsidies to wealthy Agribiz, 8 dollar a gallon ethanol, and exploding grocery prices. And it turns out, doesn't save any CO2 from being created.

i - Wind is supported by Obama as long as it is only for projects that do not affect the landscape or water views of his Wealthy Elites.

j. - Solar is the most beloved of all old 1970s solutions Obama's minions push. It costs 50 times as much as other mainstream electricity sources, so the solution is to force utilities to buy it by law and pass the costs onto rate-payers. Like with wind, there is little chance any collectors will be allowed on the sacred Vineyard & Cape Cod dunes, the environmentally sensitive deserts all around Cali liberals where the "endangered" Desert tortoise, Gila Monster, desert burrowing owl, Condor have habitat - or the "critical soil stabilizing vegetation" anywhere near homes of the well-off next to any hills in Cali.

***Its all just "recycled" 1970s solutions for the Man Of Change and Hope, the Obamessiah. Do nothing with adding more of the significant, usable, economic energy sources - force consumers to buy minor "exotic sources" and focus on the "miracle breakthroughs" sure to happen any year now of the "exciting alternative energies" 1st praised on hippie communes by liberal arts people that couldn't fathom the technology of a flush toilet.********

=============================
LFC - I still want McCain (or one of his supporters) to answer my question on offshore oil. He says that even if we open up coastal waters to oil exploration, the final say on whether or not it actually occurs lies with the states themselves. Sooooooo, what states have exhibited any interest in this issue? What governor or legislature has asked the feds for relief from the drilling ban?
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
Posted by LFC

Alaskans have for 30 years, so have citizens of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama to open offshore areas now closed in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now Florida, South Carolina, N Carolina are reconsidering. Add all the Rocky Mountain States that wanted to drill in closed-off Federal lands. Add initiatives by governments of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the Upstate inhabitants of New York (always stopped by NYC) to explore and see if natural gas exists on the US side of the Great Lakes as it does where the Canadians are now drawing off from fields they found on their side.

And lets add in that there is high interest in energy-producing states to make those states that block them or are unwilling to share any acceptable risk in energy production for the good of the nation as a whole to be "last in line" for any distribution of domestic energy supply in a shortage.
Basically, so Texans and Louisianans get AC while Cali can swelter away in blackouts. And Wyoming folks, Indianans, Alaskans and Nebraskans will be warm in the winters while the "fucking environmentalists" of NYC and New England that contribute nothing and lawsuit and Senate filibuster other states energy development activities are left to freeze in the dark.

NIMBYism is also a disease of America self-centeredness if you consider that Canadian, UK, Norweigan, Dutch, Swedish, Japanese citizens have strong environmental records and all drill offshore for oil and gas. And do it safely with US, Swiss, UK, and French technology.

Posted by chris ford | July 7, 2008 1:33 PM

John McCain wants a lot of credit for being a less reprehensible than average Republican. Imagine how much credit McCain could get if he was running as a National Socialist who constantly disagreed with his party.

Posted by Michael Foody | July 7, 2008 1:57 PM

NIMBYism is also a disease of America self-centeredness if you consider that Canadian, UK, Norweigan, Dutch, Swedish, Japanese citizens have strong environmental records and all drill offshore for oil and gas. And do it safely with US, Swiss, UK, and French technology.

Go swim at the Mississippi/Alabama beaches and come back and tell us about NIMBY being a disease. Oil companies drilling off-shore in this country just foul the nest.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 7, 2008 2:55 PM

he falsely claims will lower short-term fuel prices

Come on Matt, you know that's not true. If there's a mismatch between future price expectations and short term prices then there's an arbitrage (assuming a bunch of conditions hold true, which for the most part they do). Increasing supply in the future will push down the price today, just as expectations of huge emerging market demand and dwindling oil reserves are pushing the prices up today.

That said, the amount of oil we could get is pretty small, so it probably will have a minimal impact in both the short and long run.

Posted by Kyle | July 7, 2008 9:49 PM

Obama should play into this line of attack.

Something like:

"John McCain says my positions on key issues are just the Democratic Party line. He's not entirely wrong. I differ with my party here and there--and I want to end the lobbyist culture in Washington that has infected both parties--but on most issues I'm a mainstream Democrat and proud of it."

Posted by Anon | July 7, 2008 11:23 PM

More of Matt's sad attempts at energy policy wonkery. Matt, you still don't understand cap-and-trade. Aren't you embarrassed to keep writing about something you don't understand?

Posted by Thomas | July 8, 2008 12:14 AM

Robertson: "We could - if we wante dto - build plants quickly. All of the hurdles are political, none are technical."

He's full of it. You'd need ten thousand nuclear plants all over the world to provide the energy needs of the planet in fifty years.

Do the math.

The Nuclear Energy Information Service in Illinois has a Web site about nuclear power, which includes these tid-bits:

One-hundred-eight reactors operate nationwide.

In testimony before Congress on April 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified that the crude probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45% (nearly 50-50)!

Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption.

Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.

Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

Nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity; yet studies have shown that in the U.S. we waste or inefficiently use between 25% - 44% of all electricity generated! Three separate studies done by government and private firms since 1982 have shown that the U.S. has the potential to conserve the electrical equivalent of between 145 to 210 nuclear power plants! Only 108 are currently in operation. The nuclear industry claims that nuclear-generated electricity costs 11õ/kilowatt-hour (kwh); electricity from the newest nuclear plants costs 15-25õ/kwh. It takes from 7 to 12 years to build a nuclear power plant. Yet, conservation and efficiency programs cost between 0.5-4.0õ/kwh, and can be implemented in between 6 months to 2 years. A healthier, more common-sense attitude of using less energy, combined with state-of-the-art electrically efficient products (appliances, light-bulbs, motors) could make nuclear power totally irrelevant in our energy future. A 1990 report done by the internationally respected Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), indicated that, "Use of energy-saving technologies would result in a saving [by the year 2000]...of 24 to 44% of electric consumption." Using less energy does not mean "hardship;" it represents "wisdom." The Japanese, Germans, and Swedes enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the United States -- yet use 40% to 60% less energy than we use!

Nuclear Power Cannot Reduce Imports of Foreign Oil:

# Improving the fleet mileage of U.S. cars from the present 26 miles per gallon will have a far greater and immediate effect on oil imports than can nuclear power.

Ads promoting nuclear power claim that it will help reduce our dependency on foreign oil imports. This is not true. Only 8% of our electricity comes from oil -- both domestic and foreign. Of this, half is used in "peak-load" (quick start-up) oil fired plants used on the hottest days of the year and in emergencies. Nuclear plants take too long to start up, and cannot be used as "peak-load" plants.

# Ironically, the first year these pro-nuclear ads ran, over 40% of the uranium fuel used in U.S. reactors had come from foreign sources! So much for reducing our energy dependence on foreign imports.

Unlike coal and oil plants, nuclear power plants do not produce CO2. However, nuclear power plants cannot appreciably help in the fight against Global Warming for a number of reasons:

1. Prohibitive Cost: Each nuclear power plant costs between $3 to $5 billion just to construct! The U.S. would need over 400 additional nuclear reactors to replace its coal plants. This construction alone would cost roughly $1.2 to $2.0 trillion dollars! Worldwide, 8,000 nuclear plants would be needed to replace coal plants to meet energy needs for the next 30 years (there are only 430+ plants in operation worldwide now). These plants would cost the world approximately $24 trillion just to construct! However, one would have to add the following costs to these calculations to get a truer picture of the situation: increased costs for nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning; increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.

Robertson is an idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 8, 2008 4:05 AM