The Most Annoying Part of Every Republican Speech
A lot is being written about McCain's speech this morning: that it was boring, that it wasn't delivered particularly well, that it was light on substance, that it was disjointed and schizophrenic, that it wasn't as negative as some were expecting, etc.
I agree with all of those assessments. I was expecting a better crafted and better delivered speech than what we got. And I think it's true that after several days of slash-and-burn viciousness, McCain felt he didn't need to spend his whole speech attacking Obama.
That said, what annoyed me the most about McCain's speech was the insistence on baldly misrepresenting the policy positions of his opponent. I don't expect politicians to paint their opponents' positions in the most favorable light. This is politics after all. But when it comes to policy, as I've pointed numerous times, Republican candidates lie with impunity.
Let's take a look at the substantive portion of John McCain's speech.
Issue #1: Taxes
Issue #2: Trade
Issue #3: Health Care
Issue #4: Energy
I could go on and on, but what's the point? The Republicans are allowed to get away with this year after year precisely because they do it so egregiously. If they misrepresented one or two of their opponent's positions, then the press might well notice the discrepancies and point them out. But when they misrepresent them all, it just becomes too much for the press to deal with and they ignore the subject entirely. Bush was the master of this. By the end of the campaigns in 2000 and 2004, his stump speeches were little more than litanies of ridiculous straw man positions that he claimed his opponent believed. McCain has clearly decided to follow the same strategy. As a result, we're going to have yet another election in which the Republican candidate runs against a fictional opponent. Indeed, it's the same fictional opponent that the Democrats always manage to nominate: a guy who wants to raise everyone's taxes and replace their doctors with Kafka-esque bureaucrats. Funny how that works.
I agree with all of those assessments. I was expecting a better crafted and better delivered speech than what we got. And I think it's true that after several days of slash-and-burn viciousness, McCain felt he didn't need to spend his whole speech attacking Obama.
That said, what annoyed me the most about McCain's speech was the insistence on baldly misrepresenting the policy positions of his opponent. I don't expect politicians to paint their opponents' positions in the most favorable light. This is politics after all. But when it comes to policy, as I've pointed numerous times, Republican candidates lie with impunity.
Let's take a look at the substantive portion of John McCain's speech.
Issue #1: Taxes
I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.Simply not true. Every objective analysis shows that, for the vast majority of people, Obama will lower taxes more than John McCain. Only the very wealthy will pay more under Obama.
Issue #2: Trade
I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.Not true. Obama is not a protectionist. While he has suggested removing tax incentives that encourage out-sourcing and renegotiating some trade deals, he has not suggested getting rid of trade deals or closing markets.
Issue #3: Health Care
My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat...Putting aside for now the fact that McCain's plan will definitely NOT make it easier to get health insurance, the characterization of Obama's plan here is just ridiculous on so many levels. First, nothing about Obama's plan would change existing insurance arrangements. Second, the plan that would be provided to those who can't find insurance elsewhere would be the equivalent of the plan Congress itself has (that McCain himself has), which is a good plan, no more bureaucratic than any other. Third, over half the country is already on a government plan of some sort (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and the notion that some sort of government bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor when you're on those plans is ludicrous. Indeed, you're much more likely to get hassled by middlemen when you're on a private plan, particularly the managed care/HMO plans that most people have.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
... where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
Issue #4: Energy
Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.Again, not true. Obama supports increased nuclear power production and is willing to allow for increased drilling as part of a comprehensive energy package. He just thinks the emphasis should be on developing newer, cleaner alternative energy sources and that drilling is not going to make much of a difference (which is true).
I could go on and on, but what's the point? The Republicans are allowed to get away with this year after year precisely because they do it so egregiously. If they misrepresented one or two of their opponent's positions, then the press might well notice the discrepancies and point them out. But when they misrepresent them all, it just becomes too much for the press to deal with and they ignore the subject entirely. Bush was the master of this. By the end of the campaigns in 2000 and 2004, his stump speeches were little more than litanies of ridiculous straw man positions that he claimed his opponent believed. McCain has clearly decided to follow the same strategy. As a result, we're going to have yet another election in which the Republican candidate runs against a fictional opponent. Indeed, it's the same fictional opponent that the Democrats always manage to nominate: a guy who wants to raise everyone's taxes and replace their doctors with Kafka-esque bureaucrats. Funny how that works.
posted by A.L. at 8:41 AM
32 Comments:
How about a commercial that claims that McCain is so out of touch he doesn't even know who he is running against? The narrator could then point out the differences between McCain's claims and Obama's actual positions. Perhaps with contrasting snippets from their speeches. I am fed up with the Republican lies.
Palin has sky high favorability raints now, even among DEMOCRATS.
Game over, libs. McCain made a hail mary pass, and the pass completed. Game over.
AL- it seems to me that your position goes beyond merely demanding that McCain paint Obama’s positions in the most favorable light. You are accusing McCain of “lying” when he says things that are indisputably true, merely because there is an implication that is arguably false.
Take, for example, the statement that “Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power.” I know Obama has explicitly stated that drilling is not necessary, or even useful, to achieve energy independence. And I am fairly certain that he would say the same with regard to nuclear power. So McCain’s statement is literally true.
To make the statement arguably false, you interpret it to mean that Obama is dead set against any more drilling or any expansion of nuclear power under any circumstances. Of course, that is not what McCain said. If he had said it, one could argue the point. Obama has clearly stated he is against drilling, but he has suggested he might accept it as part of a legislative compromise. But by that standard, one couldn’t represent Obama to have any position on any subject, because he might be willing to change it as part of a compromise.
As for nuclear power, Obama has stated, I believe, that he is against expanding nuclear power under the present circumstances (without a firm resolution of the waste disposal issue). He has vaguely suggested a willingness to look for ways that it could be expanded in the future, but has not made anything approaching a commitment to build new plants.
In short, a reasonable person listening to McCain’s statement would understand that McCain is much more likely to expand drilling and nuclear power than is Obama. Which is the simple truth of the matter.
mls,
Fair enough with respect to the nuclear power line, though I have heard McCain on prior recent occasions explicitly state that Obama is against nuclear power.
I notice you're not trying to defend the other examples I cited.
Three brief rebuttals, then something more substantive on energy:
Taxes:
Your statement is correct as far as it goes, but Obama's tax plan, when compared to current policy, results in higher taxation as a percentage of GDP in all but one year. McCain's results in a lower percentage of GDP (cf. the Tax Policy Center analysis). So McCain's statement is also correct. (For the record, I think Obama's tax plan is better than McCain's, although I'd like a little more thought put into what it means when a third of the electorate has no skin in the game at all.)
Trade:
Mod Obama's set of pandering statements in the primary, you are correct. But I don't see Obama going to bat to combat protectionist tendencies in Congress, which, if the Columbia debacle is any indication, are likely to run rampant.
Health Care:
Again, you are correct at a first-order level. However, Obama's federally underwritten backstop insurance plan is clearly designed to undercut the viability of private insurance. If the private insurance market withers away, then McCain's statement is more plausible.
Energy:
Here you're on real thin ice. Here's Obama's statement on nuclear energy:
Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.
In other words, Obama won't commit to doing anything to promote the licensing or expedite the construction of new nuke plants, he intends to cancel the current plans to address the waste-disposal problem, and he plans to further regulate the industry. To say that Obama "supports increased nuclear power production" is simply ludicrous.
In contrast, we have McCain's statement (which still leaves a lot to be desired):
John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
He's unequivocal about his support. I'd be a lot happier if he'd say something coherent about waste disposal and/or reprocessing, and I'd be overjoyed if he'd go on record with a specific set of licensing reforms and a plan for federally-supported insurance underwriting for new plants. But there are actual commitments and targets in McCain's position. Obama just looks at the ground, shuffles his feet, and wishes that the issue would go away. McCain's statement is about as close to 100% correct as you're likely to get in a politcal campaign.
theradicalmoderate - On the nuclear power issue, I read your quotes and get a different conclusion.
McCain's position is 'build more plants' (similar to 'drill here drill now'), actually.
Obama's position is 'nuclear is fine - as long as we can do it in a responsible manner'. This is similar to his position on oil.
(quote marks are my paraphrases, not actual quotes. I think I'm being fair though)
Making shoot-from-the-hip policy (on nearly everything not just energy) and damning the consequences has been a hallmark of the last eight years, and has been the epitome of irresponsibility, with horrible results - just look at the Iraq war for a glaring example.
So I feel MUCH better with a candidate who says "sure - as long as we're responsible"
As an aside, framing Obama's argument with the straw-man 'looks at the ground, shuffles his feet, and wishes that the issue would go away' is pure spin and caricaturization, and doesn't even remotely represents his position. If there's something you don't like about his *position* then that's an argument I'd have more respect for.
vc, on your "Palin has sky high favorability raints now, even among DEMOCRATS", where do you get that from? I haven't seen it...
Thanks,
Luke
Luke-
ABC/Wapo poll. Look it up, just saw it on cable.
You guys seriously underestimated Palin. McCain is McGenius now.
A.L.,
When someone defends a lie by stating that (and I'm quoting MLS here) they're "fairly certain that he would say the same with regard to nuclear power." as proving somthing, there is no point in continuing the argument.
Who cares whether MLS is certain of anything? How does his faith generate fact?
In RM's case, we have to twist our minds into pretzels to accept that allowing tax cuts to expire -- whose expirations were a necessary condition of their being passed by a GOP Congress! -- is somehow a "tax increase."
RM uses big words, but basically it's all just ex post facto rationalization mixed with wishful thinking.
This post has been removed by the author.
Also, Rasmussen shows the same thing.
The headline?
"Palin more popular than Obama".
Virginia,
Since it's over now, as you said, will you go away?
Nobody likes a gloating winner.
vc, I'm not finding it, but I don't watch much news on TV.
I see a lot of stuff about how Obama raised $10 Million since her speech, or that Palin was great for energizing her base (that's you! :-) ) but not moderates, or how Michigan voters weren't impressed, or that very little actual policy was mentioned at the RNC convention ("troops", anyone?) - but nothing about Palin's impact among Democrats.
But I'm sure it'll surface eventually.
Luke
“I notice you're not trying to defend the other examples I cited.”
The tax and health care issues are very complicated. If you want to accuse McCain of over-simplifying, fine, but you would have to make the same accusation with regard to Obama and every other politician.
With regard to trade, it is hard to know exactly what Obama’s position is. Essentially, he has told the anti-trade constituencies that he will eliminate the costs of trade, and the pro-trade constituencies he will maintain the benefits. Assuming that he intends, as he has promised, to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals so as to reduce foreign competition in some way, I think it is a reasonable inference that he will close markets to a degree. If, on the other hand, Obama does not intend to, or would be unable to, keep these promises, then one could argue that he won’t actually close markets.
So you can quibble with McCain’s phrasing. But you can’t really dispute that markets will be more open under McCain’s trade policy than under Obama’s, which was the essence of McCain’s point.
My broader point is that we can take any of these issues and have a rational discussion about the costs and benefits of each position. Obviously, this is not what candidates do in political speeches. Accusing McCain of "lying" merely because he is presenting his side of the argument may be emotionally satisfying, but I fail to see how it has any productive result.
At some point, AL, you're going to realize that certain commenters are vast, off-topic voids.
vc - ah, found it. Thanks for the "Rasmussen" clue. Interesting, though it looks like raw numbers right now with no context. Like, "favorable" by itself isn't helpful. I wonder how that translates into McCain's electability?
Palin was engaging, a more animated and better speaker than McCain. Also, she's an unknown which always results in a more favorable view since there's none of that complex 'reality' to cloud the view.
I wouldn't crow about it *quite* yet though :)
Luke
Simply not true. Every objective analysis shows that, for the vast majority of people, Obama will lower taxes more than John McCain.
Which ones? The famous objective analysis from other liberals? The immensely "objective" Paul Krugman perhaps?
Not true. Obama is not a protectionist.
They why doesn't he work with getting that trade agreement with Colombia ratified? And spare me the left-wing garbage about how the Colombian government is so corrupt and targets union members. That is false and tired.
Again, not true. Obama supports increased nuclear power production and is willing to allow for increased drilling as part of a comprehensive energy package.
Nope on both. Obama only supports more nuclear power plants if they follow what Harry Reid wants, and Reid ain't budging. Obama is being a follower (which he's always been) instead of a leader. As far as drilling, Obama would allow drilling on those leased lands where there's no oil. And, has he ever said he would loosen restrictions on any stopping of potential lawsuits if there is an allowed attempt to drill, leaving the decision to the courts? Nope. Actually, I don't think anybody has.
Talk about misrepresentation.
The whole reason us "liberals" want Obama is because he'll lower taxes on most of us - isn't that what you want?? Nooo - you're rather bankrupt the government so those making over $5 Million / year get *their* tax cut. Unless you're one of them you are NOT going to see a tax break.
Not ALL trade agreements are equal and we WANT our government to negotiate ones that makes sense - what's wrong with that?? We can argue about whether Columbia in particular makes sense, but claiming "left wing garbage" adds nothing. I personally think that we should negotiate agreements that help OUR country. What's wrong with making *America* first??
And, Obama wants nuclear power more than I do (which is not at all). He'll have to work with Reid just like everyone else so what's your problem with that? So would McCain - does that make *him* a "follower"?
With drilling, oil companies have a LOT of oil under their current leases. They don't care about the oil and this whole "drill now" has NOTHING to with the oil they don't yet have. It's just a freaking campaign slogan. And do you think if McCain IS elected you'll see those lands open up in the way you think? Not a chance, so McCain can pander for votes anyway he likes he's not going to change anything - all he gets is blowhards like you to pontificate on his behalf.
This is the thing that drives me crazy about the Right - they don't give a piece of crap about America or what's good for Americans. They'll trash everyone - including themselves - just so some rich old guys can rake in even more cash. The hate they express towards America is astounding.
The whole reason us "liberals" want Obama is because he'll lower taxes on most of us - isn't that what you want??
Nooo!!! How about lower spending? How about working on fixing (privatizing) Social Security so that it will go away?
Not ALL trade agreements are equal and we WANT our government to negotiate ones that makes sense - what's wrong with that??
Nothing wrong with that. The Colombia agreement is fair. But the Dems in the Senate won't ratify it and using the left-wing rhetoric to keep from doing so.
And, Obama wants nuclear power more than I do (which is not at all). He'll have to work with Reid just like everyone else so what's your problem with that? So would McCain - does that make *him* a "follower"?
Obama will wait until Reid gives his blessing (which will be never). McCain would figuratively work Reid over until a compromise is reached. That's the difference.
With drilling, oil companies have a LOT of oil under their current leases.
Really? Are you someone in the know about this? Any details? Because Obama and the Dems haven't provided any.
This is the thing that drives me crazy about the Right - they don't give a piece of crap about America or what's good for Americans. They'll trash everyone - including themselves - just so some rich old guys can rake in even more cash.
And ridiculous statements like this is what drives me crazy about the Left.
On who else says McCain is lying about Obama's tax proposals:
1. Fred Hiatt in the WaPo (and, although Steveil will think Fred is a "liberal", no sane person will.)
2. Factcheck.org
3. The tax policy center
plus about 2 million "liberal" sites.
Odd how reality will intrude into the delusions of the right wing. The news tonight will be the juxtaposition of McCain's speech and the dramatic rise in unemployment. I wonder how having those two things related for the next news cycle will impact the race?
Also, we may hear today about the Colombian government's death squads, which may mean that the electorate will be less eager than Steveil to have the US cut a trade deal with them.
And, this just in, another organization that thinks McCain is lying about Obama's positions:
Fox News.
Damned liberal media.
Luke--
With drilling, oil companies have a LOT of oil under their current leases. They don't care about the oil and this whole "drill now" has NOTHING to with the oil they don't yet have. It's just a freaking campaign slogan.
Not sure I understand you here. Are you arguing that oil companies are sitting on productive leases? When they do the for longer than about 5 years, the lease primary term expires and they're returned to the US DOI Minerals Management Service.
Are you arguing that there aren't large undiscovered reserves in parts of the outer continental shelf? If so, I suggest you take a look at this (PDF) and this. If I'm reading this correctly, the MMS estimates 66 B barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the unleased parts of the OCS, vs. current US proven reserves of between 20 and 29 B barrels.
I know you didn't say this, but I'm sure you would have trotted out the old "drilling won't do anything to reduce prices any time soon" argument if you'd thought about it for a bit more. To that, I suggest a Martin Feldstein op-ed in the WSJ from a while back, which (to summarize) argues that the decision to pump oil out of the ground depends on whether the owner of the resource thinks it's more valuable being monetized and re-invested now, or whether it's more valuable as a future resource. So leased, discovered oil reduces futures prices, which in turn incents owners to pump the oil and sell it. (This, incidentally, is why screwing with the futures markets is such a bad idea...)
Finally, I know I'm going to regret mentioning this, but you closed with:
This is the thing that drives me crazy about the Right - they don't give a piece of crap about America or what's good for Americans. They'll trash everyone - including themselves - just so some rich old guys can rake in even more cash. The hate they express towards America is astounding.
Please define "the Right." I consider myself part of "the Right" but I also think of myself as being pretty centrist. Are you talking about the far Right? Given that even the far Right probably makes up 10%-15% of the electorate, do you really think that, say, 20 million Americans really don't give a crap about what's good for America? When the Right makes the same argument, in good faith albeit with logic as poor as yours, should we assume that the 10%-15% of the far Left are equally--what's the word I'm looking for here?--evil?
I understand your frustration with people who disagree with you. I just think that public discourse is a lot more fun when you assume that the other guy is relatively well-intentioned and relatively smart. Makes for better public policy, too.
BTW, if anybody has a link to a decent analysis on non-producing leases, I'd love to see it. It's a hard thing to get a handle on. I'd guess you'd have to have a breakdown on the percentage of leased tracts that a) haven't been explored, b) have been explored with no hydrocarbons found, c) have been explored successfully but are deemed uneconomic to extract, d) are economic but shut-in for some other reason (like unavailability of a production platform), and e) are producing. I rummaged around EIA and MMS for a while today and couldn't find anything.
RM,
The key phrase in your comment is "leased, discovered oil" -- you do understand that, before any exploration started now will result in discovered oil will be at least 5 years, because there aren't any exploration vessels available until that time?
Also, the Dept of the Interior renews leases with only a perfunctory review, if they're anything like the other operations like this. Trivial for a corporation to get.
C2H--
My understanding is that the models these days are good enough that you can get to P90-grade reserves without actually drilling. Do you happen to know how long the seismic survey backlog is? (I'd guess it's at least an order of magnitude shorter than the backlog for getting a production rig.)
Not that that really matters. The MMS numbers (and the USGS ones, for that matter) are widely believed to be credible. If MMS started leasing in the areas of the outer continental shelf with moratoria now in place, it would put a lot of downward pressure on the far-futures markets, which in turn would free up near-term supply, which would of course reduce the price of oil substantially.
I suspect you're right about MMS doing perfunctory extensions. However, the carrying costs of the leases are non-trivial. Why would a producer sit on a bunch of unexplored leases and still want to accumulate more of them? It's bad finance. These guys are not known for their inability to do arithmetic.
RM,
I suspect that the wait for a capable seismic survey rig is on the same order as for the production rig, because an oversupply of one or the other would be relatively quickly corrected by the market.
Are the carrying costs non-trivial? I don't know what they are, but I don't think they're all that much.
Consider this from the standpoint of the oil companies. They know better than anyone where we are on the supply/demand curve for crude oil. If they believe that the prices of oil in 5 years are going to be far higher than today, then the carrying cost is not going to make them drill now.
That, indeed, is the problem with the opening of the continental shelf (and other currently closed areas) to leasing. The companies are very likely to snap up the leases -- and then sit on them, while the technology to extract the oil becomes cheaper, and their other, easily-extracted reserves, keep them in beer and peanuts.
I suggest that it's in the interest of the American public to keep the leases -- and thereby later reap the profits. Lease only under the condition of immediate exploration, perhaps -- which means they'd probably not even go under lease for 5 years.
C2H--
I suggest that it's in the interest of the American public to keep the leases -- and thereby later reap the profits. Lease only under the condition of immediate exploration, perhaps -- which means they'd probably not even go under lease for 5 years.
That's easily fixed. Just enforce the primary term on the lease. There are still issues with "shut-in" resources (i.e. exploitable resources that can't be extracted due to logistical or economic reasons). You'd want to make sure that things were shut-in for real, rather than being shut-in because the lessee was waiting for them to appreciate.
RM,
You do realize this is starting to sound like what the Democrats proposed? Good luck getting a law through the Senate on this, because the oil lobby is going to fight it tooth and nail.
Which is why John McCain won't do this -- the lobbyists own his campaign, and they own him.
C2H--
No, the Democrats are trying to keep the moratorium on new OCS leases in place--or they were until they were subjected to widespread public derision. I'm guessing that they'll be more reasonable when they come back from summer recess.
Your point that McCain is less likely to make the executive orders that are necessary to the MMS is well-taken, though. On the other hand, this is one of those areas where a little transparency would go a long way. I think this stuff's all out in the open and just being ignored by the press right now--not very sexy, after all.
A clarification: Forcing MMS to be more rigorous on lease expiration and renewal is not a legislative issue. It's an executive issue. The legislative issue is lifting the moratorium. You're right that McCain may be less likely to issue the executive orders, but right now the sticking point is the moratorium.
getting back to AL's original comment... Thank you for your eloquent words. How do we get the word to Obama that he needs to speak up, loudly, clearly and more simply (thanks, Rove) in order to reach more of the US population, the swing states in particular? I believe a news conference would be a good start. He's got to take the language back from these distortionists and put back the good in "liberal," "government" and the truth in what a "maverick" really is. That the McCain/Palin campaign gets away with these lies is obscene. It's bad enough that the MSM isn't doing what they should be, but the democrats need to put some mojo in their mojo, they'll lose the election if they don't and we cannot afford another four years of the same. It's too late. How do we get the word to Obama's campaign?
To put a tail on this discussion, we might remark that, in light of the just-released report on how Interior Department regulators were literally in bed with industry representatives, it might be a bad idea to open the lease floodgates and assume that Interior would then regulate them in a manner beneficial to the public.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home