Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Welcome to Oppositeville
"Moderates" John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) urge drastic measures in dealing with a naturalized U.S. citizen like Faisal Shahzad: McCain doesn't think he deserves to get his Miranda rights. Lieberman says strip them of their citizenship:
|
“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday.
And coming in to defend the radical leftist idea of not just scrapping inconvenient constitutional barriers? Um, Glenn Beck:
"He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens...If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution...We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing."There's your head-scratcher for the day!
Labels: Glenn Beck, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, terrorism
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The "Where Da White Women At?" Act of 2009...
...is sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY).
|
Labels: John McCain, Peter King
Monday, November 10, 2008
Palin Pile-on
Never thought I would say this, but Sarah Palin has a point. The attacks she's getting from erstwhile members of the McCain campaign are unprofessional -- and the work of "jerks." Look, as said early on, I wasn't a fan of this pick: Policywise, I thought she undermined McCain's strongest argument -- experience, particularly in national security. What she brought to the ticket -- executive experience, fluency with energy matters, solid social conservative credentials and, uh, a not-so-hidden "a-gender"-- didn't offset what was, the thing the average voter thought of when they thought of John McCain.
In addition, of course, I thought the baggage she brought along with her with respect to her daughter's pregnancy and the seeming validation of that fact by the Republican Party also undermined a key part of the GOP message.
That all said, the after-the-fact piling on and leaking from within the campaign is, in my view, both unprecedented and most unseemly. As I recall, there was a little bit of irritation that leaked out between Kerry and Edwards after '04, and perhaps some between Gore and Lieberman (albeit after a 30-day recount). But what's coming out of the McCain side is going well beyond that. But ultimately, I repeat: Those attacking Sarah Palin anonymously now are part of the group who vetted (or didn't) the candidate. If she is lacking in intelligence or political skills, they they are guilty of major malpractice by dumping a woefully inappropriate candidate on the country. They, in a sense, endangered the country by giving a 72 year-old man a running mate who was (by the standards these people are now cititing) embarrassingly unprepared to become president were something to happen to John McCain.
Now, it appears that there was an obvious split within the McCain camp over Palin -- which she may have encouraged.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the constant leaking aginst her is remarkably inappropriate. It's also stupid -- and likey to backfire: We haven't seen the last of Palin. If she is better than she appeared in the last two months, she will have the opportunity to prove it. One of two things will happen: If Sen. Ted Stevens wins his re-election (they may be counting votes for another two weeks), he will be expelled from the Senate because of his recent conviction. Palin can appoint herself to fill the seat and then run for the full term in a special election. A senator Palin would be able to bring herself up to speed on foreign policy issues rather quickly.
If Stevens' Democratic opponent Mark Bebich emerges victorious, Palin can stay as governor, run for re-election in 2010 -- and educate herself on a whole host of issues. Either way, she will be a much-in-demand guest for a sizeable segment of the Republican base. She will be invited to GOPAC next year and other conservative get-togethers.
This was likely to be the case after the election anyway: The VP candidate often leaps to the top of the field after a losing campaign. The anti-Palin McCain faction, could have let Palin disappear back Nome into semi-obscurity. Instead, by piling on her, they keep her in the news. The Today Show will have her on Tuesday morning. She is now empowered, either as a perceived victim of unfair attacks -- or as the person certain people in the GOP feels the need to "stop."
|
In addition, of course, I thought the baggage she brought along with her with respect to her daughter's pregnancy and the seeming validation of that fact by the Republican Party also undermined a key part of the GOP message.
That all said, the after-the-fact piling on and leaking from within the campaign is, in my view, both unprecedented and most unseemly. As I recall, there was a little bit of irritation that leaked out between Kerry and Edwards after '04, and perhaps some between Gore and Lieberman (albeit after a 30-day recount). But what's coming out of the McCain side is going well beyond that.
These people selected her: If she was unprepared and quote-stupid-unquote that is their (and the presidential candidate's fault) for elevating someone prematurely. Yes, she compounded the problem in several ways (dragging all the kids around after the nomination got to be a bit much), but the introduction of her to the press could have been done in a much more expedient and professional manner. The Gibson and Couric messes need not have happened if Palin's handlers had made her accessible to the press right away. The longer they waited, the easier it became for her to be tripped up in "gotcha" scenarios.
In other areas, the VP candidate is traditionally (in 20th century campaigns) the attack dog. Yes, she went over the top, but given the limitations of the presidential candidate was, Palin at least provided some meager red-meat excitement for a depressed base. And, from what I saw, as the campaign wound down, Palin ended up sounding much more light and confident. Her speech on energy in late October was actually pretty good (why didn't the campaign have her do that early -- like in September?).
Now, it appears that there was an obvious split within the McCain camp over Palin -- which she may have encouraged.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the constant leaking aginst her is remarkably inappropriate. It's also stupid -- and likey to backfire: We haven't seen the last of Palin. If she is better than she appeared in the last two months, she will have the opportunity to prove it. One of two things will happen: If Sen. Ted Stevens wins his re-election (they may be counting votes for another two weeks), he will be expelled from the Senate because of his recent conviction. Palin can appoint herself to fill the seat and then run for the full term in a special election. A senator Palin would be able to bring herself up to speed on foreign policy issues rather quickly.
If Stevens' Democratic opponent Mark Bebich emerges victorious, Palin can stay as governor, run for re-election in 2010 -- and educate herself on a whole host of issues. Either way, she will be a much-in-demand guest for a sizeable segment of the Republican base. She will be invited to GOPAC next year and other conservative get-togethers.
This was likely to be the case after the election anyway: The VP candidate often leaps to the top of the field after a losing campaign. The anti-Palin McCain faction, could have let Palin disappear back Nome into semi-obscurity. Instead, by piling on her, they keep her in the news. The Today Show will have her on Tuesday morning. She is now empowered, either as a perceived victim of unfair attacks -- or as the person certain people in the GOP feels the need to "stop."
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics, sarah palin
Monday, November 03, 2008
All Over But the Laughing...
Well, if a losing candidate, McCain sure went out in style with his "Saturday Night Live" appearance this weekend:
Best part of the skit -- Cindy McCain modeling "McCain Fine Gold" jewelry.
Oh, and apparently somebody at SNL doesn't like their cable associate Keith Olbermann, given the really vicious parodying of him that Ben Affleck engaged in:
Why will I not be surprised if Olbermann's show doesn't survive much into the Obama presidency?
Finally, this isn't comedy per se, but this bit of foot-in-mouth disease by corpulent Manhattan Rep. Jerrold Nadler is hilarious in its own way. Saying in a public forum that your presidential candidate -- likely winning presidential candidate -- lacks "political courage" is a great way for you (and your district) to become persona non grata in the next administration.
I tell ya, between Nadler, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charlie Rangel, New York had better hope Chuck Schumer has some pull in an Obama White House. Otherwise, we're screwed.
Tomorrow: My vote.
|
Best part of the skit -- Cindy McCain modeling "McCain Fine Gold" jewelry.
Oh, and apparently somebody at SNL doesn't like their cable associate Keith Olbermann, given the really vicious parodying of him that Ben Affleck engaged in:
Why will I not be surprised if Olbermann's show doesn't survive much into the Obama presidency?
Finally, this isn't comedy per se, but this bit of foot-in-mouth disease by corpulent Manhattan Rep. Jerrold Nadler is hilarious in its own way. Saying in a public forum that your presidential candidate -- likely winning presidential candidate -- lacks "political courage" is a great way for you (and your district) to become persona non grata in the next administration.
I tell ya, between Nadler, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charlie Rangel, New York had better hope Chuck Schumer has some pull in an Obama White House. Otherwise, we're screwed.
Tomorrow: My vote.
Labels: John McCain, Saturday Night Live
Monday, October 27, 2008
Why It's Not Quite Over
In a case of politics making strange bedfellows, Republican consultant Bill Greener writes in Salon on what could be called The "Bradley Effect-As-Amended" -- the WYSIWYG phenomenon of "undecided" voters going enmasse for a white candidate over a black one.
|
Labels: Barack Obama, Bradley Effect, John McCain, race
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why John McCain Still Drives Conservatives Nuts...
On Fox News Sunday, McCain had this to say about Barack Obama's amazing fundraising haul:
Obama, following the rules, has raised this huge amount of money partly through methods pioneered by McCain himself. Don't forget, McCain was the original Internet-fundraising candidate back in 2000. Amazingly, at a moment when the the US has racked up record debt, Obama declines to take $84 million dollars from the taxpayers, preferring to take money from individuals voluntarily giving it.
But, that very idea is anathema to McCain. He sees a problem in need of "fixing." Funny, the constraints his own law created caused him to start playing fast and loose the rules when he came perilously close to the pre-convention spending limits.
Consider the implications of McCain's statement. A record amount of Americans choosing to give a record amount of money to a candidate they support (much of it in small donations) is ipso facto evidence of a likely scandal. But, of course, at the heart of McCain-Feingold is a belief that money -- in the political process -- is an inherently bad thing.
Remember once again, McCain became such a crusader when he, personally, was corrupted by Charles Keating. Because McCain showed weakness in the face of temptation, everyone else -- including innocent Americans who happen only to be "guilty" of being inspired by a candidate -- must be considered "suspect" in a likely future "scandal," the only evidence of which is that Obama raised a heckuva lof of money. Yet, this is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed." So, for those watching, this again sends the message : Politicians screw up, the public pays the price.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini piles on -- he also predicts that Obama is on track for a $190 million-plus haul in October. On "This Week" yesterday, my old boss also Newt had fun at the irony of McCain being laid low by McCain-Feingold.
|
Senator Obama raised $150 million in — I understand, during the month of September, completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control — first time, first time since the Watergate scandal.And I can tell you this, that has unleashed now in presidential campaigns a new flood of spending that will then cause a scandal, and then we will fix it again.
So, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold is at it again!
Obama, following the rules, has raised this huge amount of money partly through methods pioneered by McCain himself. Don't forget, McCain was the original Internet-fundraising candidate back in 2000. Amazingly, at a moment when the the US has racked up record debt, Obama declines to take $84 million dollars from the taxpayers, preferring to take money from individuals voluntarily giving it.
But, that very idea is anathema to McCain. He sees a problem in need of "fixing." Funny, the constraints his own law created caused him to start playing fast and loose the rules when he came perilously close to the pre-convention spending limits.
Consider the implications of McCain's statement. A record amount of Americans choosing to give a record amount of money to a candidate they support (much of it in small donations) is ipso facto evidence of a likely scandal. But, of course, at the heart of McCain-Feingold is a belief that money -- in the political process -- is an inherently bad thing.
Remember once again, McCain became such a crusader when he, personally, was corrupted by Charles Keating. Because McCain showed weakness in the face of temptation, everyone else -- including innocent Americans who happen only to be "guilty" of being inspired by a candidate -- must be considered "suspect" in a likely future "scandal," the only evidence of which is that Obama raised a heckuva lof of money. Yet, this is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed." So, for those watching, this again sends the message : Politicians screw up, the public pays the price.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini piles on -- he also predicts that Obama is on track for a $190 million-plus haul in October. On "This Week" yesterday, my old boss also Newt had fun at the irony of McCain being laid low by McCain-Feingold.
Labels: fundraising, John McCain, McCain-Feingold
Friday, October 17, 2008
Campaign Bile Steps Aside For Humor
Thursday night, John McCain and Barack Obama attended the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in Manhattan. A fundraiser for the Archdiocese of New York and city Catholic charities, the dinner is a a customary stop for presidential candidates every four years.
They engaged in some self-deprecatory humor and good-natured roasting of each other and a few other political dignitaries (Bill & Hillary, Mike Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani were favorite targets). Given the serious circumstances the country finds itself in, some people might not like the fact that our presidential candidates are bantering back and forth. I think this actually says something good about our country and its electoral process -- that politicians can put aside their very earnest, heart-felt differences, and get partisans on both sides laughing with each other instead of at each other.
For what it's worth, I thought McCain was slightly better than Obama -- but probably because McCain has been a guest of honor at the dinner before (in a non-presidential year) -- and enjoys doing the stand-up stuff.
Anyway, Ben Smith at Politico provides direct links to both routines. I must say, as an amateur comic myself, I approve of their messages!
|
They engaged in some self-deprecatory humor and good-natured roasting of each other and a few other political dignitaries (Bill & Hillary, Mike Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani were favorite targets). Given the serious circumstances the country finds itself in, some people might not like the fact that our presidential candidates are bantering back and forth. I think this actually says something good about our country and its electoral process -- that politicians can put aside their very earnest, heart-felt differences, and get partisans on both sides laughing with each other instead of at each other.
For what it's worth, I thought McCain was slightly better than Obama -- but probably because McCain has been a guest of honor at the dinner before (in a non-presidential year) -- and enjoys doing the stand-up stuff.
Anyway, Ben Smith at Politico provides direct links to both routines. I must say, as an amateur comic myself, I approve of their messages!
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, political humor
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Deja Voodoo Times Three
1) With words like "panic", "danger," "anxiety," and "crisis" has there ever been such a downbeat address delivered by a president? Well, one does come to mind.
2) John McCain abruptly threatening to pull out of a debate? Hmmm...
3) John McCain flying in late in sensitive bipartisan negotiations? Uh-oh.
|
2) John McCain abruptly threatening to pull out of a debate? Hmmm...
3) John McCain flying in late in sensitive bipartisan negotiations? Uh-oh.
Labels: Barack Obama, debates, George W. Bush, John McCain, Presidential politics
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama-Biden Debate Scheduled...
Following Biden's chastising Obama campaign for its ad attacking McCain's lack of computer skills. Oh, and Biden and Obama disagreed on the AIG bailout too.
In fairness, McCain also disagreed about the AIG bailout -- with himself.
One of these presidential tickets will actually win folks.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
|
In fairness, McCain also disagreed about the AIG bailout -- with himself.
One of these presidential tickets will actually win folks.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Labels: Barack Obama, financial meltdown, Joe Biden, John McCain, markets
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Cuomo For SEC? WTF?
Last week was hardly John McCain's finest moment when, deciding that the Securities and Exchange Commission bore major responsibility for the Wall Street madness, he essentially called for SEC Chairman Chris Cox to be fired.
|
(Perhaps it was my imagination, but it seemed like the day after McCain called for Cox's head, President Bush went out of his way to lump Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke as a tight troika dispatched to get the financial markets back in order. It seemed like there was a message being sent that Bush wasn't signaling blame for any single one of them.)
On "60 Minutes" tonight, McCain amended that by saying that, yes, he recognized that, technically, after nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, the head of the SEC can't be "fired" by the president who appointed him in the first place. However, he asserted, "When I'm president, if I want somebody to resign, they resign."
So, correspondent Scott Pelley asks, who would McCain replace Cox with. The response: "This may sound a little unusual, but, I've admired Andrew Cuomo. I think he's someone who could restore some credibility, lend some bipartisanship to this effort."
Pelley points out that Cuomo "served in the Cabinet of Bill Clinton." McCain responds, "Yes, and he did a good job and he has respect and he has prestige."
Huh? Is McCain serious? Now, don't get me wrong. Cuomo, currently New York state attorney general, is a smart Democrat, and moderate in many ways. However, there's a strong case to be made that, as Clinton's HUD secretary, many Cuomo decisions actually may have exacerbated the mortgage meltdown that is at the heart of the current financial industry crisis.
In fact, the best case for that was made, in of all places, the Village Voice. Author Wayne Barrett is an ideological journalist (as, is, of course, the publication for which he writes), but in this case, that very bias gives more strength to the argument that Barret makes in tying the Cuomo-led HUD's decision to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the subprime mortgage markets:
Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York's attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie.
It all starts, as the headlines of recent weeks do, with these two giant banks. But in the hubbub about their bailout, few have noticed that the only federal agency with the power to regulate what Cuomo has called "the gods of Washington" was HUD. Congress granted that power in 1992, so there were only four pre-crisis secretaries at the notoriously political agency that had the ability to rein in Fannie and Freddie: ex–Texas mayor Henry Cisneros and Bush confidante Alfonso Jackson, who were driven from office by criminal investigations; Mel Martinez, who left to chase a U.S. Senate seat in Florida; and Cuomo, who used the agency as a launching pad for his disastrous 2002 gubernatorial candidacy.
With that many pols at the helm, it's no wonder that most analysts have portrayed Fannie and Freddie as if they were unregulated renegades, and rarely mentioned HUD in the ongoing finger-pointing exercise that has ranged, appropriately enough, from Wall Street to Alan Greenspan. But the near-collapse of these dual pillars in recent weeks is rooted in the HUD junkyard, where every Cuomo decision discussed here was later ratified by his Bush successors.
And that's not an accident: Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. But, as Paul Krugman noted in the Times recently, "homeownership isn't for everyone," adding that as many as 10 million of the new buyers are stuck now with negative home equity—meaning that with falling house prices, their mortgages exceed the value of their homes. So many others have gone through foreclosure that there's been a net loss in home ownership since 1998.
Read the whole piece: Making allowances for Barrett's ideological leanings, the article is well-reported.
Now, John McCain might not know all the intricacies of the financial crisis, but, of all the possible individuals out there to consider to head the Securities & Exchange Commission, the first person that comes to McCain's mind is Andrew Cuomo?
Oh, and considering Andrew Cuomo as possible head of the SEC in a McCain administration is also problematic given that, last week, McCain's campaign launched two ads linking Obama's relationship to two former Fannie Mae executives -- Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson!
Ye gods.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit and Politico readers! To underscore the point made above, the most troubling aspect of McCain's Cuomo reference isn't merely the glib nod toward "bipartisanship" and Washington-focused "respect." Instead, it's that McCain didn't seem to consider the HUD-Fannie/Freddie connection. Sure, he might not know the specific details of what Cuomo may have done in the late-'90s. But, you have to know that HUD has basic oversight of those agencies. Consider: HUD -- beginning in the Clinton-Cuomo era and continuing into the Bush years -- may have been far more culpable in creating the conditions for the current crisis than anything the SEC has done under Chris Cox. But McCain is suggesting replacing Cox with Cuomo. Unbelievable. No wonder George Will said Sunday (before the "60 Minutes" piece aired), "John McCain showed his personality this week, and it made some of us fearful."
Labels: 60 Minutes, Andrew Cuomo, John McCain, Presidential politics
Monday, September 15, 2008
John McCain's Learning Curve from 2000
Posted by Isaac Bickerstaff.
The interesting part of this election is not the slogan of the week or the fundraising numbers. The most interesting issue is how much John McCain has learned from his 2000 Presidential run.
McCain was running as the candidate of change, eschewing the Religious Right as agents of intolerance, thumbing his nose at the Conservative establishment, and had his merry band of press pranksters ala Ken Kesey on the Straight Talk Express. He shot from the hip, spoke with unbelievable candor, and soundly got his clock cleaned in South Carolina by a whisper campaign and a few dirty tricks that derailed him and sent his campaign packing.
John McCain has learned from those lessons. He watched as campaigns either imploded or did not start in his own party's primary. The greatest thing he has done is employ tactics that may tarnish his 2000 reputation but could handily win him the White House. He has populated his campaign with Bush/Cheney/Rove campaign staff who now how to hit hard and fast and divert attention from the issues. Lipstick on a Pig sexism. a 26 year outsider in Washington. It was with amazement that a Democratic Senator told me that John McCain spoke at the convention like Barack Obama was the incumbent and McCain was the challenger to the past 8 years.
One could almost hear the gasps of the Washington Establishment combined with the sheer amazement of the Upper East Side elites at the picking of Sarah Palin. A mother with a pregnant daughter who graduated from the University Of Idaho. Absolutely unthinkable. I was actually told that if she at least went to a better school it would have prepared her -- for what, I do not know. Does Harvard and Yale truly treat you to a better view of America? Judging by my family that matriculated from such fine institutions, the answer is no. But many in what are called the fly-over states can relate to her and her family.
I am not certain if all of these machinations will yield a victory for McCain. Colorado and Virginia are running very strong Democratic Senate Candidates. In Virginia, Mark Warner leads by 30-35% in almost every poll. In Colorado, the Republican Party has funding issues. The Colorado Springs Republican Party has laid off staff and is purportedly out of money. Not exactly a rosy picture for GOTV.
Obama has also raised an outstanding $66 million in August and his numbers in CA, OH, and PA are good to fair in descending order. Can the Obama team return the questioning to judgment, the economy, and who relates to better to your needs? He does exceedingly well in polls that ask who you trust in leading the economy and who relates best to needs and priorities. The Wall Street crisis will probably be a win for Obama.
Bickerstaff thinks that the Debate will be the poll break. That is when most voters will focus.
|
The interesting part of this election is not the slogan of the week or the fundraising numbers. The most interesting issue is how much John McCain has learned from his 2000 Presidential run.
McCain was running as the candidate of change, eschewing the Religious Right as agents of intolerance, thumbing his nose at the Conservative establishment, and had his merry band of press pranksters ala Ken Kesey on the Straight Talk Express. He shot from the hip, spoke with unbelievable candor, and soundly got his clock cleaned in South Carolina by a whisper campaign and a few dirty tricks that derailed him and sent his campaign packing.
John McCain has learned from those lessons. He watched as campaigns either imploded or did not start in his own party's primary. The greatest thing he has done is employ tactics that may tarnish his 2000 reputation but could handily win him the White House. He has populated his campaign with Bush/Cheney/Rove campaign staff who now how to hit hard and fast and divert attention from the issues. Lipstick on a Pig sexism. a 26 year outsider in Washington. It was with amazement that a Democratic Senator told me that John McCain spoke at the convention like Barack Obama was the incumbent and McCain was the challenger to the past 8 years.
One could almost hear the gasps of the Washington Establishment combined with the sheer amazement of the Upper East Side elites at the picking of Sarah Palin. A mother with a pregnant daughter who graduated from the University Of Idaho. Absolutely unthinkable. I was actually told that if she at least went to a better school it would have prepared her -- for what, I do not know. Does Harvard and Yale truly treat you to a better view of America? Judging by my family that matriculated from such fine institutions, the answer is no. But many in what are called the fly-over states can relate to her and her family.
I am not certain if all of these machinations will yield a victory for McCain. Colorado and Virginia are running very strong Democratic Senate Candidates. In Virginia, Mark Warner leads by 30-35% in almost every poll. In Colorado, the Republican Party has funding issues. The Colorado Springs Republican Party has laid off staff and is purportedly out of money. Not exactly a rosy picture for GOTV.
Obama has also raised an outstanding $66 million in August and his numbers in CA, OH, and PA are good to fair in descending order. Can the Obama team return the questioning to judgment, the economy, and who relates to better to your needs? He does exceedingly well in polls that ask who you trust in leading the economy and who relates best to needs and priorities. The Wall Street crisis will probably be a win for Obama.
Bickerstaff thinks that the Debate will be the poll break. That is when most voters will focus.
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics
"Fundamentals..."
I wouldn't even pretend to be an expert on macroeconomics. Which is a good thing, because I'm not running for president. But John McCain is. So what the hell does he mean when he says, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong...":
When two Wall Street giants collapse (or are bought out) and an insurance giant is about to topple, not to mention ongoing housing woes, having the Republican presidential candidate -- who has previously admitted not knowing much about the economy -- say that the "fundamentals are strong" is an exercise in walking in fantasy land. This is the same candidate who had an adviser not too long ago saying that the nation is simply in a "mental recession."
The point is, there seems to be a disconnect between McCain and reality here. It wasn't too long ago that one of the major Republican Party talking points (often used to advance the idea of helping privatize Social Security) was pointing out that 50 percent of American households were now invested in the stock market. Well, if that's the case, Republicans must know that the market's recent rocky ride isn't just hitting wealthy people, but many middle class folks.
In other words, even if McCain doesn't believe the economy is in such a bad shape, perhaps this would be a good time to go with the public mood. Given the pounding he's been taking from the press from misstating Obama's record, he might as well "lie" about something that most people actually believe to be the truth: The economy is in a bad place and something needs to be done about it.
|
When two Wall Street giants collapse (or are bought out) and an insurance giant is about to topple, not to mention ongoing housing woes, having the Republican presidential candidate -- who has previously admitted not knowing much about the economy -- say that the "fundamentals are strong" is an exercise in walking in fantasy land. This is the same candidate who had an adviser not too long ago saying that the nation is simply in a "mental recession."
The point is, there seems to be a disconnect between McCain and reality here. It wasn't too long ago that one of the major Republican Party talking points (often used to advance the idea of helping privatize Social Security) was pointing out that 50 percent of American households were now invested in the stock market. Well, if that's the case, Republicans must know that the market's recent rocky ride isn't just hitting wealthy people, but many middle class folks.
In other words, even if McCain doesn't believe the economy is in such a bad shape, perhaps this would be a good time to go with the public mood. Given the pounding he's been taking from the press from misstating Obama's record, he might as well "lie" about something that most people actually believe to be the truth: The economy is in a bad place and something needs to be done about it.
Labels: John McCain, Lehman Brothers, Presidential politics
Friday, September 12, 2008
Rookie "Luck" -- Or Something Deeper?
During the Democratic primary, Barack Obama parried Hillary Clinton's talking point of her greater "experience" with the view that "judgment" -- as defined by his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning -- was a better metric to assess a leader. Hillary then said, well, that was just one speech, delivered when he was still a state senator.
Well, is it possible that Obama's judgment -- or political prescience -- has been demonstrated more than just once? Well, noting George W. Bush's reported decision to send special forces into Pakistan, my on-time boss says:
Obama called for greater focus on Afghanistan -- and moving more troops there -- months before McCain agreed that more needed to be done to prevent further deterioration there. And, of course, Obama called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq very early on -- Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki agreed with him and even the Bush administration has had to (rhetorically, at least) come around to that view. That left McCain the odd man out, taking the awkward position that he knew the views of the Iraqi people better than their own prime minister.
Now, two caveats: 1) McCain was right from the start on the surge, the success of which created the on-the-ground conditions that allowed Maliki to push for a timetable. But, that is undermined by the fact McCain refuses to, as the saying goes, "declare victory and get out." 2) Obama may find it uncomfortable that, as much as he says that McCain is a "third term for Bush," in fact Obama and Bush seem pretty close in worldview these days. Ah, irony is wonderful thing.
One last point, seven years and one day after the terrorist attacks on this country: conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish explains why Bush's failure to get the guy responsible for that day is making him listen closely to Barack Obama.
|
Well, is it possible that Obama's judgment -- or political prescience -- has been demonstrated more than just once? Well, noting George W. Bush's reported decision to send special forces into Pakistan, my on-time boss says:
It is worth recalling that in his first major foreign-policy address, in August 2007, Barack Obama proposed raids against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without consultation, and makingthe hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
If the story is correct — and it reads like an official leak — the July date indicates Bush approved this plan while Musharraf was still in power. (He resigned his office in August.) He was, however, vastly weaker and more compromised this past July than he was when Obama made his speech in 2007.
I was among many people who ridiculed the Obama proposal at the time, on the grounds that a) no nation violates the territorial integrity of an ally, even if that ally is problematic, and b) Obama’s bellicosity seemed entirely unbelievable, given that he spoke in the wake of his remarks about meeting with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes “without preconditions.” On the latter point, he was and remains wrong and foolish.
On the former point, though, he was, apparently, precognitive, and may be due an apology.That's an amazing statement coming from a reliable strong hawk like JPod. And, he was hardly alone in saying that Obama's view on Pakistan demonstrated his inexperience and "confused leadership." Actually, this may be the third or fourth time that subsequent events have actually endorsed an Obama viewpoint rather than that of John McCain.
Obama called for greater focus on Afghanistan -- and moving more troops there -- months before McCain agreed that more needed to be done to prevent further deterioration there. And, of course, Obama called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq very early on -- Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki agreed with him and even the Bush administration has had to (rhetorically, at least) come around to that view. That left McCain the odd man out, taking the awkward position that he knew the views of the Iraqi people better than their own prime minister.
Now, two caveats: 1) McCain was right from the start on the surge, the success of which created the on-the-ground conditions that allowed Maliki to push for a timetable. But, that is undermined by the fact McCain refuses to, as the saying goes, "declare victory and get out." 2) Obama may find it uncomfortable that, as much as he says that McCain is a "third term for Bush," in fact Obama and Bush seem pretty close in worldview these days. Ah, irony is wonderful thing.
One last point, seven years and one day after the terrorist attacks on this country: conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish explains why Bush's failure to get the guy responsible for that day is making him listen closely to Barack Obama.
Labels: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, John McCain
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Mac To The Future?
John McCain tonight gave a fantastic, powerful moving address -- assuming you tuned into just the last seven minutes or so.
Sorry, but the rest of it was pretty flat -- and not only because he was following Sarah Palin who captured the convention Wednesday night.
There were certainly things that I liked in the speech -- most notably school choice and his vow to end the bipartisan corruption in DC. But there was nothing really new.
Strangely, for someone who has talked so much about his foreign policy experience, there seemed very little focus on it. Iran was mentioned exactly once -- even though we have been, supposedly, engaged in a proxy war with it for three or four years. Meanwhile, Russia was mentioned by name three times -- essentially for an incident that was more enhanced border dispute. McCain said we have nothing to fear from a "return to the Cold War." The rhetoric he was throwing around this summer (and before that, for that matter) would tend to belie that.
Otherwise, the speech had the feel of a list that had to be checked off.
Still, to give the man his due, considering the unpopularity of George W. Bush, McCain gets points for mentioning him at the outset.
The end, with its moving narrative of his time as a POW and this passionate closing --
Unfortunately, the prose and delivery of the rest of the speech was, just that, prosaic.
It will now be interesting to see the arc of the rest of the campaign. Sarah Palin has gotten the base energized and will undoubtedly help prevent a fair bit of erosion in red areas of the country.
The question is will John McCain be able convince the swaths of independents and conservative-leaning Democrats that he's the answer to their concerns. The "fight" mantra -- evocative of Hillary in the closing days -- may reach some of the Scots-Irish folk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, it remains to be seen if there was enough "there" there to reach others.
|
Sorry, but the rest of it was pretty flat -- and not only because he was following Sarah Palin who captured the convention Wednesday night.
There were certainly things that I liked in the speech -- most notably school choice and his vow to end the bipartisan corruption in DC. But there was nothing really new.
Strangely, for someone who has talked so much about his foreign policy experience, there seemed very little focus on it. Iran was mentioned exactly once -- even though we have been, supposedly, engaged in a proxy war with it for three or four years. Meanwhile, Russia was mentioned by name three times -- essentially for an incident that was more enhanced border dispute. McCain said we have nothing to fear from a "return to the Cold War." The rhetoric he was throwing around this summer (and before that, for that matter) would tend to belie that.
Otherwise, the speech had the feel of a list that had to be checked off.
Still, to give the man his due, considering the unpopularity of George W. Bush, McCain gets points for mentioning him at the outset.
The end, with its moving narrative of his time as a POW and this passionate closing --
I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I'm going to fightwas incredibly emotionally engaging. It was some of Mark Salter's best work. McCain clearly was energized by them (even though the town-hall format caused the crowd noise to drown him out somewhat). That was true poetry.
to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him, that
I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth. And with hard
work -- with hard work, strong faith, and a little courage, great things are
always within our reach.
Fight with me. Fight with me.
Fight for what's right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free
people.
Fight for our children's future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each
other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight.
Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give
up.
We never quit.
Unfortunately, the prose and delivery of the rest of the speech was, just that, prosaic.
It will now be interesting to see the arc of the rest of the campaign. Sarah Palin has gotten the base energized and will undoubtedly help prevent a fair bit of erosion in red areas of the country.
The question is will John McCain be able convince the swaths of independents and conservative-leaning Democrats that he's the answer to their concerns. The "fight" mantra -- evocative of Hillary in the closing days -- may reach some of the Scots-Irish folk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, it remains to be seen if there was enough "there" there to reach others.
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
She's Not Going Anywhere
Because of the flurry of various headlines about and around Sarah Palin, already there is some talk of whether her selection as McCain's running mate can survive. The political marketplace is already taking bets.
|
And The Atlantic's Josh Green has already consulted with several GOP insiders to find out what the process for yanking a nominee is.
Forget it. It's not going to happen. No way. No how.
How can we be so sure? For two reasons:
1) Republicans generally don't dump running mates (Spiro Agnew and Nelson Rockefeller were Watergate-era aberrations). Arguably, George H. W. Bush had greater cause to get rid of Dan Quayle in 1988 (and 1982): Quayle's debut press conference was an immediate embarrassment (unlike Palin's) and immediately caused panic among his handlers. His adequate performance against Lloyd Bentsen was completely overwhelmed by Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy," one-liner. Worse, after becoming VP, Quayle managed to stumble into one malapropism after another, remaining a staple of late-night comedy for the entire Bush I term. Regardless, Poppy Bush stayed with him. This is partly due to how much Republicans internalize their suspicion and hostility toward the mainstream media. The GOP hates to appear that it is surrendering to an elitist liberal media that wants to choose -- and destroy -- its leaders.
2) But, much more significantly, technology has changed things. Twenty or thirty years ago, the immediate storm of negative media against Palin could have overwhelmed a campaign. The only way they could have guaged how "the base" was feeling was via phone calls -- and that would have been very unreliable. The pick, literally, might not have even survived mail coming in one way or another.
That world no longer exists. What the Internet hath taken away from the public discourse -- including discredited rumors and legitimate lines of inquiry for mainstream media outlets to pursue, the Internet hath also given back: Just as Obama was able to go toe-to-toe with and eventually beat back the Clinton machine because of his prodigious 'Net fundraising, Palin has become bulletproof because the conservative base reacted in a clear, unequivocal way -- with their wallets. McCain has reportedly raised some $10 million since Palin's announcement -- nearly 20 percent of McCain's entire August fundraising haul. Conservatives are literally invested in this woman, not merely ideologically, but financially as well.
Dumping her now would look like fiscal fraud as much as ideological betrayal. Further, it would be suicide -- immdediately killing the energy and enthusiasm that the choice has sparked.
McCain may or may not win with Sarah Palin. He would most definitely lose if he dropped her off the ticket now.
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics, sarah palin
Friday, August 29, 2008
Beyond The Palin
From what I saw of her announcement, Palin is attractive, personable, very comfortable in a large public environment. That said, my gut tells me that this represents a strategic error on McCain's part.
More later.
UPDATE (9:00 PM): With a busy day at the office (trying to do some research on the newest Republican vice presidential candidate), now I can actually do a little more analysis here. On a purely tactical level, John McCain's choice was very smart. The other "short-list" choices -- Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or even Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia -- would have been ho-hum one-day stories. Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge would have been multi-day stories -- but of the wrong sort: "Conservative base up in arms over pro-choice pick!!!"
Instead, from most accounts, conservatives are ecstatic over this pro-life mother of five -- with at least one notable exception. On a broader level, the surprise choice -- arguably a far bigger surprise than Biden -- and its novelty completely changed the media focus from the Democrats' convention and Obama's speech. Instead, the discussion is about a young, rather attractive female governor selected by John McCain. And, it's always a bonus when a tactical move on your part causes a tactical error on the part of your opponent. That's what happened with the Obama campaign's initial reaction (as stated by press secretary Bill Burton):
Hillary Clinton then chimed in with a statement that carried an interesting tone: "We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."
Note the "we should all be proud" (emphasis added). Just in case Barack's crew didn't get the message.
Liberals and Obama supporters seem to be somewhat apoplectic over Palin -- because of the seeming hypocrisy of McCain saying that Obama is not experienced enough to be president, and then picking someone who hasn't been in the state house two years. I still think this does create an obvious inconsistency in the McCain message (the "strategic error" to which I referred in my immediate blog post above).
However, liberals should pause before they think that pointing out this apparent hypocrisy alone is going to be a winning argument. Several Hillary supporters during the DNC week complained about media sexism that they believe helped contribute to Hillary's loss -- and even if it didn't, there was anger about how some journalists had no problem using certain phrases and attitudes toward a female candidate, where the equivalent would never be directed at a black one. Geraldine Ferraro wrote a piece for the Daily News on the day of Obama's speech, making that point.
Whether one accepts this or not, the fact is that a certain number of Hillary supporters do. If either the Obama campaign or the broader media appears to attack Palin because she is a woman, it could backlash in a way that would be ultimately damaging to Obama.
Oh, and my friend Josh Marshall who has been practically doing cartwheels over a ready-made Palin scandal involving her office's alleged improper firing of the state public safety commissioner because he refused to fire a state trooper who happened to be Palin's former brother-in-law. On the surface, one might be inclined to be troubled by the details of the story. Upon deeper inspection, even if Palin was in the wrong, she might accrue a hell of a lot sympathy because her ex-brother-in-law looks like a real dirtbag:
Just based on that, I can see Palin's wanting to get rid of this state trooper receiving support from the ACLU (over the Taser), PETA (over the moose) and Mother's Against Drunk Driving (getting sloshed in his patrol car). In other words, Palin could end up coming across very sympathetic. And the fact that she has made lots of enemies -- among Republicans -- because of the state's institutional corruption creates a fair bit of doubt that this investigation may well be politically motivated.
All that said, there is yet something that troubles me about the Palin pick, and this has nothing to do with her personally: As I said at the top, I liked what I saw at the rally (as regular commenter MS noted, she has a Tina Fey quality about her). Still, there is, in the choice, another example of a type of cynical Republican politics that churns my stomach.
Seeing Sarah Palin, I remember this walk I took back from the GOP convention space in San Diego in 1996 -- just about exactly 12 years ago. I found myself walking near a couple of young Caucasians (I'm thinking late-20s, maybe early-30s). One said to the other, "Just think, wasn't it supposed to be Quayle-Clarence Thomas?" The other said, "Oh yeah, right, that was what people were talking about." The meaning was clear: Some Republican strategist back in 1992 -- in the likelihood of a Bush re-election -- was game-planning what would be a great '96 ticket: Vice President Dan Quayle with Clarence Thomas as his running mate.
This isn't an apocryphal tale (and no, I hadn't been drinking). I never approached the two to get their names or where they had heard such an interesting story. Why Clarence Thomas would have ever even considered leaving a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to get into national politics made little sense. However, the attitude exhibited by these two made perfect sense. It was driven by the same instincts that led George H.W. Bush to appoint Thomas to the Supreme Court to replace Thurgood Marshall -- and say that that was the best choice available. This, of course, being the party that is against affirmative action, uh, excuse me, racial preferences.
Now, Clarence Thomas has developed into a challenging and complex Justice with a much stronger grasp of the nuances of legal theory than most liberal critics will admit. However, that was hardly perceived at the time -- even among conservatives: As George Will said at the time: "George Bush began the Thomas saga by saying two things he and everyone else knows are untrue -- that Thomas is the person best qualified for the Supreme Court, and that his race was irrelevant to his selection." When he was appointed, he had been in political appointments most of his time in DC. He had been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit barely a year when he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Republicans decry identity politics, but this is how they play it -- with symbolic appointments that may be used for subsequent tactical moves down the line. Of course, Democrats play identity politics, but it is most often an attempt to balance the various parts of their electoral coalition.
Republicans do it for symbolic reasons or, as almost as often, for crass tactical ones. Thus, just as George H.W. Bush was willing to not let a simple thing like the Republican principle of being against affirmative action prevent him from selecting Thomas and calling him, "the best man for the job," John McCain is perfectly happy to push aside both a message stressing the importance of both experience and knowledge of foreign affairs in order to select a running mate who can be used to go after disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters. And, just in case, no one got the point, Palin genuflects before the previous examples of both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Rodham Clinton. As Ramesh Ponnuru noted, the word for this is "tokenism."
Of course, Sarah Palin is as different from Barack Obama as Ferraro was from Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- whom I am not a fan of -- ran for office in New York and won. She then assembled a political machine and ran a hard race, but didn't quite win. Barack Obama who supposedly has no experience, with much less connections and resources than Clinton, assembled a national campaign, raised money and defeated an operation with a former president as one of its most powerful assets. That is an achievement earned. It wasn't given to him.
But, now, McCain's pick allows him to run for the White House because he, too, represents "change." And, yeah, Sarah Palin is certainly a change from Dick Cheney.
However, the GOP cynicism this identity pick also represents is change we've seen before.
|
More later.
UPDATE (9:00 PM): With a busy day at the office (trying to do some research on the newest Republican vice presidential candidate), now I can actually do a little more analysis here. On a purely tactical level, John McCain's choice was very smart. The other "short-list" choices -- Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or even Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia -- would have been ho-hum one-day stories. Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge would have been multi-day stories -- but of the wrong sort: "Conservative base up in arms over pro-choice pick!!!"
Instead, from most accounts, conservatives are ecstatic over this pro-life mother of five -- with at least one notable exception. On a broader level, the surprise choice -- arguably a far bigger surprise than Biden -- and its novelty completely changed the media focus from the Democrats' convention and Obama's speech. Instead, the discussion is about a young, rather attractive female governor selected by John McCain. And, it's always a bonus when a tactical move on your part causes a tactical error on the part of your opponent. That's what happened with the Obama campaign's initial reaction (as stated by press secretary Bill Burton):
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."For a campaign that has been all about "change" and bringing forward a new type of politics, this reaction completely undercut the Obama message. No surprise then that the campaign put out a later statement with both Obama and Biden's names on it reflecting what should have been the original reaction:
"Her selection is yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics. While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward, Gov. Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign."Of course, you can't unring a bell. The first, ungenerous, release remains out there.
Hillary Clinton then chimed in with a statement that carried an interesting tone: "We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."
Note the "we should all be proud" (emphasis added). Just in case Barack's crew didn't get the message.
Liberals and Obama supporters seem to be somewhat apoplectic over Palin -- because of the seeming hypocrisy of McCain saying that Obama is not experienced enough to be president, and then picking someone who hasn't been in the state house two years. I still think this does create an obvious inconsistency in the McCain message (the "strategic error" to which I referred in my immediate blog post above).
However, liberals should pause before they think that pointing out this apparent hypocrisy alone is going to be a winning argument. Several Hillary supporters during the DNC week complained about media sexism that they believe helped contribute to Hillary's loss -- and even if it didn't, there was anger about how some journalists had no problem using certain phrases and attitudes toward a female candidate, where the equivalent would never be directed at a black one. Geraldine Ferraro wrote a piece for the Daily News on the day of Obama's speech, making that point.
Whether one accepts this or not, the fact is that a certain number of Hillary supporters do. If either the Obama campaign or the broader media appears to attack Palin because she is a woman, it could backlash in a way that would be ultimately damaging to Obama.
Oh, and my friend Josh Marshall who has been practically doing cartwheels over a ready-made Palin scandal involving her office's alleged improper firing of the state public safety commissioner because he refused to fire a state trooper who happened to be Palin's former brother-in-law. On the surface, one might be inclined to be troubled by the details of the story. Upon deeper inspection, even if Palin was in the wrong, she might accrue a hell of a lot sympathy because her ex-brother-in-law looks like a real dirtbag:
On July 17, the Public Safety Employees Association, with Wooten's permission, released the investigative file concerning the complaints brought against the trooper by the Palins, Palin's father, and others.The internal personnel investigation began in April 2005, long before Palin became governor and months before her October 2005 announcement that she was running. The investigation into Wooten wrapped up in March 2006.
Troopers found four instances in which Wooten violated policy, broke the law, or both:
- Wooten used a Taser on his stepson
- He shot a moose without a permit, which is illegal. At the time he was married to McCann, who has a permit but never intended to shoot it herself.
- He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
- He told others that his father-in-law - Palin's father, Chuck Heath - would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
Wooten's 10-day suspension was reduced to five after his union filed a grievance.
Just based on that, I can see Palin's wanting to get rid of this state trooper receiving support from the ACLU (over the Taser), PETA (over the moose) and Mother's Against Drunk Driving (getting sloshed in his patrol car). In other words, Palin could end up coming across very sympathetic. And the fact that she has made lots of enemies -- among Republicans -- because of the state's institutional corruption creates a fair bit of doubt that this investigation may well be politically motivated.
All that said, there is yet something that troubles me about the Palin pick, and this has nothing to do with her personally: As I said at the top, I liked what I saw at the rally (as regular commenter MS noted, she has a Tina Fey quality about her). Still, there is, in the choice, another example of a type of cynical Republican politics that churns my stomach.
Seeing Sarah Palin, I remember this walk I took back from the GOP convention space in San Diego in 1996 -- just about exactly 12 years ago. I found myself walking near a couple of young Caucasians (I'm thinking late-20s, maybe early-30s). One said to the other, "Just think, wasn't it supposed to be Quayle-Clarence Thomas?" The other said, "Oh yeah, right, that was what people were talking about." The meaning was clear: Some Republican strategist back in 1992 -- in the likelihood of a Bush re-election -- was game-planning what would be a great '96 ticket: Vice President Dan Quayle with Clarence Thomas as his running mate.
This isn't an apocryphal tale (and no, I hadn't been drinking). I never approached the two to get their names or where they had heard such an interesting story. Why Clarence Thomas would have ever even considered leaving a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to get into national politics made little sense. However, the attitude exhibited by these two made perfect sense. It was driven by the same instincts that led George H.W. Bush to appoint Thomas to the Supreme Court to replace Thurgood Marshall -- and say that that was the best choice available. This, of course, being the party that is against affirmative action, uh, excuse me, racial preferences.
Now, Clarence Thomas has developed into a challenging and complex Justice with a much stronger grasp of the nuances of legal theory than most liberal critics will admit. However, that was hardly perceived at the time -- even among conservatives: As George Will said at the time: "George Bush began the Thomas saga by saying two things he and everyone else knows are untrue -- that Thomas is the person best qualified for the Supreme Court, and that his race was irrelevant to his selection." When he was appointed, he had been in political appointments most of his time in DC. He had been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit barely a year when he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Republicans decry identity politics, but this is how they play it -- with symbolic appointments that may be used for subsequent tactical moves down the line. Of course, Democrats play identity politics, but it is most often an attempt to balance the various parts of their electoral coalition.
Republicans do it for symbolic reasons or, as almost as often, for crass tactical ones. Thus, just as George H.W. Bush was willing to not let a simple thing like the Republican principle of being against affirmative action prevent him from selecting Thomas and calling him, "the best man for the job," John McCain is perfectly happy to push aside both a message stressing the importance of both experience and knowledge of foreign affairs in order to select a running mate who can be used to go after disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters. And, just in case, no one got the point, Palin genuflects before the previous examples of both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Rodham Clinton. As Ramesh Ponnuru noted, the word for this is "tokenism."
Of course, Sarah Palin is as different from Barack Obama as Ferraro was from Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- whom I am not a fan of -- ran for office in New York and won. She then assembled a political machine and ran a hard race, but didn't quite win. Barack Obama who supposedly has no experience, with much less connections and resources than Clinton, assembled a national campaign, raised money and defeated an operation with a former president as one of its most powerful assets. That is an achievement earned. It wasn't given to him.
But, now, McCain's pick allows him to run for the White House because he, too, represents "change." And, yeah, Sarah Palin is certainly a change from Dick Cheney.
However, the GOP cynicism this identity pick also represents is change we've seen before.
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics, sarah palin
Friday, August 22, 2008
Houses In Motion
Talk about a game-changer. No sooner does it look like Obama might be limping into his convention, on the defensive over "celebrity" and falling poll numbers, than John McCain gives him a gift from the gods.
What was most impressive is how quickly the Obama camp turned McCain's, "I don't know how many houses I have into an attack ad:
The McCain camp responded quickly as well -- with an ad pointing out Obama's mortgage signed with the help of now-convicted embezzler Rezko:
Sorry, but Obama wins this exchange: First, his speaks directly to an issue high in voters mind -- the economy. Secondly, it uses McCain's own words against him. Third, there is the snarky, "McCain became confused; he couldn't remember." line which makes him seem "out of touch" in a way more damaging than just economically.
McCain's ad, on the other hand, looks too "generic" -- much like any other political ad: It's a character slam against Obama that requires too much information for the viewer to immediately assess. Furthermore, it doesn't have the light touch that the "celebrity" ads have accomplished.
Worse for McCain, the gaffe has also sparked multiple press stories examining his and Cindy's wealth -- including a Politico story "correcting" the Democrats, by saying that the McCains actually have eight, not seven homes. And as Ben Smith notes, McCain risks danger by again going to the POW well as an attempted rhetorical shield to ward off any criticism.
|
What was most impressive is how quickly the Obama camp turned McCain's, "I don't know how many houses I have into an attack ad:
The McCain camp responded quickly as well -- with an ad pointing out Obama's mortgage signed with the help of now-convicted embezzler Rezko:
Sorry, but Obama wins this exchange: First, his speaks directly to an issue high in voters mind -- the economy. Secondly, it uses McCain's own words against him. Third, there is the snarky, "McCain became confused; he couldn't remember." line which makes him seem "out of touch" in a way more damaging than just economically.
McCain's ad, on the other hand, looks too "generic" -- much like any other political ad: It's a character slam against Obama that requires too much information for the viewer to immediately assess. Furthermore, it doesn't have the light touch that the "celebrity" ads have accomplished.
Worse for McCain, the gaffe has also sparked multiple press stories examining his and Cindy's wealth -- including a Politico story "correcting" the Democrats, by saying that the McCains actually have eight, not seven homes. And as Ben Smith notes, McCain risks danger by again going to the POW well as an attempted rhetorical shield to ward off any criticism.
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, Presidential politics
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Definitions
While it's true that polls don't matter a whole lot in the late days of summer, perhaps Barack Obama should be concerned about what's happened to him in the dog days of August. By all measures, he is in a statistically weaker position nationally than he was at the beginning of the month.
It's not the raw numbers that Obama should consider most disturbing. Instead, the fact that John Zogby finds voters believe McCain is better able to handle the economy -- hardly his strongest issue! -- must drive Democrats nuts. But, this is more a reflection of what the McCain campaign has (temporarily?) successfully accomplished: The Republicans have managed to alter the definition of Barack Obama in the public's mind. Instead of a guy offering positive vision of hope and change, Obama has been changed into -- a "celebrity" offering nostrums of "hope" and "change", but with no actual leadership ability to accomplish that. Oh, and he's a tax-and-spend liberal who won't keep the country safe either.
The rule in politics usually is -- the candidate who defines himself and his opponent the best tends to go on to victory. Obama is going into what should be his best week of the year, so he has time -- and money -- to change the definitions. But, given voters perceptions of George W. Bush and the broader Republican brand, being essentially tied with McCain at this point has to be considered a major setback for Obama and the Democrats.
|
It's not the raw numbers that Obama should consider most disturbing. Instead, the fact that John Zogby finds voters believe McCain is better able to handle the economy -- hardly his strongest issue! -- must drive Democrats nuts. But, this is more a reflection of what the McCain campaign has (temporarily?) successfully accomplished: The Republicans have managed to alter the definition of Barack Obama in the public's mind. Instead of a guy offering positive vision of hope and change, Obama has been changed into -- a "celebrity" offering nostrums of "hope" and "change", but with no actual leadership ability to accomplish that. Oh, and he's a tax-and-spend liberal who won't keep the country safe either.
The rule in politics usually is -- the candidate who defines himself and his opponent the best tends to go on to victory. Obama is going into what should be his best week of the year, so he has time -- and money -- to change the definitions. But, given voters perceptions of George W. Bush and the broader Republican brand, being essentially tied with McCain at this point has to be considered a major setback for Obama and the Democrats.
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Why McCain?
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers makes one of the better cases for supporting John McCain for president. He gives Republicans jaded over the last few years some things to think about.
|
Labels: John McCain, Presidential politics
Friday, August 08, 2008
"The One"
So, is that John McCain ad mocking Obama as "The One" just another satirical dig at the young senator's celebrity status? Or is it subtly primed to take advantage of a sub-rosa suspicion of where Obama's true power comes from?
Amy Sullivan makes a pretty good case that it seems a little bit more than just coincidence.
|
Amy Sullivan makes a pretty good case that it seems a little bit more than just coincidence.
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain
