New McCain Ad Attacks Obama

The McCain Campaign tries to turn Obama’s popularity against him in a recent political advertisement. Showing images of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears, the ad implicates Obama as an inane image lacking substance, and targets Obama’s position on off-shore drilling and taxes.

The ad, while being effective in its presentation, skirts along the thin division between character attack and policy disputes, one that both candidates are dancing between in recent weeks.

Jonathan Martin of writes, July 30, 2008:

“Celeb” represents a risk for McCain. His campaign seems to have made a conscious decision to use Obama’s enormous appeal against him, with the hope that Americans will ultimately vote for the more familiar and less glamorous option. But by acknowledging Obamamania, they also reinforce the sense that the young Democrat has created an unprecedented and perhaps historic movement. It’s quite a concession from somebody who himself was once a media darling and is close to a household name. They’re trying to inflate Obama to tear him down — but they also could just enhance his stature and send more buzz, money and supporters his way.

The ad, which was teased on Drudge, will be cycled into the same 11 states where McCain is already on the air, an aide said, promising that this is a real buy.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded by tsk-tsking McCain for his negativity and channeling one of the figures in the ad.

“On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another,” said Vietor. “Or, as some might say, ‘Oops! He did it again.’ Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the greatest challenges we face. In this election the American people have a real choice — between Obama’s plan to provide tax rebates to American families while creating a renewable energy economy in America that frees us from our dependence on foreign oil, and Senator McCain’s plan to continue the same failed energy policies by handing out nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while investing almost nothing in the new energy sources that represent our future.”

Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence of USA Today, July 30, 2008:

McCain campaign chief agrees that, like Spears and Hilton, Obama is “frivolous and irresponsible:”

The McCain campaign just held a conference call with reporters to discuss the ad. Campaign chief Rick Davis was asked at the end if the McCain team is saying that Obama is — as Spears and Hilton are perceived — “frivolous and irresponsible.” Davis agreed that is a message the ad is intended to send.

For the full official response by the Obama campaign, click here.

  • The Angry American

    It’s about stinkin time McCain got off the toilet. He’s been nothing but defensive so far, he better start to get a little more offensive or he gonna go the way of Giuliani’s campaign in a hurry.

    The ad is correct in it’s base form, Obama is an overinflated media creation. He is nothing, but the media has created him into something that doesn’t exist. Example:

    “It’s true that change is hard, change isn’t easy,” Obama told the crowd. “Nobody here thinks that Bush or McCain has a real answer for the challenges we face so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared about me.”

    Obama later added: “It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama,” he said, noting that the message Republicans have for voters is simple: “He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bill.”

    It’s crap like those remarks that the media shy away from reporting, arrogant self centered, scare tactics, elect me or your being a scared racist kind of crap.

    Instead they report Obama is the next JFK, Obamanomics, Obama Reaganlike etc, and it’s a bunch of manufactured factless hooey. Barrack piece of crap Obama has nowhere near done anything that puts him in the same category as JFK or Ronald Reagan. That’s just absolutely rediculous.

  • Grey

    A clever attack strategy.

    Still, the fact that McCain is attacking Obama on offshore drilling… if it works, it’s sad. People with a modicum of political aptitude know that McCain himself was against offshore drilling until he flipflopped on the issue a couple months back.

    I can see why he would change his position, but to flip flop and attack Obama for not supporting it- well, that’s audacious, to say the least.

    A… proper attack on Obama’s character would’ve been an assault on Obama’s flipflop on telecom, or pointing out some other political gaffe of his. An assault on Obama’s character of this nature is, frankly, pathetic.

    If this works, it’s a further tribute to American political stupidity and indifference.


    the reason why he did not attack on obama flipflop especially is ebcause the ad would not get as much attention as it now does.

    Obama’s new campaign slogan now reads “party like a rock party like a rockstar” thats what was playing his whole vacation.

  • nzpudding

    McCain keeps flogging a dead horse when he keeps mentioning ‘the surge’ but offshore drilling, nuclear energy etc is what’s going to really hurt Obama.

    As the Angry American said, it’s about time McCain got off the toilet, I’m hoping Obama gets off the toilet too because taking the high road is only going to get him so far before he drives into a dead end.

  • Ok, we already have off shore drilling and more of won’t make any difference in gas prices. Mccain said it would have a phycological impact and I’m sure thats true for him with his 100 million dollars in the bank. Real people making 75k and less need some one to look out for them.

    Obama will change the way we pursue energy.. we can switch to wind, solar, and biofuels. Brazil a third world country has done it. Why cant the US?


    Mccain at least learn how to use the internet and stop living in the past.. today most pre-school kids can log on with out help from their parents.

  • Robert

    Obama, an “inane image lacking substance?” Get out of town!

  • Robert

    Surely the campaign could have gotten the point across more tastefully and craftfully without the Spears and Hilton clips.

  • Matt

    didn’t the obama campaign make a response ad? would like to see that posted here, too.

  • Jeff

    I am hugely disappointed in McCain. He has relegated himself to negativity and trash advertising and smashing others. Why doesn’t he spend him time talking about himself. I used top respect him; I’ve lost it all.

    Not voting for him anymore.

  • Angry American, I’m with you 100%. It’s about time McCain strikes back not only against Obama, but against the love fest the media have going on with Obama. Obama on his own would have never attained “rock star” status. People like Chris Matthews, Alan Colmes, and a host of other sentimental liberals in the MSM did that.

    In one of those TV spoofs all the candidates did, I remember McCain saying “If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man”. It’s about time he stops letting Obama beat on him, I’m so tired of hearing “Bush/McCain” and so glad to have the new “Reid/Pelosi/Obama” to throw back at them.

    You said:
    “Obama later added: “It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama,” he said, noting that the message Republicans have for voters is simple: “He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bill.””

    McCain came back with a dead on response to this one, too:

    “Obama “played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama’s remarks “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.”

  • The Angry American

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff….Obama is not the Mesiah regardless of what you think, do your research.

    “Obama will change the way we pursue energy.. we can switch to wind, solar, and biofuels. Brazil a third world country has done it. Why cant the US?”

    To answer that simply, it’s not efficient. Do you realize that the amount of solar power panels it would take to power even 1/3 of your home is so far beyond affordability it’s rediculous. Brazil only uses biofuels, but in the process they sacrfice food source for fuel source which in turn makes the price of that particular food source extremely high.

    Obama is a baseless douchebag who uses scare tactics and makes baseless claims. If you don’t vote for Obama you will be considered a racist, if you vote for McCain, you’re voting for Bush….what a seperatist piece of sh..

    If you are so blind you can’t see he’s attempting to further devide the country to try to win the election and you want to support and elect this man….you’re one of the morons who casts votes that help lead this country where it is by letting morons get into congress and the senate. You should deport yourself to Cuba immediately and live amongst the communists.

  • Angry Americain,

    Mccain is part of the top 1% of US earner who together earn more than 90% of the population. The country has created a class of kings and if it continues with Mccain this country will be in serious trouble.

    I love the argument that some how its impossible to use alternative fuels.

    Germany is the world leader in solar.

    Brazil is the world leader in bio-fuels.

    Europe has huge wind farms being built.

    Maybe the US should continue to use big oil and help make Mccain, Bush, and friends rich.

  • Angry Americain your a blanking idiot and luckily you and your party are over!

    Dems control house, senate, and of course

    Obama in the white house for 8 years!

  • Excuse me Jeff, you need to go back and look at McCain’s tax returns again. There’s not much difference in his and Obama’s.

    There’s nothing wrong with alternative energy, it’s just not a short term solution.



  • Rayven

    O_S Obama is not against nuclear power .He just more for renewables. Giving the oil co. More land is not going to help .If they find crude oil it goes on the open market (just like oil that we get now goes on the open market),so price won’t change .There are in to make money. I really think it misleading to people.The issue here is diversification of our energy policy.The oil co. have land they can start drilling there.McCain has at lest 10 houses .How many does barrack have?

    And I don’t think that barrack is using the race card.If that be the case he can’t talk about himself at all.It is better than their interpretation of him; Muslim,elitist,inexperienced,unpatriotic,and risky.
    Barrack is more American than lot of those people .
    If more people have tax cut they have more money to spend. That will help the economy. investment in renewable energy will save more in energy in long run and in the short . Nuclear will take a long time and its expensive(and there is still the waste problem).
    and McCain needs a cue card for milk.

  • Got fear?

    More pathetic desperation from a doddering, old fool.
    These pro-McCain comments aren’t much better.
    No wonder the rest of the world regards America as little more than an angry child.

  • The Angry American


    removed due to personal attack – Michael

  • The Angry American

    McCain an eliteist are you serious?****** removed due to personal attack– Angry, please abstain from inflammatory language directed at an individual user. Use it toward issues, or candidates – Michael Obama is the harvard graduate millionare who had less than 200 hours logged in the senate before he launched a presedential candidacy exploration committee. That’s just plain arrogant and elitist. You know what Obama’s favorite direction to vote on issues even is? NOT PRESENT. Do your homework.

    Renewable energy is neither affordable nor viable as a short term solution. You couldn’t afford the solar panels it would require to power even 1/3 of a 1200 sq foot home. You’re talkin around $300,000 a panel, and you would need quite a few panels.Do your homework.

    McCain getting all the media coverage, are you freakin serious? Do you pick up the paper or watch tv ? Obama gets 90% of the press keeping John McCain on the defensive. Even when McCain gets in the press, he gets negative press coverage while Obama gets nothing but glowing headlines. The media is left wing liberal 100% How else do you get away with scare tactics like Obama uses by claiming people are going to do things they haven’t done, like “They’ll tell you have a crazy wife, or that I’m black, or muslim, or don’t look like the other guys on the dollar bills, etc” and then get away with it by saying in defense that he is just mocking himself? How in the hell is that mocking one’s self? That’s blatant race baiting. Obama is a baseless, media made up, unexperienced sack of crap who knows how to play a crowd. A manufactured media darling, nothing more.

    The democrats couldn’t effectively run the congress or senate, its had less effectiveness than Bush. They have a disapproval rating of 75% so what makes you think extreme left wing socialist Obama is going to make things any better?


    Angry American…everything you just said is comepletely correct!

  • O_S, here’s your reference on Obama and gas prices:

  • By the way, if you don’t like that ad, try the new one:

  • Todd

    Hey guys in case you missed it Obama has changed his mind on more offshore drilling, damn that’s a surprise !

    Babs, Rayven I believe you were part of the debate when I pointed out that Durbin was indicating he may support it. I also stated Obama would change his position on this also if the other Dems did-well here we go, hold on it’s a sharp turn!

    Hey Jeff now I don’t guess you have anyone to vote for.

    copy and paste the link

    while we are at this can someone explain to me how to actually post the link so you guys can just click on it please.

  • Todd

    never mind with the link help I got it

  • Frank

    “extreme left wing socialist Obama”

    You should’nt sniff so much glue everyday, angry American.

  • Rayven

    The Angry American, I think you need to do your homework.
    As you can see a home kit starts at about $8669.99 ,so that is alot more affordable .

    elitism : 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
    2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

    So what favored group does Obama belong to?Obama just pay off collage recently. When In the history of America has in benefited anyone to be black?And as far as the race card goes his deck is the race cards. That is the first thing you notice so try to look pass that, It just a fact . he can’t help it. Is there a problem with that fact?Is there something wrong with him comparing himself to the people on the dollar bills? No one called anyone a racist. He assumed ,But why would he do that? It would not benefit Obama to play the race card.Maybe you should stop listen to those neo-conservative shock jock. maybe you would not be so angry.

    Plutocracy :1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
    2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
    3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

    Next, Obama is not a socialist ,McCain is a plutocrat,Look at there tax policy’s;

    It’s clear who the elitist are going to support.
    Why should the rich get the bigger tax cut,When working family need it. If more people have money more people spend money.That is the problem.Besides the democrats balance the budget better anyway .

    Barrack Obama does have experience maybe you don’t know but here are some examples ;
    So he does have experience (don’t pretend he doesn’t have any).The question is why don’t you recognize it?
    So why do all McCain’s policies benefit the corporate plutocrats and not the rest of Americans?
    and how is this fair?
    According to the constitution “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

    welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

  • Todd

    Will you guys stop saying the rich get the biggest tax cut please. It’s just not correct.

    The fact is that under the 2008 tax legislation the top income earners in America (the rich) will pay 28 to 35% of the adjusted income in taxes. The middle class as they like to call us, will pay 15 & 25%, it’s obvious who pays the most taxes in this country so give that one a break please. Under Obama, as you point out the rich will pay slightly more taxes so how do the rich folks get the break on the tax issue ?

  • Dreadsen


    He didn’t flip flop i read your link.

    “”If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.”

    Compromising to get something Broader done is not a Flip Flop. First lets find out what he is willing to Compromise for. If it’s something as stupid as $20 tax break for married couples in alaska buying $50K solar panels in exchange for drilling in the Rocky Mountains then it would be
    a flip flop.
    Or it could be the total opposite where there is some 1.4 trillion given to T.Boone Pickens idea for Windmills technology covering Texas to North Dakota in exchange for $1million dollars in C02 technology to help make the oil in the unproductive areas cost effective and 5 acres for offshore drilling lol.

    I know those are two extreme but the latter as impossible as it would be would cause the greenest of the liberals to support. Doesn’t mean they are flip flopping but for that unfair trade they would be winning hands down.

    Just like the Fisa. Remember it was revised a couple of times before they could get it to pass. I disagree with any of that all together. But the bill that passed is not the original one they voted against.


    The democrats do not in anyway balance the budget better Rayven, if Obama becomes president how does he intend to balance the budget afte rhe spends billions upon billions in the first year.

  • The Angry American

    Hah nice now I have the “professor” editing my posts…. so much for freedom of speech.

    Rayven, no Obama hdopes not have any experience you just simply choose to ignore anything othert than what you choose to read and believe. Yes Obama is an eliteist, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCes are still not viable, I have done my homework, read your artile further, that start up kit barely puts a dent in the amount of power the average american family uses on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.

    Leave my posts alone MICHAEL

  • AA – in the United States we have a very delicate balance between the freedom of speech for people, and the rights of protection/safety of others. “Fire” in a crowded theater is a good example of this.

    On this website, Nate and I decided that any personal attacks against individual users would not be tolerated. He even placed a note, which is at the beginning of each comment-series:

    (Note: The comments section below contains opinions and views from the online community at, read at your own risk! Please don’t assume that agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand, this is an open forum. Be respectful or posts will be removed.)

    Please do not call individual contributor’s to this site names, or denigrate them with harsh language.

  • As to the the on-going debate on renewable energy, I suspect none of us here are nuclear physicists, or engineers tailored to this line of work. So I doubt any of us can say we have done “our homework.”

    The documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” was very striking (and thorough), showing how the EV1 car by General Motors in the 1990s/2002 was a success, but repressed and discontinued. I do not think the problem here is whether or not renewable energies are viable, but rather if we have a system in place that allows the honest and aggressive pursuit of them.

  • Dreadsen



    “Rayven, no Obama hdopes not have any experience you just simply choose to ignore anything othert than what you choose to read and believe.”

    This is too funny. You need to look in the mirror and say that again. It applies to yourself. If you do away or disregard evidence which contradicts you with out raising contrary argument to help convince your point.

  • Todd

    Even the Dems are having a difficult time saying this isn’t a switch in policy

    The last one is another example of the media’s love feast for Obama also, but even Olberman (?) dosen’t believe this BS isn’t a switch

  • Todd

    Even the Dems are having a difficult time saying this isn’t a switch in policy

    The last one is another example of the media’s love feast for Obama also, but even Olberman (?) dosen’t believe this BS isn’t a switch

    sorry I screwed it up the first time

  • Rayven

    Angry American , I don’t think your looking for facts .I think you just want to attack.I agree with Michael on this.We are looking to lower our energy bill.I told you before stop listening to those neo -conservative shock jocks they are warping your mind against the evidence.Besides do you really see clearly when you are always so angry?I’m betting no. So go ahead and attack again. You seem to be good at it. good boy angry American good boy.

  • Rayven

    O_S, where is your proof? I showed you mine now where is yours?
    Or do you just want to attack to?I respect everyones opinion (even if I don’t agree with it).Lets compare the Evidences.
    Because I want to know.this is done by the math.…..usdebt.htm


    Hey Mikey!

    Why are mine and Angry Americans post being removed. I did not see anything wrong with them, are you trying to shield the liberals here from the other side of things.

    Hey everyone Obama has the fix for energy and gas now people! ITS A GREAT IDEA! FILL YOUR TIRES UP WITH AIR AND GET YOUR CAR CHECKED! THAT IS HIS ENERGY PLAN! WOOHOO!

    That will really help the ones hurting at the pump right now.

  • Dreadsen


    The other side of things isn’t just statements where you shoot from the hip with no evidence and make direct attacks at people.

  • On the flip flop statement, Dreadsen. You say Obama didn’t flip flop on oil drilling. If that be the case, then McCain can’t be accused of it, either.

    Michael, there is indeed a fine line. However, if you start it, you must carry through. For example, Rayven’s post:

    “conservative shock jocks they are warping your mind” – so now I’m a conservative shock jock? I’m offended.

    ” good boy angry American good boy” – extremely denegrading to Angry American, speaking to him as if he’s a dog that’s just done something that warrants a treat.

    And this is an example of the worst and most frequent:

    “More pathetic desperation from a doddering, old fool.”

    Since McCain is not on this board to be insulted or denegraded, I’ll be so for him.

    Yep, a very fine line.

  • By the way:

    “WASHINGTON — Intensified attacks by Republican John McCain on the character of his Democratic opponent have coincided with Barack Obama losing a 9 percentage point advantage in a national poll, which showed the candidates running dead even over the weekend.”

    One has to attack Obama on his character, since he has no record to attack, and his policies “change” with the shifting of the winds.

  • Rayven

    Babs ,I was not referring to you.You do show evidence and you don’t attack people.

    No disrespect Guys ,but you guys do attack people quite alot.
    And then you bring no evidence.I don’t mind if I’m wrong ,but you have to prove it.I might learn something new.

  • Dreadsen


    i didn’t accuse McCain of flip flopping and I will tell you why.
    I haven’t researched each of the MANY stances that he allegedly has flip flopped on to know if it is indeed a flip flop. Maybe his stance on something 10 years ago has to be different now because the economics of THEN is different from NOW. And how they allegedly have changed their stance means a lot as well. Sometimes you think someone has flip flopped on an issue only to find out that they compromised for something so far less and weaker than what was originally proposed. That’s why i laid out the two extreme examples above. Over all the politically term “Flip Flop” in some cases is just a misrepresentation or straw man.

    But if i was going to go purely by what talking heads are saying then both McCain and Obama are flip floppers.
    Now i didn’t mention Mccain at all but since you brought him up your statement of “policy shifting with the winds”. I ask you shouldn’t this statement suit McCain as well?

  • Dreadsen

    And on deleting posts let me add….

    I have had a ton of my posts deleted at one time when i was arguing with O.S. in the rev Wright thread

    So the charge of only deleting based on some type of agenda can’t be right. Because O.S. and I definitely have different views.

  • The Angry American

    Let me see if I can put it like this Michael, you edited out more than what YOU consider a personal attack and as for what you and Nate decided I was editing and contributing to this website before you knew it existed, so don’t give me that line or quote me any bs rules like i wass itting here using vulgar language calling people names directly.

    I just as soon not post here any longer, your arrogance is a bit over the top.


    angryamerican you need to realize Michael as you probably have already found out is definately a liberal and sides with them on almost everything, that is why we get deleted because we are the different view and you dont like to read about it. People on here attack us all the time and they are never told off or their post deleted by you Michael? WHY IS THIS?

  • Rayven

    First off you attack us way more frequently.We try to be nice and share info. but you attack with no evidence. You should learn to to respect the views of others.Even if you don’t agree.

  • O_S, did you get your tire gauge yet? Mine’s on the way. *L*

    Angry American, please don’t run off because of Michael. I enjoy your posts, and your opinions.


    rayven are you serius about repsecting other peoples views. Dont act like you try to be nice just look at some of your post not only on here but on other discussions and all you have done is bad mouth and attack not only me but my party.

    Oh yes i did used it every 10 miles on my way to work, and I have to say it may have saved me a good hmmmm, i dont think it did anything now that I think about it though it was probably defective. Ill have to ask Barack hussein Obama what to do about it, and then ill see what John Sidney McCain thinks i should do to.

  • Rayven

    Ok O_S
    So filling up your tires isn’t working for you.
    how about this.

  • O_S you don’t respect other peoples views, which is probably why you’ve called yourself Obama_Sucks because you have a one sided view and if anyone disagrees with it you throw a hissy.

    As for the checking tyre pressures to save on gas, that’s a really dumb statement on Obama’s part. McCain can get away with senior moments, Obama’s only 47.

  • Well, O_S is just blunt and he’s passionate about his beliefs. But I’ve seen him carry on very good debates here. As far as him calling himself Obama_Sucks, again, he’s just blunt. Yankees are allowed that, and we southerners understand that. 😉 I think sometimes it backfires on him, though, because new people come on the site here and immediately attack him for that. Most of us give him the respect we all should have, because he is a faithful and intelligent contributor, but some that don’t know him don’t. And that’s when the hissies start on both sides. We McCain supporters have definitely been in the minority on this site, and we do get beat up regularly. That’s just all part of the game. Conservatives tend to cut to the chase, while liberals tend to want to dissect, analyze, and discuss everything to death looking for hidden meanings. It gets a little frustrating sometimes.

    It’s like the difference between a physciatrist and a physcologist. The physciatrist is a blind man looking in a dark basement for a black cat. The physcologist is a blind man looking in a dark basement for a black cat………that’s not there. 😉

  • Rayven

    Michael,Thanks for the tip of the movie “who killed the electric car?” .I really enjoyed it.Viability I guess that answers that question.GOP(gas,oil,petroleum)

  • Todd

    Ok guys I have figured this out. Bush and Chaney are oil freaks ! pure and simple I give up ! the liberal argument has won out.

    For the period covering the past year these are the profit margins for the 3 biggest oil companies :

    BP —–7%

    all while we pay more at the pump. It pisses me off, Damn Republican’s they are into everything apparently. They are pumping money to a bunch of companies that are just screwing us, I mean take a look at all the special interest they promote and make money off of, while we suffer–bad Republican’s

    Sporting Good’s Industry
    Aldia Inc–23% profit

    Water Industry
    York Water–19.9 % profit

    Footwear InduStry
    Iconix Brand–37% profit

    Sporting Activities Industry
    China Trans(American company)-40% profit

    Paper Industry
    Domar 14% profit

    Waste Management Ind
    China Idd (American) 43% profit

    Kandi Tech–13%

    Fortunet Inc–22%

    International Water Guard–18%

    Packaging Industry
    Northern Tech International–19%

    Personal Products (TAMPONS! PEOPLE)
    United Guardian Inc–27%

    looks like they are screwing us all–Humm, wait a minute I believe-yes, yes it’s true ! but how can it be ?

    Exxon made 8% less in profit over the last year than WHAT OTHER COMPANY ? a waste management company ? No-must be the shoe sales company, NO !. The Toy Industry ? Nooo. Give up ? Ok they made 8% less than a POLLUTION CONTROL COMPANY. We all know the Republican’s are big Environmental people don’t we?

    Damn those Republican’s –just feeding money to the Environment don’t they realize we JUST WANT OIL !!!!

    Windfall profit taxes sound good until it becomes selective and unconstitutionally singles out one sector while others rake money in hand over fist with no such tax applied.

    Think about it, you want to pay $300 for a pair of shoes, apply Obama’s windfall profit tax that $1000 rebate will help a little

  • Obama could have his cake and eat it by windfall taxing the big oil companies to bring down the price of gas and also allowing them to drill offshore (in none sensitive areas of course) and Anwar.

    As for Bush and Chaney being oil freaks, I’d like to see their tax returns for the past 7 years and see exactly what money they or close friends and family have made through various financial endeavours.

  • Todd

    Hey Pudding I guess I could take your post one of two ways.

    either your being sarcastic by saying he could have his cake and eat it too (because that would be acknowledging that he wants it both ways) or either your supporting the fact he wants it both ways (which by the way I could support if he would just say what Paris did, we need oil now while we develop alternatives).

    I also can’t tell if you want the “big oil” companies to pay windfall taxes while you allow the other companies to gouge us on their products with no additional tax implications.
    I mean if you think it’s Ok to pay 3 or 4 times what it cost to make shoes, tampons, cotton balls (all things we have to have) then why is it we can’t pay 1 or 2 times what it cost an oil companies to get the oil to market ?

    As for the tax returns on Bush and Chaney, I would imagine it is diversified like anyone should be in their investment incomes. If you could go back and see the original source of the income I guess it would be in oil companies since that is the business both were in before hand. But then again I would like to see Al Gores tax return.

    Gore’s family money came from a Tobacco farm but his real money came from the mining of zinc and germanium (one of the most environmentally harmful businesses). The land was bought from a sitting board member of what company ? I give you one guess, Ok that’s not fair–Which OIL COMPANY did they buy the land from ? Occidental Petroleum sound familiar ? After they bought the land from the board member they turned around and leased it back to him (yes the original owner) for $ 20,000 a year. But that’s not all. Yes Al was young back then so his father took the $20,000 and went to congress where he supported some of the biggest pro oil bills passed into law–humm I thought only the Chinese had that kind of pull with the Gore”s but I could be wrong.

    But I digress, I was suppose to be talking about young Al. Young Al currently sits on the Board of Directors for Apple Computers guess that makes since when you consider the fact he wrote and got passed the

    I guess that’s small stuff considering the current Obama/Democratic push to alternative energy, not that that’s bad but did I mention Gore is a founding member of , an investment management firm which focuses on “green” technology. Which would also explain why Gore is the founder and chairman of ,a company that via contributions promotes the transition to “Green” energy.

    But with all that said I still find it entertaining that Gore won an Academy Award and now owns a TV channel, even though he put the political spin on it by saying he bought it so he could give voice to today’s generation and combat conglomeration, HUH ? You by a company to prevent other companies from buying it ?
    But then again he probably dosen’t pay alot of attention to that since he is handling the Climate Change solutions group for the venture capital firm that he is a partner in,

    Oh to be a Rich Republican, those Democrats just can’t make any real money, can they ?

  • Todd, I think I love you. 😉

  • Todd,

    Moi?…Sarcastic?…never ;o)…LOL

    A cold day in hell is looming when Paris Hilton starts making sense, but she does.

    I wouldn’t be just for winfall profit taxes on the Oil Companies, but for the likes of Pharmaceutical, health insurance and any other company that’s making $Billions in profit whilst the average joe is struggling his (or her) ass off to pay for these basic essentials.

    Both Bush and Chaney have links to companies that have profitted in the $Billions from the Iraq war through uncontested contracts. I’m not saying Bush deliberately started the Iraq War to make extra cash, but it would be interesting to see how much and how far his investments have paid off since it started.

    I’m not an Al Gore fan at all and it would be interesting to see his tax returns.

  • Todd

    How bout this pudding,

    I do not say this to slam on your thoughts but at the same time the thoughts you have fly in the face of capitalism, which is what built this country and rebuilt all of western Europe.

    To impose a special tax on a company, any of them, for making money defeats the entire purpose for having a monetary system.

    Now if you like I will join you in your thoughts if we are honest about what your saying. If liberals and those others who support such ideas as windfall taxes, government health care and other state sponsored responsibilities will just admit that they believe in wealth redistribution then we can start talking about it. The proper title for a government that uses this policy is Socialist. Now I know that is a dirty word to use Republican’s. However if the liberal party in this country will simply say they want the constitution amended or rewritten so that the government can seize individuals money and give it to someone else then just say that. Matter of fact I would support a nationwide vote on it. The constant chipping away at individuals property and wealth by the government in the name of whatever happens to make them feel good at the time is what I hate, just call it what it really is.

    I made this argument once before. America is the only country in the world where the Republican Idea of moving up and increasing your net worth has been turned into the Democratic definition of greed. Now I do believe that money is the root of all evil but I have also noticed that those who want to give mine away are the democrats who have a lot of their own. If moving up one step at a time, starting a small business and growing it into a large successful one means that I now have to give more money to folks who don’t have a clue how to budget the money they have (government) is the Democrats answer then let’s put it up for a vote. But both sides have to be fair in the argument.

    I want democrats to just say they support socialist viewpoints (good or bad) and Republican’s can argue that what you make is what you should keep (aside from a tax system that is applied equally to all) If the majority vote for it then Republican’s should just shut up, my guess is though that once the people know what it really means to pass special taxes they will vote against it.

    Babs ! I think we’re moving to fast, can we just be friends first ? 🙂

  • Todd,

    I’m neither for or against capitalism and I’m neither for or against socialism, both have good and bad points. What I am against is companies making $Billions in profits whilst the average person is struggling to make ends meet and these companies are raising the price of a product or service even more when they don’t need to.

    I don’t know where the notion has come from that increasing your net worth is classed as greed. In the UK people increase their net worth all the time and they’re not classed as greedy, but they are classed as socialists by some Republicans. Germany’s the same, France is the same, in fact most European countries have no problem with people increasing their net worth and they don’t get classed as greedy. In New Zealand and Australia people become wealthy all the time and they’re not classed as being greedy. THE big difference though is that these countries have a social healthcare system that gives healthcare for everyone with no exclusions.

    Some people like that prick Sean Hannity, have made things that are socialistic seem evil, when in truth not all of them are.

    BTW: I am against Obama’s $1000 windfall profit tax redistribution idea. Surely any money from that would be better spent on finding renewable forms of energy and not trying to buy votes.

  • Todd

    Damn pudding just when I think I am going to argue with you you say something I agree with. The Obama buying votes is correct but…

    I am not saying that making money is greedy I am saying that seems to be the liberal look on it. This attitude that seems to say since a company makes a lot of money the government should take some of it and redistribute it is what I am saying is wrong.

    I will say this in the interest of disclosure, I watch Hannity a lot and I will admit the constant broken record soundbites can get old but I cannot dismiss most of the things he says. The reason his anti socialist rants are effective and true, in my belief, is because American’s have been dying since the conception of our country to keep it free. To have fought all the wars we have to end up a quasi socialist country is not why these men fought and died. They fought to keep the country free.

    Now I know we have lost more and more of our freedom’s in The USA but we generally do not want the government taking our money and putting it where they want it. Some of this is born out of the distrust we have for officials to watch our money, some comes out of the fact the government has the balls to think they can just take it. Either way it’s our money ! not the governments. I don’t know how it works in New Zealand but despite news to the contrary American citizens do not get turned away when they need care. Most every city in the U.S. has public hospitals and all of them run budget deficits each year because they are giving away free care knowing they will never get paid and they end up subsidized by the local government.

    But here is the biggest question I ask, If the taking money from companies “who make to much” while citizens struggle seems to be the answer then why has no politician thought to put a windfall tax on medical companies which make to much ? or insurance companies that make to much ? Would that not be the correct answer to the medical problem ? No politician that I am aware of has made this suggestion. I promise you when the politicians worry about a hospital bed costing $1500 a night or a gauze costing $75 the prices will come down, but all we hear is how the people need help and how more taxes would do it. When the U.S. government takes the problem of cost and makes it the issue to be resolved then oil and medical prices will come down. As long as they focus only on how to pay the huge cost (kinda of assuming the price is fair) the only answer they will have is to increase taxes.

    Turning to socialism is not the answer for the U.S., passing laws that keep price gouging down is.

    You still kinda side stepped the issue of all these other companies that make bigger profits than oil companies. Do you believe shoe makers should be paying a windfall tax ? What about toy makers ? Beer makers ? where does it stop ? and if it is done hasn’t economics taught us that the companies just pass the cost on to the consumer ? Oil will go from $5 a barrel to $7 the day a windfall law is passed. Shoes will go from $45 to $60. These companies are not going to just take the loss. Therefore the problem solver becomes the problem causer which in this subject means high inflation.

  • Rayven

    The oil companies ,GOP,and auto industry have been working together to keep alternative energy down in recent past. The oil companies get subsidies(corporate welfare). The GOP takes subsidies from alternatives and gives it to the oil companies.So its not a matter of them making lots money .Its a matter of monopolizing the market of energy..The oil industry has been at this a long time.Check out J P Morgan and Tesla in the late 1890’s thou early 1900’s. even the federal reserve is related this these people. In no way do I think they play fair.Just check the history.Ten years ago the electric car came out in select areas(check out “Who killed the electric car?”), but it was not mass produced.Why not ?If it was mass produced would we be in this predicament with gas prices? Instead they have been buying off the competition and suppress alternative tech.All the while being supported by the GOP.I think we should be focusing on alternative tech.I believe the oil companies engaged in unfair business practices, And GOP support is and unfair advantage. That is how they got the big profits in the first place. There product is going to be more expensive anyway . As long as there is conflict in the middle east there product is going to be more expensive .Our government is suppose to regulate business .To protect the people from corporations. By supporting the oil companies the GOP helped to suppress alternative tech . Which would have brought options.That would have brought prices of energy down.Instead they sorta fixed the market. Yep ,gotta love the free market when everything is fair. So windfall tax because they have and unfair advantage for the passed hundred years. I don’t think that is what our fore father had in mine either.Redistribution works both ways,but they do it to us it doses not come back to us.Whereas if its done to them they do get it back.We buy their products and services.People run the government,so people that care about people should be in government.Corporate welfare is ok but social welfare is not.Does that seem fair to you?

  • Todd

    Rayven you may have missed it but I posted that all subsidies should be taken from the business world with the exception of alternative energy. And after that becomes the status quo subsidies should be taken from them.

    It does you no good to yell about oil companies and Republicans while your biggest supporter of alternative energy is Gore, who I proved about 6 post ago, is in it for his own purse, and has supported other laws which favored his business interest (Apple board of directors & the computer act of 1991). I just can’t get why democrats seem to worry about Republican finances but ignore their own legal manipulation of the business world when it lines their pockets.

    I also said laws should be passed against gouging the public on the prices.

    You point out the fact that the oil companies have bought the technology and suppressed it. I have no doubt about that, but what I absolutely know is that companies buy out competitors every day in order to eliminate them and the competition they provided. CISCO, APPLE, MICROSOFT and others in the computer field have bought about 70 smaller companies over time and they have brought those companies products to the market as they saw fit. Didn’t hear democrats yelling about free market then. Railroad companies bought out their competitors to the point that now there are only 5 large ones, didn’t hear democrats yelling about free market then.

    One more thing you said these folks with the electric car sold their product, I guess they should have said no to the big money and held onto the product they had. Then they could have developed it but then again that would mean they could not sell the technology they developed. You guys just want the entire free market to stop. You give no consideration to the effects of market manipulation unless you are accusing the Republicans of doing it. Somehow it’s ok if the Democrats want to do the same thing, I don’t get it.

    You also failed to address my statement about the medical industry. The dems want to pump that industry with government money (tax money) instead of controlling the price and dems ain’t yelling about that. The democratic answer for a field that is hurting American’s more than oil prices is to pump more money into the medial companies instead of controlling the price, guess free market works in that scenario. Humm wonder why ? could it be like Obama and Clinton accused each other in their debates–they are taking money from the insurance companies ? For dems it’s all about oil, why because they can associate Republicans with that market all while knowing folks like you will completely ignore the fact that democrats have supported the oil companies also and have their hands in other areas of the U.S. economy.

    And what about all the other industries that overcharge ? why won’t any of you address that topic ? a lot of you seem to think it’s ok to slap the oil companies while you let the others cruse by. This is why I am against a windfall tax–it will only be targeted at one sector and just like the current tax system, like it or not, it’s targeted only at the rich, but then again fairness goes out the window with democrats when it comes to taking our money doesn’t it ?

    It’s just like the Democratic Louisiana senator, (Landurie-forgive the spelling) said, the U.S. is the only country in the world that bans the use of it’s own natural resources while paying top dollar for foreign resources.

    Keep blaming Republican’s for ALL the problems surrounding energy and everything else for that matter, while the Democrats rob all of us blind, every paycheck.

  • Todd

    Come on guys someone tell me I called this 3 weeks ago please !

    Oh how mighty moral Dems love a public opinion poll. They couldn’t let Obama be caught on the wrong side could they ?

  • Dreadsen


    Well that’s one way to look at it. But ultimately it should be the pressure of the people. Not their decision.
    McCain changed his stance as well.But you can’t really blame him. Times have changed.
    If they would have still stood strong against it regardless of the people the uproar would be how they do not care about the people.

  • Dreadsen

    Also lets see how much they give as far as being “openminded”.
    I know Pelosi complained that the proposal was to have drilling only 3 miles off of the shore. Maybe they took that off but are willing to allow it much further out. Or hell maybe what she is willing to lean to is something that allows drilling but isn’t even a good deal. But you know something democrats are good for. Allowing Republicans to get their way on something for some huge pork barrel bull crap.

  • Dreadsen, you knew I’d pop in when you brought up the pork barrel “bull crap”. 😉

    I read yesterday on CAGW that Obama is pledging no earmark requests for 2009, a position he, of course, was nudged into by McCain and public opinion. His cronies in Ill. won’t appreciate that, since once you get used to that pork it’s addictive.

    According to CAGW, 6 senators so far have made the same pledge (3 Republicans, 3 Democrats)

    And 40 representatives (only 5 democrats in that group by my count)

    My guess is that McCain’s influence has worked on the Republican side. Here’s hoping the Dems will get a clue soon.

    As far as Pelosi goes, everyone knows what the real deal is here. Besides the fact that she’s “trying to save the planet”, she’s also trying to table any and all major issues until her idol can take the oath of office.

  • Dreadsen

    Babs you saw my batsignal

    I fear pork barrel is like Abortion and Gun Rights.

    There have been times where we had both Republican Congress and Republican President yet still there were unconstitutional gun bans in the country. Same with Abortion. With pro life president and pro life congress you would think abortion would have been banned long time ago.
    Pork Barrel is the Republicans way of getting the Democrats to pass their bills for them. Well probably vice versa too.
    There is only so much revising of a bill you can do before you almost dilute it’s original purpose.
    Just give them pork barrel and you can still get your agenda going by handing off billions to spend somewhere else.
    Ron Paul talked about this in regards to the Democratic Congress voting for the war. He said they voted for it because they got 50 billion to spend on something else.
    Take away pork barrel then that takes away some of the political leverage one party has over another voting against their principles. If someone likes a bill or supports it they vote for it purely for that reason only and not because they are getting a huge sack of money for something else. Well there will still be SOME kind of politics involved but it will bring things closer to reality.

    But unfortunately just like abortion no matter which parties control both branches of government they won’t use their majority to crush it.

  • Todd

    Hey Dreasden where you been ?

    I accept the point that Mac changed his position and even that politicians have to do what the people want (I don’t actually see that a lot) but what I don’t accept is that only recently has Obama, with cover from democrats, reconciled himself to what the people want. If he was doing it for the reason you suggest he would have at least hinted a willingness to compromise 3 months ago. Up until last week he maintained that drilling was not the answer and he would not include that in his energy plan. To say he has moved to what the people want out of concern for that is just not true. It also shows a stark difference between the two candidates, Mac was calling for this before it was what the people wanted, that is a real “leader”, or as close as you can get in politics anyway.

  • Dreadsen


    glad to see ya.

    We don’t know why both McCain or Obama moved on their positions. Or the real truth. Even if McCain was calling for drilling 3 months ago he was absolutely against off shore drilling at one time.
    I just strike both of them as being possible flippers or “re definers”. It’s better that both of them changed. But still we don’t know to what extent they have changed. I’m sure you have read some bills that someone as finally agreed to only to go “ah HA! so that’s why they are changing their mind”.

    But if Obama didn’t flip on this he flipped on something else. Same with McCain. Lets so for arguments sake you are right about McCain’s change on THIS issue. We can sure point out some other issue where he did an all out inexcusable flip.

  • Todd


    We can agree they both flip for arguments sake but that’s not really my point when I accuse Obama of doing it.

    The way I see it Obama has made a lot of political hay being the anti establishment guy, the anti Washington guy or the New kid on the block guy. Therefore if we agree that they both flip aren’t we really agreeing that Obama is the same as a 27 year career politician and not what he sold himself to be after all ?

    and if we are agreeing on the fact they both flip doesn’t he lose his credibility as the alternative choice, The right choice ?

    I guess my point is he is really nothing new

  • IndiMinded

    Yeah great stuff. Here’s a breakdown of that logic: Obama changed his position on an issue, McCain changed his position on an issue, therefor Obama = McCain. They’re the same guy!!! Man, how did we not see this before?!

    Are you proposing that any president looking to bring positive change to this nation needs to take a position on every issue and never ever change it – and that if he does NOT do this he cannot bring positive change to the nation? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying, and it’s pretty silly.

    Both of them are pandering to public opinion on offshore drilling. They both know it won’t do anything to address our problems, but oil prices are the hottest of hot button issues and it’s a relatively painless concession to make for the votes. Slate has a great analysis about the drilling issue

    Don’t be too down on politicians for pandering in an election year though, that’s just tossing your boss a compliment while you’re hoping for a big promotion. It’s the system we built: they either keep us happy or else keep a second job lined up. Pandering will end with America’s first dictator, and not before then.

  • Todd

    Nice post Indi,

    In other words it Obama remains the fresh air in your political life even if he does pander.

    I proposed what I said. Obama has gotten where he is by supposedly NOT being a typical politician. It’s what he still barks about when he talks about McCain. He says McCain is the same old same old, has been there for 27 years–been part of the same “old” problem. All this is implying that he is a new fresh way of doing things.

    I would suggest you made my point by saying that he is just pandering, so thanks i rest my case.

  • Todd

    By the way Indi good to see Obama stand his ground and claim his nomination.

    Hillary, you know one of those “old” politicians that Obama degrades in his ‘I am the way speeches’, really gave him a run didn’t she ? Boy who knows what would have happened if Obama had been one of those run of the mill politicians. I bet Hillary would have demanded to be nominated at the convention and Obama would have caved, in hopes of getting her supporters, whew ! that was close he was-that close-to being seen as a politician.

    Can’t wait until he negotiates with The Russians, Koreans, Iranians and GOD knows which enemy. I would imagine they will be very reassured knowing they are facing a man of firm determination and conviction.

    It’s plan to see now McCain is surely the “politician” out of the two.

    Obama has no credibility left-none. He was once what you think he still is, but no more, now he has sold himself in order to gain the glory.

  • IndiMinded

    Todd, I took for granted that every person reading is smart enough to realize that if someone is running for president, that person is a politician – and that politicians will always be politicians and it would be naive to believe otherwise. If you believe that all of Obama’s support comes from people who hold this misconception that Obama is not a politician, but a magical fairy come to cure our nations ills, well then I suspect you’re mistaken.

    Every candidate running in every primary was a politician. I supported the politician I liked best out of the choices, and all of the candidates had major virtues and uncomfortable flaws. If Obama’s worst flaw is that he does some of the things we expect all politicians to do, I can deal with that.

  • Dreadsen


    “I proposed what I said. Obama has gotten where he is by supposedly NOT being a typical politician. ”

    He still isn’t a typical politician.

    not being the “typical” doesn’t mean that you are not a politician at all.

    If we laid out all the components of the past politicians you will see there is definitely a difference. Some things may be similar but not all of them.

    “It’s plan to see now McCain is surely the “politician” out of the two.

    Obama has no credibility left-none. He was once what you think he still is, but no more, now he has sold himself in order to gain the glory. ”

    Pot meets Kettle. Same argument about this “Maverick” can also be made about McCain. Especially if we are only going to point at ONE COMPONENT.

    But if this is how you really think then i see why you think McCain and Obama are the same. That means BOTH would have no credibility.