I had a discussion today with a Political Science colleague about the extremely negative tenor of the Republican campaign currently being run. He was interested in exploring a a few interesting questions. First, does John McCain actually believe his own recent rhetoric about Obama as a socialist or his running mate's characterizations of Obama as a friend of terrorists? Second, is this an intentional effort on the part of his campaign or the GOP to "poison the well" and make it impossible for Obama to govern so that he can be more easily defeated in 2012? And third, if so, what does this say about the state of our ability to grapple with the many serious problems confronting the nation?
Does McCain himself believe the rhetoric?
I have considered this question in the blog before, beginning on July 5 just after McCain hired the Rove team to run his campaign, and as recently as this Monday. No, I do not believe McCain himself actually subscribes to insinuations that Obama is disloyal to the United States of America, is in league with terrorists, wants to expose kindergartners to graphic sex and so on. What I do believe is that McCain wants to win the election. He became convinced or arrived at the conclusion himself that destroying Obama's personal reputation was his best and perhaps only path to victory. He wants to be elected so badly that he is willing to discard his own previous reputation for civility and go back on his promise to conduct a "respectful campaign on the issues." It is a strategy to him, nothing more and nothing less.
Is this an intentional effort on the part of the McCain campaign or the GOP to "poison the well" and make it impossible for Obama to govern so that he can be more easily defeated in 2012?
On McCain's own part? I would say "no." His event horizon is the election. He knows he will never have another chance to be President and I do not believe he is thinking past November 4 or about anyone else's concerns in the matter. Now, in the case of the Republican National Committee, I would say probably yes. If they cannot prevent him from winning they would like to see a wounded Obama limp weakly into the White House and prove unable to get anything done during his tenure. That would start paying off in the midterm Congressional races in 2010 and possibly give them a good chance to get the top spot back again in 2012. Their concern is to win elections, if not this one, then by laying the ground work for winning the next ones. In the case of related groups like 527 committees, I would say definitely yes. They want to heap as much calumny on Obama and stoke as much outrage as they possibly can. That is the surest way for them to increase their membership rolls and donor bases.
What does this say about the state of our ability to grapple with the many serious problems confronting the nation?
This goes back to the spectre that haunted George Washington when he gave his "Farewell Address" to the nation as he left office in 1796. He warned of a selfish "spirit of faction" by which "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men" would place the good of "party" ahead of the good of the nation and which could "obstruct" and even "destroy" the ability of government to effectively serve the people. There can be little question that when a campaign goes beyond sincere disagreements on policy and political philosophy to the path of attributing to its opponent active treason and moral degeneracy, the object is to rob him of all legitimacy and render him a crippled and ineffective leader. The effects of the politics of character assassination and extreme partisan enmity have been all too obvious for some time in American politics, as attested by the growing backlog of chronic problems unsolved and the worsening level of trust and respect in government at all levels.
Response of the Obama Campaign
Combating this tendency has been one of the primary concerns of the Obama campaign from the start. He was careful not to personally denigrate Hillary Clinton in the primaries, even though things got very heated at times. He has similarly refused to retaliate in kind to the outrageous slurs and fabrications emanating from the Republican camp in the general election. He frequently calls attention to the tactics being used against him and says the American people are "too smart" to be "distracted," that he is confident "it will not work, not this time." Of course, part of this is a plea that the people not succumb to the negative tactics, but part is also preparation for his ability to govern should he win. Obama is trying not to burn bridges but what is more, he is trying to establish a new normative in American political discourse that could make it more possible for both parties to actually work together to get things done without so many shrieking partisans screaming "sellout" every time it is attempted. If the American people are truly ready for this, Obama potentially stands as a transformational president indeed.
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Campaign 2008. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Should We Believe the Polls?
As Barack Obama enters the last two weeks with an average lead once again expanding into the neighborhood of 7.2%, more consideration will be given to whether these polls can actually be trusted. The lead seems nearly insurmountable with so little time left and Obama enjoying the money advantage. But is there a lurking "Bradley factor" or a a "Dewey Defeats Truman" reprise in there somewhere?
The short answer is, in all likelihood, no. The polls are probably quite accurate, and are more likely to be underestimating Obama's strength than overestimating it. If we go back to the primary season and examine the results we find that Obama actually outperformed the polls by more than 3% ten times, underperformed the poll's predictions by more than 3% six times, and ten other times met the polls' expectations when the margin between himself and Hillary Clinton fell within 3% of what the polls predicted.
So that's 73% of the time meeting or exceeding what the polls predicted and only failing to do so 27% of the time. And of the six times the polls overestimated Obama's performance, the only two that incorrectly chose him as the winner happened quite early in the primary season. Clinton won in New Hampshire and California, where polls had shown Obama 8% nad 1% ahead respectively. After Super Tuesday, February 5, that never happened again. The pollsters were able to improve their models and devise more accurate turnout projections for various types of voters after that. In general, (14 out of 16 times) when the polls were off by more than 3%, Obama wound up simply winning by more than already predicted or losing bigger in states where he was already predicted to lose.
As far as thinking of a shock such as 1948, Dewey led in the last Gallup poll by 5%, conducted eight days before the election. Truman would up winning by that same margin, 5%. George Gallup's numbers were probably about right on October 25, and his was the only extensive polling being done. Based on his experience in the previous three elections he felt another survey so close to the election would be unnecessary. He therefore missed the late surge to Truman.
But today we see no signs of a McCain surge, though numerous polls are being taken. A tightening of the race, noted here October 19, has apparently been reversed, as Obama's aggregate lead has gone up from 5.3% to 7.2% over the past three days. McCain needs a seismic event to recover the kind of momentum he would need to make up that kind of deficit, for he now needs to pull off a consistent shift of half a percent a day every day until the election.
The short summary is that Obama looks very, very strong at present. An unanticipated Bradley factor shift away from Obama or massive reordering toward McCain is not currently happening. Meanwhile, the days tick off the calendar one by one. Yes, we should believe the polls.
The short answer is, in all likelihood, no. The polls are probably quite accurate, and are more likely to be underestimating Obama's strength than overestimating it. If we go back to the primary season and examine the results we find that Obama actually outperformed the polls by more than 3% ten times, underperformed the poll's predictions by more than 3% six times, and ten other times met the polls' expectations when the margin between himself and Hillary Clinton fell within 3% of what the polls predicted.
So that's 73% of the time meeting or exceeding what the polls predicted and only failing to do so 27% of the time. And of the six times the polls overestimated Obama's performance, the only two that incorrectly chose him as the winner happened quite early in the primary season. Clinton won in New Hampshire and California, where polls had shown Obama 8% nad 1% ahead respectively. After Super Tuesday, February 5, that never happened again. The pollsters were able to improve their models and devise more accurate turnout projections for various types of voters after that. In general, (14 out of 16 times) when the polls were off by more than 3%, Obama wound up simply winning by more than already predicted or losing bigger in states where he was already predicted to lose.
As far as thinking of a shock such as 1948, Dewey led in the last Gallup poll by 5%, conducted eight days before the election. Truman would up winning by that same margin, 5%. George Gallup's numbers were probably about right on October 25, and his was the only extensive polling being done. Based on his experience in the previous three elections he felt another survey so close to the election would be unnecessary. He therefore missed the late surge to Truman.
But today we see no signs of a McCain surge, though numerous polls are being taken. A tightening of the race, noted here October 19, has apparently been reversed, as Obama's aggregate lead has gone up from 5.3% to 7.2% over the past three days. McCain needs a seismic event to recover the kind of momentum he would need to make up that kind of deficit, for he now needs to pull off a consistent shift of half a percent a day every day until the election.
The short summary is that Obama looks very, very strong at present. An unanticipated Bradley factor shift away from Obama or massive reordering toward McCain is not currently happening. Meanwhile, the days tick off the calendar one by one. Yes, we should believe the polls.
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.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell and Polls
Two items need discussing today: the Powell endorsement and the recent tightening in the overall national polling numbers. Is Powell's backing the last straw that breaks the McCain campaign's back and guarantees an Obama victory? Or does the narrowing gap between Obama and McCain the past few days portend a photo finish and possible McCain victory? Let's take a closer look.
Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press today is important symbolically but will have little discernible effect on the national numbers. The general rule of thumb is, the better known the candidates and a race are, the less influential endorsements become.
As such, it came too late to appreciably change the race. Most minds are made up by now. At best, it may act to solidify support a little among those who already back Obama. If Powell had come out this late against Obama it might have hurt him. That this did not happen is certainly a plus for the Obama effort, and the imprimatur of the former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs Chairman should help Obama govern should he be elected. Bottom line: welcome news for the Democratic camp but not a game clincher.
On October 14 Obama enjoyed his largest spread, 8.2% in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. By October 19 it had fallen to 5.0%. Does this shift of better than half a point per day presage a major shift to McCain and a gathering come-from-behind surge? So far, no. What it seems to indicate to this point is a major move toward increased support for McCain in red states. His margins in Texas have increased by 5% in recent days, for instance, and two West Virginia surveys show McCain's lead growing from 2% to 8%.
Obama's leads appear to be holding firm and even growing in states already leaning to him, such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida. What we appear to be seeing is the customary polarization typical of most elections; most of the remaining partisans are returning home. For McCain to win he not only has to hold all the solid Republican states where he currently leads, but must also turn things around in several states where he is behind. In the final analysis, remember, the national popular vote means nothing. Watch this week to see if there is significant movement toward McCain in places such as Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota. If so, then the last week may be a barn burner. If not, then the rotund diva will be making her entrance.
Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press today is important symbolically but will have little discernible effect on the national numbers. The general rule of thumb is, the better known the candidates and a race are, the less influential endorsements become.
As such, it came too late to appreciably change the race. Most minds are made up by now. At best, it may act to solidify support a little among those who already back Obama. If Powell had come out this late against Obama it might have hurt him. That this did not happen is certainly a plus for the Obama effort, and the imprimatur of the former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs Chairman should help Obama govern should he be elected. Bottom line: welcome news for the Democratic camp but not a game clincher.
On October 14 Obama enjoyed his largest spread, 8.2% in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. By October 19 it had fallen to 5.0%. Does this shift of better than half a point per day presage a major shift to McCain and a gathering come-from-behind surge? So far, no. What it seems to indicate to this point is a major move toward increased support for McCain in red states. His margins in Texas have increased by 5% in recent days, for instance, and two West Virginia surveys show McCain's lead growing from 2% to 8%.
Obama's leads appear to be holding firm and even growing in states already leaning to him, such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida. What we appear to be seeing is the customary polarization typical of most elections; most of the remaining partisans are returning home. For McCain to win he not only has to hold all the solid Republican states where he currently leads, but must also turn things around in several states where he is behind. In the final analysis, remember, the national popular vote means nothing. Watch this week to see if there is significant movement toward McCain in places such as Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota. If so, then the last week may be a barn burner. If not, then the rotund diva will be making her entrance.
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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
McCain Needs Strong Palin Performance
A panoply of new poll numbers came in today, all pointing in the same direction: the post-debate verdict is in. Between Friday's tussle between Barack Obama and John McCain and this week's continued dire news on the economic front, Obama is now surging far ahead. Thursday's vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin presents a badly needed opportunity for the McCain campaign to regain its footing. But a poor performance by Palin looks like it could, at this point, cripple Republican chances beyond repair.
Numbers from today's plethora of surveys indicate the Democratic ticket is not only building its national lead past five percent, but opening leads in many battleground states. See the data here.
Support for Obama is gelling in the upper Midwest states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. Out West, Colorado and New Mexico are moving into the safe category for the Democrats, as is Pennsylvania in the East. Even more ominously for McCain, Obama has opened up undeniable leads in Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Nevada and Missouri have drifted in to the undecided camp along with such former Republican strongholds as Indiana and North Carolina. If the election were held today Real Clear Politics projects Obama-Biden would carry 353 electoral votes to McCain-Palin's 185.
The immediate speed bump in all this has to be the vice presidential debate. Sarah Palin must prove herself capable of engaging reasonably convincingly on issues, above the level of memorized talking points. Up to now her credibility has been damaged by her inability to answer basic questions from Charles Gibson and softball serves from Katie Couric. If she cannot do better than this in her debate with Joe Biden she will be relegated to Dan Quayledom. John McCain will suffer just as greatly for having chosen her as his running mate. If she flops the race will be effectively over, barring an earth shaking set of events in the next few weeks.
If she does well then the McCain campaign will remain viable and live to fight another day. It will still face an uphill struggle in an environment strongly favoring the Democrats this year, but at least a chance for victory will remain.
I do not feel the bar for Palin to hurdle is low. A perception of vacuousness has infected her image with undecideds thanks to her uninformed comments whenever she is off script. It will be up to her to reverse that perception. After four weeks on the campaign trail and three solid days of preparation at McCain's Sedona compound, she ought to be able to do that if she has the requisite smarts. And there is always the possibility of the garrulous Biden committing a few of his famous gaffes, too. But if she cannot do better than merely survive a pummeling at the hands of the highly experienced and knowledgeable Delaware Senator it will be lights out for McCain's chances.
Numbers from today's plethora of surveys indicate the Democratic ticket is not only building its national lead past five percent, but opening leads in many battleground states. See the data here.
Support for Obama is gelling in the upper Midwest states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. Out West, Colorado and New Mexico are moving into the safe category for the Democrats, as is Pennsylvania in the East. Even more ominously for McCain, Obama has opened up undeniable leads in Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Nevada and Missouri have drifted in to the undecided camp along with such former Republican strongholds as Indiana and North Carolina. If the election were held today Real Clear Politics projects Obama-Biden would carry 353 electoral votes to McCain-Palin's 185.
The immediate speed bump in all this has to be the vice presidential debate. Sarah Palin must prove herself capable of engaging reasonably convincingly on issues, above the level of memorized talking points. Up to now her credibility has been damaged by her inability to answer basic questions from Charles Gibson and softball serves from Katie Couric. If she cannot do better than this in her debate with Joe Biden she will be relegated to Dan Quayledom. John McCain will suffer just as greatly for having chosen her as his running mate. If she flops the race will be effectively over, barring an earth shaking set of events in the next few weeks.
If she does well then the McCain campaign will remain viable and live to fight another day. It will still face an uphill struggle in an environment strongly favoring the Democrats this year, but at least a chance for victory will remain.
I do not feel the bar for Palin to hurdle is low. A perception of vacuousness has infected her image with undecideds thanks to her uninformed comments whenever she is off script. It will be up to her to reverse that perception. After four weeks on the campaign trail and three solid days of preparation at McCain's Sedona compound, she ought to be able to do that if she has the requisite smarts. And there is always the possibility of the garrulous Biden committing a few of his famous gaffes, too. But if she cannot do better than merely survive a pummeling at the hands of the highly experienced and knowledgeable Delaware Senator it will be lights out for McCain's chances.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate: Tie Goes to Obama
John McCain and Barack Obama squared off last night in their first debate. The mood was sober, serious and earnest. There was precious little levity. They started out on the economy before spending most of their time on foreign policy. I feel they stated their familiar positions and each appealed effectively to his own supporters. The bottom line is that they battled more or less to a draw, a result that helps Obama more than McCain. That's because McCain is behind and needs to make up some ground.
On domestic matters, McCain needed to espouse conservative principles while demonstrating some independence from the unpopular President Bush. He was able to make these cases fairly well, shoring up the base by insisting he could pay for everything folks want while cutting taxes and calling Obama liberal.
McCain needed to show commanding familiarity on international and defense matters, since that is the core of his candidacy. This he did. He enunciated his hard line positions with firmness, as always. Those who like a father figure willing to rattle the cages of all the meanies in a dangerous world were comforted.
On matters close to home, Obama portrayed himself as the champion of regular folks. He was at pains to show his tax and spending priorities are in line with the needs of average Americans and McCain's with the wealthy few. He also persistently tried to tie McCain together with Bush, a tactic McCain kept evading with some success.
In the international arena Obama made his longstanding case that Iraq is a colossal strategic mistake that has diverted us from our actual terrorist enemies. He also stuck to his new vision of foreign relations calling for greater engagement, even with rival nations. He and McCain sparred repeatedly on these approaches. Obama wanted to appear knowledgeable and possessing sufficient gravitas for people to imagine him as president. He passed these tests easily.
A problem area for McCain was his tendency to smirk and act dismissively of Obama's views. He repeatedly began remarks with, "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that..." His condescension was no doubt intended to put the young upstart in his place, but may instead have come off to many as disrespectful and arrogant.
Obama had potential trouble spots too. One interesting occurrence was that several times he began remarks with, "I agree with Senator McCain" or "I agree with John" about a certain issue, for instance about the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. This could either show an intelligent openness that people could appreciate or it could play to McCain's advantage by conceding him expertise points. Obama's other possible fault was allowing a bit of annoyance to break his usually unflappable cool.
The early polls out this morning seem to show continued strength for Obama, though the effect of the debate may not have been measured yet. We'll see in the next few days whether this has been a game-changer, but I doubt it. This debate treaded water for both contenders.
On domestic matters, McCain needed to espouse conservative principles while demonstrating some independence from the unpopular President Bush. He was able to make these cases fairly well, shoring up the base by insisting he could pay for everything folks want while cutting taxes and calling Obama liberal.
McCain needed to show commanding familiarity on international and defense matters, since that is the core of his candidacy. This he did. He enunciated his hard line positions with firmness, as always. Those who like a father figure willing to rattle the cages of all the meanies in a dangerous world were comforted.
On matters close to home, Obama portrayed himself as the champion of regular folks. He was at pains to show his tax and spending priorities are in line with the needs of average Americans and McCain's with the wealthy few. He also persistently tried to tie McCain together with Bush, a tactic McCain kept evading with some success.
In the international arena Obama made his longstanding case that Iraq is a colossal strategic mistake that has diverted us from our actual terrorist enemies. He also stuck to his new vision of foreign relations calling for greater engagement, even with rival nations. He and McCain sparred repeatedly on these approaches. Obama wanted to appear knowledgeable and possessing sufficient gravitas for people to imagine him as president. He passed these tests easily.
A problem area for McCain was his tendency to smirk and act dismissively of Obama's views. He repeatedly began remarks with, "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that..." His condescension was no doubt intended to put the young upstart in his place, but may instead have come off to many as disrespectful and arrogant.
Obama had potential trouble spots too. One interesting occurrence was that several times he began remarks with, "I agree with Senator McCain" or "I agree with John" about a certain issue, for instance about the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. This could either show an intelligent openness that people could appreciate or it could play to McCain's advantage by conceding him expertise points. Obama's other possible fault was allowing a bit of annoyance to break his usually unflappable cool.
The early polls out this morning seem to show continued strength for Obama, though the effect of the debate may not have been measured yet. We'll see in the next few days whether this has been a game-changer, but I doubt it. This debate treaded water for both contenders.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Three Ideas for Fixing the Crisis
How should we go about fixing the financial meltdown and ensuring it doesn't happen again? The Bush Administration wants massive bailouts of financial corporations based on the decisions of one man, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. John McCain wants to fire the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and complains about how greedy too many business people are and how much money some of the heads of these companies make. Barack Obama says we need clear and firm rules about what is permissible and what is not, and insists that all expenditures of money such as for bailouts, be taken to Congress for their approval on a case by case basis. Both McCain and Obama call for greater "transparency."
The Administration case represents its normal advocacy of unlimited executive power. As usual, one man is to make decisions without accountability to anyone. The legislation presented specifically states that the Secretary's decisions may not be appealed in court and are not subject to congressional approval. If there is a difference between this kind of decision-making and a dictatorship I would like to know what it is. And it is not as though this Administration's decisions have been so sterling as to give it the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, congress will not be stampeded once again into passing something based on breathless panic-mongering that the nation will later regret. These proposals should be rejected out of hand.
McCain's prescriptions are strangely off the point. They personalize the problem, as though one man's firing could reform the lending practices of companies he does not work for. They state the obvious, that business people are greedy (duh) and that executives have made enormous salaries while leading firms into disaster due to aggressively lending money to people without the means to pay it back other than an expectation of the endlessly escalating value of their homes. Does the Senator advocate passing laws telling business people not to be so greedy, or companies how much they may pay their executives? Certainly not. In fact, his comments on the matter offer no solution at all. They are merely grousing. In truth, what more can a "fundamental deregulator" offer?
Obama's opinion that firm rules need to be established more realistically gets to the heart of the matter. If by that he means that some basic qualifications should be met before a loan may be approved, and that derivatives should be regulated as strictly as market transactions, he is on the right track. Though it would be nice to see more specificity from him, Obama's basic approach is certainly what the situation cries out for. Merely jawboning traders not to be so greedy is about as effective as beseeching football players not to be so violent. Without clear penalties, mayhem reigns. His other point that the Constitution rather than authoritarian fiat ought to be followed, is similarly refreshing. There is no reason to allow this to be another opportunity for the Bush Administration to use it to further erode the checks and balances set up to safeguard our liberty.
The Administration case represents its normal advocacy of unlimited executive power. As usual, one man is to make decisions without accountability to anyone. The legislation presented specifically states that the Secretary's decisions may not be appealed in court and are not subject to congressional approval. If there is a difference between this kind of decision-making and a dictatorship I would like to know what it is. And it is not as though this Administration's decisions have been so sterling as to give it the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, congress will not be stampeded once again into passing something based on breathless panic-mongering that the nation will later regret. These proposals should be rejected out of hand.
McCain's prescriptions are strangely off the point. They personalize the problem, as though one man's firing could reform the lending practices of companies he does not work for. They state the obvious, that business people are greedy (duh) and that executives have made enormous salaries while leading firms into disaster due to aggressively lending money to people without the means to pay it back other than an expectation of the endlessly escalating value of their homes. Does the Senator advocate passing laws telling business people not to be so greedy, or companies how much they may pay their executives? Certainly not. In fact, his comments on the matter offer no solution at all. They are merely grousing. In truth, what more can a "fundamental deregulator" offer?
Obama's opinion that firm rules need to be established more realistically gets to the heart of the matter. If by that he means that some basic qualifications should be met before a loan may be approved, and that derivatives should be regulated as strictly as market transactions, he is on the right track. Though it would be nice to see more specificity from him, Obama's basic approach is certainly what the situation cries out for. Merely jawboning traders not to be so greedy is about as effective as beseeching football players not to be so violent. Without clear penalties, mayhem reigns. His other point that the Constitution rather than authoritarian fiat ought to be followed, is similarly refreshing. There is no reason to allow this to be another opportunity for the Bush Administration to use it to further erode the checks and balances set up to safeguard our liberty.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)