The RNC has a new commercial out that attempts to hit Barack Obama on the energy issue:
This is not a terrifically effective spot. It makes McCain's platform seem haphazard and contradictory. (Conservation. Drill! Drill! Drill! Alternative Fuels. Oil! Oil! Oil!).
Nevertheless, I do tend to agree with Larry Kudlow that the offshore drilling debate could be a wedge issue if framed effectively. Kudlow's framing, which rah-rahs the profit motive and calls for deregulation, is precisely 180 degrees removed from where the Republicans want to go with this one. But by couching their argument in more populist, Hillary Clintonesque tones, they might be able to portray Obama as being overvague and out of touch.
To that end, it is interesting that both this commercial and Kudlow's column call Obama anti-nuclear. Obama's position on nuclear power has been a little amorphous, but it is not clear that he is anti-nuclear. On the contrary, he took some flack from progressives on the nuclear power issue during the primaries, and his position -- sometimes hedged more than others -- has generally been that nuclear power is "worth considering".
It seems to me, then, that the Republicans are trying to preempt Obama from getting behind nuclear power more seriously. The problem with offshore drilling -- apart from its environmental impacts -- is that it will likely take at least 20 years before it adds materially to our refinement capacity. By contrast, although it depends significantly on reactor design, a nuclear power facility could come online in perhaps half that time. So nuclear power is a pretty interesting trump card to the offshore drilling issue: greener, faster, and for the first time in a while, supported by pluralities or majorities of the public.
The Republicans seem interested in taking the nuclear card off the table. That does not necessarily mean that Obama should play it. But I do think he'll need a little more substance on this issue, be it by embracing nuclear power, engineering some sort of targeted transportation tax credit that helps lower-income families with long commutes to work but also incentivizes mass transit, embracing RFK Jr.'s plan, or simply deciding that this will be the issue where he takes a tough love stance and uses that as a branding parlay. The Republicans will eventually put together a better commercial on the issue, and Obama will need some kind of reply.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Nuclear Deterrence?
-- Nate Silver at 7:43 PM
Labels: advertising, energy
79 comments
Obama is not anti-nuclear. He is for nuclear as one option, with research into safely handling waste. He is also not against more production, as the ad suggests. He is for more production on the land currently available for drilling. He is simply against new offshore drilling.
The Republicans are going for a "drilling for the short-term" and then using that money for alternative energies.
Even though opening new areas up for drilling now wouldn't help for years if not decades.
Since when has truth been a factor in political advertising? The GOP needn't tell the truth, they just need to relentlessly push the image of Obama as someone without ideas, i.e. naive and inexperienced. Karl Rove has taught them well - repeat it over and over and it will be accepted as truth, no matter how false it may be.
The potency of an energy policy designed around proven technology -- carbon and nuclear based fuels - was immediately apparent to me and the Republicans.
I think Nate is wrong about it taking 20 years to take advantage of renewed drilling efforts. The technology is proven and effective. The only variable is finding the stuff; building the infrastrcuture won't take more than a year or so, depending on location.
Jane Fonda made nuclear power a wedge issue for the "progressives" years ago with the China Syndrome movie. Obama cannot embrace it without risking further alienation of his base.
He has clearly taking drilling off the table -- the one thing the average voter gets and supports -- an about face on it would infuriate the left while confusing the center.
As with Iraq, Obama, who is so well-positioned generically to win this election (imagine if Joe Biden were the nominee), finds himself in more and more of an untenable position.
With Iraq and gas prices it seems only a matter of time before the issues catch up with him and his candidacy falters.
Attractive packaging and newness are not enough even in times such as these -- or perhaps especially in such times. You had better stand for something the people will support.
few of us were around when carter was in office. he had all sorts of research going on, including fusion... heady times. that's all gone now. the oil men are fully in charge.
mccain has a 0% league of conservation voters record. that's ZERO. that's NOT ONE VOTE in favor of alternative energy or conservation in all of 2007. his lifetime record is a paltry 24%.
he has had decades to come up with all sorts of actual energy alternatives but he has always sided with big oil. maybe that's because he has taken on the average 10 times as many dollars from big oil as any other senator. that could have something to do with it.
see more about mccain's horrendous energy record here: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_gw_record.html
do you really think that after 20 years of saying no, he has found some new light 4 months before an election? do you want a piece of the Brooklyn bridge?
(you can answer that question here: http://www.ask500people.com/questions/with-mccains-0-alternate-energy-voting-record-should-we-believe-he-has-suddenly-changed-his-ways-4-months-before-nov )
Let's not confuse our energy needs for transportation vs. electric production. We are comparing apples and oranges here. Oil and nuclear are not substitute options. 70% of the oil this country consumes goes into the gas tanks of our cars. The rest is used for various other things such as platics and chemical production, home heating, etc. However, VERY LITTLE OF OUR ELECTRIC IS MADE FROM OIL (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_sector.htm).
Bringing a nuclear power plant online does NOTHING to stem our need for oil unless we wake up tomorrow with plug-in electric cars.
I don't think McCain can win this argument. He's already said that the effects of both the gax tax holiday and offshore drilling would be merely "psychological".
Whether you guys agree with me or not, this election may very well come down to gas prices, and the Democrats are out of touch with what Americans want, and that is more drilling..
I've been calling for more drilling since when my blog began in February and made note about everything the GOP and DEMS is talking about now, but it took us to get to $4 dollars a gallon to do anything!
Therefore I truly believe if gas prices are the #1 issue come election day, independents may very well end up backing McCain, although they disagree with him on the war which is improving and the economy which is a mess!
The Republicans are going for a "drilling for the short-term" and then using that money for alternative energies.
Who is going to "use that money" -- and how? If it all goes to the drillers and refiners, how does it become available for developing alternative energy sources?
Ultimately, these companies would either need to reinvest into alternate energies or there would need to be a tax on their earnings -- or a reduction in the subsidies and tax benefits that these companies now receive -- so that funds could be reallocated toward other purposes.
More generally, the "collective" issues raised in RFK's manifesto need to be addressed so that individuals and innovators can move ahead to transforming America's energy sources.
I haven't seen any comprehensive plan for doing this from either the GOP or the the Democrats.
This is the most powerful argument of the election. If McCain gets out front on this, he will sweep to an electoral landslide. BO's Nutroot supporters won't let him slide into Nuclear and drilling. Whoever said this is not an effective ad must have O'blinders on.
I'd like to also point out that the sun drops 3500 watts of energy on every square meter of the planet ever day, on the average.
we can have megawatts and gigawatts of solar energy production on line THIS YEAR...
the bush administration just tried last week to put a moratorium on all new solar energy collector farms but we managed to stop that.... its important not to let the GOP frame energy in terms of only the types of energy that make them money. there are far more democratic forms of energy, that allow us to break free of major republican owned utilities and large corporations, and actually just take care of ourselves.
learn more about the electranet, for example, something that obama supports, and something that will REVOLUTIONIZE electrical power just like the internet revolutionized data.
Nate Silver: The problem with offshore drilling -- apart from its environmental impacts -- is that it will likely take at least 20 years before it adds materially to our refinement capacity.
IF it adds to our extraction and refinement capacity.
There's no guarantee that there are any North Sea sized deposits off any of America's shores.
.
"This is the most powerful argument of the election.
What "argument" is powerful?
It's an issue, but not yet an effective argument. Give more money to the drillers and refiners? That's not an effective argument.
How the different candidates play it may matter quite a lot. But whether it's the most important issue of the campaign remains to be seen.
Neither one of them can win this argument. They can only lose.
The problem is that there aren't any short term solutions to high energy prices that are also in any way sensible.
So, what can be done politically?
--The Republicans can try to convince people that Democratic attempts to save the world will raise gas prices.
--The Democrats can try to convince people that the Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil.
--McCain can get a reputation for flailing, coming up with new positions and crazy ideas weekly.
--Obama can get a reputation for being indifferent to the problems of "ordinary people" by not accepting any short-term stopgaps.
The best thing for both candidates is to pivot away from the issue as smoothly as they can. Obama can (and does) turn the discussion to a general middle-class tax cut. McCain could do something analogous--maybe a broader critique of over-regulation?
Dwelling on an issue for which there are no good short-term solutions is playing with fire. I suppose it might be worth it for McCain to try it, since he's behind, and if the debate centers on this maybe Obama will lose before McCain does. But neither will come out looking good.
And no, I don't think that's true of other issues important to voters. Iraq, terror, health care, taxes, education, the environment, US reputation abroad, civil liberties, even the economy in general--one or the other (or both) candidates have plans for those issues that can get people excited. But gas prices? It won't happen.
What I am Fractal doesn't get is that even if what he says is true, the American people don't and won't get it in time for the election.
They do understand that they put an oil derrivative into their cars and there is no immediate alternative to that and they want a sense that there is a candidate out there who is working to do something about the oil crisis -- in particular our dependence on Mid East Oil.
Back in college I learned that more rain falls in the United States in one day than we consume in a year. The problem that the environmentalists consistently miss is that the issue is not conservation, but collection.
We need to be more