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.
7.06.2008
Nuclear Deterrence?
@ 8:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
82 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 efficient and productive in our exploitation of the energy resources we have.
I like others am convinced that oil exploration is the issue that Republicans can ride to victory in the Fall.
It will make it easy to frame Obama as an out of touch "progressive" with a San Francisco value system.
I'm still annoyed they closed down the wind farm they were testing out here in the desert, because the air force bitched about the turbines interfering with their radar - in an area they don't usually fly in.
We've got some solar plants coming online soon, though, and at least one already producing energy.
Considering it's sunny 360+ days out of the year out here (and windy nearly as many days, actually), southern NV(and Arizona, and NM) can produce quite a lot of energy, and quickly recoup the investment by selling the excess to other states. Would improve matters for the Colorado river, since NV and SoCAl won't have to draw as much energy from the dam.
The problem is getting the investment in the first place.
MVRed: 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 ...
Americans will blame, and are blaming, the party in charge of the Presidency - Bush & the Republicans - just as they blamed Carter in 1980 for being 'out of touch'.
Republicans have been in control of the Presidency for the last 7.5 years, and 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 14 years.
You can argue that it's not fair to blame the Republicans (though you'll look pretty silly doing it), but you can't argue that Americans are blaming Democrats for the current crises in America. They're clearing blaming Republicans, as is shown in polling, as was shown in the 2006 elections, and as will be shown again in the 2008 elections.
And rightly so. It's clearly Republican policies that have led the US into its current impasse.
.
Energy is the Achilles' heel of the Democrats this year. But the GOP ad is too cluttered to be effective.
But the lefty blogosphere might have to be thrown under the bus on this issue.
The problem is this isn't the time to choose among alternatives. We need oil in the short-term, but we need alternatives also. And we really need to eliminate commutes over 25-30 miles.
I don't really think Obama is anti-nuclear, and he should move to the center on energy (rather than FISA). And Obama should challenge McCain on the ridiculously political decision to
freeze solar energy projects in the West.
We just can't drill our way out.
well pete. here's the problem. the oil companies are sitting on thousands of unused drilling leases. they have over 75 million acres that they can drill on right now. they don't. why? to drive up prices. period.
bush just spent trillions of our dollars to shut down iraq's oil production. something that he has been very successful at. he has handed all the oil rights of iraq to his crony oil companies. they are not going to sell that oil to us. they're gonna keep it until the prices get much higher.
as for iran, bush just spent the last couple weeks in europe convincing germany, france, and england to stop buying any oil from iran, to drive prices up even further.
mccain and bush both were for deregulating oil future markets, so now we exist in a huge speculative bubble.
if we spent a fraction of the money on enhancing solar COLLECTION technologies, and TRANSMISSION technology, including the aforementioned electranet, then all the oil would go to making plastic forks, and we'd stop having these quaint 19th century internal combustion engines on our vehicles.
i don't miss the point that they have purposely driven prices up, as an excuse to get every last acre of land under their control for potential drilling one day. i don't miss that point one bit.
btw, the "electranet" is not a company. it is a generic term for a smart grid where everybody is connected, just like on the internet, but for electricity. http://electranet.com has news updates about the electranet, as well as some speeches including one from al gore, on the right hand side of the page.
Anon@8:18p: BO's Nutroot supporters
Such civil language, such refraining from ad hominem invective. Such refinement!
This is the very model of polite Republican discourse.
Thank you, Anon@8:19pm, for gracing us with your wit and sophisticated insight.
Just in case anyone missed the Anon@8:19pm's subtlety, and I hope those who saw what he did there will forgive me for explaining it to the rest, Anon@8:19pm change the 'e' in 'Netroot' to 'u', thereby making it 'Nutroots'. And he used the initial's 'BO' to subliminally suggest 'body odor''
Get it? The 'Netroots' are 'nutty'! They're actually 'Nutroots'.
And they're 'smelly'!
What a hoot! That's so clever Anon@8:19pm.
(I would never deign to call such a dignified presence simply 'Anon'.)
.
The President proposes, but congress disposes. There is a DEM congress for several years. They have done nothing here other that fail to lift energy restrictions.
The pendulum is turning quickly. Also, if congress is certain to go dem this fall, the American people don't want all of the power in dem hands. You remember what happened when Dems controlled everything. National Healthcare and Republican control of congress.
What the republicans are missing in this debate is that no one can do a damn thing about gas prices. The only thing that can be done is to hurry up and create some alternatives. "Barack Hussein Obama" has a plan for this. John McCain doesn't.
Anon @ 8:55pm: There is a DEM congress for several years. They have done nothing here other that fail to lift energy restrictions.
Democrats have been in control of congress for 1.5 years. Not even two, not even a couple, and definitely not several, years.
And just to repeat myself:
Republicans have been in control of the Presidency for the last 7.5 years, and 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 of the last 14 years.
You can try all you want to disclaim responsibility for the results of the last 7.5 years of largely monolithic Republican rule, but it's not working. Funny, I thought Republicans were supposed to be all about accepting responsibility for their mistakes. Another myth down the drain, I guess.
Take your silly spin elsewhere. No one's buying it.
.
Big Oil-baiting can be and most likely will be a devastatingly effective counterattack by the Democrats. Even if it's not particularly fair - but then again, lying about the immediate viability offshore drilling isn't actually kosher, either. The mental association: "Bush... Cheney... Texas... OIL!!!" has been pretty well established even among low information voters, and it won't be hard to push those buttons.
It's not true that whoever offers the most short-term (perceived) palliatives to the voters every election cycle has the best political positioning. If it were, isolationism and complete protectionism would be much more popular political positions. If you can spin a tale of long term pragmatism and responsibility, whilst implying irresponsibility and overt political calculation on your opponent's part.
Personally, I'd advise Obama to not close the book on offshore drilling, and being somewhat partial to nuclear myself, would like him to embrace nuclear a bit. But he should never stop proposing alternative energies and sensible urban planning - both because they're right, and because the expected Republican counterattack, which would no doubt involve some form of hippie-baiting, would make them look completely out of touch. Obama could ask for no better framing than to be the young, fresh face, talking of bold projects to solidify America's future, while 71 year old McCain and his 527's sputter "solar power... environmentalism... the 60's... FUCKING HIPPIES!". Or something to that effect.
To Pete Kent:
1.The oil companies aren't exploiting what they currently have.
2. Even if the oil companies would choose to explore the new fields that McCain would offer them, they can't, for several years - because there are no drilling rigs/ships available who can explore the areas. The shipbuilders don't have any coming off the production lines.
Anonymous at 8:55:
Are you being sarcastic in your first paragraph? The Democrats have NOT been in power for several years - just 18 months! It was the Republicans in place from 1994 to 2006.
Nuclear power is a failure of an issue, its not as clean or safe as Solar or wind. Drilling is a pander like the gas tax holiday
To anon@9:12,
I don't agree that nuclear power is necessarily a failure of an issue, I do agree that drilling is pander like the gas tax holiday, but regardless I think Obama shouldn't rule out either of them. He should hammer alternative energy incessantly, and could in effect talk past McCain on offshore drilling by not addressing it directly - rather appropriate, because squeezing out the last drops of oil on American shores is neither right nor wrong but simply irrelevant when your perspective is anywhere but the microscopically near future.
"The pendulum is turning quickly."
Democratic advantage in partisan identification has intensified since 2006.
Nate-Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the site, but where have the polls been? Have all the pollsters given up on their day job until the conventions?
LiberalForever: holidays are a terrible time to conduct polls; many people are not at home to answer their phone, and many of those who are home are disinclined to interrupt their leisure time.
Never fear. There will be tons of polls in the near future.
Pete Kent @ 7:59pm: The potency of an energy policy designed around proven technology -- carbon and nuclear based fuels - was immediately apparent to me and the Republicans.
MVRed.Com @ 8:15pm: 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...
Anon @ 8:19pm: This is the most powerful argument of the election.
Pete Kent @ 8:27pm: I like others am convinced that oil exploration is the issue that Republicans can ride to victory in the Fall.
Notice how everyone's on point, as in the same talking points?
Or maybe as in McCain Troll Points?
They're the new hot thing! Points for blog swarming*, co-ordinated by the Republican Presidential candidate himself, Senator John McCain! Get'em while they're hot! Get'em here!
(*Fine print from the McCain website: "After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.")
*Sigh*
We're being... McCain'd?
Damn, we need a new word for this. What should we call it when a politician explicitly sends supporters to opposiing websites and rewards points for posting at them?
Shall we call it "McCain'd"?
It kind of lacks oomph. Suggestions?
.
oh my, we've been talking to oil company paid robots!
no wonder they're spewing gop talking points.
logic won't work against them.
so sad.
shoo gop trolls shoo!
Nuclear is not green. It's deadly -- deadly for thousands of years. Solve the waste issue -- not a simple matter, and then nuclear is just, well, really damn expensive.
Somehow, conservation still is lost as the most effective source. Cheney provided the unleadership on this in 2001 and so many still seem to avoid seeing how really deep conservation solves all kinds of things. Then wind -- small, medium, and large installations. Then solar -- also small (your rooftop), medium, and large.
Tom!
Nuclear is green! Glow in the dark green.
I'm pretty sure these are the same people who keep lowering the radioactivity standards at the Yucca storage facility every time it fails to pass inspection.
Until I read this post,I didn't think anyone gave any value to the opinions of Larry "Cocaine" Kudlow. Now it may be when gas is over (sometimes way over)$4/Gal., the American voter will rush to support a program that puts more money into the pockets of those mammon-worshipping moral degenerate vampires in the oil "bidness:, but I wouldn't bet more than you can afford to lose on it.
NATE:
Have you seen this: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1523 ... You will find it interesting
Maybe, check out the part of Obama's webpage on New Energy for America. There's a fact sheet available through there, which says: "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 from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, 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. {snip}
Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution 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. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there."
also the above referenced website has a section on "Fuel Economy v Offshore Drilling" and says that Obama supports: "doubling the fuel efficiency of autos within 18 years....will achieve more than three times the oil savings than could be produced under even the most optimist scenarios of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
whereas McCain has "No plan to increase fuel efficiency standards.
Repeatedly opposed legislative efforts to increase CAFE standards. Now supports simply enforcing existing standards."
The one great comeback line against those who think the nuclear power is going to save us is: "Where will these 50-100 new nuclear plants be?" That's one or two per state. Tell me where they are going to go that the locals won't block it.
Anonymous said...
Maybe, check out the part of Obama's webpage on New Energy for America. There's a fact sheet available through there, which says: "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 from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, 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. {snip}
Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution 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. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there."
also the above referenced website has a section on "Fuel Economy v Offshore Drilling" and says that Obama supports: "doubling the fuel efficiency of autos within 18 years....will achieve more than three times the oil savings than could be produced under even the most optimist scenarios of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
whereas McCain has "No plan to increase fuel efficiency standards.
Repeatedly opposed legislative efforts to increase CAFE standards. Now supports simply enforcing existing standards."
Why, Why...oh damn you to hell you koolaid drinking black muslim loving lapel pin not-wearing america surrendering elitist!!! Stop confusing me with the facts!!!
You liberals always play dirty -my head hurts;=}
I will thoroughly enjoy the next four years of the Obama administration. He will win going away. I will soak up the coverage, read the blogs for the whining republicans, and watch the message go around the world that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States. I am savoring every moment.
You know how you have to hit rock bottom before it can get better. Well, this is what rock bottom looks like. And out of the ashes America will show the world how it deals with adversity. We find the best and the brightest. A leader for the future to lead the world in its time of need.
Ah yes I will enjoy it. November 4, 2008. The popcorn will be ready to go at my house. At that moment, when all the votes are cast, I will sit and watch Barack Obama, the skinny kid with a funny name from the southside of Chicago become the first African American to lead a Western country. I will sit and watch Barack Obama become the leader of the free world. I will sit and watch Barack Obama become my president.
MVRed.com said "the Democrats are out of touch with what Americans want, and that is more drilling."
The only polling I have seen are two polls conducted by Rasmussen, where the question was skewed blatantly to "suggest" the answer. This was the question: "John McCain favors drilling in offshore oil wells to help reduce the price of gas. Barack Obama opposes offshore oil wells and says it would not reduce the price of gas. Should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?"
Despite this biased question, only 59% agreed with it. If there were as strong a bias toward drilling as some here have suggested, this particular question should have received a positive response rate of over 70%.
Until I see polling addressing energy issues with an unbiased methodology, I tend to believe that all of the Republicans who have offered their opinions here that this is THE ISSUE OF 2008 are spinning from a very weak foundation.
Energy policy is a national security issue, but more drilling will not make the US energy independent, so it will neither lower prices nor make us more secure.
There is plenty of time to educate people on this issue, so that they can see that "more drilling" is a cynical effort to avoid a real energy policy. As I said in the prior thread, we need government funding (in the same manner as the space program) to develop alternatives. In the long run, such R&D will do much more to benefit our children than "more drilling" will do.
Our energy policy must be framed for our aspirations, rather than based on our fears. The Republicans are trying to define their energy policy based on our fears.
Every time I hear Obama (or a surrogate) oppose drilling on the grounds that we won't feel the benefits for decades, I wince. That is the sort of lousy, short-term thinking that got us into the energy mess in the first place. So far, I think the Republicans have a winner with this one.
A much better response would be that offshore drilling is OK, as long as the externalities are priced appropriately. What will the impact to the environment and local communities be? If the drilling permits are priced to take these costs into account, then by all means give companies the opportunity to pay up and drill. Of course it may turn out that the costs are too high to make drilling practical. If that is the case, then at least the conversation has shifted from "drilling vs. high gas prices" to "drilling vs. environment and community."
Grrrr.
I knew I should have followed Nate's link before typing, but it's late and I am tired.
Looking at the various polls, it is hard to reconcile the large disparities in the responses between the polls. I stand by my earlier statement that it is spinning to insist that energy policy is the most important issue of the 2008 election, but I say it with less confidence than earlier.
Even if it is, energy is a pocketbook issue, and such issues usually are to the Democratic Party's advantage.
I'm going to comment on the aesthetics of the commercial and leave policy alone for a minute: McCain needs to hire a graphic designer. Hell, a whole team of them.
For sake of comparison let's look at Obama's latest add "dignity":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQpoDeQ3Co
-- notice how the first half is still photos and the second half is video, emphasizing Obama's length of experience.
-- notice how they discolor the photos, use a number of black and whites, and include pictures of old houses, emphasizing Obama's length of experience
-- notice how they gently pan all of the photos, making the commercial look Ken Burn'sish -- more of a documentary
-- notice the Wizard of Oz moment at the "As President" shift
-- check out the print, and the subtle footnotes, always Gotham font, which strikes me as distinctly American an open
-- notice the music is minimalism played by a orchestra, attracting both older voters raised on string classics and younger voters raised in the post James Brown era. Also, the trumpet announcing Obama at the "As President" line.
Now let's look at McCain's add:
-- Best case scenario, McCain was trying to invoke commercial styles from the early '80s. If this wasn't the allusion they were gong for the commercial is a disaster. It still strikes me as bizarre.
-- The font isn't consistent
-- The photo of the oil well over the forest is downright striking
-- The still photo (out of focus) does nothing to bring any life to the candidate
-- This commercial does nothing to make me like McCain -- issue orientated with no connection to the candidate himself.
-- The music sucks.
I'm a big Obama supporter, but of course we should be drilling. My parents live in Canada, a very green conscious country, and they're drilling everywhere. Inland, Offshore , everywhere. They rarely have a spill and the oil money is really boosting the economy.
I also agree we must research and move to alternatives such as wind and solar, thats the future. For the average voter I don't believe they see this as a political issue. They see it as an American issue. I would like to see both campaigns come together, find a platform they both can agree on and take it off the table as politics. That way the country can win regardless which party wins in November.
Great way for both to show leadership.
"Drilling. Now.
What do we want? Drilling.
When do we want it? Now.
What do we want? Drilling.
When do we want it? Now."
Soon we'll be hearing the McCainanites marching in the streets chanting this refrain.
They're already following their marching orders on this blog.
let's just say for a moment, that we don't want to research any alternative energy sources, such as cold fusion, IES (infinite energy source), MTECS (matter to energy conversion system), BHSE (black hole singularity energy), lunar solar park transmission stations, orbital sollettos, big bang reverberation capture system, fusion, fission, solar panels, windmill farms, tidal power generation, HHO oxidation, etc.
and that the only answer is to continue using 19th century oil and coal.
and that the only way to do that is to drill.
then, as i said above, we can't count on big oil, because they hold tens of millions of acres worth of perfectly good drilling land with permits and everything, and they insist on sitting on that, to help drive prices up.
leaving the GOP in charge of this country has been a disaster for energy. they have done everything in their power to keep us as inefficient as possible. there are tax breaks for SUV's, especially $100,000 4 mpg suv's. and although there are tax breaks for hybrids, it is only for the first couple hundred thousand ever built, and then hardly a fraction of the tax break for the suvs.
so. the gop way: keep us inefficient. reward antiquity.
stop all research.
ban new technologies, and don't let them come about.
then lie about the whole thing and say its because we aren't drilling in any of the most precious park land.
the only way to get drilling, if really that was any kind of solution whatsoever, which it isn't due to the fact that we have no shortage right now, as a matter of a fact demand has been decreasing in the last couple years here.... is to split up the oil companies.
break up the monopolies... break them each into 1000 companies, who aren't allowed to re-merge.
then let them compete in selling energy, in any form... not just other people's oil...
there is so much amazing stuff we can do... first step... get rid of the monopolists. they're blocking us.
Here we go again
I blogged about this on another part of this web site. First off, nuclear power, wind power and solar power has nothing to do with automobiles, mack truck, jet planes, trains or ships. All of the above are powered by gas or diesel. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FUEL AVAILABLE FOR THEM TODAY, TOMORROW OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!
On the other hand, the electricity that we get to turn on our lights in our homes comes from coal, natural gas or nuclear power.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WINDMILLS, or SOLAR PANELS TODAY, TOMORROW or 10 YEARS FROM NOW TO PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY WE NEED TO POWER OUR HOMES.
Yes, the high price of gasoline is an issue in the presidential election. There is no alternative to fuel our cars, but gasoline and diesel. They are refined from oil, which is extracted from the ground by drilling.
We must drill, drill and drill from today until the foreseeable future until some bright, engineer comes up with an idea to fuel our cars.
I see nothing but bad things for this country on the course we are taking. On the one hand, there is the Democratic Party that is literally fallen on the altar of environmental extremism, literally wishing to send our country back to the days of the horse and buggy. On the other hand, there is the Republican Party that only wants to drill.
However, after really reading up on the facts, there is nothing but fossil fuels in the near future to fuel our cars.
After gas reaches $7 a gallon, I really beleive that each and every state will begin to start their own energy policy. After it reaches $10 a gallon, states that produce energy, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska will begin imposing large taxes on the energy produced in their states or that traverses their state and then give the money back to their citizens.
The rest of the country will pay for their environmental extremism.
Maybe the people in California want to pay $10 a gallon, but the people in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma do not.
When the winter of 2008 and 2009 comes and the people of the Northeast begin paying $5 a gallon for heating oil, I can't wait to hear the left wing nuts from those states start screaming for oil subsidies.
Believe me, this current policy could lead to civil strive between the states. We are now in uncharted territory and the rocks are ahead.
By the way, the person on this blog who blamed the Republicans for this policy must have had their head buried in the sand. If I remember correctly January 2007, WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY took over Congress, oil was $60 a barrel and gas was around $1.90 a gallon. What happened in in 18 months.
Every time somebody stood up and said we need to start drilling for oil because we face a supply shortage, a DEMOCRAT in Congress stood up and said, "NO, WE NEED WIND POWER and SOLAR POWER"
The next day and enterprising Wall Street Type puts a contract on the futures market betting that oil will go up because there will be no supply. THANK YOU HARRY REID and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I know I will get responses from a lot of left wing types saying that drilling will not do any good and that we need alternative fuels, BUT THERE AREN'T ANY TODAY, TOMORROW or TEN YEARS FROM TODAY. AND, THERE ARE NO ELECTRIC CARS and THERE WILL BE NONE FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I get a kick out of some of McCain's ads. I must admit, when I first saw this ad I thought it was an old ad from the 80's or something.
I know this is small stuff, but Obama is always shed in the best light, best staging, best website, best, best, best. The guy hires the best! thats what I want in a President. I want the best people in the world managing every aspect of government. Guess where Obama's planning on holding his acceptance speech for the nomination in Denver? Bronco stadium. 60000+, how does McCain keep up with that TV shot.
I don't know where McCain hires his people, or who does the hiring, but like Hillary, I think he's a better candidate than his campaign. Some of McCain's staging and ads are sub standard. What the hell was he doing in Columbia last week. The people in the rust belt hate free trade and thats where McCain needs to win. He needs to park his ass in Ohio, Michigan and Virginia. He's not going to win Pennsylvania so forget it. Obama's been on the ground organizing since before the primaries ended. McCain's just getting started. I haven't decided who I'm voting for but right now I gotta lean Obama on competence alone.
um. fact is that if you watch ted talks.... one scientist has figured out a way to make bacteria that actually makes gasoline. from sunlight to gasoline, with bacteria. you could buy some and leave it growing on your roof. and have gas. and you could do that this year, not in 5 or 10 years.
the fact is there are very smart people out there.
the GOP never gets that. they like things to stay as they are, and they have no imagination... they need to move aside.
Israel is converting its entire fleet of automobiles to electric within the next 4 years, they have announced. we could do it, if that's what we cared to do. it would have cost less than the iraq war, that's for sure.
we have the means. we have the smarts. we just need the GOP, and the monopolies they allowed to form... OUT.
as for gas being $1.90 near the election, yes... it was $3.40 a gallon before the election, then magically went way down to $1.90 and as soon as the election ended it went back up... why? because gas companies are all owned by men. men who support the GOP. and only half a dozen of them. they can do as they please. they did. that's why they need to be OUT. or made obsolete. either way.
Anon at 11:38: I get a kick out of some of McCain's ads. I must admit, when I first saw this ad I thought it was an old ad from the 80's or something.
_____________
Okay, now that I have independent confirmation that it isn't just me, I think this is exactly what they were aiming for -- trying to bring back memories of Jimmy Carter and the last energy crisis.
I think this misfires on two fronts: a) that was too long ago; and b) their candidate is already battling questions about his age and being out of touch.
I completely agree that McCain is better than the campaign at this juncture. I don't know why they're going negative, it's too early and they're not that far behind. They should be running bio adds. McCain has an incredible life story that could be played out in an extremely moving fashion as an introductory :30 spot. This add just seems misguided.
mccain's incredible life bio?
well AFTER his military service... so we're talking starting 25 years ago... lets see what does he have to show?
1. huge bribe taking as part of the keating 5. cindy still friends with the criminals involved.
2. so many quid pro quo deals that he's had to be scolded by the ethics committee.
3. dumped first wife for rich younger wife.
5. took more contributions from big oil than any other 10 senators combined.
no wonder he avoids talking about his political career.
his Dr. No. anti-obama commercials look like something out of 1963.... i wonder what that's all about...
Anon@11:35pm: By the way, the person on this blog who blamed the Republicans for this policy must have had their head buried in the sand. If I remember correctly January 2007, WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY took over Congres...
Wow, all of 18 months! That's, like, almost a year and a half. No, wait, it's exactly like that.
Once again, the Republicans have held the presidency for the last 7.5 years, and 20 of the last 28 years. The Republicans have been in control of Congress for 12 of the last 13.5 years.
That's 18 months that the Democrats have been in control of the House, and with a bare 1 vote majority in the Senate, provided by the ever more unreliable independent Republican, Joe Lieberman.
Everyone understands that the energy problems we are now experiencing are the result of the largely monolithic Republican rule of the last 7.5 years, that these problems did not happen overnight, but over the course of the present decade, and that the Bush/Cheney energy 'policy' - as implemented by the rubber-stamp Republican Congress of 2001-2007 - is at fault.
Spin it any way you want, Anon@11:35pm. No one's buying it.
Americans are blaming Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party - just as they blamed Carter in 1980.
Good luck with that spinning, Anon@11:35pm. Maybe you'll get some McCain Troll Points out of it. Are shooting for the Golf Kit or the $250 faux fleece jacket?
.
I know I will get responses from a lot of left wing types saying that drilling will not do any good and that we need alternative fuels, BUT THERE AREN'T ANY TODAY, TOMORROW or TEN YEARS FROM TODAY. AND, THERE ARE NO ELECTRIC CARS and THERE WILL BE NONE FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
love the insult and back at ya, right wing type. BTW, your boy McCain himself says there won't be any results from offshore drilling til at least 2025, and an increase in fuel efficiency fleetwide of 5 miles a gallon is worth more oil than all drilling we could do here. Wake up...can you say global warming???...oh wait. I know, 99.9% of the world's scientists are liars and that is just a liberal myth...why there's a botanist at Mississippi christian theological seminary in jackson who says it isn't true, so there!
BTW, have the guts to sign your name, anon, so we can put a moniker to your astonishing thought process...damn them oil derricks on the Pacific coast highway sure do look purty...the oil companies and speculators are playing a shell game (couldn't resist) and it remains to be seen if the spin can take hold...
I don't know why they're going negative, it's too early and they're not that far behind.
They think they're further behind than the public polling suggests. They're likely right.
Solar and Wind alone could supply all of our power needs, offshore wind, Wind in the west and solar plants in the deserts would cover us for over a century, but we need aggressive building of those plants, we need something the size of the government to do it
So let me get this straight...According to this ad, key parts of "conservation" are lower gas taxes and domestic drilling? Uh...OK. I guess I didn't get the memo that "conservation" now means "keeping up the status quo and continuing to depend on burning lots of fossil fuels."
Sorry, folks, but anyone who seriously thinks that nuclear energy is "clean" should travel to Chernobyl, the Ukraine, some time. Or the dumping grounds in Africa where all those "clean" nuclear plants in Europe dispose of their radioactive waste.
Energy is all what McCain campaign really needs, he has been running a boring and ineffective political campaign, against an adversary like Obama, young, energetic, and full of new ideas.
No amount of nuclear power or offshore drilling will re-energise McCain's campaign, he is going to loose big.
P.S. I supported McCain in 2000.
Dems need to adopt the tablespoon line, where adding ANWAR is like adding a tablespoon to a two liter bottle TEN years from now.
Giving a visualization is the key. Right now 600,000 barrels sounds like a lot. It's not.
The most important comment was from Anon 11.38:
"I haven't decided who I'm voting for but right now I gotta lean Obama on competence alone."
The key issue is going to be competence. I want Obama to win. To win he has to apear competent. Blanket oposition to ofshore drilling , or any other option is not competant.
All he needs to do is to "clarify" his policy on ofshore drilling to put it in line with his Nuclear Power policy. Not oposed in principle, but dependent on assesment of polution risks.
Listening to the arguments here I wonder if many Democrats realise just how much s**t America & the world is in. I already know the Repubicans don't.
The oil is going to be drill & used. Get used to it. Oil's price will only go up as it runs out, and every voter has his price.
The only question is what happens next. Does America downsize a little with 50mph Electric cars & Alternative power or does it leave it too late & return to being a farming comunity?
Those nations that invest in wind power, solar power, electic transport, high speed trains & perhaps nuclear power will be the winners. The rest will be the new 3'rd world, to be ruled by those who got it right.
Obama is America's only real hope of having any industry at all in 30 years time.
The voting divide will be between 'green' types and 'gas tax munchkins'. Nobody wins votes by proposing nuclear. The main problem with the ad though is the voiceover - smooth woman's voice kinda jars with McCain's mug. They need a gravelly wise man voiceover type. (perhaps Señor Nines could offer his services?!)
P.S. What's down with gallup? Now a 6-point Obama lead after its stubborn proclamation of a tie for a month. Get it together Gallup!
If we are near peak oil then the most moral and economic policy (how often does that happen) is not to drill for offshore oil now. Better to use the Saudi oil paid for in depreciating dollars and leave whatever oil is in the United States for our children and grandchildren to use when it is the only thing around! Consider what would have happened if we had listened to all the folks suggesting drilling 20 years ago- most of that would have been used by now -instead we used $15 mid east oil and still have ours which is now worth $150. Sounds like a really good deal.
As already said, Obama is not anti-nuclear. However, he is for a balanced approach to energy, while McCain has called for massive subsidies to the Nuclear Power industry.
What needs to be done by progressives is to reject the framing of this debate McCain wants to force. McCain needs to be asked why the same guy who rejects government subsidies for clean energy like wind and solar wants to give such a huge handout to the nuclear power industry. Then we'll have a legitimate debate.
The problem with nuclear power as a solution to our energy problems is that the economics just don't work. Also, it's still a non-renewable resource. The uranium has to come from somewhere, and when you look at the list -- Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, Namibia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Africa -- there are a lot of unhappy places.
If the federal government is willing to take on all the upfront costs and the open-ended liability, then the utilities aren't opposed to nukes, but even then alternatives like wind farms and concentrated solar and efficiency are competitive.
How it plays out politically is an entirely different question, especially since McCain is such a nuke zealot.
This seems like pretty poor analysis (especially compared to your post about matching states, which is quite clever and interesting). Honestly, stick to the data analyses. This ad may or may not be effective, but this post is like taking one poll and analyzing it with no comparison case.
This seems like something written by Sean, poorly argued and evidenced.
Two points:
1) I don't think the point of the ad is energy policy. Its about character. McCain stands up to his party; Obama toes the party line. The policies are supposed to be head nodders that make people go "well, that's a good idea" while Obama is opposed to solutions for partisan reasons.
2) But the ad is completely demolished by its source. How can the Republican Party put out an ad touting McCain as standing up to the Republican Party? The end of the ad is just a bizarre fandango of contradictions.
Nuclear power has a false green image due to the pollution involved in mining and milling uranium, operating a nuclear power plant, and disposing of its waste (still no acceptable solution anywhere in the world). These cycles of nuclear power "enthusiasm" are industry produced and illusory. The plants are still so expensive and unreliable that Wall Street will not fund them. Still, politicians this year may find it useful to extol the nuclear power "option" with a straight face. That is what Obama is doing, with the main caveat that the public itself continues to have - that we develop a safe plan for long-term storage of radioactive waste.
Chuck Johnson, Portland, Oregon
Nathan Myhrvold has all these interesting ideas about nuclear power without the nuclear waste.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/nathan_myhrvold_on_archeology_animal_photography_bbq.html
i think the most important thing, as i've said above, for solving our energy problems, is to completely democratize energy. to find out more about that go to http://electranet.com
I think you should stick to numbers analysis, Nate. Where was your post on the out-and-out lies in Obama's opening general election ad? Like where he took credit for trimming welfare programs that he supported?
Transitioning to a new form of energy is a paradigm shift that cannot advance easily or without state support. The only example I can think of is the development of nuclear technologies. It is hard to imagine that it could have been done by private companies. McCain is amusing to think that renewable energies would develop themselves in the free market. IMO Obama is committed to such transition (and the state support thereof) but he is definitely taking political risks since it does not suggest immediate solutions. On the other hand McCain's immediate solutions are not immediately intuitive. I would think that to cut oil prices in half (in the free market) one would have to at least match the world's production with new developments. I doubt there is that much off-shore oil in question.
@anonymous 12:15
listen to al gore's electranet speech, referenced above.
ideas like the electranet, and conny-mac (carbon neutral mortgage association) help people get over that initial investment hump, making it far easier to adopt new technologies.
We definitely need the government to do the heavy lifting and get us past the risky investment stage, just like they did with the internet for 25 years before it became viable.
al gore has always been about creating enabling technological platforms that can become the "new playing fields" creating entire new industries. if only bush didn't steal it from him. luckily he has obama's ear.
nate:
i heard today that gop is working hard to disenfranchise voters who have been foreclosed upon. it adds up to several million... is there any way to see how that will affect races if they succeed at de-registering all who have lost homes?
I am a Fractal: I heard today that the GOP is working hard to disenfranchise voters who have been foreclosed upon.
In theory, it wouldn't be difficult for the GOP to do that, but it would require them to engage in the illegal act of vote caging.
That it is to say, they would send registered letters to households that have been foreclosed. When the registered letters are returned, the GOP will make the argument that the household voters are no longer members of that district, or no longer registered voters, or some such nonsense.
Hopefully, the Obama campaign will be aware of this tactic and will form some strategy for combatting it. Obama's skills in community organizing in the Chicago area should come in handy here.
And yes, we should expect the GOP to try something like this. Hans von Spakowsky, their vote cager extraordinaire, was blocked by Congress from taking a post on the FEC, and presumably has plenty of free time on his hands for such projects.
.
i believe greg palast documented millions of caging letters from 2006, and he also has the emails that he intercepted to/from rove from 2004 with caging operations...
what's really to stop them now?
keep an eye out for Mark Crispin Miller's articles...
>>What needs to be done by progressives is to reject the framing of this debate McCain wants to force. McCain needs to be asked why the same guy who rejects government subsidies for clean energy like wind and solar wants to give such a huge handout to the nuclear power industry. Then we'll have a legitimate debate.
Yes. Exactly. Any subsidies should cover any renewable source, the government shouldn't be picking technology winners. There's a reason why private companies haven't been building nuclear plants, it's not cost effective unless the government guarantees everything 100%.
I also agree that nuclear and oil are separate issues. Only the tiniest fraction of oil is used in electrical generation.
The oil we have in ground in our country will only become more valuable in the future.
Joining this strain late, but have you guys reviewed the Pickens Report, it sounds pretty wise to diversify that way. The industry that could pay for diversifying industry, without it being on the back of taxpayers is obviously big oil. The question is how can we prove to big oil that there is as much profit in alternative energy as there is in big oil. Show them the profit percentages for investing their huge profit margin on oil into these energies and how that makes more profit for the company in the future and we are going somewhere.
Trusting the government to invest enough money to find and create alternatives is hog wash. Obama's plan will never work.
I disagree subsidies are neccessary, just good economics the way of the Pickens report.
Incidentally, the whole "Nuclear Fission causes Chernobyl" idea is flawed.
Chernobyl was due to a control system failure combined with human error.
Today, we have plant designs that will automatically stop the fission process and prevent an uncontrollable cascade.
I may be a liberal democrat, but I am an electrical engineer. Nuclear power can be safe and environmentally sound if implemented properly.
Once you finish with the active rods in one reactor core, the material is still radioactive and can be sent do a larger reactor that continues the fission process until the stuff is absolutely inert or close enough to background as to pose no radiation threat at all and be completely useless for weapons.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment