I received a pleasant surprise this morning while watching Bob Schieffer interview Senator John McCain on Face the Nation. The surprise was the reappearance of the candid and honest John McCain we used to know before the 2008 presidential election campaign. It reminded me of the McCain of the 2000 "Straight Talk Express" days, of the man who used to be my favorite Republican. It was good to see him back.
There he was, telling Schieffer that torture is not only illegal, but immoral and ineffective. "Under torture, a prisoner will tell you anything he thinks you want to hear," said McCain, sounding like either a peacenik or a man who knows something about torture first hand.
He spoke of going to Iraq with his friend, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. There they were allowed to talk to a man McCain referred to as, "an al Qaeda operative." The Arizona lawmaker related how he had asked the man how al Qaeda had begun making inroads in Iraq. "The first opportunity came in the general chaos after the American invasion, when there was no law and order in the country." "The second," he said, "came after the news about Abu Ghraib reached the people. Suddenly, there were thousands of young men eager to join our ranks." By relating this story it is clear that McCain gets it.
During the election campaign this McCain was nowhere to be found. The former proponent of American morality and adherence to international law and civilized behavior had adopted a strategy founded on appealing to the conservative base of the Republican Party alone. That group refuses to hear of anything the country might be able to improve upon, so during the election race McCain turned to backing the Bush-Cheney "enhanced interrogation" regime and ridiculing Obama's promise to abide by U.S. law and common decency.
It is good to see that now out of the grip of his campaign team of Rove-trained pols and an imagined need to draw distinctions with Obama even where he was clearly right, McCain has returned to sense and to his ethical center. It does not say much for the Republican base when its candidate feels he must cater to its mythologies at election time to win its votes, even when he knows they are not only erroneous but against his own principles as well. Those who will not hear the truth can never face reality and correct mistakes.
Welcome back, John. It was good to see you again.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Monday, October 27, 2008
McCain's Bizarre Strategy
After eight years of painful misgovernance under the hard-right Bush-Cheney administration the American people say by record margins that things are on the wrong track. They say they want change. That's why the Republicans were wise to nominate John McCain for president. He was the one Republican who had demonstrated some independence from party orthodoxy and could credibly make the case that he might actually be for change. That is what makes McCain's general election strategy of running an extreme hard-right campaign so bizarre. Of what could he possibly have been thinking?
To get the Republican nomination all the candidates had to fall into lockstep over the unshakable articles of faith dear to the Republican base: continue the fight in Iraq, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, wall out illegal immigrants and refuse any semblance of accepting those already here into American society, speak glowingly of evangelical religion and speak disapprovingly of abortion and gay rights. McCain had questioned all these tenets except Iraq at times in his past, but to get the nomination he pledged allegiance to the lot.
One might have expected him to gravitate back toward the middle of the road once he had the nomination in hand. After all, that's where most of the voters were: they wanted out of Iraq, had an abysmal opinion of Bush and his policies, realized the futility of hostility to immigrants (not to mention the anger in the Latino community over the issue), were tired of the merging of religion and politics, support abortion rights and were, particularly among the young, growing increasingly tolerant of gay rights.
So what did McCain do? He dug the hardest of hard lines on Iraq. He fully supported the Bush tax cuts and failed to differentiate an inch of daylight between his economic prescriptions and the president's. He dropped his comprehensive immigration proposal and vowed he would no longer vote for it himself. He cozied up to conservative evangelical preachers whenever he could, opposed abortion rights and chose for his running mate a brassy but shallow neophyte as sure to delight the know-nothing hard-right cultural base as she was to dismay everyone else. What was up with all that?
I feel McCain settled on a strategy to try to reconstruct the Bush victory of 2004. He began running at first on his experience and found that was getting nowhere. He determined that in a change election he could not compete with Barack Obama, "Mr. Change" himself. Obama was everything about change, at least on the surface, that McCain was not. He was much younger, a minority, and hip. McCain at first tried to say he was for change, and initially he and Sarah Palin seemed to use the word "maverick" in every other sentence to imply their own openness to change.
What they absolutely failed to do, however, was to devise any actual plans or policy points of change. Change was a slogan, not a program, and the American people caught on. And rather than retool the campaign to go for the center they gravitated to the default campaign mode of the Rovians McCain had put in charge. The idea was and is to recreate the 2004 win over Kerry. First, raise questions about the opponent personally with guilt by association. Next, identify with the symbols the base loves: God, guns and "family values." Finally, divide the nation into us and them by attacking the opponent with the old reliable labels: liberal, socialist, class warfare, unpatriotic, not one of us, un-American parts of the country and so on. The idea is to "energize the base" to a monstrous turnout, rather than to appeal to moderates. It worked for Bush. Why isn't it working now?
The reason is to be found in the news of the day. Americans are deeply worried about the problems now afoot. Job losses, the stock market, the financial and home implosions, energy, health care and the wars are but some of the myriad dangers confronting the nation. People have finally come to the point where they want pragmatic solutions and can no longer brook distracting sloganeering. They have heard it all before.
We will never know what might have happened had the McCain team come up with some innovative ideas for such solutions grounded in the moderate center. What is clear is that they cast their lot with the politics of personal destruction and national division instead. As of now it appears this plan is not working. If there is any justice that will continue to be the case on election day. The American people deserved better. John McCain was capable of delivering better but he chose not to. More's the pity.
To get the Republican nomination all the candidates had to fall into lockstep over the unshakable articles of faith dear to the Republican base: continue the fight in Iraq, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, wall out illegal immigrants and refuse any semblance of accepting those already here into American society, speak glowingly of evangelical religion and speak disapprovingly of abortion and gay rights. McCain had questioned all these tenets except Iraq at times in his past, but to get the nomination he pledged allegiance to the lot.
One might have expected him to gravitate back toward the middle of the road once he had the nomination in hand. After all, that's where most of the voters were: they wanted out of Iraq, had an abysmal opinion of Bush and his policies, realized the futility of hostility to immigrants (not to mention the anger in the Latino community over the issue), were tired of the merging of religion and politics, support abortion rights and were, particularly among the young, growing increasingly tolerant of gay rights.
So what did McCain do? He dug the hardest of hard lines on Iraq. He fully supported the Bush tax cuts and failed to differentiate an inch of daylight between his economic prescriptions and the president's. He dropped his comprehensive immigration proposal and vowed he would no longer vote for it himself. He cozied up to conservative evangelical preachers whenever he could, opposed abortion rights and chose for his running mate a brassy but shallow neophyte as sure to delight the know-nothing hard-right cultural base as she was to dismay everyone else. What was up with all that?
I feel McCain settled on a strategy to try to reconstruct the Bush victory of 2004. He began running at first on his experience and found that was getting nowhere. He determined that in a change election he could not compete with Barack Obama, "Mr. Change" himself. Obama was everything about change, at least on the surface, that McCain was not. He was much younger, a minority, and hip. McCain at first tried to say he was for change, and initially he and Sarah Palin seemed to use the word "maverick" in every other sentence to imply their own openness to change.
What they absolutely failed to do, however, was to devise any actual plans or policy points of change. Change was a slogan, not a program, and the American people caught on. And rather than retool the campaign to go for the center they gravitated to the default campaign mode of the Rovians McCain had put in charge. The idea was and is to recreate the 2004 win over Kerry. First, raise questions about the opponent personally with guilt by association. Next, identify with the symbols the base loves: God, guns and "family values." Finally, divide the nation into us and them by attacking the opponent with the old reliable labels: liberal, socialist, class warfare, unpatriotic, not one of us, un-American parts of the country and so on. The idea is to "energize the base" to a monstrous turnout, rather than to appeal to moderates. It worked for Bush. Why isn't it working now?
The reason is to be found in the news of the day. Americans are deeply worried about the problems now afoot. Job losses, the stock market, the financial and home implosions, energy, health care and the wars are but some of the myriad dangers confronting the nation. People have finally come to the point where they want pragmatic solutions and can no longer brook distracting sloganeering. They have heard it all before.
We will never know what might have happened had the McCain team come up with some innovative ideas for such solutions grounded in the moderate center. What is clear is that they cast their lot with the politics of personal destruction and national division instead. As of now it appears this plan is not working. If there is any justice that will continue to be the case on election day. The American people deserved better. John McCain was capable of delivering better but he chose not to. More's the pity.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Fear and Loathing on the Campign Trail
With two weeks to go and things not looking so good for him, John McCain is starting to drop all pretense of dignity. He begins to remind me of Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. His obsession for the possession his "precious" having completely taken over his very being, the once-attractive hobbit has been reduced to a frantic, grasping, selfish, fiend, consumed by his ambition and willing to do or say anything to get what he wants.
Long gone is the McCain of this summer who called for a respectful campaign on the issues. Just a distant memory is the "straight talker" of 2000, who was broken and destroyed by the Rove slime machine that year. Now the Rove acolytes work for Mr. McCain, and more and more of his message seems to emanate from their minds.
His campaign has degenerated into an exercise in name-calling, labelling, guilt by association, division and coded race-baiting. Obama is called a "terrorist" at Republican rallies. McCain himself now raises the bogeyman of "socialism" when discussing his rival and styles his tax policy as "welfare" and "class warfare." His warmup speakers have taken to emphasizing Obama's Arab-sounding middle name.
Sarah Palin styles heavy concentrations of their supporters the "pro-American" parts of the country and states leaning Obama's way as the "anti-American" parts. In scenes redolent of McCarthyism, their surrogates such as Representative Bachman go on national television to demand Congressional investigations of the loyalty of Democratic politicians. Their spokesmen such as Tom Ridge follow up with network interviews reiterating the "socialist road" mantra while Palin glorifies of "small-town real Americans" while sowing resentment and suspicion of Americans who live in more urban settings, a coded reference to racial division. This is the kind of campaign Colin Powell had in mind when he referred to the McCain-Palin effort as "demagoguery."
Quite apart from the issue differences, which are hardly the focus of this strategy, it would be a very good thing for the country for this campaign to fail. For one, its defeat might make others in the future less likely. Beyond that, its division of the nation into "we and they" feeds the kind of furious partisan division which would make governing extremely difficult for either party. Perhaps most ominous from what we are hearing at Republican rallies, it appears to be stoking the kind of passionate anger likely to lead to violence, either of American against American or against the candidate.
Obama constantly points out the destructive nature of this type of hate and fear mongering to the fabric of the nation. He also frequently asserts, "It will not work, not this time." He is most assuredly right on the first count, and one can only hope on the second as well.
Long gone is the McCain of this summer who called for a respectful campaign on the issues. Just a distant memory is the "straight talker" of 2000, who was broken and destroyed by the Rove slime machine that year. Now the Rove acolytes work for Mr. McCain, and more and more of his message seems to emanate from their minds.
His campaign has degenerated into an exercise in name-calling, labelling, guilt by association, division and coded race-baiting. Obama is called a "terrorist" at Republican rallies. McCain himself now raises the bogeyman of "socialism" when discussing his rival and styles his tax policy as "welfare" and "class warfare." His warmup speakers have taken to emphasizing Obama's Arab-sounding middle name.
Sarah Palin styles heavy concentrations of their supporters the "pro-American" parts of the country and states leaning Obama's way as the "anti-American" parts. In scenes redolent of McCarthyism, their surrogates such as Representative Bachman go on national television to demand Congressional investigations of the loyalty of Democratic politicians. Their spokesmen such as Tom Ridge follow up with network interviews reiterating the "socialist road" mantra while Palin glorifies of "small-town real Americans" while sowing resentment and suspicion of Americans who live in more urban settings, a coded reference to racial division. This is the kind of campaign Colin Powell had in mind when he referred to the McCain-Palin effort as "demagoguery."
Quite apart from the issue differences, which are hardly the focus of this strategy, it would be a very good thing for the country for this campaign to fail. For one, its defeat might make others in the future less likely. Beyond that, its division of the nation into "we and they" feeds the kind of furious partisan division which would make governing extremely difficult for either party. Perhaps most ominous from what we are hearing at Republican rallies, it appears to be stoking the kind of passionate anger likely to lead to violence, either of American against American or against the candidate.
Obama constantly points out the destructive nature of this type of hate and fear mongering to the fabric of the nation. He also frequently asserts, "It will not work, not this time." He is most assuredly right on the first count, and one can only hope on the second as well.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama Goes Three for Three
Barack Obama emerged as the clear winner in the presidential debate against John McCain tonight. Obama's third consecutive victory deals a probably lethal blow to McCain's White House hopes.
The last of the three Obama-McCain debates was a spirited interchange between the two rivals. Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer steered the debate into some interesting territory avoided in earlier face-offs, including abortion and dirty campaigning. As expected, McCain took to the offensive and remained on the attack whenever possible. Obama coolly refuted McCain's thrusts and repeatedly counterattacked from defensive position.
An example was a back and forth on Bill Ayers. McCain brought up the former Weather Underground bomber to attack Obama's judgment and associations. Obama opened by remarking, "Bill Ayers has become the centerpiece of Sen. McCain's campaign over the past two or three weeks." Obama then calmly described a tangential relationship with the man, including the names of educational and Republican notables sitting on the same panels. After another dig from McCain about the effectiveness of using the Ayers issue, Obama responded with, "Your campaign says more about you than it does about me."
McCain focused on the kinds of appeals that might have worked well twenty years ago in the 1980s. He was strongly ideological, saying at one point, "The whole premise of Sen. Obama's tax policy is class warfare." He railed against big government, high taxes and "spread the wealth" thinking. He ridiculed the idea that a woman's health might be a consideration in the permissibility of late-term abortions, calling it an "extremist" position, and when confronted with the spectacle of people at his and his running mate's appearances shouting, "terrorist" and "kill him" at the mention of Obama's name, said he was "very proud of" the people who attend his rallies.
Throughout it all, McCain's efforts to rattle and provoke Obama elicited measured responses, while time and again McCain was unable to conceal his own disdain and contempt for Obama. His frequent sarcasm, grimaces and eye rolling compared poorly to Obama's earnest attentiveness when McCain spoke and broad smiles when McCain raised points that Obama considered disingenuous. Once again Obama appeared the more comfortably presidential of the two while McCain often came across as Dennis the Menace's grumpy old neighbor, Mr. Wilson.
In his closing statement, McCain fell back on his resume. He pointed to his lifetime of service, spoke of his integrity and invited the American people to trust him. Obama by contrast, issued a promise of action. He spoke of what he planned to accomplish, a 'Here's what I'm going to do for you' summation of the reasons for his campaign.
The popular verdict was decisive. CNN's survey of a national cross section proclaimed Obama the winner by 58% to 31%. Obama's favorability rating went up from 63% to 66% while McCain's fell from 51% to 49%. Obama was judged better on economic issues 59% to 35% and on health 62% to 31%. He was favored on taxes 56% to 41% and was considered more likable by a whopping 70% to 22%. A CBS poll of undecided voters preferred Obama's performance by an even more decisive margin, 53% to 22%.
Expect McCain to talk a lot about taxes and his history of service in the final two and a half weeks. His smear efforts have fallen flat, his policy plans are not resonating and his personality is irritating the voters and driving them away.
In the summer of '07 McCain's campaign had run off the tracks, his support plummeting like a stone. He dismissed almost his entire staff and started over from square one. After that came the miracle recovery that resulted in his gaining the Republican nomination. To win this election he will need another one.
The last of the three Obama-McCain debates was a spirited interchange between the two rivals. Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer steered the debate into some interesting territory avoided in earlier face-offs, including abortion and dirty campaigning. As expected, McCain took to the offensive and remained on the attack whenever possible. Obama coolly refuted McCain's thrusts and repeatedly counterattacked from defensive position.
An example was a back and forth on Bill Ayers. McCain brought up the former Weather Underground bomber to attack Obama's judgment and associations. Obama opened by remarking, "Bill Ayers has become the centerpiece of Sen. McCain's campaign over the past two or three weeks." Obama then calmly described a tangential relationship with the man, including the names of educational and Republican notables sitting on the same panels. After another dig from McCain about the effectiveness of using the Ayers issue, Obama responded with, "Your campaign says more about you than it does about me."
McCain focused on the kinds of appeals that might have worked well twenty years ago in the 1980s. He was strongly ideological, saying at one point, "The whole premise of Sen. Obama's tax policy is class warfare." He railed against big government, high taxes and "spread the wealth" thinking. He ridiculed the idea that a woman's health might be a consideration in the permissibility of late-term abortions, calling it an "extremist" position, and when confronted with the spectacle of people at his and his running mate's appearances shouting, "terrorist" and "kill him" at the mention of Obama's name, said he was "very proud of" the people who attend his rallies.
Throughout it all, McCain's efforts to rattle and provoke Obama elicited measured responses, while time and again McCain was unable to conceal his own disdain and contempt for Obama. His frequent sarcasm, grimaces and eye rolling compared poorly to Obama's earnest attentiveness when McCain spoke and broad smiles when McCain raised points that Obama considered disingenuous. Once again Obama appeared the more comfortably presidential of the two while McCain often came across as Dennis the Menace's grumpy old neighbor, Mr. Wilson.
In his closing statement, McCain fell back on his resume. He pointed to his lifetime of service, spoke of his integrity and invited the American people to trust him. Obama by contrast, issued a promise of action. He spoke of what he planned to accomplish, a 'Here's what I'm going to do for you' summation of the reasons for his campaign.
The popular verdict was decisive. CNN's survey of a national cross section proclaimed Obama the winner by 58% to 31%. Obama's favorability rating went up from 63% to 66% while McCain's fell from 51% to 49%. Obama was judged better on economic issues 59% to 35% and on health 62% to 31%. He was favored on taxes 56% to 41% and was considered more likable by a whopping 70% to 22%. A CBS poll of undecided voters preferred Obama's performance by an even more decisive margin, 53% to 22%.
Expect McCain to talk a lot about taxes and his history of service in the final two and a half weeks. His smear efforts have fallen flat, his policy plans are not resonating and his personality is irritating the voters and driving them away.
In the summer of '07 McCain's campaign had run off the tracks, his support plummeting like a stone. He dismissed almost his entire staff and started over from square one. After that came the miracle recovery that resulted in his gaining the Republican nomination. To win this election he will need another one.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
New Yorker Endorsement
The New Yorker has just come out with its endorsement for the presidential election. As one might expect, the magazine recommends a vote for Sen. Barack Obama.
What is exceptional is the complete rationale behind its case. On domestic and foreign policy, economics, social progress, the judicial branch, national renewal and personal qualifications, the editorial lays out the case more compellingly than I have seen elsewhere.
The damage done to this country by the Bush Administration these eight years has been severe indeed. Whether you are partial to Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain or still trying to make up your mind, I'd like to encourage you to consider this piece and add it to your deliberations. You can access it here.
What is exceptional is the complete rationale behind its case. On domestic and foreign policy, economics, social progress, the judicial branch, national renewal and personal qualifications, the editorial lays out the case more compellingly than I have seen elsewhere.
The damage done to this country by the Bush Administration these eight years has been severe indeed. Whether you are partial to Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain or still trying to make up your mind, I'd like to encourage you to consider this piece and add it to your deliberations. You can access it here.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
George Will Says McCain Unfit for Presidency
George F. Will is one of the most respected deans of American journalism. The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and commentator's credentials go all the way back to the National Review in 1972. He has written an erudite and thoughtfully conservative column twice a week in the Washington Post for nearly thirty years, and also appears weekly on television as a panelist on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopolous. His conservatism stresses civic virtue, moral responsibility and the preservation of American institutions. For a fuller biography see this.
Given Will's prominence and his long conservative record, his extremely harsh criticism of John McCain this week-essentially stating that the man's personality and character ought to disqualify him from the presidency-thus struck the Arizona Senator's campaign a surprising and painful blow.
Will had apparently been doing some serious thinking about McCain's responses to the financial crisis. First McCain denied the problem, saying, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." He then tried to correct by laughably explaining that by "fundamentals" he meant American workers. His next tack was to tout his credentials as a "fundamental deregulator." When it became apparent that most people ascribed the crisis to a lack of effective regulation, McCain immediately flip-flopped and called for strict oversight. When his contradictions, sometimes coming in the same day, began to draw ridicule McCain then lashed out at corporate greed and called for the firing of Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
It was this barely coherent sequence that so troubled Will. On Stephanopolous he mused,
After some discussion by the other panel members, Will summed up with this: "John McCain showed his personality this week, and made some of us fearful."
Having broken the ice verbally, Will then set his thoughts down in print in his Post column the next day, Monday the 23rd. He began with a quote from Alice in Wonderland. "The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." If you have ever read much from Will, the scathing nature of the rest of the essay will come as nothing less than a shock.
He describes McCain's behavior and thought processes as "untethered-disconnected from knowledge and principle," "childish" and "unpresidential." His tactics are characterized as "fact-free slander" that relies on "smear."
Will senses in these outbursts "a harbinger of a McCain presidency," one in which McCain's politics consist of "always pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public trust, two categories that seem to be exhaustive--there are no other people," and are the products of his "Manichean worldview."
Will posits that conservatives increasingly have little to say in McCain's defense other than that he "will make excellent judicial selections." Then he continues, "But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either."
Will concludes by dropping a rather amazing hint that may be seriously considering voting for Barack Obama. He states it thus:
Given Will's prominence and his long conservative record, his extremely harsh criticism of John McCain this week-essentially stating that the man's personality and character ought to disqualify him from the presidency-thus struck the Arizona Senator's campaign a surprising and painful blow.
Will had apparently been doing some serious thinking about McCain's responses to the financial crisis. First McCain denied the problem, saying, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." He then tried to correct by laughably explaining that by "fundamentals" he meant American workers. His next tack was to tout his credentials as a "fundamental deregulator." When it became apparent that most people ascribed the crisis to a lack of effective regulation, McCain immediately flip-flopped and called for strict oversight. When his contradictions, sometimes coming in the same day, began to draw ridicule McCain then lashed out at corporate greed and called for the firing of Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
It was this barely coherent sequence that so troubled Will. On Stephanopolous he mused,
"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience. The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain, who, as usual substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And he picked one of the most experienced people in the administration, Chris Cox, for no apparent reason...It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate."
After some discussion by the other panel members, Will summed up with this: "John McCain showed his personality this week, and made some of us fearful."
Having broken the ice verbally, Will then set his thoughts down in print in his Post column the next day, Monday the 23rd. He began with a quote from Alice in Wonderland. "The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." If you have ever read much from Will, the scathing nature of the rest of the essay will come as nothing less than a shock.
He describes McCain's behavior and thought processes as "untethered-disconnected from knowledge and principle," "childish" and "unpresidential." His tactics are characterized as "fact-free slander" that relies on "smear."
Will senses in these outbursts "a harbinger of a McCain presidency," one in which McCain's politics consist of "always pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public trust, two categories that seem to be exhaustive--there are no other people," and are the products of his "Manichean worldview."
Will posits that conservatives increasingly have little to say in McCain's defense other than that he "will make excellent judicial selections." Then he continues, "But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either."
Will concludes by dropping a rather amazing hint that may be seriously considering voting for Barack Obama. He states it thus:
"It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
Monday, September 15, 2008
Financial Implosion Gathers Steam
The other shoes keep dropping. Today the Dow lost 500 points, Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch at fire sale terms and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. This all follows a $150 billion stimulus package, the forced takeover of Bear Stearns and federal bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--all of which appear to have accomplished little more than to put bandaids on the metastasizing tumors that currently riddle the American financial system.
In other news, John McCain declared the economy "fundamentally strong." His economic plan remains a mix of the George W. Bush tax policies that exploded the deficit, the Phil Gramm deregulation scheme that led to the mortgage meltdown and the Alan Greenspan liquidity mantra that has allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves into the houses of cards we now see going down.
Despite the supposed strong fundamentals the Arizona Senator also called the economic situation "a crisis" that can only be solved by sending the 26-year capitol veteran back again to "clean up Washington" as only an "outsider" and "maverick" like himself can accomplish. This comical formulation led Hillary Clinton, campaigning for Barack Obama in Florida, to quip that putting McCain and the rest of the Republicans back in power to fix the economy is, "like sending the iceberg to rescue the Titanic."
For the best concise summation I've seen in a good long while of where things stand and what's at stake, take a look at what Thomas Friedman had to say today.
In other news, John McCain declared the economy "fundamentally strong." His economic plan remains a mix of the George W. Bush tax policies that exploded the deficit, the Phil Gramm deregulation scheme that led to the mortgage meltdown and the Alan Greenspan liquidity mantra that has allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves into the houses of cards we now see going down.
Despite the supposed strong fundamentals the Arizona Senator also called the economic situation "a crisis" that can only be solved by sending the 26-year capitol veteran back again to "clean up Washington" as only an "outsider" and "maverick" like himself can accomplish. This comical formulation led Hillary Clinton, campaigning for Barack Obama in Florida, to quip that putting McCain and the rest of the Republicans back in power to fix the economy is, "like sending the iceberg to rescue the Titanic."
For the best concise summation I've seen in a good long while of where things stand and what's at stake, take a look at what Thomas Friedman had to say today.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
McCain Lies Independently Confirmed
You know things are bad when Karl Rove says a fellow Republican is playing fast and loose with the truth. Rove, the political strategist President Bush called "the architect" of his election victories, and a practitioner of sometimes scurrilous attack politics himself, commented on Fox News that, "McCain has gone too far in some of his ads-similarly gone one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test." You can read more about it here.
My blog on September 5, "Tapestry of Lies," called attention to the large number of untruths the McCain campaign was spinning about its own record and Barack Obama's. Reader Webfoot suggested I go to FactCheck.org to get a nonpartisan, unbiased accounting of the campaign claims made by both sides. That was an excellent idea. You can see FactCheck for yourself here.
For the record, FactCheck finds John McCain, Sarah Palin and their principal convention surrogates responsible for fifteen such lies and distortions. It finds the Obama campaign responsible for one. Here they are, so you can judge for yourself the importance of the misperceptions that are being fostered. And go to the FactCheck link above if you want confirmation of what you read here.
John McCain himself: McCain's own lies include, at the Republican convention: 1. The claim that Obama's health plan burdens small business. In fact it exempts small business. 2. Said that Obama voted for corporate welfare for oil companies. The truth is Obama voted to raise taxes on oil companies by $300 million. 3. Says his own plan encourages a switch to "wind, tidal and solar" energy. The truth is, his energy plan devotes not $1 to these sources.
Exagerrations included, 4. Claimed that Alaska, under Palin, produces 20% of U.S. energy. In fact, it produces 14% of the oil and 3.5% of total energy. 5. Said we import $700 billion worth of oil a year from "countries that don't like us very much." The truth is our oil imports were $536 billion and 1/3 of that comes from Canada and Mexico.
McCain made unfounded claims on, 6. Says he will reduce spending and failed programs. FactCheck finds he has never cited a single cut nor indentified a single program for such attention. 7. Charged that Obama would "close markets" by changing trade agreements. In reality, Obama has suggested he would renegotiate trade accords to better protect American workers but has never advocated suspending trade with such countries.
The McCain Campaign: FactCheck finds the McCain campaign lied by, 8. Charging Obama with voting to teach inappropriate sex education to kindergartners. The truth is that the program in question would, at that grade level, only have trained children in "age appropriate" ways to understand and resist the advances of sexual predators. 9. Charging the Obama campaign with making a groundless attack on Palin for claiming she had supported the "Bridge to Nowhere." She did in fact support it and then lied by saying she hadn't. 10. Charging the Obama campaign with concocting viral internet material derogatory of Palin. FactCheck finds the charges "completely false" because none of the material came from the Obama campaign.
Sarah Palin: At the convention and on the campaign trail, finds she lied about 11. Opposing the "Bridge to Nowhere" which she actually fought for. 12. Claiming she said, "no thanks" for the money for the bridge when she actually accepted it and used it for other purposes. 13. Stating that Obama had passed "no laws" in congress when he authored a sweeping ethics law that was passed.
Convention Surrogates: Says that Mike Huckabee exagerrated by, 14. Claiming that Biden got fewer votes for President in the primaries than Palin did for Mayor of Wasilla. Palin got 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999. Biden got 79,754 votes in the Iowa Caucuses. FactCheck also found that Rudy Giuliani, 15. Distorted Obama's record on Georgia when in reality his and McCain's statements were substantively equivalent.
As compared to this record, FactCheck has been able to catch Barack Obama, Joe Biden or their campaign in only one distortion. It finds the Obama Campaign has 1. "Played fast and loose" with McCain's record on Education by claiming he voted to cut education when in fact he voted not to increase it.
All in all, the comparison makes it clear who is making up talking points without regard for the truth in a wholesale way. It is reminiscent of the kind of campaigns George W. Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. And, as columnist Paul Krugman reminds us, "How a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern," and that under the Rove-trained Rick Davis, the McCain-Palin ticket "is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class."
My blog on September 5, "Tapestry of Lies," called attention to the large number of untruths the McCain campaign was spinning about its own record and Barack Obama's. Reader Webfoot suggested I go to FactCheck.org to get a nonpartisan, unbiased accounting of the campaign claims made by both sides. That was an excellent idea. You can see FactCheck for yourself here.
For the record, FactCheck finds John McCain, Sarah Palin and their principal convention surrogates responsible for fifteen such lies and distortions. It finds the Obama campaign responsible for one. Here they are, so you can judge for yourself the importance of the misperceptions that are being fostered. And go to the FactCheck link above if you want confirmation of what you read here.
John McCain himself: McCain's own lies include, at the Republican convention: 1. The claim that Obama's health plan burdens small business. In fact it exempts small business. 2. Said that Obama voted for corporate welfare for oil companies. The truth is Obama voted to raise taxes on oil companies by $300 million. 3. Says his own plan encourages a switch to "wind, tidal and solar" energy. The truth is, his energy plan devotes not $1 to these sources.
Exagerrations included, 4. Claimed that Alaska, under Palin, produces 20% of U.S. energy. In fact, it produces 14% of the oil and 3.5% of total energy. 5. Said we import $700 billion worth of oil a year from "countries that don't like us very much." The truth is our oil imports were $536 billion and 1/3 of that comes from Canada and Mexico.
McCain made unfounded claims on, 6. Says he will reduce spending and failed programs. FactCheck finds he has never cited a single cut nor indentified a single program for such attention. 7. Charged that Obama would "close markets" by changing trade agreements. In reality, Obama has suggested he would renegotiate trade accords to better protect American workers but has never advocated suspending trade with such countries.
The McCain Campaign: FactCheck finds the McCain campaign lied by, 8. Charging Obama with voting to teach inappropriate sex education to kindergartners. The truth is that the program in question would, at that grade level, only have trained children in "age appropriate" ways to understand and resist the advances of sexual predators. 9. Charging the Obama campaign with making a groundless attack on Palin for claiming she had supported the "Bridge to Nowhere." She did in fact support it and then lied by saying she hadn't. 10. Charging the Obama campaign with concocting viral internet material derogatory of Palin. FactCheck finds the charges "completely false" because none of the material came from the Obama campaign.
Sarah Palin: At the convention and on the campaign trail, finds she lied about 11. Opposing the "Bridge to Nowhere" which she actually fought for. 12. Claiming she said, "no thanks" for the money for the bridge when she actually accepted it and used it for other purposes. 13. Stating that Obama had passed "no laws" in congress when he authored a sweeping ethics law that was passed.
Convention Surrogates: Says that Mike Huckabee exagerrated by, 14. Claiming that Biden got fewer votes for President in the primaries than Palin did for Mayor of Wasilla. Palin got 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999. Biden got 79,754 votes in the Iowa Caucuses. FactCheck also found that Rudy Giuliani, 15. Distorted Obama's record on Georgia when in reality his and McCain's statements were substantively equivalent.
As compared to this record, FactCheck has been able to catch Barack Obama, Joe Biden or their campaign in only one distortion. It finds the Obama Campaign has 1. "Played fast and loose" with McCain's record on Education by claiming he voted to cut education when in fact he voted not to increase it.
All in all, the comparison makes it clear who is making up talking points without regard for the truth in a wholesale way. It is reminiscent of the kind of campaigns George W. Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. And, as columnist Paul Krugman reminds us, "How a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern," and that under the Rove-trained Rick Davis, the McCain-Palin ticket "is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class."
Friday, September 5, 2008
Tapestry of Lies
The Wednesday-Thursday one-two punch of Palin and McCain at the Republican Convention has most of the punditocracy abuzz as we begin the final sixty days of the long election cycle. The ticket presents a bit of a quandary. First, are they more about the hard right views and hard hitting attacks of Palin, or about the more centrist views and more accommodating approach of McCain? Secondly, some ask whether a Republican can run against the record of own party as the agent of change for that party. Yet both these questions are off the mark. It is about neither.
It is, for the discerning, about the truth; a commodity held in such disregard by both aspirants it is clear that in the most important department, this team offers no change from "the Washington culture" (i.e., the Bush Administration) at all. For the fabric of their campaign is held together primarily by a tapestry of lies: knowing, intentional, self-serving lies of the kind that reveal the emptiness of Senator McCain's promises of a new dawn of bipartisan understanding and conciliation. It looks a lot more like win at all costs and the devil take the hindmost.
Consider the lies told just in the first week since Palin was named as running mate. In his stump speech McCain says Obama has written no legislation, has never worked across party lines and will raise everyone's taxes. These are lies and McCain knows it. Obama wrote sweeping ethics legislation that has been adopted. He worked with Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana on that and on passing a bill to fund securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on less than 5% of the people, not everyone. McCain could just tell the truth and argue against Obama's policies, but he does not. The lie, "Obama never has" will sell better, if believed. So he tells it.
Consider now the lies Palin is telling. She relates, and McCain repeats, her story of getting rid of the previous governor's designated state jet plane on e-bay for a profit. She says she was against the "Bridge to Nowhere" and returned the money. She claims to have been against "wasteful earmarks" and says she refused to associate with Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, currently under indictment. All in her first week, and all blatant lies.
The truth is she offered the plane on e-bay but couldn't sell it there and wound up dealing it to one of her campaign contributors, not for a profit but for $600,000 under cost. She supported the bridge and fought for its passage. When public outcry over it went national she took the $300 million dollars anyway and spent it. One of the things it went for was the access road that was to have led to the ill-fated bridge. She was not against earmarks, but instead hired a lobbyist who succeeded in bringing more earmarks to Alaska per capita than any other state. To complete the story, she appears on tape with Senator Stevens as a director of his 527 committee.
Other pearls soon to come out include her husband's membership in a treasonous organization (a group dedicated to the secession of Alaska from the Union) and a number of fundamentalist nut case assertions of Palin's, saying such things as the Iraq War is part of God's plan, God prefers her pipeline proposal, and that Israel has a lot of terrorism because Jews don't accept Jesus.
It is small wonder that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign chief, now says the campaign "should be about personality" and that the campaign has refused to allow reporters to interview the Governor. The campaign released a statement saying, "We will make her available to the press when it is in our interest."
It is disheartening to have to report that far from portending a new movement to "change Washington," the present Republican ticket bears all the hallmarks of the unethical and corrupt administration it seeks to replace. The way most of the media seems to be portraying it, Palin and McCain's convention performances have made them the current darlings and they are a breath of fresh air. Yet in spite of this, an ABC poll shows the people may not be buying it. Palin had a 50% favorable rating to 37% unfavorable, for a +13. Joe Biden's comparable numbers were 54% and 30%, a +24. When asked if the two veep candidates had "the right experience to assume the presidency" if necessary, respondents said "no" 50% to 42% for Palin but "yes" 66% to 21% Biden.
It is, for the discerning, about the truth; a commodity held in such disregard by both aspirants it is clear that in the most important department, this team offers no change from "the Washington culture" (i.e., the Bush Administration) at all. For the fabric of their campaign is held together primarily by a tapestry of lies: knowing, intentional, self-serving lies of the kind that reveal the emptiness of Senator McCain's promises of a new dawn of bipartisan understanding and conciliation. It looks a lot more like win at all costs and the devil take the hindmost.
Consider the lies told just in the first week since Palin was named as running mate. In his stump speech McCain says Obama has written no legislation, has never worked across party lines and will raise everyone's taxes. These are lies and McCain knows it. Obama wrote sweeping ethics legislation that has been adopted. He worked with Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana on that and on passing a bill to fund securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on less than 5% of the people, not everyone. McCain could just tell the truth and argue against Obama's policies, but he does not. The lie, "Obama never has" will sell better, if believed. So he tells it.
Consider now the lies Palin is telling. She relates, and McCain repeats, her story of getting rid of the previous governor's designated state jet plane on e-bay for a profit. She says she was against the "Bridge to Nowhere" and returned the money. She claims to have been against "wasteful earmarks" and says she refused to associate with Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, currently under indictment. All in her first week, and all blatant lies.
The truth is she offered the plane on e-bay but couldn't sell it there and wound up dealing it to one of her campaign contributors, not for a profit but for $600,000 under cost. She supported the bridge and fought for its passage. When public outcry over it went national she took the $300 million dollars anyway and spent it. One of the things it went for was the access road that was to have led to the ill-fated bridge. She was not against earmarks, but instead hired a lobbyist who succeeded in bringing more earmarks to Alaska per capita than any other state. To complete the story, she appears on tape with Senator Stevens as a director of his 527 committee.
Other pearls soon to come out include her husband's membership in a treasonous organization (a group dedicated to the secession of Alaska from the Union) and a number of fundamentalist nut case assertions of Palin's, saying such things as the Iraq War is part of God's plan, God prefers her pipeline proposal, and that Israel has a lot of terrorism because Jews don't accept Jesus.
It is small wonder that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign chief, now says the campaign "should be about personality" and that the campaign has refused to allow reporters to interview the Governor. The campaign released a statement saying, "We will make her available to the press when it is in our interest."
It is disheartening to have to report that far from portending a new movement to "change Washington," the present Republican ticket bears all the hallmarks of the unethical and corrupt administration it seeks to replace. The way most of the media seems to be portraying it, Palin and McCain's convention performances have made them the current darlings and they are a breath of fresh air. Yet in spite of this, an ABC poll shows the people may not be buying it. Palin had a 50% favorable rating to 37% unfavorable, for a +13. Joe Biden's comparable numbers were 54% and 30%, a +24. When asked if the two veep candidates had "the right experience to assume the presidency" if necessary, respondents said "no" 50% to 42% for Palin but "yes" 66% to 21% Biden.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain's Fine Acceptance Speech
John McCain capped his nine-year quest for the Republican nomination for president this evening with a marvelous acceptance speech to the convention in St. Paul. His address should earn him the affection of most Republicans while exerting a strong appeal to independents. It was one of his finest hours in public life.
McCain's talk exuded sincerity, reasonability and purpose. His tone was gentlemanly toward his opponent, honest with regard to the failings and possibilities of government as he sees them, and often self-deprecating in that winning way that reflects well on the teller. This was McCain at his best.
The Republican nominee offered specific examples of policy proposals on energy, taxes, education and the economy. He sounded his well-known foreign policy themes, though endeavoring to soften them by stating, "I hate war" and, "I will work to keep relations with Russia on a good footing and prevent relapse into the Cold War."
He drew distinctions with Barack Obama, but without resorting to the sarcasm and distortion that marked his running mate Sarah Palin's address last night. There were only two such instances: when he said Obama opposes nuclear power when he is actually open to it, and when he said Obama favors letting "bureaucrats and unions" determine education policy. For a partisan Republican speech to mischaracterize Democratic positions only twice is an exceptionally high degree of decorum.
Instead, McCain concentrated on the task at hand should he be elected, highlighting his willingness and history of working across the aisle to accomplish needed change. He obliquely though strongly criticized recent Republican misgovernance, declaring, "We came to Washington to change it and let it change us." He rebuked the record of special interest favoritism and policy failures. He did not specifically name his party but his meaning was clear. In so doing, he largely succeeded in rebranding the Republican Party as a conceivable engine of reform, at least with him now at its head. He underscored again and again his commitment to service and his declaration, "I don't work for any particular party," not only to distance himself from President Bush, whom he complimented once, but to reassure the voters that he would try his best not to be as polarizing as Bush has been.
He spoke effectively of his life's story and the lessons he learned as a POW in a way sure to win the hearts of many Americans. He stoked the enthusiasm of the assembled delegates by shouting, "Make no mistake, we are going to win this election!" He concluded on an inspiring and positive note urging the arena with a call to "Stand up! Stand up!" and fight the good fight.
Last night Sarah Palin gave an inflammatory and divisive speech. It riled up the hard right Republican base and inspired a McCain campaign record $4 million in contributions in the following 24 hours. However, it also aroused the Democratic faithful, who poured an even more amazing $8 million into Obama's coffers in the same time period.
Tonight was different. McCain's appeal was to the middle, with a conservative emphasis, to be sure, but to the moderate, undecided people who are still mulling things over. He came across as caring and sensible. I expect he will be rewarded with polls in the next few days that show him pulling back very close or even in the race again.
The first debate will be in three weeks, on Friday the 25th. The topic? Foreign policy.
McCain's talk exuded sincerity, reasonability and purpose. His tone was gentlemanly toward his opponent, honest with regard to the failings and possibilities of government as he sees them, and often self-deprecating in that winning way that reflects well on the teller. This was McCain at his best.
The Republican nominee offered specific examples of policy proposals on energy, taxes, education and the economy. He sounded his well-known foreign policy themes, though endeavoring to soften them by stating, "I hate war" and, "I will work to keep relations with Russia on a good footing and prevent relapse into the Cold War."
He drew distinctions with Barack Obama, but without resorting to the sarcasm and distortion that marked his running mate Sarah Palin's address last night. There were only two such instances: when he said Obama opposes nuclear power when he is actually open to it, and when he said Obama favors letting "bureaucrats and unions" determine education policy. For a partisan Republican speech to mischaracterize Democratic positions only twice is an exceptionally high degree of decorum.
Instead, McCain concentrated on the task at hand should he be elected, highlighting his willingness and history of working across the aisle to accomplish needed change. He obliquely though strongly criticized recent Republican misgovernance, declaring, "We came to Washington to change it and let it change us." He rebuked the record of special interest favoritism and policy failures. He did not specifically name his party but his meaning was clear. In so doing, he largely succeeded in rebranding the Republican Party as a conceivable engine of reform, at least with him now at its head. He underscored again and again his commitment to service and his declaration, "I don't work for any particular party," not only to distance himself from President Bush, whom he complimented once, but to reassure the voters that he would try his best not to be as polarizing as Bush has been.
He spoke effectively of his life's story and the lessons he learned as a POW in a way sure to win the hearts of many Americans. He stoked the enthusiasm of the assembled delegates by shouting, "Make no mistake, we are going to win this election!" He concluded on an inspiring and positive note urging the arena with a call to "Stand up! Stand up!" and fight the good fight.
Last night Sarah Palin gave an inflammatory and divisive speech. It riled up the hard right Republican base and inspired a McCain campaign record $4 million in contributions in the following 24 hours. However, it also aroused the Democratic faithful, who poured an even more amazing $8 million into Obama's coffers in the same time period.
Tonight was different. McCain's appeal was to the middle, with a conservative emphasis, to be sure, but to the moderate, undecided people who are still mulling things over. He came across as caring and sensible. I expect he will be rewarded with polls in the next few days that show him pulling back very close or even in the race again.
The first debate will be in three weeks, on Friday the 25th. The topic? Foreign policy.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin: What McCain Is Thinking
Sarah who? What on earth was John McCain thinking? Is the elevation of the little-known Alaska governor a shrewd move or a big mistake? Actually, it's a little of both. And as always with a surprise, there's an element of, well, surprise. We won't really know until she's been out there awhile and we see how she does. Until then, here's a window into McCain's thinking, with the positives first.
McCain's immediate reason for choosing a big surprise as a running mate was to steal some buzz from Barack Obama. Practically everyone but Republican partisans has been raving about his magnificent acceptance speech in Denver last night before an audience of more than 38 million-even larger than the Opening Cermony in Beijing or the final of American Idol. The Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) announcement was such a stunner that it's captured a lot of the limelight. Obama had already gotten a convention "bump" in the early Gallup tracking poll to an 8-point lead, and this should do something to head off further Obama gains. In that sense, it was a good move.
A second purpose was to soldify the conservative base. Palin is conservative, as in VERY conservative on social issues. She believes abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. She was pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby and delivered the child. She is a Lifetime NRA member, an evangelical Christian and a self-described hunter and "hockey mom" of five. The Christian Coalition has already sent out a glowing endorsement. So, most of the people who were going to vote Republican anyway will have one more reason to do so. This is even though as governor she vetoed a measure that would have denied benefits to gay domestic partners. As a minor side benefit, that has made the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay group in the GOP, also very happy with the pick.
Another McCain purpose was to reinforce his "maverick" and "reformer" reputations. Palin spared no criticism of the corrupt Alaskan Republican power structure. She not only brought up the irregularities of former Governor and Senator Frank Murkowski, but also called to task another fellow Republican, Senator Ted Stevens, who is currently under indictment. In this year when postpartisanism is being thrown around a lot, that kind of independence will play well. Unfortunately, she herself is being investigated for allegedly using her influence as governor to get her former brother-in-law fired for vindictive reasons. One can only hope for the ticket's sake that the McCain people thoroughly vetted these charges and believe she will be quickly vindicated. If she isn't it would be a disaster.
Now we venture into the realm of the more dubious. Without doubt one of McCain's concerns on his 72nd birthday was to unveil a running mate much younger than himself. At 44, Palin certainly fills that bill. But her youth comes at a heavy potential cost. She is so green she does much to undermine McCain's claims of advantage on foreign policy and as commander in chief. She has been mayor of a town of 6,000, governor for less than two years of a state with a population no larger than a middling city and possesses no foreign policy resume. At all. When asked her views on Iraq, she answered that she hadn't thought about it much! It could have been an advantage that one of her sons is about to be deployed there, but then so is one of Joe Biden's.
Sarah Palin is clearly unready to direct the foreign policy and military strategy of the United States, especially at a time of war, and she would be serving under a president with some health problems who will soon be in his mid seventies. This not only takes much of McCain's "experience" argument away but also calls his judgment into serious question. The Obama campaign will make hay on this. I feel this part of McCain's reasoning is one big-time mistake, not only politically but also concerning the best interests of the country.
We come now to McCain's biggest reason for choosing Palin, the fact that she is a woman. This may have been his greatest miscalculation of all. As the Democratic Convention drew near the McCain campaign did everything it could to try to stoke resentment among Hillary Clinton's supporters. Then came her strong speech and husband Bill's, endorsing Obama. Any lingering disaffection appeared to evaporate as Sen. Clinton herself took the floor and moved Obama's nomination by acclamation. McCain was obviously still going after these women with today's announcement. In her remarks Governor Palin even made direct appeals to Hillary supporters, referring to her by name and cribbing her "glass ceilings" line.
But will Hillary Clinton Democratic women switch to a Republican conservative who is anti-choice? That seems hard to imagine. CNN commentator David Gergen reported on the air that the network's site was being inundated with an overwhelmingly negative influx of e-mails from women who considered the blatant play for their support by a woman who shares virtually none of Hillary's viewpoints "insulting." Time will tell, but this does not look good for McCain.
Finally, more than anything else McCain's decision revealed his gambler's nature and his assessment that his campaign is in trouble. He felt he needed a game changer to shake up the race. This is anything but a safe pick. It is very high risk, both for the election and for the country if he wins. He decided the experience mantra couldn't win in a change year and that the maverick appellation wasn't getting sufficient traction. He has now definitely underscored his maverick credentials. We'll see whether the American voter gives him points for being bold or punishes him for recklessness. I expect it to be more of the latter.
McCain's immediate reason for choosing a big surprise as a running mate was to steal some buzz from Barack Obama. Practically everyone but Republican partisans has been raving about his magnificent acceptance speech in Denver last night before an audience of more than 38 million-even larger than the Opening Cermony in Beijing or the final of American Idol. The Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) announcement was such a stunner that it's captured a lot of the limelight. Obama had already gotten a convention "bump" in the early Gallup tracking poll to an 8-point lead, and this should do something to head off further Obama gains. In that sense, it was a good move.
A second purpose was to soldify the conservative base. Palin is conservative, as in VERY conservative on social issues. She believes abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. She was pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby and delivered the child. She is a Lifetime NRA member, an evangelical Christian and a self-described hunter and "hockey mom" of five. The Christian Coalition has already sent out a glowing endorsement. So, most of the people who were going to vote Republican anyway will have one more reason to do so. This is even though as governor she vetoed a measure that would have denied benefits to gay domestic partners. As a minor side benefit, that has made the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay group in the GOP, also very happy with the pick.
Another McCain purpose was to reinforce his "maverick" and "reformer" reputations. Palin spared no criticism of the corrupt Alaskan Republican power structure. She not only brought up the irregularities of former Governor and Senator Frank Murkowski, but also called to task another fellow Republican, Senator Ted Stevens, who is currently under indictment. In this year when postpartisanism is being thrown around a lot, that kind of independence will play well. Unfortunately, she herself is being investigated for allegedly using her influence as governor to get her former brother-in-law fired for vindictive reasons. One can only hope for the ticket's sake that the McCain people thoroughly vetted these charges and believe she will be quickly vindicated. If she isn't it would be a disaster.
Now we venture into the realm of the more dubious. Without doubt one of McCain's concerns on his 72nd birthday was to unveil a running mate much younger than himself. At 44, Palin certainly fills that bill. But her youth comes at a heavy potential cost. She is so green she does much to undermine McCain's claims of advantage on foreign policy and as commander in chief. She has been mayor of a town of 6,000, governor for less than two years of a state with a population no larger than a middling city and possesses no foreign policy resume. At all. When asked her views on Iraq, she answered that she hadn't thought about it much! It could have been an advantage that one of her sons is about to be deployed there, but then so is one of Joe Biden's.
Sarah Palin is clearly unready to direct the foreign policy and military strategy of the United States, especially at a time of war, and she would be serving under a president with some health problems who will soon be in his mid seventies. This not only takes much of McCain's "experience" argument away but also calls his judgment into serious question. The Obama campaign will make hay on this. I feel this part of McCain's reasoning is one big-time mistake, not only politically but also concerning the best interests of the country.
We come now to McCain's biggest reason for choosing Palin, the fact that she is a woman. This may have been his greatest miscalculation of all. As the Democratic Convention drew near the McCain campaign did everything it could to try to stoke resentment among Hillary Clinton's supporters. Then came her strong speech and husband Bill's, endorsing Obama. Any lingering disaffection appeared to evaporate as Sen. Clinton herself took the floor and moved Obama's nomination by acclamation. McCain was obviously still going after these women with today's announcement. In her remarks Governor Palin even made direct appeals to Hillary supporters, referring to her by name and cribbing her "glass ceilings" line.
But will Hillary Clinton Democratic women switch to a Republican conservative who is anti-choice? That seems hard to imagine. CNN commentator David Gergen reported on the air that the network's site was being inundated with an overwhelmingly negative influx of e-mails from women who considered the blatant play for their support by a woman who shares virtually none of Hillary's viewpoints "insulting." Time will tell, but this does not look good for McCain.
Finally, more than anything else McCain's decision revealed his gambler's nature and his assessment that his campaign is in trouble. He felt he needed a game changer to shake up the race. This is anything but a safe pick. It is very high risk, both for the election and for the country if he wins. He decided the experience mantra couldn't win in a change year and that the maverick appellation wasn't getting sufficient traction. He has now definitely underscored his maverick credentials. We'll see whether the American voter gives him points for being bold or punishes him for recklessness. I expect it to be more of the latter.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Vice President: McCain's Musings
John McCain is expected to announce his choice for Vice President Friday the 29th, the day after the Democratic Convention ends with Barack Obama's much-anticipated open-air acceptance speech before 76,000 partisans at Denver's football stadium. McCain's timing is intended to grab the media attention away from his rival and provide a buildup for him and the Republican Convention the following week.
Speculation about McCain's choice centers on three considered his most likely picks. These are former Massachusetts Governor and primary rival Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Long shots include former Ohio Congressman and Bush Budget Director Rob Portman, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Senator Joe Lieberman.
Romney has the private business expertise and executive political experience McCain lacks. In an anti-Washington year, none of this experience is associated with D. C. He is 61 but seems younger. He has deep personal financial resources and access to much more in the world of finance. His Mormon roots could help McCain in Nevada and perhaps a bit in Colorado. But of course his faith could also work against the ticket among evangelicals who mistrust the Latter Day Saints creed. Then too, McCain is said not to personally like Romney very much. For a man who values the comfortable relationships of old friends these drawbacks will probably prove too much.
Ridge has some important pluses, including his ties to Pennsylvania, a state Obama must win. He connects with working class voters and his service as Homeland Security Director fits well into McCain's security theme. He is also a good friend and confidante of McCain's. The main problem he presents for the ticket is that he is pro-choice. While this position is shared by the majority of the electorate, it is practically a disqualification among the Republican base. The chance that his nomination might be greeted with horror by some within the party and cause a public split is likely enough to dissuade his selection.
That leaves Pawlenty as McCain's most probable choice. The Minnesota governor, at 47, brings some youth to a ticket headed by the oldest candidate ever to run for a first term. He has the executive experience away from Washington McCain is looking for, and plays well to working class types, once saying the Republican Party needs to appeal "to Sam's Club, not just the country club." Pawlenty is a persuasive speaker. He will be the host governor of the convention, though it might be a stretch to think he could sway the state into the GOP column in November. He won re-election to his job by only 1% in 2006. Still, his fiscal management of the state has garnered respect, and without the negatives of the other two major contenders I consider him the most likely choice for the second spot on the ticket.
Speculation about McCain's choice centers on three considered his most likely picks. These are former Massachusetts Governor and primary rival Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Long shots include former Ohio Congressman and Bush Budget Director Rob Portman, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Senator Joe Lieberman.
Romney has the private business expertise and executive political experience McCain lacks. In an anti-Washington year, none of this experience is associated with D. C. He is 61 but seems younger. He has deep personal financial resources and access to much more in the world of finance. His Mormon roots could help McCain in Nevada and perhaps a bit in Colorado. But of course his faith could also work against the ticket among evangelicals who mistrust the Latter Day Saints creed. Then too, McCain is said not to personally like Romney very much. For a man who values the comfortable relationships of old friends these drawbacks will probably prove too much.
Ridge has some important pluses, including his ties to Pennsylvania, a state Obama must win. He connects with working class voters and his service as Homeland Security Director fits well into McCain's security theme. He is also a good friend and confidante of McCain's. The main problem he presents for the ticket is that he is pro-choice. While this position is shared by the majority of the electorate, it is practically a disqualification among the Republican base. The chance that his nomination might be greeted with horror by some within the party and cause a public split is likely enough to dissuade his selection.
That leaves Pawlenty as McCain's most probable choice. The Minnesota governor, at 47, brings some youth to a ticket headed by the oldest candidate ever to run for a first term. He has the executive experience away from Washington McCain is looking for, and plays well to working class types, once saying the Republican Party needs to appeal "to Sam's Club, not just the country club." Pawlenty is a persuasive speaker. He will be the host governor of the convention, though it might be a stretch to think he could sway the state into the GOP column in November. He won re-election to his job by only 1% in 2006. Still, his fiscal management of the state has garnered respect, and without the negatives of the other two major contenders I consider him the most likely choice for the second spot on the ticket.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Mock-O-Mania
This is what candidate John McCain is reduced to. The one-time proponent of honor, straight talk and sticking to the issues, the candidate who was mercilessly and unjustifiably smeared in 2000, has himself hired Steve Schmidt and his shop of Rove acolytes. He has turned to the dark side.
Most of the McCain campaign of late consists of attacks on Barack Obama. The attacks are hardly issues-based, but instead focus on schoolyard-level mocking sessions designed to transform Obama's strengths into objects of derision by association. The McCain campaign seems determined to test one of H.L. Mencken's maxims: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
In what may come to be known as the Envy Campaign, Obama is mocked for being too eloquent, as though it has been a comfort these past eight years to have as leader of the free world a man who can scarcely utter a complete sentence or formulate a coherent thought. He is mocked for drawing large crowds, as though it is preferable to have as a leader a man like McCain, who has trouble finding enough people to fill a high school gym who want to hear what he has to say.
Obama is derided for getting along well with world leaders, as though international enmity is preferable, and for his ability to move citizens of foreign countries, as though America would not be better off with a little more respect, friendship and restored credibility in the world.
He is lampooned for being too inspiring, apparently too much like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and Roosevelt for a discerning citizen's taste. His supporters are too enthusiastic and numerous, and he guilty of following the public's wishes too closely, as though that is not the essence of democracy itself.
Obama and his campaign are derided as being too tech-savvy, apparently making the point that a president who is ignorant of how to send an e-mail or "do a Google" is just what this country needs in the twenty-first century.
Obama gets sneered at for being a media darling, now that McCain, who used to be so popular with the fourth estate that he referred to the press as "my base," is no longer that darling himself. Obama is even mocked for promoting energy conservation, as though wastefulness is a virtue.
In what is becoming a festival of pique, envy and ridicule, a veritable glorification of the stupid and shallow over serious examination of national challenges, McCain has cast his die and the polls are narrowing.
For their part, the Democrats grow more worried by the day. They fear Mencken may yet be proved right. It wouldn't be the first time. Just ask John McCain.
Most of the McCain campaign of late consists of attacks on Barack Obama. The attacks are hardly issues-based, but instead focus on schoolyard-level mocking sessions designed to transform Obama's strengths into objects of derision by association. The McCain campaign seems determined to test one of H.L. Mencken's maxims: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
In what may come to be known as the Envy Campaign, Obama is mocked for being too eloquent, as though it has been a comfort these past eight years to have as leader of the free world a man who can scarcely utter a complete sentence or formulate a coherent thought. He is mocked for drawing large crowds, as though it is preferable to have as a leader a man like McCain, who has trouble finding enough people to fill a high school gym who want to hear what he has to say.
Obama is derided for getting along well with world leaders, as though international enmity is preferable, and for his ability to move citizens of foreign countries, as though America would not be better off with a little more respect, friendship and restored credibility in the world.
He is lampooned for being too inspiring, apparently too much like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and Roosevelt for a discerning citizen's taste. His supporters are too enthusiastic and numerous, and he guilty of following the public's wishes too closely, as though that is not the essence of democracy itself.
Obama and his campaign are derided as being too tech-savvy, apparently making the point that a president who is ignorant of how to send an e-mail or "do a Google" is just what this country needs in the twenty-first century.
Obama gets sneered at for being a media darling, now that McCain, who used to be so popular with the fourth estate that he referred to the press as "my base," is no longer that darling himself. Obama is even mocked for promoting energy conservation, as though wastefulness is a virtue.
In what is becoming a festival of pique, envy and ridicule, a veritable glorification of the stupid and shallow over serious examination of national challenges, McCain has cast his die and the polls are narrowing.
For their part, the Democrats grow more worried by the day. They fear Mencken may yet be proved right. It wouldn't be the first time. Just ask John McCain.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Another Campaign Enters the Gutter
A few weeks ago John McCain and Barack Obama were promising to engage on the issues and avoid nasty personal attacks. What's more, for the most part that's just what they were doing, too. But now we find the discourse following the downward spiral of so many modern campaigns. Why is it back to the gutter?
Well, it's because McCain really has nothing else to talk about. He needed to change the subject because, as the Gallup Poll showed, none of the issues were breaking to his advantage. For McCain to win, the campaign had to be about something besides the issues. Thus the decision to go negative and get personal.
Back in June, Gallup asked Americans, "If you had to choose, who do you think would do a better job on (a list of eight issues, asked one at a time), Barack Obama or John McCain?" The names of the candidates were rotated for each question. People were also asked to tell how important each issue would be in determining their vote.
The top issue was "Energy, including gas prices." People trusted Obama 47%-28%. Number two was "The Economy." Obama was preferred 48-32. Number three was "Iraq." The people's choice was split on Iraq, 43-43. Number four was "Healthcare," where Obama led 51-26. Number five was "Terrorism," McCain's only significant lead at 52-33. Sixth came "Taxes," and Obama was more trusted by 44-35. Seventh was "Moral values." Obama led 40-39. Eighth was "Illegal immigration," on which McCain had the edge by 36-34.
As you can see, terrorism was the only issue on which Americans trusted McCain enough more than Obama to give him any real advantage. And there has really been very little newsworthy mention of terrorism lately, explaining why it was ranked only fifth in importance to people. McCain tried to make some headway on Iraq, but then Obama went abroad. McCain argued he had been right about the surge. Obama said he had been right about not invading in the first place. The backward-facing nature of the argument failed to address what the American people needed to know, namely, what we should do from this point forward. Then Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and President Bush took the wind out of McCain's sails by talking about "timelines" and "time horizons" for ending the U.S. involvement, in effect endorsing Obama's position and rendering McCain's moot. That was what the American people wanted to hear anyway. A majority agree the surge has improved the situation but a much bigger majority feels it is time to withdraw.
The only other issues that were close were Immigration and Moral Values, and on these McCain's record is not a particularly pleasing one to the Republican base. To emphasize them might cause him as much harm as good.
That left as McCain's last card his vast advantage in experience over Obama. But of course to emphasize that is also to contrast the youthful and vibrant Obama with the aging McCain. That approach formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's "Ready On Day One" campaign against Obama and didn't work out too well for her. So the question became how to take advantage of McCain's experience without drawing attention to his age. The only remaining way was by creating fear about Obama in comparison.
The Republican "brand" has been seriously discredited in the voter's minds, the voters prefer Obama's positions, and McCain is constrained from taking advantage of the experience gap because he happens to be nearing 72 years of age. The only remaining likely path is to rip Obama and try to bring him down to size. McCain had a decision to make, and he made the logical choice that gives him the best chance at victory. In the process he had to overcome any qualms he may have had about abandoning his earlier promise on how he would conduct the campaign. It was simply more important to him to have a chance to be President than to keep his word. And that's why we're back in the gutter.
Well, it's because McCain really has nothing else to talk about. He needed to change the subject because, as the Gallup Poll showed, none of the issues were breaking to his advantage. For McCain to win, the campaign had to be about something besides the issues. Thus the decision to go negative and get personal.
Back in June, Gallup asked Americans, "If you had to choose, who do you think would do a better job on (a list of eight issues, asked one at a time), Barack Obama or John McCain?" The names of the candidates were rotated for each question. People were also asked to tell how important each issue would be in determining their vote.
The top issue was "Energy, including gas prices." People trusted Obama 47%-28%. Number two was "The Economy." Obama was preferred 48-32. Number three was "Iraq." The people's choice was split on Iraq, 43-43. Number four was "Healthcare," where Obama led 51-26. Number five was "Terrorism," McCain's only significant lead at 52-33. Sixth came "Taxes," and Obama was more trusted by 44-35. Seventh was "Moral values." Obama led 40-39. Eighth was "Illegal immigration," on which McCain had the edge by 36-34.
As you can see, terrorism was the only issue on which Americans trusted McCain enough more than Obama to give him any real advantage. And there has really been very little newsworthy mention of terrorism lately, explaining why it was ranked only fifth in importance to people. McCain tried to make some headway on Iraq, but then Obama went abroad. McCain argued he had been right about the surge. Obama said he had been right about not invading in the first place. The backward-facing nature of the argument failed to address what the American people needed to know, namely, what we should do from this point forward. Then Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and President Bush took the wind out of McCain's sails by talking about "timelines" and "time horizons" for ending the U.S. involvement, in effect endorsing Obama's position and rendering McCain's moot. That was what the American people wanted to hear anyway. A majority agree the surge has improved the situation but a much bigger majority feels it is time to withdraw.
The only other issues that were close were Immigration and Moral Values, and on these McCain's record is not a particularly pleasing one to the Republican base. To emphasize them might cause him as much harm as good.
That left as McCain's last card his vast advantage in experience over Obama. But of course to emphasize that is also to contrast the youthful and vibrant Obama with the aging McCain. That approach formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's "Ready On Day One" campaign against Obama and didn't work out too well for her. So the question became how to take advantage of McCain's experience without drawing attention to his age. The only remaining way was by creating fear about Obama in comparison.
The Republican "brand" has been seriously discredited in the voter's minds, the voters prefer Obama's positions, and McCain is constrained from taking advantage of the experience gap because he happens to be nearing 72 years of age. The only remaining likely path is to rip Obama and try to bring him down to size. McCain had a decision to make, and he made the logical choice that gives him the best chance at victory. In the process he had to overcome any qualms he may have had about abandoning his earlier promise on how he would conduct the campaign. It was simply more important to him to have a chance to be President than to keep his word. And that's why we're back in the gutter.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Obama Trip A Disaster for McCain
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. The old adage has seldom proved truer than for the McCain campaign over the past few days. After goading Barack Obama for weeks to visit Iraq, Obama did just that-a trip that has touched off a series of events that is changing the terms of the debate to Obama's advantage. At the same time, McCain has had a bad run of gaffes that have dealt a blow either to perceptions of his foreign policy mastery or perhaps his advancing years. McCain is fighting back with increasingly direct slams at his rival's credibility and even patriotism in an effort to regain traction.
McCain was first undercut by the Prime Minister of Iraq. As Obama was on his way to Afghanistan, his first stop, Iraqi President Nouri al-Mailki conducted an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel in which he spoke in favor of a withdrawal of US troops from his country by the end of 2010. His description sounded like it could have come straight out of an Obama speech.
"Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?" Der Spiegel asked. "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?" the magazine followed up. Maliki answered, "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it is the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: the tenure of the coalition troops should be limited."
This was followed by Maliki's Sunni Vice President Tarik al-Hashimi echoing the same sentiments, the Shiite Sadrist spokesman speaking even more vehemently about ending the "foreign occupation," and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown signalling a complete withdrawal of his nation's troops by July, 2009. Even the Bush administration, encountering resistance in its talks with Maliki to extend the US mandate, began speaking of its willingness to accept a "general time horizon." General Petraeus added, "For a long time we used to say, 'when is this sovereign government going to make some sovereign decisions?' "Well they have done that."
Overnight the whole tenor of the debate shifted. The question is no longer whether America will wind down its involvement, but when. This seems to have been lost on McCain, who struck back more forcefully than ever with the need to stay in Iraq until the job is done and we have achieved "victory." The news focus is mainly on Obama now, thanks to the international trip McCain challenged him to make, and McCain is lashing out harshly, saying, "I have shown the courage to say I would rather lose a campaign than lose a war, but Sen. Obama has shown that he would rather lose a war if it helps him win a campaign." That is one short step removed from literally calling Obama a traitor.
Scenes of Obama getting a tumultuous, cheering welcome from a gymnasium full of smiling American troops in Iraq as he drained a couple of three-pointers are also a monkey wrench in the gears of the conventional wisdom that holds it is the Republicans who have the loyalty of Armed Forces members. And McCain seemed to be merely trying to one-up Obama's plan to add two brigades to Afghanistan by following that with his own suggestion to add three. George W. Bush himself has contributed to McCain's discomfiture by sending an American emissary to discussions with Iran after he and McCain had earlier characterized Obama's willingness to do so as naive and appeasement. Obama's trip so far could not have come off better for him or worse for McCain.
The post script to the story is the increasing number of errors, misstatements of fact, and gaffes McCain is making about foreign affairs topics of late. It was opined before Obama's trip that he was the one likely to be damaged by slips of the tongue on international matters and look bad compared to the more experienced McCain. Instead it is McCain who seems to be in a hurry to hand more of his foreign policy lead over to his Democratic opponent.
On Monday McCain spoke of problems on the "Iraq-Pakistan border." The two nations share no border; it is assumed he meant the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He said we have returned to pre-surge force levels in Iraq when there are actually still 20,000 more there than before the surge, and he also said the Sunni "awakening" of tribes that turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq extremist groups was a result of the surge when in fact it was already underway before the surge had even been proposed. On June 30, talking about the Darfur region of Sudan, he asked, "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?" He has also referred to the former Russian President as "President Putin of Germany," has at least three times mentioned Czechoslovakia, which was broken into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, and this spring kept confusing the rival branches of Islam, the Sunnis and Shiites. These errors are increasingly making McCain the butt of late-night television show jokes poking fun at his age, a subject that cannot be helping him in the least.
McCain was first undercut by the Prime Minister of Iraq. As Obama was on his way to Afghanistan, his first stop, Iraqi President Nouri al-Mailki conducted an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel in which he spoke in favor of a withdrawal of US troops from his country by the end of 2010. His description sounded like it could have come straight out of an Obama speech.
"Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?" Der Spiegel asked. "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?" the magazine followed up. Maliki answered, "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it is the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: the tenure of the coalition troops should be limited."
This was followed by Maliki's Sunni Vice President Tarik al-Hashimi echoing the same sentiments, the Shiite Sadrist spokesman speaking even more vehemently about ending the "foreign occupation," and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown signalling a complete withdrawal of his nation's troops by July, 2009. Even the Bush administration, encountering resistance in its talks with Maliki to extend the US mandate, began speaking of its willingness to accept a "general time horizon." General Petraeus added, "For a long time we used to say, 'when is this sovereign government going to make some sovereign decisions?' "Well they have done that."
Overnight the whole tenor of the debate shifted. The question is no longer whether America will wind down its involvement, but when. This seems to have been lost on McCain, who struck back more forcefully than ever with the need to stay in Iraq until the job is done and we have achieved "victory." The news focus is mainly on Obama now, thanks to the international trip McCain challenged him to make, and McCain is lashing out harshly, saying, "I have shown the courage to say I would rather lose a campaign than lose a war, but Sen. Obama has shown that he would rather lose a war if it helps him win a campaign." That is one short step removed from literally calling Obama a traitor.
Scenes of Obama getting a tumultuous, cheering welcome from a gymnasium full of smiling American troops in Iraq as he drained a couple of three-pointers are also a monkey wrench in the gears of the conventional wisdom that holds it is the Republicans who have the loyalty of Armed Forces members. And McCain seemed to be merely trying to one-up Obama's plan to add two brigades to Afghanistan by following that with his own suggestion to add three. George W. Bush himself has contributed to McCain's discomfiture by sending an American emissary to discussions with Iran after he and McCain had earlier characterized Obama's willingness to do so as naive and appeasement. Obama's trip so far could not have come off better for him or worse for McCain.
The post script to the story is the increasing number of errors, misstatements of fact, and gaffes McCain is making about foreign affairs topics of late. It was opined before Obama's trip that he was the one likely to be damaged by slips of the tongue on international matters and look bad compared to the more experienced McCain. Instead it is McCain who seems to be in a hurry to hand more of his foreign policy lead over to his Democratic opponent.
On Monday McCain spoke of problems on the "Iraq-Pakistan border." The two nations share no border; it is assumed he meant the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He said we have returned to pre-surge force levels in Iraq when there are actually still 20,000 more there than before the surge, and he also said the Sunni "awakening" of tribes that turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq extremist groups was a result of the surge when in fact it was already underway before the surge had even been proposed. On June 30, talking about the Darfur region of Sudan, he asked, "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?" He has also referred to the former Russian President as "President Putin of Germany," has at least three times mentioned Czechoslovakia, which was broken into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, and this spring kept confusing the rival branches of Islam, the Sunnis and Shiites. These errors are increasingly making McCain the butt of late-night television show jokes poking fun at his age, a subject that cannot be helping him in the least.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Rove Team Takes Charge of McCain Campaign
The recent shakeup in John McCain's campaign leadership points to the road map he will follow in his presidential bid. The primacy of issues-oriented former lobbyists is over; the ascendancy of politics-oriented campaign professionals has begun. Given the realities of the 2008 election environment, the change is a smart move for McCain and will increase his chances for victory against Barack Obama in November. It also gives us a good idea about the kind of campaign McCain will wage, for the new team is heavy with the proteges of George W. Bush's election wizard Karl Rove.
Rick Davis retains the title of campaign manager but will yield the day to day control of the campaign. Davis headed McCain's 2000 presidential effort. A lobbyist, he founded Davis Manfort in 1998, which has earned $2.8 million lobbying Congress. His firm represented SBC and Comsat in 1999 while he was McCain's campaign chief and the two companies had merger proposals before the Senate Commerce Committee which McCain chaired. The committee gave them the approvals they sought. Davis Manfort also represented Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and other East European business interests.
Now in as CEO of the McCain campaign is Steve Schmidt, a member of the Bush team's inner circle. Schmidt learned the ropes as a daily attendee at Karl Rove's morning political meetings. He ran the Bush-Cheney "war room" in the '04 campaign. After that he served as counsel to Cheney and shepherded the Rogers and Alito Supreme Court nominations through the Senate. Showing a lot of flexibility, he next headed Arnold Schwarzenegger's California re-election drive in 2006, managing the governor's successful effort to, ironically, distance himself from the Bush-Cheney White House. Schmidt is a pro and a practitioner of no-nonsense hardball. Also joining the McCain campaign from the Rove circle are strategist Terry Nelson, media specialist Mark McKinnon and communications expert Brian Jones.
The McCain operation, which Davis had decentralized into 11 semi-autonomous regional units, will now become highly unified under Schmidt's central control. As in the Bush campaigns we have witnessed under Rove, there will be a message of the day and the candidate and all his surrogates will be briefed on the common talking points to deliver. McCain being McCain, he will still engage in a lot of the question and answer which is one of his campaign strengths, but he will try to open and close his appearance remarks on the daily message. His surrogates will have to maintain much stricter message discipline.
Just as importantly, that message will have to change focus. McCain has taken little advantage of the past four months since he putatively clinched the Republican nomination while the Democrats continued to battle. The reasons for that are simply that the American people generically prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican and trust Barack Obama over John McCain on the issues this year.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 of 1,000 voters found the Democrats with a 10% identification advantage, 44 percent to 34 percent. The Republican Party was viewed favorably by only 28 percent, unfavorably by 47 percent and neutrally by 24 percent. The Democratic Party enjoyed a 15 percent advantage, as 43 percent had a positive view, 32 percent a negative and 24 percent a neutral one. Much of this no doubt was related to the unpopularity of President Bush, who had a 28 percent favorable rating to 66 percent negative.
A Gallup/USA Today survey on the candidates conducted June 15-19 gave Obama a 25-point advantage on "understands the problems Americans face," 22 points on "cares about the needs of people like you," 16 points on "is independent in thoughts and actions," 13 percent on "would work well with both parties to get things done in Washington," 10 points on "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems," 8 percent on "shares your values" and 4 percent on "is honest and trustworthy." They were tied on "can manage the government effectively." McCain's only edge was 6 points on "is a strong and decisive leader."
The same poll asked who would do a better job on eight issues. Obama led by 25 points on health care, 19 points on energy and gas prices, 16 points on the economy, 9 points on taxes, and a statistically insignificant 1 percent on moral values. The two were tied on "the situation in Iraq." McCain had his own statistically insignificant 2% lead on illegal immigration. The only issue where he clearly held the advantage was on terrorism, which he won by 19 points.
With these factors in mind and considering that a Karl Rove-trained campaign team will be running things, there are a few things we can expect in the months ahead.
First, we can expect McCain to distance himself from President Bush and the Republican label. He will do this by burnishing his "maverick" and "Straight Talk Express" reputations. This will be done in mostly general terms along the lines of his past statements about lobbyists and special interests in Washington. McCain has already retreated from the actual stances he took that were not in line with Bush, such as on taxation, campaign finance and the religious right because his former views tend to anger the Republican base.
Second, he will hammer away at the only truly winning issue he has, terrorism. He has begun doing this, taking questions on the economy, for instance, and finding ways to weave the threat of terrorism into his answers at every opportunity. To paraphrase what Joe Biden said about Rudy Giuliani, a lot of McCain's sentences will come to consist primarily of a noun, a verb and terrorism.
Third, an all-out effort will be made to destroy Barack Obama's credibility. This will not be undertaken primarily by McCain himself. It will be left up to surrogates and "unafffiliated" advocacy groups. If the issues are against you the only way to win is on personality factors, and no one has mastered the art of character assassination better than Mr. Rove. His political progeny, now in charge of McCain's national effort, have learned this at the feet of the master.
Expect any statement by Obama or his supporters that can be misconstrued or twisted into something untoward to be given that spin right away by McCain's surrogates. We are already seeing the beginning of that. If Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, why does he "hate America?" He has a Muslim middle name. Rove himself has taken to describing Obama as "that guy at the country club." Obama's appeal will be minimized as being "mainly to the inner city" (i.e. to blacks). His wife will be derided for being too outspoken. Count on this. These guys are very good at this kind of politics and they know it is their best, and perhaps only, avenue to victory.
Rick Davis retains the title of campaign manager but will yield the day to day control of the campaign. Davis headed McCain's 2000 presidential effort. A lobbyist, he founded Davis Manfort in 1998, which has earned $2.8 million lobbying Congress. His firm represented SBC and Comsat in 1999 while he was McCain's campaign chief and the two companies had merger proposals before the Senate Commerce Committee which McCain chaired. The committee gave them the approvals they sought. Davis Manfort also represented Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and other East European business interests.
Now in as CEO of the McCain campaign is Steve Schmidt, a member of the Bush team's inner circle. Schmidt learned the ropes as a daily attendee at Karl Rove's morning political meetings. He ran the Bush-Cheney "war room" in the '04 campaign. After that he served as counsel to Cheney and shepherded the Rogers and Alito Supreme Court nominations through the Senate. Showing a lot of flexibility, he next headed Arnold Schwarzenegger's California re-election drive in 2006, managing the governor's successful effort to, ironically, distance himself from the Bush-Cheney White House. Schmidt is a pro and a practitioner of no-nonsense hardball. Also joining the McCain campaign from the Rove circle are strategist Terry Nelson, media specialist Mark McKinnon and communications expert Brian Jones.
The McCain operation, which Davis had decentralized into 11 semi-autonomous regional units, will now become highly unified under Schmidt's central control. As in the Bush campaigns we have witnessed under Rove, there will be a message of the day and the candidate and all his surrogates will be briefed on the common talking points to deliver. McCain being McCain, he will still engage in a lot of the question and answer which is one of his campaign strengths, but he will try to open and close his appearance remarks on the daily message. His surrogates will have to maintain much stricter message discipline.
Just as importantly, that message will have to change focus. McCain has taken little advantage of the past four months since he putatively clinched the Republican nomination while the Democrats continued to battle. The reasons for that are simply that the American people generically prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican and trust Barack Obama over John McCain on the issues this year.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 of 1,000 voters found the Democrats with a 10% identification advantage, 44 percent to 34 percent. The Republican Party was viewed favorably by only 28 percent, unfavorably by 47 percent and neutrally by 24 percent. The Democratic Party enjoyed a 15 percent advantage, as 43 percent had a positive view, 32 percent a negative and 24 percent a neutral one. Much of this no doubt was related to the unpopularity of President Bush, who had a 28 percent favorable rating to 66 percent negative.
A Gallup/USA Today survey on the candidates conducted June 15-19 gave Obama a 25-point advantage on "understands the problems Americans face," 22 points on "cares about the needs of people like you," 16 points on "is independent in thoughts and actions," 13 percent on "would work well with both parties to get things done in Washington," 10 points on "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems," 8 percent on "shares your values" and 4 percent on "is honest and trustworthy." They were tied on "can manage the government effectively." McCain's only edge was 6 points on "is a strong and decisive leader."
The same poll asked who would do a better job on eight issues. Obama led by 25 points on health care, 19 points on energy and gas prices, 16 points on the economy, 9 points on taxes, and a statistically insignificant 1 percent on moral values. The two were tied on "the situation in Iraq." McCain had his own statistically insignificant 2% lead on illegal immigration. The only issue where he clearly held the advantage was on terrorism, which he won by 19 points.
With these factors in mind and considering that a Karl Rove-trained campaign team will be running things, there are a few things we can expect in the months ahead.
First, we can expect McCain to distance himself from President Bush and the Republican label. He will do this by burnishing his "maverick" and "Straight Talk Express" reputations. This will be done in mostly general terms along the lines of his past statements about lobbyists and special interests in Washington. McCain has already retreated from the actual stances he took that were not in line with Bush, such as on taxation, campaign finance and the religious right because his former views tend to anger the Republican base.
Second, he will hammer away at the only truly winning issue he has, terrorism. He has begun doing this, taking questions on the economy, for instance, and finding ways to weave the threat of terrorism into his answers at every opportunity. To paraphrase what Joe Biden said about Rudy Giuliani, a lot of McCain's sentences will come to consist primarily of a noun, a verb and terrorism.
Third, an all-out effort will be made to destroy Barack Obama's credibility. This will not be undertaken primarily by McCain himself. It will be left up to surrogates and "unafffiliated" advocacy groups. If the issues are against you the only way to win is on personality factors, and no one has mastered the art of character assassination better than Mr. Rove. His political progeny, now in charge of McCain's national effort, have learned this at the feet of the master.
Expect any statement by Obama or his supporters that can be misconstrued or twisted into something untoward to be given that spin right away by McCain's surrogates. We are already seeing the beginning of that. If Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, why does he "hate America?" He has a Muslim middle name. Rove himself has taken to describing Obama as "that guy at the country club." Obama's appeal will be minimized as being "mainly to the inner city" (i.e. to blacks). His wife will be derided for being too outspoken. Count on this. These guys are very good at this kind of politics and they know it is their best, and perhaps only, avenue to victory.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama v. McCain: Anything New Here?
The race between Barack Obama and John McCain is often touted as a new kind of contest that will overturn much conventional political wisdom and most of the recent electoral models. I do not really see that happening. While there will be a few twists unique to this year's election, the basics of the race will remain within the normal pattern for a Democrat v. a Republican.
The reason things will mainly follow the conventional dynamics is because even though both candidates talk a lot about bipartisanship and have even engaged in some of it, both Obama and McCain adhere to their basic party lines on most issues. Obama is a liberal Democrat. McCain is a conservative Republican. The mass of voters in strongly conservative states is not going to abandon McCain for Obama. The mass of voters in liberal states is not going to defect from Obama and go to McCain.
The basic dynamics in play since 1964 still hold true in 2008. Conventionally, Democrats stress diplomacy and want to avoid military conflict. They feel individual rights need not be seriously compromised in pursuit of defense goals. They defend abortion and other gender equity rights. They are very sensitive to minority issues and support government action to foster more widespread opportunity. They are strongly concerned with the environment. They feel everyone should have access to health care and think the government should take care of this if the private system does not. They are suspicious of corporations and believe the public interest requires that they be closely watched. They tend to favor labor over management. They prioritize providing services over keeping taxes low. They are not averse to using law and government power to make business adopt what they feel are more socially productive and responsible practices on issues such as environment, energy, safety, and so on. They don't like privatizing government services.
Where in all this does Obama diverge from the liberal norm? The answer, of course, is nowhere. He doesn't. His Senate voting record rates over 90% with feminist, minority, environmental, consumer, civil liberties and labor groups. Utah and Texas are not suddenly going to vote for Obama the Democrat.
On the other hand, Republicans adopt a much harder line on defense issues. They tend to feel that threatening would-be international adversaries with military force is a good way to handle them. They tend to believe defense exigencies may require accepting some diminution of personal rights. They oppose abortion rights and have little inclination for government action to advance gender equity or minority concerns. The environment is not a particularly high priority, especially if preserving it may involve economic costs. They believe the economic marketplace provides most of the incentives to assure equal opportunity. They mistrust labor and feel government should help business run things the way it wants, and not averse to writing laws to advance that view. They prioritize keeping taxes low over fully funding services. They feel market solutions will provide whatever energy, health, safety, and environmental changes are needed. They are eager to privatize government services.
Where does McCain part company with these views? The answer, for him too, is nowhere. Some might say the environment, yet his rating by the League of Conservation Voters is only 26%. And while that is higher than many other Republicans, do not expect him to be named the 2008 "man of the year" by the Sierra Club. He has voted with the Bush Administration 95% of the time over the past four years, including changing his positions to the more conservative ones on such issues as taxes, constitutional rights and immigration. Massachusetts and California are not going to be voting for McCain the Republican this year.
There certainly are particular conditions this year that will affect voters' decisions. Obama does have a special appeal to younger people, and a higher than normal appeal to African-Americans, a group that votes nearly 90% Democratic anyway. But his race will also work against him, as McCain's age will also work against him. And the worse the economy is doing the better it will be for Obama. But on the whole, things will come down once again to the verdicts of about a dozen swing states in the first week of November. That pattern will form the structural basis for the election, just as it has for the past forty years.
The reason things will mainly follow the conventional dynamics is because even though both candidates talk a lot about bipartisanship and have even engaged in some of it, both Obama and McCain adhere to their basic party lines on most issues. Obama is a liberal Democrat. McCain is a conservative Republican. The mass of voters in strongly conservative states is not going to abandon McCain for Obama. The mass of voters in liberal states is not going to defect from Obama and go to McCain.
The basic dynamics in play since 1964 still hold true in 2008. Conventionally, Democrats stress diplomacy and want to avoid military conflict. They feel individual rights need not be seriously compromised in pursuit of defense goals. They defend abortion and other gender equity rights. They are very sensitive to minority issues and support government action to foster more widespread opportunity. They are strongly concerned with the environment. They feel everyone should have access to health care and think the government should take care of this if the private system does not. They are suspicious of corporations and believe the public interest requires that they be closely watched. They tend to favor labor over management. They prioritize providing services over keeping taxes low. They are not averse to using law and government power to make business adopt what they feel are more socially productive and responsible practices on issues such as environment, energy, safety, and so on. They don't like privatizing government services.
Where in all this does Obama diverge from the liberal norm? The answer, of course, is nowhere. He doesn't. His Senate voting record rates over 90% with feminist, minority, environmental, consumer, civil liberties and labor groups. Utah and Texas are not suddenly going to vote for Obama the Democrat.
On the other hand, Republicans adopt a much harder line on defense issues. They tend to feel that threatening would-be international adversaries with military force is a good way to handle them. They tend to believe defense exigencies may require accepting some diminution of personal rights. They oppose abortion rights and have little inclination for government action to advance gender equity or minority concerns. The environment is not a particularly high priority, especially if preserving it may involve economic costs. They believe the economic marketplace provides most of the incentives to assure equal opportunity. They mistrust labor and feel government should help business run things the way it wants, and not averse to writing laws to advance that view. They prioritize keeping taxes low over fully funding services. They feel market solutions will provide whatever energy, health, safety, and environmental changes are needed. They are eager to privatize government services.
Where does McCain part company with these views? The answer, for him too, is nowhere. Some might say the environment, yet his rating by the League of Conservation Voters is only 26%. And while that is higher than many other Republicans, do not expect him to be named the 2008 "man of the year" by the Sierra Club. He has voted with the Bush Administration 95% of the time over the past four years, including changing his positions to the more conservative ones on such issues as taxes, constitutional rights and immigration. Massachusetts and California are not going to be voting for McCain the Republican this year.
There certainly are particular conditions this year that will affect voters' decisions. Obama does have a special appeal to younger people, and a higher than normal appeal to African-Americans, a group that votes nearly 90% Democratic anyway. But his race will also work against him, as McCain's age will also work against him. And the worse the economy is doing the better it will be for Obama. But on the whole, things will come down once again to the verdicts of about a dozen swing states in the first week of November. That pattern will form the structural basis for the election, just as it has for the past forty years.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McCain Floats Interesting Ideas
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has gone beyond the headlines to write about some interesting ideas John McCain spoke about recently. http://newsweek.com/id/137530?from=rsswww. While the Republican candidate has gotten more publicity for seconding President Bush's thinly-veiled characterization of Barack Obama as an appeaser, he has also floated some intriguing proposals on government transparency.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain Economic Package
Seeking to burnish his economic credentials on income tax day, John McCain unveiled a package of tax cuts he said would, "be an immediate economic stimulus." McCain's cuts include suspending the 18.4 cents a gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cents a gallon federal diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, doubling the tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 and phasing out the alternative minimum tax.
McCain also proposed suspending oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which he believes drives up the price of oil, and increasing Medicare prescription drug funding by requiring higher payments from couples making more than $160,000.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain economic adviser, estimated the cost of the cuts at $195 billion. The Democratic Party came out with an estimate of $468 billion, but their estimate also counted the cost of his supporting the continuation of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Holtz-Eakin said the cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be accompanied by spending cuts and because of the additional economic growth they would generate. McCain said he would not be able to balance the budget until the end of his second term.
Harvard Public Policy Professor Jeffrey Liebman, speaking for the Democrats, instead remarked, "It's really extraordinary how fiscally irresponsible Sen. McCain's policies are."
Aside from his strong defense and Iraq War posture, McCain's views on many other topics have remained ill-defined in the public's mind up to now in the campaign. Today's announcements demonstrate his desire to assume the role of the traditional post-Reagan Republican, basing his domestic agenda mainly on tax cuts. This is a good political move, since it will shore up support in the conservative Republican base and because people generally like to hear about getting a tax cut.
It remains a bad move for the nation, however, since this supply-side cure for recession has never worked other than to produce additional wealth only for the extreme upper stratum of American earners at the expense of running up the deficit to astronomical levels. See my April 1 article "Supply Side Foolishness" for the previous results of this misguided and three-time failed theory. http://bravegnuwhirled.blogspot.com/2008/04/supply-side-foolishness.html
McCain also proposed suspending oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which he believes drives up the price of oil, and increasing Medicare prescription drug funding by requiring higher payments from couples making more than $160,000.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain economic adviser, estimated the cost of the cuts at $195 billion. The Democratic Party came out with an estimate of $468 billion, but their estimate also counted the cost of his supporting the continuation of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Holtz-Eakin said the cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be accompanied by spending cuts and because of the additional economic growth they would generate. McCain said he would not be able to balance the budget until the end of his second term.
Harvard Public Policy Professor Jeffrey Liebman, speaking for the Democrats, instead remarked, "It's really extraordinary how fiscally irresponsible Sen. McCain's policies are."
Aside from his strong defense and Iraq War posture, McCain's views on many other topics have remained ill-defined in the public's mind up to now in the campaign. Today's announcements demonstrate his desire to assume the role of the traditional post-Reagan Republican, basing his domestic agenda mainly on tax cuts. This is a good political move, since it will shore up support in the conservative Republican base and because people generally like to hear about getting a tax cut.
It remains a bad move for the nation, however, since this supply-side cure for recession has never worked other than to produce additional wealth only for the extreme upper stratum of American earners at the expense of running up the deficit to astronomical levels. See my April 1 article "Supply Side Foolishness" for the previous results of this misguided and three-time failed theory. http://bravegnuwhirled.blogspot.com/2008/04/supply-side-foolishness.html
Sunday, March 30, 2008
McCain as Maverick
In yesterday's post I explained why John McCain is essentially and genuinely a conservative. Today I'll take a look at why, if that is the case, he has frequently diverged from the Republican Party line on important issues. When he does this it is invariably for one of three reasons. Sometimes he doesn't feel the Party is being truly conservative. At other times he is flexible enough to be persuaded by the facts. And on other occasions he is simply tacking with the flow for political advantage.
Sometimes McCain opposes his own party because he feels it is not being conservative enough, based on the way he understands conservatism. This is particularly true on ethics issues. That's why McCain helped assemble a coalition composed mainly of Democrats to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in 2002, why he has tried to include provisions against torture in intelligence authorization bills since the invasion of Iraq and why he pursued the Abramoff corruption scandal so avidly. His view of conservatism includes the concept of America as moral beacon.
His early brush with special interest scandal in the Keating Five case back in the 1980s opened his eyes to the corrosive and corrupting effects of special interest money on the political process. Like many Democrats he shares this view for moral reasons, but reasons that he sees as conservative. The people's money gets wasted on things that aren't necessary because of special interest influence-buying. America's moral influence in the world is compromised by the use of torture. Free and honest political debate does not take place when unaccountable organizations are able to flood the political parties with unlimited amounts of money with strings attached. He has often run afoul of his own party on these issues because they were the ones getting the lions' share of these monies and did not want to change a system that advantaged them. He pushed for them anyway, based on the moral considerations he saw as "true" conservatism.
On matters of pragmatic policy McCain has been at odds with many in his party because he has been sincerely persuaded by the facts. He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because he felt that too much of the relief went to the richest few and the cuts would balloon the deficit. He has come to the conclusion, based on nearly unanimous scientific consensus, that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity. He supports a carbon cap and trade system to provide incentives for remediation. He worked for comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy rather than simply support a "wall 'em off, round 'em up and ship 'em out" strategy because he recognized the utter futility of such an approach. In all these instances he, unlike most of his congressional Republican colleagues, prioritized fact and logic over preconception and political calculation in coming to his decisions.
Finally, despite his predilection for taking what he sees as principled stands, he is politician enough to turn one hundred eighty degrees when the political winds change direction. Note that his "flip flops" have all been cases of diverging from Republican orthodoxy, getting stopped and then returning to embrace the party line. This tendency became pronounced as he sought the Republican nomination and now moves to unify his party base in preparation for the general election campaign. It is the case on the tax cuts, which he now endorses and claims he opposed only because they were not accompanied by commensurate spending cuts. He has similarly done an about-face on immigration, speaking no more about guest workers and paths to citizenship but only of stronger border enforcement. He finally dropped his insistence on anti-torture language, voting for President Bush's intelligence bill without it. When it came down to it, he wouldn't allow anyone an opening to call him "soft on terrorism." McCain also remains all but mute on economic issues. If you go to his web site you will find no heading on "economy," or "jobs." These disingenuous tendencies are part of the man as well.
So all in all, the picture of John McCain that emerges in our two-part investigation is that of a candidate who remains as true as he can to what he sees as conservative principles but is more open than most conservatives to facts that challenge their conventional wisdom. And, when blocked, he will make the political moves he feels necessary to get where he wants to go.
Sometimes McCain opposes his own party because he feels it is not being conservative enough, based on the way he understands conservatism. This is particularly true on ethics issues. That's why McCain helped assemble a coalition composed mainly of Democrats to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in 2002, why he has tried to include provisions against torture in intelligence authorization bills since the invasion of Iraq and why he pursued the Abramoff corruption scandal so avidly. His view of conservatism includes the concept of America as moral beacon.
His early brush with special interest scandal in the Keating Five case back in the 1980s opened his eyes to the corrosive and corrupting effects of special interest money on the political process. Like many Democrats he shares this view for moral reasons, but reasons that he sees as conservative. The people's money gets wasted on things that aren't necessary because of special interest influence-buying. America's moral influence in the world is compromised by the use of torture. Free and honest political debate does not take place when unaccountable organizations are able to flood the political parties with unlimited amounts of money with strings attached. He has often run afoul of his own party on these issues because they were the ones getting the lions' share of these monies and did not want to change a system that advantaged them. He pushed for them anyway, based on the moral considerations he saw as "true" conservatism.
On matters of pragmatic policy McCain has been at odds with many in his party because he has been sincerely persuaded by the facts. He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because he felt that too much of the relief went to the richest few and the cuts would balloon the deficit. He has come to the conclusion, based on nearly unanimous scientific consensus, that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity. He supports a carbon cap and trade system to provide incentives for remediation. He worked for comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy rather than simply support a "wall 'em off, round 'em up and ship 'em out" strategy because he recognized the utter futility of such an approach. In all these instances he, unlike most of his congressional Republican colleagues, prioritized fact and logic over preconception and political calculation in coming to his decisions.
Finally, despite his predilection for taking what he sees as principled stands, he is politician enough to turn one hundred eighty degrees when the political winds change direction. Note that his "flip flops" have all been cases of diverging from Republican orthodoxy, getting stopped and then returning to embrace the party line. This tendency became pronounced as he sought the Republican nomination and now moves to unify his party base in preparation for the general election campaign. It is the case on the tax cuts, which he now endorses and claims he opposed only because they were not accompanied by commensurate spending cuts. He has similarly done an about-face on immigration, speaking no more about guest workers and paths to citizenship but only of stronger border enforcement. He finally dropped his insistence on anti-torture language, voting for President Bush's intelligence bill without it. When it came down to it, he wouldn't allow anyone an opening to call him "soft on terrorism." McCain also remains all but mute on economic issues. If you go to his web site you will find no heading on "economy," or "jobs." These disingenuous tendencies are part of the man as well.
So all in all, the picture of John McCain that emerges in our two-part investigation is that of a candidate who remains as true as he can to what he sees as conservative principles but is more open than most conservatives to facts that challenge their conventional wisdom. And, when blocked, he will make the political moves he feels necessary to get where he wants to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)