He needs to stop with this cerebral stuff. Anyone who is really *really* concerned about renewable energy this year is probably not going to vote Republican. He needs to talk more about NOW. He needs to keep up with how he is going to bring GASOLINE prices down. Wind, solar and all that are lofty goals - but I don’t care about them this year. And I am not going to care about them until gas prices come down. We’re not going to have cheap alternative energy soon. This is what McCain needs to point out and this is where he needs to call Obama’s bluff in asserting this kind of nonsense .
It is interesting which 11 states were chosen. I assume that internal polls are indicating that theseare the swing states. On the one hand, I admit, that until recently, I would have written off one of those states. On the other, many thought I was nuts for saying that we needed to advertise in one of those states and as well many thought that we did not have much of a chance in at least 2 of the states on the list.
The part of the ad that will stick with people is the question about whether the biggest celebrity in the world can help their family. That’s good stuff.
Look at what Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor for the Boston Globe has to say about this ad:
McCain’s campaign cites Obama’s proposal to let some of President Bush’s tax cuts lapse, to raise capital gains taxes, and to at least consider increasing Social Security payroll taxes.
But the ad does not acknowledge that the vast majority of American families would not be affected by those proposals, which would largely target the wealthy.
The vast majority of American families would NOT be affected by Obama’s proposals?!?!
Perhaps Foon Rhee can explain how a middle class married father of two would benefit if his boss were to make less money. How exactly does a sudden tax hike on his employer’s income, stock portfolio, and payroll increase the likelihood of receiving a raise?
I like how he’s continuing to drive home the “celebrity” theme.
J-Mac’s team needs to start thinking ahead about the reform issue. He will be consistently accused of “flip-flopping” on the “Bush tax cuts”, and he needs to have a ready response: that government is not naturally inclined to use its resources wisely, but instead wastes it; that the budget needs reduced and reformed to remove layers of middle management and the accompanying excess cost overheads. McCain should point out why he opposed those tax cuts, that he believes rescinding them now would be a de facto tax increase at the worst possible time, and that he still stands fully behind his earlier call for commensurate spending cuts.
It would seem to me to be a fully coherent message.
There are several good concepts in the ad, but when you throw them all together, it loses a lot of meaning. You go from celebrity to readiness to spending to jobs to energy, while calling the ad “family”.
Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, http://www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)
· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)
· In June 2008, The National Taxpayers Union Foundation Calculated That Barack Obama Would Increase Annual Federal Spending By $343.9 Billion. “NTUF’s third round of ‘costing out’ the candidates’ platforms since January 29 found that Clinton would increase yearly federal spending by $289.6 billion, compared to Sen. Obama’s (D-IL) $343.9 billion — both significantly higher totals from the last update on March 3.” (National Taxpayers Union Foundation, “As Presidential Campaign Pace Quickens, Candidates Race Ahead With Bigger Federal Budget Promises, Updated Study Shows,” Press Release, 6/3/08)
· In April 2008, The Washington Post Calculated Obama’s New Annual Spending At Close To $333 Billion. “By our calculations, using figures supplied by the campaigns, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has proposed new spending and tax breaks that would amount to almost $265 billion a year when fully implemented, while the initiatives proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) total nearly $333 billion.” (Editorial, “Who’ll Cover The Checks?” The Washington Post, 4/25/08)
· Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)
i agree along the same lines as Adam that mccain needs to do better exploiting Obama’s energy position. mke it clear that he doesn’t want to do anything in the short run. paris hilton’s ad communicated this much better than anything mccain is doing.
people want alternatives, but until they come we need releieve now, drill drill drill, oil shale, etc.
It’s a good ad for a couple of reasons. First, it mentions renewable/alternative energy again. This is a popular goal, and after the Paris Hilton kerfuffle, there was a possibility of the theme becoming McCain = drilling , Obama = alternative. Given a choice between the two, it’s difficult to know which has the advantage. McCain = drilling + alternative is a clearly advantageous theme, and it’s good to see him incorporating it into his ad again. Second, the “family” theme is not as confusing as some here may think. With energy prices high (they’re actually falling again, but you won’t hear any candidates say so), it has moved from an abstract issue to a personal one. Finally, the fact that McCain doesn’t explain Obama’s position in detail is fine for this ad. Its a short clip, and there’s only so much they can put in. Obama hasn’t done a very good job of articulating his own energy policy, so it may be wise to leave a little room for him to define it negatively again (see: tire gauges). Besides, if he were to spend his time explaining Obama’s plan, the media spin would be that McCain has no ideas of his own and simply attacks Obama.
#14, they have been going full press on Obama for energy. Look at the other ad’s, talking point, GOP Congress, Gingrich, every McCain town hall event, campaign conference calls, etc, etc, etc…this has become the #1 issue for the McCain camp.
This ad will be effective in my opinion, but I have to agree with act-blog about it jumping around too much. A more consistent theme of Obama making life more difficult for your family would have been even more effective, but this is by no means a bad ad.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Another ad I just do not get lol. It goes from portraying Obama as a big spending liberal to McCain’s energy policy???
August 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
He needs to stop with this cerebral stuff. Anyone who is really *really* concerned about renewable energy this year is probably not going to vote Republican. He needs to talk more about NOW. He needs to keep up with how he is going to bring GASOLINE prices down. Wind, solar and all that are lofty goals - but I don’t care about them this year. And I am not going to care about them until gas prices come down. We’re not going to have cheap alternative energy soon. This is what McCain needs to point out and this is where he needs to call Obama’s bluff in asserting this kind of nonsense .
August 6th, 2008 at 9:51 am
It is interesting which 11 states were chosen. I assume that internal polls are indicating that theseare the swing states. On the one hand, I admit, that until recently, I would have written off one of those states. On the other, many thought I was nuts for saying that we needed to advertise in one of those states and as well many thought that we did not have much of a chance in at least 2 of the states on the list.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The part of the ad that will stick with people is the question about whether the biggest celebrity in the world can help their family. That’s good stuff.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Look at what Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor for the Boston Globe has to say about this ad:
McCain’s campaign cites Obama’s proposal to let some of President Bush’s tax cuts lapse, to raise capital gains taxes, and to at least consider increasing Social Security payroll taxes.
But the ad does not acknowledge that the vast majority of American families would not be affected by those proposals, which would largely target the wealthy.
The vast majority of American families would NOT be affected by Obama’s proposals?!?!
Perhaps Foon Rhee can explain how a middle class married father of two would benefit if his boss were to make less money. How exactly does a sudden tax hike on his employer’s income, stock portfolio, and payroll increase the likelihood of receiving a raise?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I like how he’s continuing to drive home the “celebrity” theme.
J-Mac’s team needs to start thinking ahead about the reform issue. He will be consistently accused of “flip-flopping” on the “Bush tax cuts”, and he needs to have a ready response: that government is not naturally inclined to use its resources wisely, but instead wastes it; that the budget needs reduced and reformed to remove layers of middle management and the accompanying excess cost overheads. McCain should point out why he opposed those tax cuts, that he believes rescinding them now would be a de facto tax increase at the worst possible time, and that he still stands fully behind his earlier call for commensurate spending cuts.
It would seem to me to be a fully coherent message.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
New PPP(D) poll has McCain up 3 in FL. The last one had Barry up 2.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Border Patrol Agent held at gunpoint by Mexican military; inside Arizona border
August 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Bleh….
There are several good concepts in the ad, but when you throw them all together, it loses a lot of meaning. You go from celebrity to readiness to spending to jobs to energy, while calling the ad “family”.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Over 100 million citizens are going to be impacted by an obama tax increase. Aron you should email rhee.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Another great ad, of course “act” is negative on McCain again. What a surprise.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Right on Logcabin. Just remember-
Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, http://www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)
· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)
· In June 2008, The National Taxpayers Union Foundation Calculated That Barack Obama Would Increase Annual Federal Spending By $343.9 Billion. “NTUF’s third round of ‘costing out’ the candidates’ platforms since January 29 found that Clinton would increase yearly federal spending by $289.6 billion, compared to Sen. Obama’s (D-IL) $343.9 billion — both significantly higher totals from the last update on March 3.” (National Taxpayers Union Foundation, “As Presidential Campaign Pace Quickens, Candidates Race Ahead With Bigger Federal Budget Promises, Updated Study Shows,” Press Release, 6/3/08)
· In April 2008, The Washington Post Calculated Obama’s New Annual Spending At Close To $333 Billion. “By our calculations, using figures supplied by the campaigns, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has proposed new spending and tax breaks that would amount to almost $265 billion a year when fully implemented, while the initiatives proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) total nearly $333 billion.” (Editorial, “Who’ll Cover The Checks?” The Washington Post, 4/25/08)
· Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)
August 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
crappy ad.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
i agree along the same lines as Adam that mccain needs to do better exploiting Obama’s energy position. mke it clear that he doesn’t want to do anything in the short run. paris hilton’s ad communicated this much better than anything mccain is doing.
people want alternatives, but until they come we need releieve now, drill drill drill, oil shale, etc.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It’s a good ad for a couple of reasons. First, it mentions renewable/alternative energy again. This is a popular goal, and after the Paris Hilton kerfuffle, there was a possibility of the theme becoming McCain = drilling , Obama = alternative. Given a choice between the two, it’s difficult to know which has the advantage. McCain = drilling + alternative is a clearly advantageous theme, and it’s good to see him incorporating it into his ad again. Second, the “family” theme is not as confusing as some here may think. With energy prices high (they’re actually falling again, but you won’t hear any candidates say so), it has moved from an abstract issue to a personal one. Finally, the fact that McCain doesn’t explain Obama’s position in detail is fine for this ad. Its a short clip, and there’s only so much they can put in. Obama hasn’t done a very good job of articulating his own energy policy, so it may be wise to leave a little room for him to define it negatively again (see: tire gauges). Besides, if he were to spend his time explaining Obama’s plan, the media spin would be that McCain has no ideas of his own and simply attacks Obama.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
#14, they have been going full press on Obama for energy. Look at the other ad’s, talking point, GOP Congress, Gingrich, every McCain town hall event, campaign conference calls, etc, etc, etc…this has become the #1 issue for the McCain camp.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Yeah nice so who’s his VP?
August 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Fox Host Neil Cavuto Rejects ABC’s Economic Pessimism
August 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This ad will be effective in my opinion, but I have to agree with act-blog about it jumping around too much. A more consistent theme of Obama making life more difficult for your family would have been even more effective, but this is by no means a bad ad.