Can you donate $10, $20, $50 or more to help air this ad in Washington, DC next week? Join us in saying no to expanded offshore drilling.

Um, why? Which Congressperson or Administration official is going to be swayed into strong political action by this commercial, and which one who already is an activist for such a cause would cease to be so without it?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a poignant statement, and a good advertisement, but if what we’ve got to work with are nothing more than the same expensive tools as the BP’s of the world to push our messaging, we’re going to lose, and lose badly. We can’t out lobby, out advertise, or out spend Big Oil. We especially can’t do so when all they need to make more money is press on our utter dependence on their products, which only further leaves less money available for us to try to coax out of people for something they don’t even get any benefit out of.

Doesn’t this seem untenable to anyone else? I get that the current paradigm demands that everything be about raising money, more and more money, but just what is the endgame of that?

We’re sitting on the short-stack here, and the dealer is in the bank for the chip-leader. We can’t win in a crooked game.

Superior ad; very well done. It’s important to put pressure on Obama so that he has to respond to legitimate concerns about the environment.

My five year old stood up in class and announced he had been praying for all living creatures affected by the oil spill and that he wants clean energy NOW.

Many kids agreed they should all pray and want clean energy too.

Thanks for your honest assessment here – we’re not going to be able to run the ad with the same frequency as BP runs their greenwashing ads, and even if we did, we may not be able to change the tide just by throwing an ad on TV and crossing our fingers.

The idea here is to both make a splash in the media by showing grassroots activists organizing around this issue, and to supplement the ad’s placement onilne and offline with strong, dedicated activism.

FDL was literally the first activist group out with an action around the oil disaster, and had the space for days until we called out Sierra club and the rest for not doing anything about it. We got 30,000 people to sign a petition, made a big deal out of it, and started to organize the environmental activist vacuum. And on our own, as the disaster got worse, the administration put a “hold” on future drilling.

We have a disproportionate influence in DC due to our very organized activists on our email list and in the blog community, and there’s an opportunity to flex some muscle here. This TV ad is designed to be the next step up in our effort, and we think we can be successful by continuing to push the issue.

Excellent ad. I’m in.

Make sure you run this add when he is running for reelection.

all they need to make more money is press on our utter dependence on their products

Boy that’s the truth.

It would make a bigger statement if the next time you needed to fill up your car, you took that $20 or $50 and donated it to this cause rather than giving it to the oil companies.

Anyone know what’s happening with the tower contraption? Any luck with that? Even if it works, the best case representation is 85% containment, which would leave approximately 31,000+ gallons/day still leaking out. And that’s best case. Given the 60-90 day window to sink a new well, sounds like another 2-3 million gallons flowing into the gulf. I don’t know about anybody else, but I prefer my shrimp creole sans crude oil.

So bottom line: These whores and hacks in DC can take their “drill baby drill” crap and jam it where the sun don’t shine.

The idea here is to both make a splash in the media by showing grassroots activists organizing around this issue, and to supplement the ad’s placement onilne and offline with strong, dedicated activism.

This works for me. I get the power of marketing, I really do. It’s an industry I used to work in, and for which I developed all kinds of useless little widgets and games to keep people on a site, share a kitschy promo with their friends, and close the loop on tracking sales impact.

It’s because of that experience that I bring up these questions. The configuration of the system you’re trying to influence is rigged entirely against what you’re trying to do.

Legitimacy is the only weakness of the government, or any other institution, and that’s what you’re engaged in here a battle for messaging the legitimacy of the government. You’re going to battle with a soft-fascist state and its existing industry enablers, and are using the methods they control. Can we break out of that? Do we need to?

Is there a conversation happening on how to circumvent these traditions, and bring to bear new kinds of pressure and tactics within the circles of these “very organized activists?” Where, when, and how do I join it?

I think ads, especially really good ads like this one, are far more effective than you may be crediting. It’s honest and straightforward… with a chance to inject this if ever so slightly into the conversation / public thought, it’s a very worthwhile and important part of what activists need to do.

We can’t buy a politician who will say what is and needs to be said in the ad… but maybe we can after we make the message a bit more mainstream.

very good ad!

i’d make one small correction on the spillherespillnow.org website. in the last sentence i’d change “this disaster will only be the beginning” to “these kinds of disasters will continue to wreak more and more havoc on our oceans, lands and people”. the reason for this change is that this isn’t the first oil spill so it’s not really a “beginning”. it’s a continuing. also i’d prefer that last sentence to be fleshed out a little more with what will get destroyed.

who’s the person to speak with at fdl about the content of that website?

thanks for all the good efforts!

Thanks Michael. Great ad. I donated and I think this ad works in two ways – to address the subject at hand and to keep putting reminders out there of the myriad ways Obama has let us down and is, in fact, working against us. The other thing I don’t see mentioned enough is the fallacy of “domestic” oil adding to our security — as someone explained in another thread, there really is no such thing. These are all multinational companies.

I think ads, especially really good ads like this one, are far more effective than you may be crediting. It’s honest and straightforward… with a chance to inject this if ever so slightly into the conversation / public thought, it’s a very worthwhile and important part of what activists need to do.

We can’t buy a politician who will say what is and needs to be said in the ad… but maybe we can after we make the message a bit more mainstream.

I don’t doubt that advertising can have some mindshare impact on some people. Though it literally takes constant, persistent hammering on it; which I don’t think we can afford, and certainly can’t outdo the opposition. That’s more my point. We can’t have any expectation of coming out on top, if we’re playing the same game as Big Oil.

Beyond that, I don’t understand your more fundamental position here. Do you think that politicians make the decisions that they do because of the presence or lack of certain kinds of TV ad-spots? At best, at absolute best, they can provide some PR cover for things they already intend to decide or do. Does the disaster itself not provide that?

It’s already up in the Washington Post (twice), USA Today and the Atlantic. It’s the first pressure Obama has had about offshore drilling.

The only one with the power to act is Obama, and so far he hasn’t taken a hit with his (very important) enviro base because all of the groups have been AWOL.

I have no idea why the people who criticize us for not pinning things directly on Obama and demand a third party are now say we should be going after a member of Congress or an administration official. And I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have to look hard to find a comment from you specifically Nathan saying that lobbying members of Congress does no good.

This concern seems to have disappeared pretty quickly with a knee-jerk dismissal of what has been a remarkable success in a few short hours.

The only thing I can conclude from this is that nobody should criticize Obama over his decision on offshore drilling because it won’t do any good, corporations are more powerful and will always outspend us. We should therefore stick to lobbying those who have no control over the situation and will only shield Obama from taking a hit in the polls.

We chose the method we thought would have the highest impact with amount of resources we have available. If you have a better idea let’s hear it.

Beyond that, I don’t understand your more fundamental position here. Do you think that politicians make the decisions that they do because of the presence or lack of certain kinds of TV ad-spots? At best, at absolute best, they can provide some PR cover for things they already intend to decide or do. Does the disaster itself not provide that?

Nathan, I can’t speak for Michael but I think the real target of these ads is environmentalists and others who continue to support the Democrats and listen to the veal pen. Short of an actual rebellion of some sort, I think our best bet is to try to persuade as many voters as possible between now and 2012 that we need to STOP crossing our fingers, holding our noses and participating in this corrupt two-party system. We’ve lost the politicians (all of them, even Sanders and Kucinich); we need new ones from a third party.

Lisa Derrick has a fresh cross-post up: Sex, Drugs and Violence: Getty Divorce Court Date Today

Donation incoming!

Very nice ad, and very similar to the one that Friends of the Earth put out a couple of days ago.

I think this will be received as a political ad rather than an environmental ad. Why single out Obama? I’m sure he understands his position on offshore has got to change. The whole world is aware of this catastrophe and American will be haunted daily for a long time to come. I say focus on the saftey cost cutting by BP and the need for BP to pony up. Of course, the oil business being what it is, we will all pay in the end.

I’d say the first and foremost targets are Obama and Democrats. The Democrats as a party have demagogue’d the environment as an issue for decades now. They have made *lots* of hay on the environment, in terms of voter turnaround, public support and goodwill, and cash donations. The Republicans as we all know simply either have not committed themselves to progress on environmental issues, or have taken positions contradictory to progress on these issues. That is where the Republicans have made hay.

I’d say the best pressure point to hit with limited resources are Democratic politicians and the constellation of activist/pressure groups around them that have made lots and lots of promises on the environment and in particular on commitment to change in energy sources.

Oh please, even Ahnold has backed off support of offshore drilling. Obama has an ideal opportunity to put an end to it and he choose not to.

Dumb procedural question: How does one make those little blue quote thingie-dealies that some of you include in your comments?

The only one with the power to act is Obama, and so far he hasn’t taken a hit with his (very important) enviro base because all of the groups have been AWOL.

Who is an Administration official, the chief of them in fact. He was not excluded from my statement.

I have no idea why the people who criticize us for not pinning things directly on Obama and demand a third party are now say we should be going after a member of Congress or an administration official. And I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have to look hard to find a comment from you specifically Nathan saying that lobbying members of Congress does no good.

I’m not saying you should go after a member of Congress, and you guys constantly pin these things on Obama where they belong, so I don’t get where criticism to the contrary would come from. Additionally, I have exactly zero idea what a third party is supposed to do other than result in being captured by the same set of incentives and completely lack of democratic accountability that the existing two parties currently enjoy.

If I had my druthers the entire effort would be centered around actively undermining and subverting BP, and Big Oil. The D.C. politicians are pretty tangential to this whole exercise; a bureaucratic formality most of the time it seems.

My comment at #1 is specifically restating the claim that lobbying members of Congress does no good. They’re not accountable to us. They’re accountable to their corporate donors, their Party apparatus, and their self-interest. That ought to be a pretty damned uncontroversial statement around here. $430,000 to our closest allies, nothing. Call banking and whipping against Stupak’s idiocy, nothing. They ensure, ad nauseam, that via a rotating cast of villains and heros (h/t you and Glenn Greenwald) that nothing gets done to disrupt the existing order? And why should they? They’ve gamed it to the point, and demagogued each other enough, that they can carry on like this without rebuke or restitution.

The question presented is a simple one, and I’ll restate it again, and it should be one that rings truer here than almost anywhere else precisely because FDL’ers have been so active in contributing time and money, and many of them have expressed over time how much less of both they can spare. Some of the most active, now relegated to little more than spirited fist pumping, because financial support is no longer viable. How long can we keep this up?

How long can we keep playing the game to try and out-corrupt professional corruptors? Is that even the kind of system we want? Corrupt politicians who simply have more fealty to us because by some miracle we pay better?

This concern seems to have disappeared pretty quickly with a knee-jerk dismissal of what has been a remarkable success in a few short hours.

As noted, the concern is embedded in my “knee-jerk dismissal.” I don’t believe anti-democratic institutions work, full stop. Representation is highly prone to capture. Media is extremely expensive, and prone to Big Money dominance.

When BP puts their Toyota-sized PR campaign into full-swing, and the only thing we see between PhRMA commercials on TV is the leafy flower of British Petroleum preceded by all kinds of greenwashed bullshit and smiling children gazing into “the future,” where’s the money going to come from launch the counter-propaganda?

This is a good ad, it has a direct message. That’s not the issue. The issue is corporatist vs. populist warfare, and whether or not we can win if we’re playing by their rules.

The fact that Gropenfuehrer is now ahead of Neo on opposing expanded offshore drilling is an example of just how important this issue is to politicians with large “enviro-constituencies”. Gropenfuehrer was in the “drill, baby, drill” camp and now has reversed completely. Seriously, pressure on Obama – and Congressional Democrats – is a great idea.

Well put! What’s your alternative suggestion assuming that no action is not an option?

The use of the acronym for BRITISH Petroleum is not very helpful. How is it that we are calling for domestic drilling (independence) with a foreign company doing the extracting off of our shores? Forget fungibility, it’s British Petroleum, Dutch Shell etc.

Turn all Energy companies into Public Utilities along with Wall Street, and get rid of the Senate and maybe, maybe the working, productive class, – all 98% of us, will get a breather.

Yes. The evidence is beginning to suggest that even Gropenfuehrer (love that!) is more liberal in some regards than Obama. We do live in a Brave New World, don’t we.

Select the block of text that you want to quote and then click on the little quotation icon above the text-area. It looks like a pair of blue 6′s.

This is a good ad, but for those for whom pictures of oil-slicked animals bring to mind only the concerns of “bleeding heart liberals”, it might be a good idea to overlay the estimated impact on the fishing and tourism industries in dollars and unemployment. I also think it would be helpful if a statement is added to the effect that this type of damage can happen again and again unless offshore drilling is prohibited and effort is made towards developing alternative power sources (might be too much for one ad).

The real purpose of this ad, as I see it, is to raise awareness of how environmental damage affects the lives of all of us, not just the tree huggers, BHLs and DFHs.

The only thing I can conclude from this is that nobody should criticize Obama over his decision on offshore drilling because it won’t do any good, corporations are more powerful and will always outspend us. We should therefore stick to lobbying those who have no control over the situation and will only shield Obama from taking a hit in the polls.

We chose the method we thought would have the highest impact with amount of resources we have available. If you have a better idea let’s hear it.

Should I conclude then that you do think that politicians make their decisions based on the presence, or lack of, particular advertisements? Because that’s the question I asked in the comment you responded to.

Further, criticize Obama all day long. I don’t care. I do constantly. I’m the Debbie-Downer in much of my sphere of meatspace precisely because I don’t cut the guy any slack, and I never BELIEVED™, and because I’m backed up by all the great information and reporting done here at FDL.

That said, I don’t ask those people for money to help me criticize him, and if I did I should expect to be asked why, and specifically what good it was going to do. No? What’s the goal of the criticism? Can I get to there from here using that criticism? What about the methods? etc. Am I aware that no matter what I do I’m never going to turn Obama into Teddy Roosevelt?

I don’t know if I have better ideas. I like brainstorming, I like other people’s ideas, and I like the teamwork involved in making everybody’s ideas refined to efficient form and function.

What I do think is that direct-action, direct-intervention, is what we have that works. Some methods are political, state-level initiatives. There are lots of those states where we can be drafting initiative language, and working to get them popular support, completely circumventing the industry capture of legislators. Some methods are more rebellious, requiring dedicated and passionate civil disobedience. How many people could FDL organize to barricade access to BP stations nationwide with their cars and bodies? Too big an area? How about just in Gulf states? Are these even good ideas? Do they play sufficiently outside the rules of the game we’ve spent 50 years losing? I don’t know. Where is that conversation? When is it happening? Amongst who?

I have money to give, and just like my vote, I am duly aware of how meager it is. The difference is that unlike my vote, I’m not supposed to have to use money to pay for policy, and so long as I do I’m always going to be getting short shrift by powerful interests. How do we circumvent the money system? How do we abolish it? Do we need to do either? If so, then why are we continuing to engage in it?

One question: How do you expect drilling in the gulf to cease, when most, if not all of the rigs are under foreign flags, and are not in our territorial waters? Basically, nothing will change, except to make sure that we continue obtaining these resources from foreign sources.

I’ve noticed too, Jane, that a certain portion of the progressive community seems to regard Obama the way a child is dazzled by a flashy object. It’s all based in comparison to Bush, which is about as low a bar as you can have to judge against.

They don’t seem to realize that Obama is the rope and we’re playing Tug ‘o War against powerful opponents. Why are progressive groups standing on the sidelines? It’s crazy. Grab onto the rope and pull!

- Tom

Maybe its because progressive really don’t have a viable agenda that resonates with the American people. After all, the progressive agenda is indistingusable from that of the socialist and communist agenda’s.

Who is the consumer of this is Ad?
Has it been focus grouped?

It seems to be aimed at Obama’s base, – his ‘head up their horses dupa’ Kossaks at heart. And if that is the intended consumer then – why bother?

The Republicans would turn this into a foreign invasion by Socialist Britain – the home of a fully National health care system. A raging inferno spewing weapons of mass destruction into our Homeland seas caused by a British Company sucking out our milkshake. Yeay! – Tea Party, booyah.

Dylan Ratigan seems to be on the right track, – transpartisan populism against the Center. As for myself, I’m all for it. We may well be a bunch of dirty fucking hippies to Rahmbama, but hey,- our friends across the ‘aisle’ have the guns?! – indeed they do.

I disagree with your position and the ad, but its effective.

Would it have killed you to refer to him as Mr. President or President Obama?

Nice…effective, too.

You might have mentioned that Barack Obama has been the #1 recipient of BP PAC and individual employee cash over the last 20 years.

That said…good work.

Well, we could get our economy back on track, and then learn from the lessons of 1956. Threaten to torpedo their economies, and subsequently the stability of their governments, if they don’t abide.

Some of your friends on this side of the aisle have them too.

Would it have killed you to refer to him as President Obama?

“Climate Bill Dies in Senate” That will be the newspaper headlines if off-shore drilling is halted.Let’s face the facts here, do we kill climate legislation by standing on principles or do we try to forge on and accept drilling in the bigger scheme of things???

Will the Climate Bill that’s in the Senate resolve our immediate crises on the fronts of energy, environmental impact, public health, suburbanization, and conservation? If not, then what difference does it make if it passes or dies?

Wouldn’t it help the economy if we drilled ourselves? Think of the jobs it would create, while helping us cut our dependence on foreigners for our oil? We could also, hand in hand with the above work towards alternative fuels, that could be a viable alternative to the currnt fuels we use. We have to maintain our oil base economy until we can “wein” ourselves from what we use currently to what we develope in the future. We can’t just stop using fossil fuels, until something better comes along.

Well put! What’s your alternative suggestion assuming that no action is not an option?

To start, who are the local D.C. networks owned by? When you advertise on their stations, who does that money go to? When that entity goes to lobby the government, using the money you have them, on whose behalf are they lobbying?

Why use your scarce resources to arm the very opponent you’re trying to defeat?

Great message. But should have ended with “IMPEACH OBAMA!”

A waste of money. I’d rather donate to a starting a third party or helping find someone to primary Obama.

Don’t discount your efforts. You’ve just spent a good deal of time in our commments trashing a lot of people’s hard work and proposing no alternative, just “asking questions.” And probably with some success. What you accomplished besides pissing on the only effort even trying to pin responsibility where it belongs I don’t know, but congratulations, mission accomplished.

We put up with this during the health care debate, and then said “no more.” We should’ve cut bait a lot sooner, and from now on in we will.

Aschbacher is right. How many ads and petitions are we going to waste time and money on before we figure out-THEY DON”T GIVE A FUCK! I marched outside the Federal building in my home town by myself demanding a public option. Imagine if that number had been multiplied by 10,000, 50, 000, a million? You can’t ignore massive civil disobedience. You can’t ignore nationwide strikes. You can ignore an ad…just change the channel, turn the page.

i want this bill to fail. it has money for nuclear, for offshore drilling and worst of all, it guts the environmental protection agency (epa). this bill is actively harmful. gutting the epa alone is enough for me to want this bill very dead.

You’ll know he chose not to (put and end to it) when they propose drilling someplace. Right now its just posturing. Offshore drilling is dead.

Um, you have an entire site and community predicated on tearing down the carefully laid and laborious plans of countless well-meaning people. No?

Every last piece of snark and sarcasm on this site is at the expense of some one elses emotional, intellectual, and physical investment.

Hello kettle.

Actually, Nathan you bring up good points–but I am STILL donating money to this ad because it’s good and it will have impact on it’s stated purpose. I haven’t really paid attention to the comments sections too much so I can’t really comment myself on your argument with Jane. Although I do remember Jane being out at DC for the ANWF April protests in 2009. FDL seems to be one of the only principled activist online communities I’ve seen. Move-on has sold out a couple of times and I was really disappointed.

Yes, we do need to be out side of the system as you say. But “fugitive democracy” is just that–it’s in fits and starts–it depends on the leisure time of people who have to earn a living. I think FDL has done good starts and good organizing. Obama’s organization used a lightning rod of electoral discontent to completely quiet it. I see people like FDL community trying to recover that.

And we really need to reorganize flash mobs and whatnot…tarring and feathering might land us in Guantanamo nowadays, so maybe not. ;)

[please, no violent imagery - mod]

Additionally, I specifically offered alternatives. More over I asked where the larger conversation about ideas, tactics, and strategy is taking place. Do you want to engage in that conversation?

Off shore drilling may be dead for American companies, but it is not dead for foreign companies, is it?

I believe I must have missed the part of your comment that included “with all due respect.” This is Jane’s house and she has put together a mighty effort to push back the powers that be on several fronts simultaneously.

If you think that these ideas and efforts will not work, you need to start by honoring the work that has been done if you want anyone to listen to your criticisms, suggestions, and ideas. Otherwise it’s not really a good use of your time, or ours.

You are coming into someone else’s house and saying ewwww, you don’t like the food and the drapes are ugly besides. It is just lacking in common courtesy.

If you want people to be willing to engage in conversation with you, show some respect for where you are and for the work that is being done here before you start trash-talking the place and then wondering why you’re not being so warmly welcomed.

I’ll do one better. When I get back to Portland tomorrow I’ll donate $100 to this, if it will get that larger conversation started in hopes that at some point more hundreds won’t be so necessary.

Thanks, Jane, and everyone else who put time and effort into creating this beautiful piece. I donated.
(If nothing else, the fact that I added financial “energy” toward something intended to make a positive difference…helps the movement forward. For the record: I engage both seen and unseen energies, or as quantum physicist David Bohm coined, “implicate and explicate orders”…and sometimes the unseen energies/implicate order is more powerful than the explicate – those we see, touch, taste, hear, or smell. Sometimes, in fact, that implicate stuff can move mountains…via a clear, ringing, focused, heart-based intention.)
Regards.

Dear mod God:
I in no way endorse violence. Perhaps it was inarticulate and unfortunately my humor may have been too deadpan–although my emoticon indicated jest. But I question why I can’t discuss a historical precedent in Europe in general and in American attempts to form a democracy.

Nathan, these are your words, a few days ago:

You’re literally saying, whether you realize it or not, “The voices of the voters don’t matter to policy makers. We need more voices!” Getting more of a worthless commodity doesn’t make it valuable.

Think this through.

I was paraphrasing someone else’s argument. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be thinking through there.

Can you be more specific?

hatenomor wrote:
Off shore drilling may be dead for American companies, but it is not dead for foreign companies, is it?

No it is not. Are you saying that president Obama has little influence on offshore drilling?

I’ll do one better. When I get back to Portland tomorrow I’ll donate $100 to this, if it will get that larger conversation started in hopes that at some point more hundreds won’t be so necessary.

I’ll take that as a no?

Comity? Really? Comity? On a site that regularly disparages it’s own diarists and commenters? Actually running articles calling them “Naderites?” I was once personally called a huckster by Jane, because I was questioning her assertion that Goldman’s “projections” about health insurance stocks was A) a reliable metric, B) a transparent metric, and C) a meaningful metric even if one could affirm both of the prior.

This is one of the most crass and sarcastic mainstream blogs of any prominence. Jane personally shits in the cereal of the “distinguished” members of the media and the government on their own turf on a regular basis.

This is a good ad, which I noted, even in the first comment I made. I’m not making a judgement call, or criticizing the production quality of the ad, the work that went into it, nor the purported goal itself.

I asked a simple question. Can we possibly win by playing the exact same game, on the exact same playing field, as the other team; which is loaded with ringers, has bought off the officials, and writes all the rules? Is that our strategy? To just try and out play them at a game that’s rigged? If there’s any sensibility to the idea that we probably can’t succeed at doing that, then we have to start having that broader conversation about what can be done. Those questions should be asked, and answered, before a broadcast advertisement project got into the planning phase. No? Did MoveOn.org’s FISA ads produce any results? Was it because they were just too shoddy? Their placement not prominent enough? Why did FISA reform go through, and with telco immunity intact? Not enough MoveOn.org ads?

Despite Jane’s insistance that I provided no alternatives. I’ve suggested that direct-action interventions might be a better route (consumer barricades of area BP’s). I’ve suggested that FDL start subdomaining their site to produce localized blogs for activism for local races and initiatives (oregon.firedoglake.com, etc). Putting the visibility and leverage of FDL to work for local activists who could use national attention. I’ve suggested that FDL get into the business of actually helping groups draft initiative/proposal language, and try to push them onto the ballots in various States. I’ve suggested that the thing we’ve all learned from all the laborious reporting of FDL, is that the political leadership in this country don’t care about us. They provide us theatrics, not governance. Stop gaps, not solutions.

I don’t have all the answers, and I’ve made that very, very clear. One doesn’t have to have invented the combustion engine to be able to note the failings of the horse-drawn carriage. I’m trying to push, poke, prod, and promote people (especially the folks around here) to start engaging in the conversation that goes beyond what we already know doesn’t work. Should I be left to assume that the reason we’re all still riding around on buggies is because we don’t think we have the vision or the ingenuity to come up with anything else?

Oh for God’s sake. Of course this little ad is not going to win the war against Big Oil and their mouthpiece Obama. But I see it serving the exact same purpose that Jimmy Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo performed in April of 1942. It let’s Obama and his minions know that we’re not just nothing out here. We haven’t forgotten what he did to us on healthcare and half a dozen other issues.

It let’s Obama and Rahm know that we’re not ALL a bunch of brain dead Daily Kossacks and veal pen acquiescers. This oil blowout is a visible, tangible demonstration that neoliberalism is toxic and is killing us all. Now is the perfect time time to strike and this ad is a ballsy, in your face way of making a point. Hopefully, it rallies the faithful, shames the timid, and opens the eyes of those who refuse to see.

It let’s Obama and Rahm know that we’re not ALL a bunch of brain dead Daily Kossacks and veal pen acquiescers.

So this is tribalism then? Us vs. the Kossacks?

Additionally, you don’t think the Audit the Fed movement, the raising money for Kucinich to buck the trend on HCR, etc. were signals to Obama that not all the left blindly have his back now? I mean Rahm must have been calling someone, “fucking retards” no? Seems like they already knew.

Let’s say for argument that this commercial finally pierced the curtain in the Obama administration to let him know we’re out here, because by some miracle that wasn’t evident before, and we congratulate each other for that achievement. Then what? Will Obama listen to us? Why or why not? What about Congress? etc. etc. etc.

This oil blowout is a visible, tangible demonstration that neoliberalism is toxic and is killing us all.

Evidently not, because in order to see it, we have to raise money to advertise on TV about it.

This is what poker players call a tell:

Let’s say for argument that this commercial finally pierced the curtain in the Obama administration to let him know we’re out here, because by some miracle that wasn’t evident before, and we congratulate each other for that achievement. Then what? Will Obama listen to us?

You would have the ‘Left’ leave President Obama alone because efforts to pierce his defenses against policy whack-jobbery have thus far failed to sway him in our direction.

But this is a strawman. This is not health care, during which the President hid under his desk and told the nation that he preferred to let the Congress hash this one out, and only emerged with ‘strong leadership’ when the rotten deal was done.

And this isn’t the stimulus, when the President begged and pleaded from behind the scenes for Republican support, betrayed the principle the stimulus was intended to achieve, gave Republicans all they cound ask for and received negligible support, and settled for a stimulus too small by about half.

This is the President affirmatively and aggressively signing on to an initiative that he alluded to during a joint session (reversing statements he made in June 2008), and having not only the politics, but the actual policy blow up in his face in spectacular fashion.

If ever there was a moment when we have leverage with the President, it is right here and right now. This is not a political moment that magically arose as an unintended consequence of some distant and murky decision in a different policy arena – this is a direct opportunity to attack a preposterous, calamitous, heart-breaking policy direction. Unlike health care or the stimulus, the consequences of doing it badly are not something that can only be appreciated in the fullness of time – they are washing up on beaches right now, just weeks after the President stepped to the microphone and said:

“We’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources.”

The ban on coastal drilling is something ‘we’ have been fighting to maintain for, well, forever. There are reasons for that – it’s not safe, it’s not green, it’s not a smart path for a nation that desperately needs to unhook itself from dependency on fossil fuels, and it is a political and environmental catastrophe waiting to happen.

I will refrain from assigning motive to your arguments. Reading your past comments suggests that you regard attacking a policy by shaming a shameless President as ‘ill-suited’ to the moment, and I will take you at your word if you wish to suggest that you are not a toady attempting to deflect personal responsibility away from the man at the top.

But you would have the ‘Left’ sit on its hands while the political opportunity of a lifetime, however catastrophic the outlying consequences may be, goes to waste.

The man said he wanted this just a few weeks ago, and the wisdom of that decision and direction lies in tatters. His words, His policy. His call.

Oh, one more thing – wipe your feet before you enter someone else’s house, not after, is what my mama always taught me.

You would have the ‘Left’ leave President Obama alone because efforts to pierce his defenses against policy whack-jobbery have thus far failed to sway him in our direction.

But this is a strawman. This is not health care, during which the President hid under his desk and told the nation that he preferred to let the Congress hash this one out, and only emerged with ’strong leadership’ when the rotten deal was done.

You might want to get a better handle on the term “strawman.”

First that’s not the crux of what I’m saying. More broadly I’m asking the question of whether or not it makes any sense to engage activism using the same means as our opponents when we’re so woefully outgunned, and in order to engage we have to actually provide material support to our opposition (note where the money to pay for the ad eventually ends up).

The righteousness of your indignation isn’t going to mean shit when you’re standing on an open field with a .22 pea-shooter staring down the barrel of an Abrams tank.

With respect to Obama on this issue. No, I’m not saying leave him alone. I’m saying, what will this ad accomplish to make him change? In fact, is he even changeable? He doesn’t care about abandoning his base, he doesn’t appear to care about getting re-elected, he definitely doesn’t care about his campaign platforms, etc. etc. etc. He does care about appeasing industry. Are we industry? No? Then why in the hell will he start caring? Because he made embarrassingly stupid comments shortly before a disaster?

You’re talking about a guy who literally, within the same damn speech, grandstanded on the necessary principles of the rule-of-law and the importance of the Constitution in holding back government overreach, and then went on to layout the foundations of his plan to codify indefinite administrative detention, and a system of kangaroo courts. This is the guy you think you’re going to sway from his well-established track record of not giving a flying fuck about public opinion, voter outcry, and protecting the public-trust?

Really? I mean it’s a good ad, but that feat would be a miracle on proportion of turning water to wine, and starting with gasoline.

If ever there was a moment when we have leverage with the President, it is right here and right now.

What you’re suggesting makes complete sense, if you think politicians are accountable to anything other than elections, and also think that they fundamentally care about those elections, and that violating the voters actually imperils the elections they fundamentally care about. Any one of those tests fail, and the argument falls apart.

I think the evidence is pretty strong, as chronicled by FDL ad nauseam that the argument falls apart, because all of those tests fail.

I will refrain from assigning motive to your arguments. Reading your past comments suggests that you regard attacking a policy by shaming a shameless President as ‘ill-suited’ to the moment, and I will take you at your word if you wish to suggest that you are not a toady attempting to deflect personal responsibility away from the man at the top.

Yeah, I’m shilling for the President. That sounds like me. Jesus H. Christ. Really?

But you would have the ‘Left’ sit on its hands while the political opportunity of a lifetime, however catastrophic the outlying consequences may be, goes to waste.

The man said he wanted this just a few weeks ago, and the wisdom of that decision and direction lies in tatters. His words, His policy. His call.

Yep. It sure is. He has lots of those. So you succeed in rubbing his nose in it, and then he shits on your sofa again. Why does he do that? How does he get away with it?

I get that there’s something emotionally satisfying about rubbing it in standing there with the smug satisfaction of correctness. Except the problem is… the White House doesn’t care. They don’t care how right you are. They don’t care how vindicated your prerogatives are. They don’t care. Obama doesn’t care how foolish you make him look, and neither do the people that idolize him.

You said it best yourself. Trying to shame the shameless. Why? They’re shameless.

You want to swerve away from a line of attack aimed at the President, because it will not be effective, because he doesn’t care. And/or because we won’t get much satisfaction out of rubbing his nose in, whatever. And because it hasn’t worked in the past.

You are likening the President ducking out of health care and stimulus debates, to his fervent support for what turned out to be a man-made oil volcano that he himself proclaimed as unlikely because of technological sophistication.
Those are contrasts, not comparisons.

You create a false rationale (acting as if this issue is like any other policy piece), and suggest that at least in part, personal satisfaction is the goal, but that it will be short-lived. That is your strawman. That is so completely NOT the point.

In fact, is he even changeable?

I would rather pivot and attack both his strengths and his weakness at the same time, instead of pondering this question while the spin machine’s messaging becomes the only story.

How much video coverage of the President, transcripts, statements by administration flacks does it take, in the case of off-shore drilling, to tie him directly and inextricably to a disastrous policy, while presented with a terrible and fortuitous confluence of events that show that policy to be disastrous? At the same time, oil and dead aquatic life and who knows what else are lapping at the shores of the Gulf with no end in sight, and the people who are supposed to know what to do about it are complaining that methane hydrates didn’t do what the computer models said they would do…

…if what we’ve got to work with are nothing more than the same expensive tools as the BP’s of the world to push our messaging, we’re going to lose, and lose badly. We can’t out lobby, out advertise, or out spend Big Oil.

And 535 members of Congress, most of whose fortunes are tied to corporations.

But you are, for whatever reason, mis-characterizing this ad. This is a focused attack on the President (not a broad defense of an industry), an attack which your own comments about his performance suggest is appropriate. Flacking to keep the hounds off of the President, when the policy he now owns is most vulnerable and transparent – as opposed to what? I am waiting for one idea.

I don’t know if I have better ideas.

What are you waiting for?

• Like you, I think the guy’s a bad President, but a personal, frontal assault is likely to fail.
• We need a new line of attack so as not to replicate what the oil companies are doing (even though that’s not what the oil companies are doing).
• BP should be our target. No, wait – they are terribly powerful. Never mind.
• I have no ideas about how to do this. We should think on it a while.

BP and Transocean are accountable to shareholders. Until someone who stands to pay a frightful political cost for this policy (that would be the President) is corralled, we are nowhere.

November will be here very soon.
He has to plug the well.
Stabilize the local tourist economies.
Restore the fishing industry.
Fortify what is left of non-food biology.
And a hundred other things ruined and shown on television nightly.

We have the world’s most powerful political figure right where we want him – in a political straight-jacket of his own making. Your idea is to ponder and brainstorm. Another idea is to strike hard, right now.

You want to swerve away from a line of attack aimed at the President, because it will not be effective, because he doesn’t care. And/or because we won’t get much satisfaction out of rubbing his nose in, whatever. And because it hasn’t worked in the past.

You are likening the President ducking out of health care and stimulus debates, to his fervent support for what turned out to be a man-made oil volcano that he himself proclaimed as unlikely because of technological sophistication.

Try again.

Here’s a hint:

“I’m asking the question of whether or not it makes any sense to engage activism using the same means as our opponents when we’re so woefully outgunned, and in order to engage we have to actually provide material support to our opposition (note where the money to pay for the ad eventually ends up).”

and…

Can we possibly win by playing the exact same game, on the exact same playing field, as the other team; which is loaded with ringers, has bought off the officials, and writes all the rules? Is that our strategy? To just try and out play them at a game that’s rigged?

and…

The question presented is a simple one, and I’ll restate it again, and it should be one that rings truer here than almost anywhere else precisely because FDL’ers have been so active in contributing time and money, and many of them have expressed over time how much less of both they can spare. Some of the most active, now relegated to little more than spirited fist pumping, because financial support is no longer viable. How long can we keep this up?

How long can we keep playing the game to try and out-corrupt professional corruptors? Is that even the kind of system we want? Corrupt politicians who simply have more fealty to us because by some miracle we pay better?

Is it ironic that you’ve erected a strawman whilst accusing me of having done so? Anyway…

But you are, for whatever reason, mis-characterizing this ad. This is a focused attack on the President (not a broad defense of an industry), an attack which your own comments about his performance suggest is appropriate. Flacking to keep the hounds off of the President, when the policy he now owns is most vulnerable and transparent – as opposed to what? I am waiting for one idea.

Broad defense of an industry, what in the hell are you talking about? Where did I ever indicate it was such a thing? Furthermore, as opposed to what? Working to circumvent the President entirely. That’s what. Knowing he can’t be changed means that every attempt to do so is explicitly a complete waste of time and resources. Full stop. As I said before, it’s obvious he owns the idiocy of his statements, and the scope of the disaster makes this self-evidently duplicitous; irrespective of any advertising to further illustrate the link. I mean for fuck sake, The Daily Show already essentially aired this ad nationwide when they did their takedown.

We have the world’s most powerful political figure right where we want him – in a political straight-jacket of his own making. Your idea is to ponder and brainstorm. Another idea is to strike hard, right now.

And you consider a TV ad to be “striking hard.” Maybe that’s the problem here. When I think of striking hard, I think of Paul Watson and his efforts with Sea Shepherd; wherein he took direct action to sink illegal whaling vessels. I think of activist TV ads as being about as hard hitting as, “The More You Know.” ad-spots on NBC.

Quite honestly if the call to arms for cash here had been to air this thing in literally any other market other than D.C. I probably wouldn’t have said anything. I wouldn’t consider it effective, but I wouldn’t have considered it quite the same egregious waste of people’s goodwill in donating. Who in the hell in D.C. is this ad for, and what is it supposed to do? D.C. is full of two kinds of politically activated people; politicians and lobbyists. Many of them look like they’re on the fence on the issue? Hell, do you think any of those people are not already wholly aware of the fact that Barack Obama said what he said and that this catastrophe is happening? Which group amongst the politicians and lobbyists was this supposed to provide new discovery and insight to? If it doesn’t do that, then what else is it other than a televised version of, “Neener neener neener. We were sooooooooooo right. Thbpbpbpbpbpbpb!” ?

I’m talking about systemic issues, like why is it that the President is so democratically unaccountable, and how do we change that in the long-term, and circumvent it in the short-term. How can we advocate and advance our prerogatives off the national-stage where we can have significant influence, bringing national audiences and resources to bear down on significant localized initiatives. How do we engage the opposition without using means that materially strengthen them at the same time?

Like I said, the plan appears to be to just try to outdo the entrenched powers and authorities at their own game, somehow overstating our capacity for brute force with the expectation of victory. Does that seem like a winnable war to you? Just try to keep out-spending the opposition? Literally engaging in an advertising arms-race.

You’re damn right we should fucking stop and think about this for a bit.

In my own life I was once the President of a large non-profit arts/music organization. I was brought on to try and save it from itself. It was in a constant state of financial crisis, and every few months we had to go pan-handle the community for $50,000+ just to keep the doors open. Here’s the problem, it should have been a viable business without that. More importantly, we should have been making significant structural changes to make sure that we didn’t have to keep exploiting the generosity of the community to prop up a failed model, strategy, and institution. Instead the founders of the organization rallied their loyalists within to block any and all Board action that would make fundamental changes to the organization, and like clockwork we had to keep pan-handling the community. Eventually it got to the point where the model and strategy had failed so miserably for so long that those $50,000+ fundraisers were going for little more than paying back-taxes and late payroll, and it was getting harder and harder to raise the money, because we’d bled people dry. Over half the Board (including the founders) didn’t see anything wrong with that. They were content to keep up the same utterly failed way of doing business, having proven continually that the institution they had originally created was fatally flawed, and could not fulfill its mission in its current configuration.

It was to the point that I had to resign. It was downright unethical to continue going back to people for money without significantly assessing, and acting upon the findings, of why the organization was constantly failing, and what, if anything, could be done about it.

With that said:

I have money to give, and just like my vote, I am duly aware of how meager it is. The difference is that unlike my vote, I’m not supposed to have to use money to pay for policy, and so long as I do I’m always going to be getting short shrift by powerful interests. How do we circumvent the money system? How do we abolish it? Do we need to do either? If so, then why are we continuing to engage in it?

Additionally, I offered ideas, and incase you missed them here they are again:

Despite Jane’s insistance that I provided no alternatives. I’ve suggested that direct-action interventions might be a better route (consumer barricades of area BP’s). I’ve suggested that FDL start subdomaining their site to produce localized blogs for activism for local races and initiatives (oregon.firedoglake.com, etc). Putting the visibility and leverage of FDL to work for local activists who could use national attention. I’ve suggested that FDL get into the business of actually helping groups draft initiative/proposal language, and try to push them onto the ballots in various States. I’ve suggested that the thing we’ve all learned from all the laborious reporting of FDL, is that the political leadership in this country don’t care about us. They provide us theatrics, not governance. Stop gaps, not solutions.

It is sooo short sighted and overreactionary to ban offshore, or any drilling for that matter. The environmental damage will be cleaned up.
Some animals will die, but more are killed every day from fishing than will ever be harmed by the oil. Billions of dollars in royalties are paid to governments. There has not been an accident in 20+ years and there won’t be another one for another 20+ years. I’d say that is a pretty amazing safety record. But knee jerk reactions are common in this country.
I’d say we ban volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, farming, driving, snowstorms, etc, because they all pose risk.
Dont be foolish..