A Thought on Attack Ads/Energy

P.S. (PRE-Script): There will be a few more political posts, especially as we get down to Novemeber, but I know my readers don't care a whole lot about my views on politics. This isn't a surprise, everyone has their views and very rarely are they nuanced enough to be worth reading. I'll try to get some more personal stuff up. Maybe "creative writing," if I can get around to it. At any rate...

I have no problem with attack ads. Not in theory at any rate. I don't want to know just why I should vote for a given candidate, I want to know why I should vote for him or her instead of the other candidate. Odds are they both have some pretty good ideas, and I want to see them fight over which ones are actually better.

Of course, the ads Al Franken has been running (at least on the radio) in Minnesota are pretty ridiculous. They go something like, "Norm Coleman is in bed with special interests because he [insert non-substantive routine political action here.]"

McCain's "Biggest Celebrity in the World" ad was no better -- but at least I got to see the entertaining backfire.

What would be really interesting is an attack ad that doesn't boil down to a 3 second soundbite, or is so easily dismissed. Everybody accuses everybody of being in bed with special interests, a term so vaguely defined I'm not sure what it means. Except that it is bad. Instead I would like to hear a 30 second ad that goes something like:

[Person]'s energy policy is going to drive [region and/or country] into further trouble by relying on more drilling. At best, digging into ANWAR and putting in more off-shore drilling rigs will increase the world's oil supply by about 1% -- after 10 years. Not nearly enough to affect gas or energy prices in a way you'll notice at home. Vote for [the other person] who doesn't support ineffective energy policies.

That's gotta be about 30 seconds. The next ad would explain why "alternative energy" (another vague term) is a better deal.

Bonus: Yes, my fake ad does support my own view on energy. Drilling anywhere around the U.S. isn't going to help us anytime soon and OPEC can respond by cutting production whenever it wants to. We even throw out the whole environment ruining thing because idea is almost as bad as E85 (sorry Iowa, Ohio) which may take as much energy to make as it produces -- or more.* McCain and Obama differ mostly in how much drilling we do and how much money we put into alternative energy.

*I'm sure I posted on this at some point in the past. Probably a long time ago. See Time's The Green Energy Scam for more details. But basically, E85 is the worst alternative energy idea anybody has put into practice yet. It's singular strength is that is in essence a subsidy for American farmers.