New Ad On Energy Contains Political Sleight Of Hand
Let's flash back three years, shall we, to the vote on HR 6, the 2005 Energy Bill. The bill was widely criticized at the time for being a boon to oil companies (which even then were making record profits). For example, the bill allowed oil and gas companies to accelerate the write off of exploration costs to the tune of $1.266 billion in estimated lost tax revenue for the period 2007-2015. The July "Christmas" package contained $2.6 billion in oil and gas subsidies, even though the President had remarked in April: "I tell you, with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore."
Who voted against the bill, Obama or McCain? The answer: McCain.
Obama, like 27 other Democratic Senators, joined Senate Republicans in gifting the oil industry with billions. More Democratic Senators voted with Republicans on this bill (28) than voted against it (19), and, at least on this vote, McCain lived up to his "maverick" image (which is dissed in the Obama ad). Notably, former presidential candidates Senators Clinton and Dodd voted "ney" -- as did Rep. Ron Paul, over in the House.
Were there reasons to vote yes? Of course; the bill contained some (not enough) conservation measures and (now questionable, due to biofuel impact on food costs) incentives for alternative fuels. Nothing on CAFE standards, though. But there were also plenty of valid reasons to vote "no." As the St. Petersburg-Times noted at the time, "[the] 1,700-page bill passed Friday does little to address the two most pressing problems: high gasoline prices and dependence on foreign oil."
Criticism of the bill was widespread. The conservative National Review called it, along with the highway bill, "monstrosities of wasteful spending.” The Albuquerque Tribune said that the bill was "good only for Texas contingent."
This is one reason I hate 30 second TV commercials -- they do little to further political discourse, due to the nature (and inclination) of 30-second over-simplification.
Others have criticized the "subliminal" heart beat in the background.
Read more about the 2005 Energy Bill; see a comparison of the two presumptive presidential candidates on energy.
Comments
Good opinions here.
Please correct the misspelling in the headline.
It’s “sleight” of hand.
Thanks! As you can see, it’s changed. That’s what comes from fiddling around with the headline …. tweak, tweak, tweak … and not having another set of eyeballs.
Thanks, Kathy, for always remembering that this is a campaign for one of the most powerful positions in the world and not just another version of American Idol. Sometimes I think American Idol contestants come under more scrutiny than our presidential candidates… particularly the presumptive Democratic nominee. I appreciate coming here and reading articles like this one which are no more hostile to one side than the other.
Thanks, Evano … there’s plenty of “digging” to go around on both sides, unfortunately. :-/
And I will be looking at a McCain commercial next week.