I have been hearing a lot of doom and gloom about the financial health of the country lately. What I think is scary to most people is that, unlike previous recessions, no one can really articulate what the problems are, and what the solutions should be.
Previous economic hard times, going all the way back to the Panic of 1907, were at least understandable by economists, financial experts, and relatively solveable, either with cash infusions, or the indominable will of leaders like JP Morgan.
This situation is so difficult, because there isn't a clear cause, nor a clear solution path. Here is the best way I know how to break down the problem:
Problem:
When all these people started to buy homes in the 1990's and 2000's, mortgage companies discovered they could sell the mortgages to a bank who could "package" the mortgages, and sell them on the market, just like a share of IBM stock. The "shareholder" who bought these securities (called Collateralized Mortgage Obligations, or CMO's) would get an interest payment each month, just like a bond. The mortgage company would package your monthly mortgage payment, along with all the others they received, on the first of the month, keep it for 15 days (earning interest), and pass it along to the bank, who would "pass through" that money to the shareholder. Everyone along the way got a cut--the mortgage company got 15 days interest, the bank made money on the difference between what they received from the mortgage company, and what they paid the shareholder, and the shareholder made a return on their investment of around 5-7%. What a deal.
Only one problem. A lot of those CMO's were financed on Adjustable rate mortgages, which was fine when the mortgage payment for joe six-pack was $500 at 2% a month. Suddenly, mortgage rates went up, and the mortgage payments went from $500 to $750 a month, as interest rates went from 2% to 5%. In business, it only takes about 5 in 100 people to not be able to afford that jump, and have to foreclose on the property. Suddenly, the banks had all these properties they had foreclosed on, and no mortgage payments coming in to pass through to their shareholders. They still had obligations, though, to pay the amounts to the shareholders. What to do?
Start selling other bank assets to cover the difference. Only one problem with that. People see that you are fire selling assets, and it creates a sell off on the markets, and the value of your securities you are trying to sell. Now you have to sell MORE just to get back what you need to cover your debts. And if you default on the security payments to the shareholders? Big trouble. Now EVERYONE will be trying to sell those securities, and no one will lend you money, because they think you are in trouble. When no one lends the banks money, the credit system freezes up.
When that happens, all of the "Main street" businesses (car dealerships, restaurants, etc) using credit to make payroll at their shops, can't get the funds they need to pay their workers. Because the bank doesn't have spare funds to lend them. That creates either mutiny for the employees, or means that the employers have to start laying off people.
And THAT is how Mortgages effect Wall Street, and Wall Street affects Main Street. The scary question is "What's the timespan on this cycle?" My biggest fear is that this cycle has already started, and every 15 days we will see it get demonstrably worse, until something is done. but WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Solutions:
Honestly, I don't know what the right answer is. Congress passed a bill that allows the federal government some leverage to invest in these banks to give them the funds they need to make loans, and keep business afloat in the short term. then the banks would have to repay them. Initially, the feds wanted the money to actully "BUY UP" these CMO-like securities, and, in a sense, become the mortgage servicers, collecting monthly mortgage payments as their own payback of the $700B bailout money.
Apparently that plan didn't appear feasible. Britain came up with the idea of just buying stock in the banks themselves, thus giving the companies money to start to work out some of the bad mortgages, and get capital money flowing again. The US has adopted this idea somewhat, but it remains to be seen if this can stabilize things. It seems to have.
My hope is that the credit crisis has reached its nadir, and that all we are facing right now is just a good old fashioned recession. We could do a LOT worse...
On the political front:
McCain suggested having the federal government BUY the mortgages at FACE value, and negotiate failed mortgages to a reasonable rate. On the positive side of this arguement, it would stabilize home prices, and put a floor under the damage this is causing the US Economy. On the negative side of things, using Taxpayer money to guarantee a loss on investment, and bail out the least fiscally responsible among us is totally anethema to the Conservative philosophy.
Obama suggested a strengthening of FDIC guarantee limits, and has said little else, other than he supports a bailout. The guarantee comes with a potential to balloon the deficit, but could stabilize the panic people have about their savings.
Both are good ideas, and not mutually exclusive. So each has validity on the issues here.
What distresses me is that no one seems to be able to break down how we get out of this mess other than wait and hope. I am not so good with "wait and hope..."
Friday, October 31, 2008
McCain--Leader or Fighter?
As I have written about here previously, this political race is so stark in its contrasts on so many levels. White vs. Black, Young vs. Old, Liberal vs. Conservative, Urban vs. Rural--in so many ways, we, as a people, are a nation of stark contrasts, bound together by our faith in the Constitution, and respect for the laws and history of this land.
But the most stark contrast between the candidates in many ways is not explicitly examined enough, and in the end, may be the best indication of how we, as a people truly want to be governed.
McCain vs. Obama--The Fighter vs. the Leader
Watching John McCain campaign is a little like watching a military General plan out and execute a battle. If you notice, his speeches implore people to "Stand up and FIGHT! Fight for what's right! Fight for a better tomorrow! We don't hide from history, We MAKE HISTORY!" It's very compelling.
And he has tried hard to frame each issue by identifying the "bad guys", and making them the target to attack, and overcome (Earmarks--"I will veto their bills, I will make them famous, you will know their names". Energy--"Sending $700B to countries that don't like us very much" Taxes "stop the Redistributor. Support Joe the Plumber!" an "Us against them" strategy, Economics--"it's all Freddie and Fannie, and Barney Frank's fault!"). Each time, making sure to frame the argument that the only thing standing in the way of prosperity is this identified enemy, and if we simply remove that enemy (earmark requestors, Iran, Barack Obama, etc) that our problems will be solved.
For Senator McCain, every issue is a fight--good guys vs. bad guys. Pick a side, and we will battle you until your nose is bloodied, and we win.
I am fascinated to see if McCain can win with this strategy. Because we aren't winning many battles as Americans these days.
What I think is so interesting is that this strategy or rationale for campaigning works MUCH better if your opponent ACTUALLY ENGAGES you in these debates. The fact that Obama has been so able to avoid getting into skirmishes with McCain on these issues, and let himself be defined as the "anti-McCain" on these issues, is pretty remarkable. McCain's frustration with this just poured out during the debates, when he was just begging for a fight, and Obama wouldn't oblige.
I have heard many people claim McCain is a Pragmatist, but I disagree. His positions, his rigidity in these past months on issues, and his selection of Sarah Palin have all shown a sharp veer to the Right of the landscape. This is NOT pragmatism, it is dogmatism. It is not studying the choices, and making a rational decision based on the facts in front of you. It is a kow-tow to a belief structure that one thinks is infallible, despite evidence to the contrary.
Obama, on the other hand is the ultimate Pragmatist. Taking advice from leaders, not just in his party, but experts on the subject matter--Automotive industry (talking to Rick Wagonner-GM), Economic (talking to Volker, Rubin, Buffet), Defense/Foreign Policy (Powell, Allbright, travelling with Chuck Hagel to the middle east, etc). His policy positions have not been radical, despite efforts to make him out to be a socialist.
His changes on positions reflect a listening that he is willing to do, to change a position that is clearly out of step with the people and experts (changing his position on drilling, for example).
Also, he has shown an ability to mend fences, and has very few people saying they would NOT work with him.
For me personally, I worry about a McCain presidency, not because I don't think he will do what he thinks is right. I worry because if I disagree with him, he will scapegoat my position, make people afraid of it, and want to fight it. This is McCain--the fighter. Unfortunately, I don't see any sign of McCain--the leader of ALL Americans. If he wins, he will be McCain--the leader of America...as long as you agree with him...
But the most stark contrast between the candidates in many ways is not explicitly examined enough, and in the end, may be the best indication of how we, as a people truly want to be governed.
McCain vs. Obama--The Fighter vs. the Leader
Watching John McCain campaign is a little like watching a military General plan out and execute a battle. If you notice, his speeches implore people to "Stand up and FIGHT! Fight for what's right! Fight for a better tomorrow! We don't hide from history, We MAKE HISTORY!" It's very compelling.
And he has tried hard to frame each issue by identifying the "bad guys", and making them the target to attack, and overcome (Earmarks--"I will veto their bills, I will make them famous, you will know their names". Energy--"Sending $700B to countries that don't like us very much" Taxes "stop the Redistributor. Support Joe the Plumber!" an "Us against them" strategy, Economics--"it's all Freddie and Fannie, and Barney Frank's fault!"). Each time, making sure to frame the argument that the only thing standing in the way of prosperity is this identified enemy, and if we simply remove that enemy (earmark requestors, Iran, Barack Obama, etc) that our problems will be solved.
For Senator McCain, every issue is a fight--good guys vs. bad guys. Pick a side, and we will battle you until your nose is bloodied, and we win.
I am fascinated to see if McCain can win with this strategy. Because we aren't winning many battles as Americans these days.
What I think is so interesting is that this strategy or rationale for campaigning works MUCH better if your opponent ACTUALLY ENGAGES you in these debates. The fact that Obama has been so able to avoid getting into skirmishes with McCain on these issues, and let himself be defined as the "anti-McCain" on these issues, is pretty remarkable. McCain's frustration with this just poured out during the debates, when he was just begging for a fight, and Obama wouldn't oblige.
I have heard many people claim McCain is a Pragmatist, but I disagree. His positions, his rigidity in these past months on issues, and his selection of Sarah Palin have all shown a sharp veer to the Right of the landscape. This is NOT pragmatism, it is dogmatism. It is not studying the choices, and making a rational decision based on the facts in front of you. It is a kow-tow to a belief structure that one thinks is infallible, despite evidence to the contrary.
Obama, on the other hand is the ultimate Pragmatist. Taking advice from leaders, not just in his party, but experts on the subject matter--Automotive industry (talking to Rick Wagonner-GM), Economic (talking to Volker, Rubin, Buffet), Defense/Foreign Policy (Powell, Allbright, travelling with Chuck Hagel to the middle east, etc). His policy positions have not been radical, despite efforts to make him out to be a socialist.
His changes on positions reflect a listening that he is willing to do, to change a position that is clearly out of step with the people and experts (changing his position on drilling, for example).
Also, he has shown an ability to mend fences, and has very few people saying they would NOT work with him.
For me personally, I worry about a McCain presidency, not because I don't think he will do what he thinks is right. I worry because if I disagree with him, he will scapegoat my position, make people afraid of it, and want to fight it. This is McCain--the fighter. Unfortunately, I don't see any sign of McCain--the leader of ALL Americans. If he wins, he will be McCain--the leader of America...as long as you agree with him...
Thursday, October 30, 2008
America--The Land of the "C" (or perhaps C minus?)
One of the things that has struck me most about this election is this:
This has been a tough campaign, with a lot of slings and arrows flying in both directions. That's to be expected, and I am not fazed by this type of behavior. I have seen it all my life in politics.
What has been fascinating to me is that one campaign has managed to speak to us as if we were adults, and the other campaign speaks to us as if we have about a 7th grade education. Initially, I was excited to vote for Barack Obama. Now I am equally excited to vote against John McCain and Sarah Palin, but not for the reasons you may think. Policy positions have something to do with it. But in reality, the biggest issue I have with the McCain campaign is the way in which the candidates speak to the people. As if we were idiots.
True, you could claim that perhaps McCain has been watching Bush talk to us like this for eight years. But don't you think that it would be foolish to emulate a style that is only favored by about 25% of the electorate these days?
Here's my take on the whole thing: You have a couple of "C" students running on the Republican ticket, who have made a career of being attackers, "battlers", and opportunists to claw their way up the ranks.
McCain's story of bravery and love of country is remarkable, and I wish he had stuck to this, and a robust discussion of his policies. But if you look at the man, here is someone who graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and had gotten through his early years on the McCain name (remember, the McCain name in military circles was what the Bush name was in Politics--Royalty). He was known as more of a drinker and fighter than a leader in his early years (any of this sounding familiar?) before a "life changing event" and the love of a good woman straightened him out. Unlike our previous President, though, McCain actually has quite a record of legislative achievement. But do we hear him talk about policies in a manner that shows him to have a good grasp of the issues?
No we don't. Instead, we have a candidate who takes snide jabs at his opponent at every turn (saying things like if he were President, HE wouldn't pre-empt the World Series...heh heh heh). But more disconcerting to me is that he has basically made no attempt to lay out any sort of vision for the country, or show ANY thinking about the policies, other than at the most basic level. And I constantly feel like I am being spoken to as if I were 8 years old, and couldn't possibly understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do (which he didn't even explain properly at one of the debates.) His inability to lay out coherent plans, other than rattle off talking points (taxes bad, Joe the Plumber, Socialist! Terrorist! We are all Georgians! Earmarks!) just reminds me of George W. Bush. McCain can say all he wants about not being George W. Bush--voting records, "Mavericks", etc--but it's this treatment of the American people as if we were idiots--THAT is where I see the similarities between McCain and Bush. And it is very insulting.
Enter Sarah Palin. How many colleges did she attend before getting her degree? Four? I understand that you had to WORK all your life, Sarah. So do most of us. I still have been to other countries. I promise you, Ms. Palin, the books don't substitute for going places, and seeing them for yourself. Ideology is only defensible by listening to opposing points of view, and perhaps even losing a few debates, and questioning your beliefs, before truly embracing a point of view. There is nothing in your speeches, your background, even your so-called "expertise" in the field of energy, that leads us to believe you have any real substance to your positions, rationale for your beliefs, or anything past the talking points on the cheat sheet. If you are an expert at anything, other than inciting the mob, we still have 5 days to go. I am all ears...
I keep asking myself, "Why do we have this situation?" The top of the Republican Party looks like a couple of people who speak so simplistically, who don't think and reason, but just go with their gut reactions, who say they represent us, but I see absolutely no listening, or empathy for voters in any of their speeches (and believe me, I have heard MANY speeches in their entirety on POTUS 08. No MSM filter here...). How did we become this country where the C- students rule?
I read a recent book (sorry for the misquote here!) that made a great point--...it isn't that Bush is an idiot...it's that he thinks people are idiots, and he talks to them as if he can sell any idea on a group of people that he thinks he is smarter than... Why do I want a President like that? Don't I want someone I can be proud of? Who listens to people, advisors, and makes informed, intelligent decisions about my country?
In the end Bush is a "C" student, and McCain is a "C" student. The world is full of "C" students, and some of them are world beaters. But the odds are against it. And I think we have seen where "C" students can take us, if we aren't careful.
I am happy to have a beer with a "C" student, or call one my friend. I think I am ready for an "A" student as President again...
This has been a tough campaign, with a lot of slings and arrows flying in both directions. That's to be expected, and I am not fazed by this type of behavior. I have seen it all my life in politics.
What has been fascinating to me is that one campaign has managed to speak to us as if we were adults, and the other campaign speaks to us as if we have about a 7th grade education. Initially, I was excited to vote for Barack Obama. Now I am equally excited to vote against John McCain and Sarah Palin, but not for the reasons you may think. Policy positions have something to do with it. But in reality, the biggest issue I have with the McCain campaign is the way in which the candidates speak to the people. As if we were idiots.
True, you could claim that perhaps McCain has been watching Bush talk to us like this for eight years. But don't you think that it would be foolish to emulate a style that is only favored by about 25% of the electorate these days?
Here's my take on the whole thing: You have a couple of "C" students running on the Republican ticket, who have made a career of being attackers, "battlers", and opportunists to claw their way up the ranks.
McCain's story of bravery and love of country is remarkable, and I wish he had stuck to this, and a robust discussion of his policies. But if you look at the man, here is someone who graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and had gotten through his early years on the McCain name (remember, the McCain name in military circles was what the Bush name was in Politics--Royalty). He was known as more of a drinker and fighter than a leader in his early years (any of this sounding familiar?) before a "life changing event" and the love of a good woman straightened him out. Unlike our previous President, though, McCain actually has quite a record of legislative achievement. But do we hear him talk about policies in a manner that shows him to have a good grasp of the issues?
No we don't. Instead, we have a candidate who takes snide jabs at his opponent at every turn (saying things like if he were President, HE wouldn't pre-empt the World Series...heh heh heh). But more disconcerting to me is that he has basically made no attempt to lay out any sort of vision for the country, or show ANY thinking about the policies, other than at the most basic level. And I constantly feel like I am being spoken to as if I were 8 years old, and couldn't possibly understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do (which he didn't even explain properly at one of the debates.) His inability to lay out coherent plans, other than rattle off talking points (taxes bad, Joe the Plumber, Socialist! Terrorist! We are all Georgians! Earmarks!) just reminds me of George W. Bush. McCain can say all he wants about not being George W. Bush--voting records, "Mavericks", etc--but it's this treatment of the American people as if we were idiots--THAT is where I see the similarities between McCain and Bush. And it is very insulting.
Enter Sarah Palin. How many colleges did she attend before getting her degree? Four? I understand that you had to WORK all your life, Sarah. So do most of us. I still have been to other countries. I promise you, Ms. Palin, the books don't substitute for going places, and seeing them for yourself. Ideology is only defensible by listening to opposing points of view, and perhaps even losing a few debates, and questioning your beliefs, before truly embracing a point of view. There is nothing in your speeches, your background, even your so-called "expertise" in the field of energy, that leads us to believe you have any real substance to your positions, rationale for your beliefs, or anything past the talking points on the cheat sheet. If you are an expert at anything, other than inciting the mob, we still have 5 days to go. I am all ears...
I keep asking myself, "Why do we have this situation?" The top of the Republican Party looks like a couple of people who speak so simplistically, who don't think and reason, but just go with their gut reactions, who say they represent us, but I see absolutely no listening, or empathy for voters in any of their speeches (and believe me, I have heard MANY speeches in their entirety on POTUS 08. No MSM filter here...). How did we become this country where the C- students rule?
I read a recent book (sorry for the misquote here!) that made a great point--...it isn't that Bush is an idiot...it's that he thinks people are idiots, and he talks to them as if he can sell any idea on a group of people that he thinks he is smarter than... Why do I want a President like that? Don't I want someone I can be proud of? Who listens to people, advisors, and makes informed, intelligent decisions about my country?
In the end Bush is a "C" student, and McCain is a "C" student. The world is full of "C" students, and some of them are world beaters. But the odds are against it. And I think we have seen where "C" students can take us, if we aren't careful.
I am happy to have a beer with a "C" student, or call one my friend. I think I am ready for an "A" student as President again...
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Republicans need a reason to believe. Here's a few
Here we are, with under a week to go. I keep seeing the same reports: It's all over, and Obama's won.
I think Republicans need a booster, so let's do it up...
1. Polls ARE tightening--if you don't believe me, check for yourself. Gallup has a 2 POINT Obama lead among registered voters. This is down from 7-8 points only a few days ago. State polls follow the national polls, so let's see if some of the states follow suit. Momentum is self-fueling, and as Brand R faithful start to see some of the states on the map turning red, it could provide a lift. Not all the polls are that close, but most are less than 4-5 points at this stage.
2. Pennsylvania a hail mary?--Maybe not! McCain and Palin have parked themselves there, and it has Democrats nervous. Remember, Obama didn't do well here in the primary, and this is hardly a true blue state. Polls are somewhat fungible, and we have seen that the states follow the national polls. Therefore, a 9 point Obama lead here, could be 2-3 points by the end of the week. The Rendell/Casey machine could be worth a point or two in the end, but if McCain is going to win, he is going to need PA as a firewall. Could happen, looking better each day.
3. Joe the Plumber--It seems that "Obama the Socialist" is a message that is working. I am not sure if it really is, but at this point, hammer the message and hope it sticks. Could get you Ohio.
4. Natural tightening--This always happens. Some people always go back to the Devil they know. It's worth a couple of points.
5. Early polling results--According to Pew, Obama is only ahead 48-47%. That's HARDLY insurmountable. Remember, McCain can afford to lose Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, and Colorado and STILL WIN, if he pulls Pennsylvania over. Heck, if he wins New Hampshire, he could afford to lose Nevada too, and still win the whole thing. Not as bad as it seems, right?
6. Speaking of New Hampshire--Do we really think THAT isn't a tossup state? McCain has great history of WINNING this state. Obama led in the polls and LOST that state during the primaries. NH is a tough state to predict, and while it is trending blue, it is by no means a lock.
7. People don't want single party rule. If McCain can hammer home the idea that a Reid/Pelosi/Obama triumverate would be devistating, he can pick up a couple of points.
Let's all get a grip here. The race is tight, and getting tighter. McCain may have run an absolutely abysmal campaign up to now, but the fact that he still has a shot at winning tells you something.
I think Republicans need a booster, so let's do it up...
1. Polls ARE tightening--if you don't believe me, check for yourself. Gallup has a 2 POINT Obama lead among registered voters. This is down from 7-8 points only a few days ago. State polls follow the national polls, so let's see if some of the states follow suit. Momentum is self-fueling, and as Brand R faithful start to see some of the states on the map turning red, it could provide a lift. Not all the polls are that close, but most are less than 4-5 points at this stage.
2. Pennsylvania a hail mary?--Maybe not! McCain and Palin have parked themselves there, and it has Democrats nervous. Remember, Obama didn't do well here in the primary, and this is hardly a true blue state. Polls are somewhat fungible, and we have seen that the states follow the national polls. Therefore, a 9 point Obama lead here, could be 2-3 points by the end of the week. The Rendell/Casey machine could be worth a point or two in the end, but if McCain is going to win, he is going to need PA as a firewall. Could happen, looking better each day.
3. Joe the Plumber--It seems that "Obama the Socialist" is a message that is working. I am not sure if it really is, but at this point, hammer the message and hope it sticks. Could get you Ohio.
4. Natural tightening--This always happens. Some people always go back to the Devil they know. It's worth a couple of points.
5. Early polling results--According to Pew, Obama is only ahead 48-47%. That's HARDLY insurmountable. Remember, McCain can afford to lose Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, and Colorado and STILL WIN, if he pulls Pennsylvania over. Heck, if he wins New Hampshire, he could afford to lose Nevada too, and still win the whole thing. Not as bad as it seems, right?
6. Speaking of New Hampshire--Do we really think THAT isn't a tossup state? McCain has great history of WINNING this state. Obama led in the polls and LOST that state during the primaries. NH is a tough state to predict, and while it is trending blue, it is by no means a lock.
7. People don't want single party rule. If McCain can hammer home the idea that a Reid/Pelosi/Obama triumverate would be devistating, he can pick up a couple of points.
Let's all get a grip here. The race is tight, and getting tighter. McCain may have run an absolutely abysmal campaign up to now, but the fact that he still has a shot at winning tells you something.
Monday, October 27, 2008
What about the Senate Battles?
I did want to get in one article about the so-called "down ballot" races. Unlike the Presidential race, the Senate looks like a massacre. I just can't believe what I am seeing. If I were Joe Lieberman, I would be going all in with McCain too. Come November 5, Joe won't have a party, or any leverage with either side. His only hope for future viability is in a McCain administration.
The Senate Picture is a wipe out for Democrats. Look at this:
Virginia--John Warner (R) is retiring, and Mark Warner (D) is a popular ex-Governor, future Presidential candidate, and has a 25% (that's right, 25%) lead on Jim Gilmore, the Republican candidate. I didn't believe the number, but it seems like there are a number of polls confirming this. I don't even think an endorsement from St. Peter could help him close the gap here.
Brand D takes Virginia
New Mexico--Pete Domenici (R) is retiring. Tom Udall is up double digits in a race that doesn't seem very competitive, in a state that isn't competitive from a Presidential standpoint either. I am really surprised at this. NM was a state that was really 50/50, and the fact that Udall seems to be winning in a cake walk is either a testament to his skills, or the lack of a serious contender in the Republican party for the seat.
Brand D takes New Mexico
Colorado--Wayne Allard is retiring. Mark Udall (I think they are all related to former Congressman Mo Udall somehow...) is also winning in a state that should be competitive, but the race has been just short of a lock for months now. Interesting...
Brand D takes Colorado
New Hampshire--Jeanne Shaheen has been out in front of John Sununu, who is probably too conservative for a state that has tacked to the left in recent years. Interestingly, the state polls have showed McCain making a charge, but still behind. It doesn't look good for Sununu, who is behind in every poll I see, sometimes by double digits. Tough to make up in a week...
Brand D takes New Hampshire
Alaska--Ted Stevens is on trial for corruption charges, and it looks increasingly grim that the case will be decided before election day. If that's the case, Mark Begich has a lead in the polls, and has an excellent shot at winning the race, in a status quo development to 11/4. Begich has a better than 50/50 shot.
Brand D takes Alaska.
North Carolina--Kay Hagen has exposed Elizabeth Dole as an ineffective Senator, and a terrible talent recruiter for the party. Dole has fought back, and it is a tight race. Turnout will be key, and the terrible butterfly ballots could tip the scales in Dole's favor. However, if Obama has a big day, there is little doubt that Hagen will ride those coattails.
Brand D takes NC
That's 6 states. That's huge. There are three MORE that are pick em's--Oregon, Minnesota, and Georgia (can that be possible!?)
Oregon--Gordon Smith is a moderate, and one might even say a RINO (Republican in Name only). However, he is polling behind Jeff Merkeley, and doesn't have much of a party behind him, nor a wind at his back, considering the fact that Oregon will vote for Obama by about 10 points. This could be a tough one to pull out.
My prediction: Brand D takes Oregon
Minnesota--This has gotten nasty, and with two of the better mud-slingers out there--Norm Coleman and Al Franken. The polls are all over the place on this race (partly due to an independent third party taking 15-20% of the electorate). In the end, if Obama gets the big win in Minnesota, I think Franken slides in. I don't think there will be much doubt about where in the political spectrum he ends up. Conservatives will target this seat with a bullseye in 2014, if Franken wins.
My prediction: Brand d takes Minnesota
Georgia--This race is almost impossible to me. A Democrat taking Georgia back? Really? It IS possible, though, with a large Democratic turnout, and an electorate who remembers how Chambliss used some pretty graphic images to defeat Max Cleland, insinuating a lack of patriotism. This has been on Democratic wish lists for 5 years. I don't think they can overcome the power of Brand R, though
My prediction: Brand R takes Georgia.
But with 8 seats, and Lieberman quitting the caucus, the Dems end up with 57 seats (50 +8 - Lieberman = 57) . Getting to 60 on a filibuster vote isn't a stretch, but there aren't a lot of moderates left in the Republican party. It may be harder to find 3 sympathetic souls than it appears.
Still, I can't believe that the Democrats, who two cycles ago, had 44 members, and looked decimated after 2004, could be in such a place. So much for a Karl Rove-style "Permanent Republican Majority". Do you suppose it's possible that this is NOT really a "Center-Right" country, like I keep hearing so many pundits proclaim?
The Senate Picture is a wipe out for Democrats. Look at this:
Virginia--John Warner (R) is retiring, and Mark Warner (D) is a popular ex-Governor, future Presidential candidate, and has a 25% (that's right, 25%) lead on Jim Gilmore, the Republican candidate. I didn't believe the number, but it seems like there are a number of polls confirming this. I don't even think an endorsement from St. Peter could help him close the gap here.
Brand D takes Virginia
New Mexico--Pete Domenici (R) is retiring. Tom Udall is up double digits in a race that doesn't seem very competitive, in a state that isn't competitive from a Presidential standpoint either. I am really surprised at this. NM was a state that was really 50/50, and the fact that Udall seems to be winning in a cake walk is either a testament to his skills, or the lack of a serious contender in the Republican party for the seat.
Brand D takes New Mexico
Colorado--Wayne Allard is retiring. Mark Udall (I think they are all related to former Congressman Mo Udall somehow...) is also winning in a state that should be competitive, but the race has been just short of a lock for months now. Interesting...
Brand D takes Colorado
New Hampshire--Jeanne Shaheen has been out in front of John Sununu, who is probably too conservative for a state that has tacked to the left in recent years. Interestingly, the state polls have showed McCain making a charge, but still behind. It doesn't look good for Sununu, who is behind in every poll I see, sometimes by double digits. Tough to make up in a week...
Brand D takes New Hampshire
Alaska--Ted Stevens is on trial for corruption charges, and it looks increasingly grim that the case will be decided before election day. If that's the case, Mark Begich has a lead in the polls, and has an excellent shot at winning the race, in a status quo development to 11/4. Begich has a better than 50/50 shot.
Brand D takes Alaska.
North Carolina--Kay Hagen has exposed Elizabeth Dole as an ineffective Senator, and a terrible talent recruiter for the party. Dole has fought back, and it is a tight race. Turnout will be key, and the terrible butterfly ballots could tip the scales in Dole's favor. However, if Obama has a big day, there is little doubt that Hagen will ride those coattails.
Brand D takes NC
That's 6 states. That's huge. There are three MORE that are pick em's--Oregon, Minnesota, and Georgia (can that be possible!?)
Oregon--Gordon Smith is a moderate, and one might even say a RINO (Republican in Name only). However, he is polling behind Jeff Merkeley, and doesn't have much of a party behind him, nor a wind at his back, considering the fact that Oregon will vote for Obama by about 10 points. This could be a tough one to pull out.
My prediction: Brand D takes Oregon
Minnesota--This has gotten nasty, and with two of the better mud-slingers out there--Norm Coleman and Al Franken. The polls are all over the place on this race (partly due to an independent third party taking 15-20% of the electorate). In the end, if Obama gets the big win in Minnesota, I think Franken slides in. I don't think there will be much doubt about where in the political spectrum he ends up. Conservatives will target this seat with a bullseye in 2014, if Franken wins.
My prediction: Brand d takes Minnesota
Georgia--This race is almost impossible to me. A Democrat taking Georgia back? Really? It IS possible, though, with a large Democratic turnout, and an electorate who remembers how Chambliss used some pretty graphic images to defeat Max Cleland, insinuating a lack of patriotism. This has been on Democratic wish lists for 5 years. I don't think they can overcome the power of Brand R, though
My prediction: Brand R takes Georgia.
But with 8 seats, and Lieberman quitting the caucus, the Dems end up with 57 seats (50 +8 - Lieberman = 57) . Getting to 60 on a filibuster vote isn't a stretch, but there aren't a lot of moderates left in the Republican party. It may be harder to find 3 sympathetic souls than it appears.
Still, I can't believe that the Democrats, who two cycles ago, had 44 members, and looked decimated after 2004, could be in such a place. So much for a Karl Rove-style "Permanent Republican Majority". Do you suppose it's possible that this is NOT really a "Center-Right" country, like I keep hearing so many pundits proclaim?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
What do people think of Sarah Palin?
As this race gets down to the wire, I need some perspective on the race. I haven't done this before, but I figured I would put down my thoughts on Sarah Palin, and see if people will put their reactions to my analysis:
This is a simple comparison. I want to know if people are pro or con, and maybe why. Here are the cases:
Pro--
Attractive--let's not hide it. This is an attractive politician, both physically, but also someone who appeals to a significant portion of the electorate. My friend in Houston tells me that Sarah Palin is all the rage down there. Ditto for my friend in Atlanta.
Intelligent--all MSM interviews aside, this is someone who is a quick study, and has been praised by almost all who spend any significant time with her.
Understands Energy Needs--this is a topic that, sadly, has not been one she has been able to showcase, for any number of reasons. Most of those reasons have been beyond her control. As she continues to ascend in the party, this could be THE issue that makes her a star.
Executive experience--hey, she has had to lead a town, a state, and possibly hold the #2 position in the land. Anyone want to put their credentials up against that?
Could be a party leader--She certainly has the talking points down better than a month ago. Who knows where she will be in a year? I don't think she ends up as Dan Quayle. I think she ends up as a party leader.
Appeals to demographics not currently strong in the GOP--The right has been looking for a main stream champion since it became obvious that W. would not be Reagan.
Scares the heck out of the Donkeys--One reason Brand D attacks her so much is that they are flat out scared to death of her message catching on in independent parts of the country. Imagine a leader on the other side of the aisle who is not conciliatory to the democratic message, is young, attractive, AND winning elections?
Reformer/"Maverick"--She can make the case, but I would recommend that she drop the "Maverick" persona. That only really works for McCain. As soon as she is her own candidate, it starts to look phony.
"Sarah-cudda" Style--we have seen a style of campaigning that is sharp, and effective. This is why I doubt that Palin will be going anywhere, even if the Democrats WIN the Presidency in 2008.
Con--
"ideology-challenged dittohead"--for those of you who DON'T listen to AM radio in the late morning/early afternoon, "dittos" really don't mean anything to you. But Palin has not yet shown she has a lot of independent thinking going on from the Republican dogma. If the Republicans lose the election, and the economy recovers, it could be a long walk into the political wilderness for Palin and Brand R.
political lightweight--this is not someone who appears to be intellectually, or in any other way, curious about issues, the world, or the people who live in all parts of America. In other words, she is George W. Bush. That's the image of her right now, in Blue State America.
uninterested in foreign policy--this one scares me. Honestly, if Palin wins the VP spot, she should make it a point to work on this somewhat, before running for Pres in 2012.
"phony"--I hear this from a LOT of women I meet. They think she is NOT the real deal, she is shallow, and doesn't really represent their values.
That's the comparison, the best I know it. Let me know what you think. Sarah Palin--Pro or Con?
This is a simple comparison. I want to know if people are pro or con, and maybe why. Here are the cases:
Pro--
Attractive--let's not hide it. This is an attractive politician, both physically, but also someone who appeals to a significant portion of the electorate. My friend in Houston tells me that Sarah Palin is all the rage down there. Ditto for my friend in Atlanta.
Intelligent--all MSM interviews aside, this is someone who is a quick study, and has been praised by almost all who spend any significant time with her.
Understands Energy Needs--this is a topic that, sadly, has not been one she has been able to showcase, for any number of reasons. Most of those reasons have been beyond her control. As she continues to ascend in the party, this could be THE issue that makes her a star.
Executive experience--hey, she has had to lead a town, a state, and possibly hold the #2 position in the land. Anyone want to put their credentials up against that?
Could be a party leader--She certainly has the talking points down better than a month ago. Who knows where she will be in a year? I don't think she ends up as Dan Quayle. I think she ends up as a party leader.
Appeals to demographics not currently strong in the GOP--The right has been looking for a main stream champion since it became obvious that W. would not be Reagan.
Scares the heck out of the Donkeys--One reason Brand D attacks her so much is that they are flat out scared to death of her message catching on in independent parts of the country. Imagine a leader on the other side of the aisle who is not conciliatory to the democratic message, is young, attractive, AND winning elections?
Reformer/"Maverick"--She can make the case, but I would recommend that she drop the "Maverick" persona. That only really works for McCain. As soon as she is her own candidate, it starts to look phony.
"Sarah-cudda" Style--we have seen a style of campaigning that is sharp, and effective. This is why I doubt that Palin will be going anywhere, even if the Democrats WIN the Presidency in 2008.
Con--
"ideology-challenged dittohead"--for those of you who DON'T listen to AM radio in the late morning/early afternoon, "dittos" really don't mean anything to you. But Palin has not yet shown she has a lot of independent thinking going on from the Republican dogma. If the Republicans lose the election, and the economy recovers, it could be a long walk into the political wilderness for Palin and Brand R.
political lightweight--this is not someone who appears to be intellectually, or in any other way, curious about issues, the world, or the people who live in all parts of America. In other words, she is George W. Bush. That's the image of her right now, in Blue State America.
uninterested in foreign policy--this one scares me. Honestly, if Palin wins the VP spot, she should make it a point to work on this somewhat, before running for Pres in 2012.
"phony"--I hear this from a LOT of women I meet. They think she is NOT the real deal, she is shallow, and doesn't really represent their values.
That's the comparison, the best I know it. Let me know what you think. Sarah Palin--Pro or Con?
John McCain could take a lesson or two from the French
I have listened to a lot of John McCain's speeches on POTUS 08, while driving. I noticed a certain set of themes in his speeches this Summer and early Fall. He still drops some of the old, tired lines in speeches, and interviews (anyone recognize his common line about "I'll veto pork barrell bills, and I'll make 'em famous, you'll know their names..."?).
One line he used to use all the time was this idea that the French get 80% of their power from Nuclear energy(by the way, that's "NU-CLE-URRRRR", not "NU-CU-LAR", Gov. Palin. I thought we had had enough of THAT with 8 years of W). And he would always thrown in a line that said, "and by the way, the French now have a PRO-American President, which just goes to show that if you live long enough, anything is possible". I think the line was very cutesy, and struck a good tone with his audiences at the time, despite personally thinking that the line was vile, and pretty anti-French. Not exactly the tone we wanted to set with the world off the bat.
While I agree with McCain on the use of Nuclear power in the US, I wonder if he is going to regret NOT learning a different lesson from the French-a people he has shown disdain for in the past. If he loses, his candidacy will have fallen into the French National Defense trap of the 19th and 20th Centuries--preparing for the previous battle.
The French, after the Franco-Prussian war of the 1860's, lost key strategic, and disputed territories of Alsace/Lorraine in the eastern most part of France, to Germany. World War I was in many respects, going to be payback for lost territory. Sadly, in 1914, the French were fully prepared to fight along the lines of the 1860's, war, and the Germans had moved on to tanks and machine guns. The initial fight was lopsided, and an aggressive push by the Brittish, French and Americans finally repelled the German forces, after several million had lost their lives.
Determined not to let themselves be beaten yet again by their neighbors, the French built "The Maginot Line" to protect themselves against the German attacks from the West. It was a series of cannons, trenches, guns, etc, to repel the massive fight that was surely coming.
Once again, during the early days of WWII, Hitler's forces managed to invade France through the Benelux countries, and come at Paris from the NORTH. Airplanes had become weaponized, and were devistating to French forces, who were entrenched in a defense position so immobile that even the cannons couldn't be turned around to fire in other directions. The French were soundly and roundly defeated. Needless to say, once again, the French had prepared for the previous battle, and been beaten by a new round of weapons and strategy.
I am not trying to be overly critical of the French, but I am trying to make the following point: John McCain was defeated in 2000 by a campaign of low-ball tactics, robocalls, fear-mongering, by a better political machine.
So the question was, "would McCain, the standard bearer for Brand R, run the kind of campaign that would work today, or prepare for and fight the one that worked on him in 2000, and 2004?"
If the polls are correct, and Barack Obama wins the presidency, the case for fighting the last war here will be evident.
One line he used to use all the time was this idea that the French get 80% of their power from Nuclear energy(by the way, that's "NU-CLE-URRRRR", not "NU-CU-LAR", Gov. Palin. I thought we had had enough of THAT with 8 years of W). And he would always thrown in a line that said, "and by the way, the French now have a PRO-American President, which just goes to show that if you live long enough, anything is possible". I think the line was very cutesy, and struck a good tone with his audiences at the time, despite personally thinking that the line was vile, and pretty anti-French. Not exactly the tone we wanted to set with the world off the bat.
While I agree with McCain on the use of Nuclear power in the US, I wonder if he is going to regret NOT learning a different lesson from the French-a people he has shown disdain for in the past. If he loses, his candidacy will have fallen into the French National Defense trap of the 19th and 20th Centuries--preparing for the previous battle.
The French, after the Franco-Prussian war of the 1860's, lost key strategic, and disputed territories of Alsace/Lorraine in the eastern most part of France, to Germany. World War I was in many respects, going to be payback for lost territory. Sadly, in 1914, the French were fully prepared to fight along the lines of the 1860's, war, and the Germans had moved on to tanks and machine guns. The initial fight was lopsided, and an aggressive push by the Brittish, French and Americans finally repelled the German forces, after several million had lost their lives.
Determined not to let themselves be beaten yet again by their neighbors, the French built "The Maginot Line" to protect themselves against the German attacks from the West. It was a series of cannons, trenches, guns, etc, to repel the massive fight that was surely coming.
Once again, during the early days of WWII, Hitler's forces managed to invade France through the Benelux countries, and come at Paris from the NORTH. Airplanes had become weaponized, and were devistating to French forces, who were entrenched in a defense position so immobile that even the cannons couldn't be turned around to fire in other directions. The French were soundly and roundly defeated. Needless to say, once again, the French had prepared for the previous battle, and been beaten by a new round of weapons and strategy.
I am not trying to be overly critical of the French, but I am trying to make the following point: John McCain was defeated in 2000 by a campaign of low-ball tactics, robocalls, fear-mongering, by a better political machine.
So the question was, "would McCain, the standard bearer for Brand R, run the kind of campaign that would work today, or prepare for and fight the one that worked on him in 2000, and 2004?"
If the polls are correct, and Barack Obama wins the presidency, the case for fighting the last war here will be evident.
- Attacking your opponent on experience, while you pick an inexperienced Governor from Alaska undermines your message.
- Saying you are a steady hand in uncertain times only works if you actually SHOW that you are one, and not someone who has acted so erratically from one day to the next during the Wall Street Meltdown of late September/early October.
- Calling your opponent a socialist, when you yourself voted for a $700B bailout and Government nationalization of the banking system.
- Calling your opponent out on higher taxes, when you yourself voted against them initially.
- Calling out your opponent on the fact that "the surge worked", when most Americans are upset that we are even there in the first place, and your comments just remind people that we are spending Billions each month on something in Iraq, while our people here are struggling.
Fighting a George Bush-style attack machine on the issues of the election only work if you have credibility in your own positions as being different, or better to the majority of the electorate. The reason the Swift Boat ads worked was that there were people who served with Kerry who were in the ads. If the Bill Ayres issue was so real, why isn't there ANYONE who is corroborating a close relationship? You don't think Matt Drudge, or anyone on the Right has looked into this? Seriously, if it's a real relationship, it would have surfaced by now, right? I think people in the press are willing to lend credence to just about any attack, as long as there is a somewhat viable link. Honestly, Rezko, or Jeremiah Wright would have been better selections, if you wanted to go this route.
Meanwhile, Obama has run a much more effective ground game, registering record number of people, getting his vote out, appealing to the middle of the electorate, and showing that an even temperment, and not engaging his opponent on gutterball issues like Ayres, lapel pins, etc. Obama raised money outside of the federal system (something McCain could have done as well, but was out-maneuvered on by Obama), and trounced McCain on the airwaves, and the internet. In essence, he fought the war of TODAY, not of YESTERDAY
It is true that Obama has had other clear advantages, including a more popular party, a favorable position on the overall Iraq war, and a younger, more energetic appeal. But McCain had opportunities to solidify HIS base--the Independents, with a Lieberman, or Ridge VP pick. He could have selected Romney as his economic advisor during the Wall Street meltdown, he could have come out with a more aggressive tax cut plan, which I am still stunned he hasn't.
Instead, he tacked Right, since this has been the winning formula in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Strangely, though, he didn't go all the way, not going for deep tax cuts, or making the real sale about his economic philosophy. In the end, he upset everyone--Fiscal Conservatives, Independents, and Democrats, so that he could win the Social Conservatives. But he didn't look at the fact that the Social base isn't 50% of the electorate.
Such a strange push started to make people uncomfortable, especially the Colin Powells of the world. The interesting thing to me was the reaction to Powell's comments. What I kept hearing was "well he wasn't ever a true conservative anyway". That may be true, but what does that say about the Republican party? "If you aren't one of us, you aren't trusted, or welcome?" How does a base of 35-40% of the electorate intend to lead, if they end up alienating the rest of the population?
In the end, fighting a Steve Schmitt/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater campaign here has exposed McCain to the sentiments expressed by the French after WWI and WWII--"we prepared for the last war, not the current war".
Friday, October 24, 2008
Sarah Palin--Future of the Republican Party?
By now it is pretty obvious that if John McCain wins the Presidency (which I still think he has a REAL chance to do, as you see in my previous postings), he will only serve 4 years. This makes the choice of Sarah Palin a more important VP pick than any we have had in years. So, let's break things down on Sarah Palin, the good, the bad, and the ugly...
The Good--
Here is an attactive leader, who can deliver a good line, lay out a clear vision for the country, and has understandable, traditional viewpoints on everything from social issues (guns-for, abortion-against), to Foreign Policy (America-good, Russia-bad, Islamofascists-bad), to government (socialism-bad, taxes-bad). She has stirred Conservative America from the doldrums of watching George W. Bush fumble his way through everything from Katrina, to the economy. Conservatives don't trust McCain, and for the first time in years, they are energized by this new face on the scene, who can lead their ideology for the next 20 years. A lot of the liberal establishment is afraid that her and her message WILL resonate, and that they will be looking at a Sarah Palin-led party, that can woo women over to the Conservative point of view.
The Bad--
Palin's message, while ideologically pure, isn't where the majority of America is these days. People aren't looking at their futures and seeing a return to Reagan-style policies. Many are, but more than ever, people don't see government as the problem, they see Wall Street and free trade, and offshoring as the problem. People not making a lot of money don't see heady economic times ahead, and don't think that cutting taxes for the wealthy makes a lot of sense for them (Joe the Plumber aside).
On another topic, Palin is playing the attack dog role for the President, and this is something that is consistent with the VP contenders. But her speeches have left moderate and left-leaning America aghast at the fact that such sharp barbs can come from someone who is trying to have the Reagan optimism. Many of the attacks don't come across as "happy warrior", but more as "vindictive, self-perceived victim" type of shots. One friend of mine says that Palin comes across as if "someone on the Left did her wrong at some point in the past, and NOW ITS PAYBACK TIME". The problem with that kind of attitude is that Republicans have been, for the most part, in charge of some or all branches of government over the past 8 years, and it's hard to say that the situation people find themselves in is somehow the fault of the party NOT in power...
Saturday Night Live--People who saw her appearance said that "she killed". I saw the show. What I saw was someone who did NOT show a human face to the situation. Someone who was visceral in her disdain for how she had been treated, and someone who was clearly not putting a positive spin on the lampooning she had been receiving. This was an episode, again, that Conservatives probably think put the SNL problem to bed. I think the rest of the electorate saw what I did. Someone who felt they HAD to go on the show, but in the end, couldn't hide her contempt for people lampooning her. She looked like the stereotype being portrayed. That's bad.
The Ugly--
Katie Couric--Katie Couric must be thanking her lucky stars to have landed the interview of the election cycle. Never before have we seen the depth of someone's thinking on issues laid bare in such a stark episode as the Couric interviews. Sadly, this was not Mike Wallace, probing with tough questions, this was NOT Tim Russert, trying to find ways to box her into a corner. This was Couric, throwing "batting-practice" meatballs, and Palin flailing away at answers that were totally incongruent, and incoherent. These interviews may be a challenge for Palin to EVER overcome, but I think she's too much of a fighter to let this stop her meteoric rise to the top of the party.
Trooper Gate--This got ugly in the sense that she was found to have broken the rules in regards to the termination of the trooper (good ole "what's his name") in Alaska. The reason this is even on the list, is that it will be linked to her, even if people don't really remember the details. We know that she used her authority to misbehave. Something that has plagued too many Republicans over the past 20 years.
Clothing Gate--This was ugly, but in this case, the crime wasn't as bad as the reaction. Who cares if the clothing goes to Charity afterwards? I wonder if the donors to the party know that their money is going to her wardrobe, hair and makeup, rather than voter registrations and actual campaigning? The reaction has been to the excessive amounts of $$$ spent, and the fact that now, every time we see her, we aren't going to be thinking about her representing "Joe Sixpack", but we will be thinking "I wonder how much she spent on that dress?".
In the end, if McCain loses, Palin becomes the temporary "face" of the Republican Party, going into 2012. She has the ideology and dogma of the party down pat. The question is, does she become the Reagan-like leader of the Party, to lead it ahead, or does she end up Dan Quayle, someone forever linked to her public gaffes. I am inclined to say that she ends up more like the latter, but American politics are a strange beast. Don't ever count people out. Just look at Nixon or Reagan's careers.
The Good--
Here is an attactive leader, who can deliver a good line, lay out a clear vision for the country, and has understandable, traditional viewpoints on everything from social issues (guns-for, abortion-against), to Foreign Policy (America-good, Russia-bad, Islamofascists-bad), to government (socialism-bad, taxes-bad). She has stirred Conservative America from the doldrums of watching George W. Bush fumble his way through everything from Katrina, to the economy. Conservatives don't trust McCain, and for the first time in years, they are energized by this new face on the scene, who can lead their ideology for the next 20 years. A lot of the liberal establishment is afraid that her and her message WILL resonate, and that they will be looking at a Sarah Palin-led party, that can woo women over to the Conservative point of view.
The Bad--
Palin's message, while ideologically pure, isn't where the majority of America is these days. People aren't looking at their futures and seeing a return to Reagan-style policies. Many are, but more than ever, people don't see government as the problem, they see Wall Street and free trade, and offshoring as the problem. People not making a lot of money don't see heady economic times ahead, and don't think that cutting taxes for the wealthy makes a lot of sense for them (Joe the Plumber aside).
On another topic, Palin is playing the attack dog role for the President, and this is something that is consistent with the VP contenders. But her speeches have left moderate and left-leaning America aghast at the fact that such sharp barbs can come from someone who is trying to have the Reagan optimism. Many of the attacks don't come across as "happy warrior", but more as "vindictive, self-perceived victim" type of shots. One friend of mine says that Palin comes across as if "someone on the Left did her wrong at some point in the past, and NOW ITS PAYBACK TIME". The problem with that kind of attitude is that Republicans have been, for the most part, in charge of some or all branches of government over the past 8 years, and it's hard to say that the situation people find themselves in is somehow the fault of the party NOT in power...
Saturday Night Live--People who saw her appearance said that "she killed". I saw the show. What I saw was someone who did NOT show a human face to the situation. Someone who was visceral in her disdain for how she had been treated, and someone who was clearly not putting a positive spin on the lampooning she had been receiving. This was an episode, again, that Conservatives probably think put the SNL problem to bed. I think the rest of the electorate saw what I did. Someone who felt they HAD to go on the show, but in the end, couldn't hide her contempt for people lampooning her. She looked like the stereotype being portrayed. That's bad.
The Ugly--
Katie Couric--Katie Couric must be thanking her lucky stars to have landed the interview of the election cycle. Never before have we seen the depth of someone's thinking on issues laid bare in such a stark episode as the Couric interviews. Sadly, this was not Mike Wallace, probing with tough questions, this was NOT Tim Russert, trying to find ways to box her into a corner. This was Couric, throwing "batting-practice" meatballs, and Palin flailing away at answers that were totally incongruent, and incoherent. These interviews may be a challenge for Palin to EVER overcome, but I think she's too much of a fighter to let this stop her meteoric rise to the top of the party.
Trooper Gate--This got ugly in the sense that she was found to have broken the rules in regards to the termination of the trooper (good ole "what's his name") in Alaska. The reason this is even on the list, is that it will be linked to her, even if people don't really remember the details. We know that she used her authority to misbehave. Something that has plagued too many Republicans over the past 20 years.
Clothing Gate--This was ugly, but in this case, the crime wasn't as bad as the reaction. Who cares if the clothing goes to Charity afterwards? I wonder if the donors to the party know that their money is going to her wardrobe, hair and makeup, rather than voter registrations and actual campaigning? The reaction has been to the excessive amounts of $$$ spent, and the fact that now, every time we see her, we aren't going to be thinking about her representing "Joe Sixpack", but we will be thinking "I wonder how much she spent on that dress?".
In the end, if McCain loses, Palin becomes the temporary "face" of the Republican Party, going into 2012. She has the ideology and dogma of the party down pat. The question is, does she become the Reagan-like leader of the Party, to lead it ahead, or does she end up Dan Quayle, someone forever linked to her public gaffes. I am inclined to say that she ends up more like the latter, but American politics are a strange beast. Don't ever count people out. Just look at Nixon or Reagan's careers.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"Obama Defeats McCain?"--Not so fast...
October 23--
Have you heard the news!? The race is over! Obama Won! Woo-hoo! Pop the champagne!
Man, I wish I had put some money down on those Intrade Market Odds that I see at Realclearpolitics.com, showing Obama with an insurmountable lead in the electability odds (at least that's what I THINK that is showing...). I could have CLEANED UP! Or perhaps recouped some of the losses in my 401k, College Fund, personal savings, GE Stock, etc, etc.
Whew! Back to the election speak. Now that the election is over, we can go ahead and have the election now.
So Obama is up 15 points, and winning in all the swing states, right? He's got no red herrings left out there, no recent mistakes, and he's on the trail, every day, speaking to huge crowds, right? McCain is actually in the fetal position on his couch, with Sarah Palin busy trying to hang on to votes in Nebraska and Alaska, right?
I say this to every Conservative I know, and to anyone supporting McCain. It's not over.
There are at least 6 key developments to play out, not even counting any type of international disaster, terrorist attack, Bin Laden tape, or random DUI-like skeleton from Obama's past resurfacing. Most of the remaining developments could move the electorate a point or two. In McCain's case, that's all he would need.
Now I can hear someone saying "but this race is really about states, and electoral votes, right?" True, so I will see if I can identify where each of these developments could help McCain and hurt Obama. Here goes:
1. Polls aren't all they seem--Driving into work this morning, I was listening to POTUS 08 on XM Satellite. AP news has the election being decided by 1%--Obama 44, McCain 43. Another poll had the election at 2 points differential. If you listen to FOX News, they have the election at 9 points. So who's right? Who knows. Realclearpolitics.com tries to do an average of legit pollsters, which is as good as I have found on the internet, but that's probably not as "real" and "clear" as even they would like. So could this really be a 4-6 point Obama lead at this point? Probably more likely than not. 4-6% in 13 days? Seems doable to me...
2. Obama's winning ALL the swing states? Not so fast. Even the polls are finding that in most of the swing states (FL, MO, OH, NV, CO, VA, NC) McCain is winning in as many polls as he is losing in. And NM, IA, NH and PA are not as certain as the media would lead you to believe. Don't take my word for it, look online at Zogby, Realclearpolitics, Gallup, Rassmussen, etc. It wouldn't take much to nudge each of these states 1-2 points. Now THAT's VERY doable.
3. Red Herrings--Joe the Plumber won't go away. This drives Brand D crazy. Some Conservatives really believe Obama IS a Socialist, but for the middle of the country, the moniker is an easy way to describe the fact that an Obama administration would push the country significantly to the left. That's simply a fact. If the Conservatives in this country see this as trouble for them, it may boost turnout, and give them a point or two. Where? Certainly not in California or Connecticut (where it wouldn't matter anyway), but in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. All three are pick em states. Further traction on this could make the difference in these states.
4. Major Gaffes--Honestly, I wonder if Biden, Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, and Schumer realize that the best thing they all can do is take a 12 day vacation together in Cozumel? Obama has to be thinking to himself, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" Each has managed to once again show the country how to disenfranchise middle America, and scare the pants off of fence-sitters in this election. This could be THE issue, were it to gain traction, that could cost Brand D the election. Joe, what the heck were you talking about? International Crisis? When you are winning the race, you don't look for the ammunition to hand to your opponent. And up until then, most people were concerned about a Sarah Palin speech gaffe. Jack Murtha, I think the country now understands why Steny Hoyer got the Majority Leadership post in the House, and not you. Calling out people as racists never goes over well. Chuck Schumer--got those curtains measured in the Oval Office yet? Never underestimate this group's ability to fritter this election away. In all, could cost 1-2 points--minimum-- ACROSS THE BOARD for Biden's comments. The other guys will hurt--Murtha in PA (1-2 points), Schumer perhaps, not so much, unless Palin can turn it into a rallying cry on the campaign.
5. Time away from the Campaign--Obama is in Hawaii for the next couple of days, visiting his sick Grandmother. We are all respectful, and wish her and him well, and hope things turn out okay. In the meantime, it is two to three days for the GOP to hammer home messages without the media being able to cover any Democratic activity. It also heightens the risk that Biden will try to fill the void, and say something else, equally damaging. If you are a McCainiac, two to three days at this point is a gift from heaven. The stage is yours. Go get another point off of Obama's lead, Senator.
6. Obama's tv buys next week--this is tricky. It is going to be hard to deal with such a substantial tv time buy so close to the election. But here is where you can try to hit Obama on campaign finance reform, and hope that Obama comes across as over-confident, and tries to be President before he is elected. It is something Obama has already messed up, as many critics say his speech in Berlin was inappropriate. Only the President should give such speeches to the American people. This could prevent an Obama bounce.
All this gets McCain about 4-6 points, and could flip enough swing states. I admit, he is going to need to run a flawless campaign, and hope these things break in his favor. No more Palin clothes news, no more Congressmen BS about "Real Americans", no more Stock Market collapses. Could be a challenge. On the otherhand, this is a guy who keeps coming back. Perhaps it is time to start thinking about putting a few dollars on McCain on the Intrade Market Odds site. It's a better bet than Bob Barr...
Have you heard the news!? The race is over! Obama Won! Woo-hoo! Pop the champagne!
Man, I wish I had put some money down on those Intrade Market Odds that I see at Realclearpolitics.com, showing Obama with an insurmountable lead in the electability odds (at least that's what I THINK that is showing...). I could have CLEANED UP! Or perhaps recouped some of the losses in my 401k, College Fund, personal savings, GE Stock, etc, etc.
Whew! Back to the election speak. Now that the election is over, we can go ahead and have the election now.
So Obama is up 15 points, and winning in all the swing states, right? He's got no red herrings left out there, no recent mistakes, and he's on the trail, every day, speaking to huge crowds, right? McCain is actually in the fetal position on his couch, with Sarah Palin busy trying to hang on to votes in Nebraska and Alaska, right?
I say this to every Conservative I know, and to anyone supporting McCain. It's not over.
There are at least 6 key developments to play out, not even counting any type of international disaster, terrorist attack, Bin Laden tape, or random DUI-like skeleton from Obama's past resurfacing. Most of the remaining developments could move the electorate a point or two. In McCain's case, that's all he would need.
Now I can hear someone saying "but this race is really about states, and electoral votes, right?" True, so I will see if I can identify where each of these developments could help McCain and hurt Obama. Here goes:
1. Polls aren't all they seem--Driving into work this morning, I was listening to POTUS 08 on XM Satellite. AP news has the election being decided by 1%--Obama 44, McCain 43. Another poll had the election at 2 points differential. If you listen to FOX News, they have the election at 9 points. So who's right? Who knows. Realclearpolitics.com tries to do an average of legit pollsters, which is as good as I have found on the internet, but that's probably not as "real" and "clear" as even they would like. So could this really be a 4-6 point Obama lead at this point? Probably more likely than not. 4-6% in 13 days? Seems doable to me...
2. Obama's winning ALL the swing states? Not so fast. Even the polls are finding that in most of the swing states (FL, MO, OH, NV, CO, VA, NC) McCain is winning in as many polls as he is losing in. And NM, IA, NH and PA are not as certain as the media would lead you to believe. Don't take my word for it, look online at Zogby, Realclearpolitics, Gallup, Rassmussen, etc. It wouldn't take much to nudge each of these states 1-2 points. Now THAT's VERY doable.
3. Red Herrings--Joe the Plumber won't go away. This drives Brand D crazy. Some Conservatives really believe Obama IS a Socialist, but for the middle of the country, the moniker is an easy way to describe the fact that an Obama administration would push the country significantly to the left. That's simply a fact. If the Conservatives in this country see this as trouble for them, it may boost turnout, and give them a point or two. Where? Certainly not in California or Connecticut (where it wouldn't matter anyway), but in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. All three are pick em states. Further traction on this could make the difference in these states.
4. Major Gaffes--Honestly, I wonder if Biden, Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, and Schumer realize that the best thing they all can do is take a 12 day vacation together in Cozumel? Obama has to be thinking to himself, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" Each has managed to once again show the country how to disenfranchise middle America, and scare the pants off of fence-sitters in this election. This could be THE issue, were it to gain traction, that could cost Brand D the election. Joe, what the heck were you talking about? International Crisis? When you are winning the race, you don't look for the ammunition to hand to your opponent. And up until then, most people were concerned about a Sarah Palin speech gaffe. Jack Murtha, I think the country now understands why Steny Hoyer got the Majority Leadership post in the House, and not you. Calling out people as racists never goes over well. Chuck Schumer--got those curtains measured in the Oval Office yet? Never underestimate this group's ability to fritter this election away. In all, could cost 1-2 points--minimum-- ACROSS THE BOARD for Biden's comments. The other guys will hurt--Murtha in PA (1-2 points), Schumer perhaps, not so much, unless Palin can turn it into a rallying cry on the campaign.
5. Time away from the Campaign--Obama is in Hawaii for the next couple of days, visiting his sick Grandmother. We are all respectful, and wish her and him well, and hope things turn out okay. In the meantime, it is two to three days for the GOP to hammer home messages without the media being able to cover any Democratic activity. It also heightens the risk that Biden will try to fill the void, and say something else, equally damaging. If you are a McCainiac, two to three days at this point is a gift from heaven. The stage is yours. Go get another point off of Obama's lead, Senator.
6. Obama's tv buys next week--this is tricky. It is going to be hard to deal with such a substantial tv time buy so close to the election. But here is where you can try to hit Obama on campaign finance reform, and hope that Obama comes across as over-confident, and tries to be President before he is elected. It is something Obama has already messed up, as many critics say his speech in Berlin was inappropriate. Only the President should give such speeches to the American people. This could prevent an Obama bounce.
All this gets McCain about 4-6 points, and could flip enough swing states. I admit, he is going to need to run a flawless campaign, and hope these things break in his favor. No more Palin clothes news, no more Congressmen BS about "Real Americans", no more Stock Market collapses. Could be a challenge. On the otherhand, this is a guy who keeps coming back. Perhaps it is time to start thinking about putting a few dollars on McCain on the Intrade Market Odds site. It's a better bet than Bob Barr...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The "NEW" McCain Strategy--Pennsylvania?
It is being broadcast that the McCain campaign is pulling out of Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, because they are not convinced that they can win in these places. What I have to ask is "what IS the strategy to WIN the election for McCain?"
If we assume that the polls are accurate, and each of the states that John Kerry won in 2004 are already safely in the Obama column, that means Obama would start with a 252 electoral vote base. Conceding Iowa (7 votes), New Mexico (5 votes), and Colorado (9 votes), would elect Barack Obama, with 273 electoral votes (270 to win).
Why would McCain do this? The only way for him to win would be to pull one of Obama's states over to his side. And it appears that McCain is aiming to do just that. His target? Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes.
To be sure, McCain winning Pennsylvania would be devastating to Obama's chances. However, I am struggling to understand why going after a state that is polling 10 points in Obama's favor makes sense. Winning Pennsylvania would require just about a full-court press to potentially turn the tide.
During that effort, McCain would give Obama an open shot at trying to win Virginia (13 votes), Ohio (20 votes), Missouri (11 votes), North Carolina (15 votes), Nevada (5 votes), and Florida (27 votes). Seems strange to risk 91 votes to go after 21...
We must be getting down to desperation time. I don't understand why. Polls are going to tighten. They always do. Just let John Kerry, BarneyFrank, and Chuck Schummer (not to mention Joe Biden) bloviate, and stick their foot in their mouths. It will happen.
Is there something magical about Pennsylvania? Can someone please help me out here?
If we assume that the polls are accurate, and each of the states that John Kerry won in 2004 are already safely in the Obama column, that means Obama would start with a 252 electoral vote base. Conceding Iowa (7 votes), New Mexico (5 votes), and Colorado (9 votes), would elect Barack Obama, with 273 electoral votes (270 to win).
Why would McCain do this? The only way for him to win would be to pull one of Obama's states over to his side. And it appears that McCain is aiming to do just that. His target? Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes.
To be sure, McCain winning Pennsylvania would be devastating to Obama's chances. However, I am struggling to understand why going after a state that is polling 10 points in Obama's favor makes sense. Winning Pennsylvania would require just about a full-court press to potentially turn the tide.
During that effort, McCain would give Obama an open shot at trying to win Virginia (13 votes), Ohio (20 votes), Missouri (11 votes), North Carolina (15 votes), Nevada (5 votes), and Florida (27 votes). Seems strange to risk 91 votes to go after 21...
We must be getting down to desperation time. I don't understand why. Polls are going to tighten. They always do. Just let John Kerry, BarneyFrank, and Chuck Schummer (not to mention Joe Biden) bloviate, and stick their foot in their mouths. It will happen.
Is there something magical about Pennsylvania? Can someone please help me out here?
What is the Republican Party?
After asking about whether Democrats can really lead this country, I started to ask the same question on the Republican side. I didn't end up asking the same questions of the Republicans that I did of the Democrats. My concern is that, while the Democrats have been leaderless and lacking an ideology for years, that has not been true of the Republicans since I can remember. Until now...
I would ask people to name me the top 10 leaders of the Republican Party. Right now. Go.
Here's what I came up with (please send me blog post with your list)
1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin
3. Mitt Romney
4. er, Bobby Jindhal?
5. Mike Huckabee?
6. Charlie Crist?
7. Jeb Bush?
8. Mark Sanford?
9. Rob Portman?
10. Tim Pawlenty?
Not exactly the stuff of legends here, although Jeb Bush may be the only light out of the darkness (perhaps the topic of a future blog...). My question here is, "I'd love to know who is out there that reflects the next generation of Reagan/Gingrich/Bush core beliefs? Who is out there carrying the torch for William Buckley (whose son, by the way, endorsed Obama, and was excommunicated from the Weekly Standard)?
When the voice of the party is represented to the common man in the form of Conservative Commentators (Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity) more than by elected leaders, what does that say about the party?
When I ask my Conservative friends to explain to me why they are voting for Obama, they tell me, almost to a person, that they don't like Obama's stance on taxes and government. I challenge them to find a dimes worth of difference between the two parties, though, on this topic in reality.
When I hear that people vote on social issues, for Republican candidates, and note that Republicans have been putting judges and justices on the courts for 20 out of the last 28 years, I wonder when these folks start to demand more action from their leaders on the issues they care about.
When I ask who is in the Congress that really represents THEM, I don't get much in return. Boehner? Blunt? McConnell? Lugar? Not exactly the thundering herd that we saw ride in to Congress during the 90's. Where is the leadership to produce a conservative economic plan like we saw from John Kasich in the 90's? Where's the effective leadership that we saw from Gingrich/Delay/Armey? Where is the soft shoe that makes for effective leadership in the Senate, like we saw in Trent Lott?
Say what you want about the Democrats, and they are an easy target to be sure. But this question isn't about them. This is an evaluation of the Republican party of today. Here's what I see:
This is a party right now, that doesn't really know what it stands for. They want limited government, and lower taxes, but just put in a plan to bail out wall street. to the tune of $700B and counting. True, many of them voted against the package, but most did not.
I can hear people saying "Yeah, but the Democrats split on this too..." That's right. But that is nothing new for Brand D. Brand R doesn't behave that way. This is the group that didn't have a single defector to the Clinton tax increases of 1993 (at least as far as I can recall). THAT is party discipline.
This is a party that is for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" at the Party leadership level, but the rank and file is against it (just ask McCain or Bush).
Then I ask you again, "who does the party look to as it's leaders? Who are the up and comers?" Sarah Palin? I think the party is split wide open on her. Bobby Jindhal? People need to get to know him first, right? Mitt Romney? Does this party trust an East Coast elitist, who until recently, was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and was Governor of Massachusetts?
Someone please give me a real answer to what the Republican Party is these days? What does it stand for? Who are its leaders?
Yes I am being critical, but I want a real answer to this question.
I would ask people to name me the top 10 leaders of the Republican Party. Right now. Go.
Here's what I came up with (please send me blog post with your list)
1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin
3. Mitt Romney
4. er, Bobby Jindhal?
5. Mike Huckabee?
6. Charlie Crist?
7. Jeb Bush?
8. Mark Sanford?
9. Rob Portman?
10. Tim Pawlenty?
Not exactly the stuff of legends here, although Jeb Bush may be the only light out of the darkness (perhaps the topic of a future blog...). My question here is, "I'd love to know who is out there that reflects the next generation of Reagan/Gingrich/Bush core beliefs? Who is out there carrying the torch for William Buckley (whose son, by the way, endorsed Obama, and was excommunicated from the Weekly Standard)?
When the voice of the party is represented to the common man in the form of Conservative Commentators (Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity) more than by elected leaders, what does that say about the party?
When I ask my Conservative friends to explain to me why they are voting for Obama, they tell me, almost to a person, that they don't like Obama's stance on taxes and government. I challenge them to find a dimes worth of difference between the two parties, though, on this topic in reality.
When I hear that people vote on social issues, for Republican candidates, and note that Republicans have been putting judges and justices on the courts for 20 out of the last 28 years, I wonder when these folks start to demand more action from their leaders on the issues they care about.
When I ask who is in the Congress that really represents THEM, I don't get much in return. Boehner? Blunt? McConnell? Lugar? Not exactly the thundering herd that we saw ride in to Congress during the 90's. Where is the leadership to produce a conservative economic plan like we saw from John Kasich in the 90's? Where's the effective leadership that we saw from Gingrich/Delay/Armey? Where is the soft shoe that makes for effective leadership in the Senate, like we saw in Trent Lott?
Say what you want about the Democrats, and they are an easy target to be sure. But this question isn't about them. This is an evaluation of the Republican party of today. Here's what I see:
This is a party right now, that doesn't really know what it stands for. They want limited government, and lower taxes, but just put in a plan to bail out wall street. to the tune of $700B and counting. True, many of them voted against the package, but most did not.
I can hear people saying "Yeah, but the Democrats split on this too..." That's right. But that is nothing new for Brand D. Brand R doesn't behave that way. This is the group that didn't have a single defector to the Clinton tax increases of 1993 (at least as far as I can recall). THAT is party discipline.
This is a party that is for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" at the Party leadership level, but the rank and file is against it (just ask McCain or Bush).
Then I ask you again, "who does the party look to as it's leaders? Who are the up and comers?" Sarah Palin? I think the party is split wide open on her. Bobby Jindhal? People need to get to know him first, right? Mitt Romney? Does this party trust an East Coast elitist, who until recently, was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and was Governor of Massachusetts?
Someone please give me a real answer to what the Republican Party is these days? What does it stand for? Who are its leaders?
Yes I am being critical, but I want a real answer to this question.
Can the Democrats Really Lead?
I must admit that I was concerned about reactions to different blog posts here. But I got a few interesting posts, which have a similar theme. The questions (all of which were VERY respectful, thank you very much!) were legitimate, and required a piece on Democratic Leadership.
No doubt, Colin Powell's comments about the Republican Party "narrowing", and showing signs of fracture and fear tactics was a direct shot to McCain's viability in this election. Not a death knell, mind you, but certainly not something to help him, with 14 days left in the campaign.
HOWEVER, I noticed that a lot of people tell me they are voting AGAINST Obama, not so much FOR McCain. Debra Saunder's article in the San Francisco Chronicle really seemed to sum things up for most McCain supporters. They pretty much feel that McCain is their last hope to "hold the line" on taxes, military strength, traditional values, etc. That an administration of Obama, Reid and Pelosi would be devastating to our place as leaders in the world, and all we hold dear.
I am not sure I am concerned to that extent about a President Obama. But it has made me ask the question, "Can the Democrats really lead us out of this mess?" Can a party that doesn't really stand FOR anything (other than NOT being the Party of Reagan and Bush) effectively lead a nation that has about 40% of the people immediately predisposed to revulsion at any policy initiative, and 10-20% of the people immediately skeptical of any new ideas?
I am concerned as well about a Party that has not had a significant plan for America since the Great Society in the 60's. Can they come up with effective solutions for the major issues facing Americans today? Health Care, The Economy, Entitlements, Environmental Innovation, Iraq, Afghanistan, General Foreign Policy Issues, Immigration, and on and on.
Here is what I have heard on each of these issues:
Health Care--A substantive policy on health care, which could be unbelieveably difficult to pass, and even harder to manage. How to make the slogan "Health Care is a Right" work for all Americans without an increase in taxes? I am skeptical that Obama's plan can achieve this. We will see if he can avoid the missteps the Clinton administration made in 1993 on this topic.
The Economy--The idea of government programs to stimulate the rebuilding of roads, bridges, etc. is an idea. I am not sure how this stimulates the Capitalists in us all, but could be effective. Again, these ideas, put in the hands of bureaucrats, usually turn to crap in about 2 days. And we could have a lot of money poured in, and not much coming out the other end in the form of good paying jobs. They may be jobs in the good ole USA, but spending $1 to get $.90 in return doesn't sound like a winner...
Entitlements--Interestingly, we hear nothing on this topic, other than "don't touch Social Security". Sadly, though, this is going to be devistating for the next President. 2010 is the "year of reconing" for the United States. This is when all of the IOU's come due--Medicare and Social Security. Guess what year Social Security Boomers all started turning 62 1/2? You guessed it--2008. Isn't it interesting that our economy starts to fall apart right when our largest demographic starts falling off the employment grid? In my opinion, 2010 will be devistating to our current economic and entitlement set up, and will be the point where the President and Congress have to make difficult decisions on needs testing, age limits, benefits, etc. It is pretty much a lock to say that the party that makes these decisions will be massacred in the 2010 elections. But we can only hope that the people making these decisions do what is best for the country, and not for their re-election campaigns, because it will be the decisions made in the next 2 years that will drive this country to prosperity, or over a cliff, for the next decade. People are going to be concerned that a party that hasn't really had the reigns in years would be at the helm for this. For the next 5-10 years the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the issue that will suck all the oxygen out of the room (barring any further terrorist attacks or foreign policy blow ups) is Medicare. Period. Full stop.
Environmental Innovation--Democrats want a cleaner environment. Great. All of us do. So now what? Invest in technology? Repair the electric grid? Develop fuel alternatives? Add a $1/gal gas tax (as even Charles Krauthammer has advocated?)? I am still waiting for the Democratic ideas to flow. With no such ideas, "drill, baby drill" is all I am hearing. I am waiting for that leadership we don't see on the Democratic side on this issue.
Iraq--the message here is simple. Democrats want to leave. I don't know if that's going to be a reality, even if Obama were to win. What is the plan, guys? How do we maintain peace there? Who do we need to bring into the situation? Who will lead the effort?
Afghanistan--see Iraq
Foreign Policy--see Iraq
Immigration--clearly, we can't have undocumented workers here, and entitlements to health care and crime are a concern in this debate. The race-baiting and scape-goating of Mexican immigrants, however, has been disgraceful. Tom Tancredo tried to turn this fear and loathing into a run for President. I give Republicans kudos for NOT voting for such a lunatic. But what is the plan from the Democrats? Someone help me out here.
Look, I am not trying to say that because the Democrats don't have a plan, that, ipso facto, the Republicans should have the baton again. My point is that I haven't heard a lot in terms of real policy to back up the rhetoric on the Democratic side. I am not necessarily looking to Obama on this, although he is the standard bearer. I am merely pointing out that people who are not voting for Obama may be pointing to all of this as a reason to vote for Brand R, with the mantra "stick with the Devil I know..."
No doubt, Colin Powell's comments about the Republican Party "narrowing", and showing signs of fracture and fear tactics was a direct shot to McCain's viability in this election. Not a death knell, mind you, but certainly not something to help him, with 14 days left in the campaign.
HOWEVER, I noticed that a lot of people tell me they are voting AGAINST Obama, not so much FOR McCain. Debra Saunder's article in the San Francisco Chronicle really seemed to sum things up for most McCain supporters. They pretty much feel that McCain is their last hope to "hold the line" on taxes, military strength, traditional values, etc. That an administration of Obama, Reid and Pelosi would be devastating to our place as leaders in the world, and all we hold dear.
I am not sure I am concerned to that extent about a President Obama. But it has made me ask the question, "Can the Democrats really lead us out of this mess?" Can a party that doesn't really stand FOR anything (other than NOT being the Party of Reagan and Bush) effectively lead a nation that has about 40% of the people immediately predisposed to revulsion at any policy initiative, and 10-20% of the people immediately skeptical of any new ideas?
I am concerned as well about a Party that has not had a significant plan for America since the Great Society in the 60's. Can they come up with effective solutions for the major issues facing Americans today? Health Care, The Economy, Entitlements, Environmental Innovation, Iraq, Afghanistan, General Foreign Policy Issues, Immigration, and on and on.
Here is what I have heard on each of these issues:
Health Care--A substantive policy on health care, which could be unbelieveably difficult to pass, and even harder to manage. How to make the slogan "Health Care is a Right" work for all Americans without an increase in taxes? I am skeptical that Obama's plan can achieve this. We will see if he can avoid the missteps the Clinton administration made in 1993 on this topic.
The Economy--The idea of government programs to stimulate the rebuilding of roads, bridges, etc. is an idea. I am not sure how this stimulates the Capitalists in us all, but could be effective. Again, these ideas, put in the hands of bureaucrats, usually turn to crap in about 2 days. And we could have a lot of money poured in, and not much coming out the other end in the form of good paying jobs. They may be jobs in the good ole USA, but spending $1 to get $.90 in return doesn't sound like a winner...
Entitlements--Interestingly, we hear nothing on this topic, other than "don't touch Social Security". Sadly, though, this is going to be devistating for the next President. 2010 is the "year of reconing" for the United States. This is when all of the IOU's come due--Medicare and Social Security. Guess what year Social Security Boomers all started turning 62 1/2? You guessed it--2008. Isn't it interesting that our economy starts to fall apart right when our largest demographic starts falling off the employment grid? In my opinion, 2010 will be devistating to our current economic and entitlement set up, and will be the point where the President and Congress have to make difficult decisions on needs testing, age limits, benefits, etc. It is pretty much a lock to say that the party that makes these decisions will be massacred in the 2010 elections. But we can only hope that the people making these decisions do what is best for the country, and not for their re-election campaigns, because it will be the decisions made in the next 2 years that will drive this country to prosperity, or over a cliff, for the next decade. People are going to be concerned that a party that hasn't really had the reigns in years would be at the helm for this. For the next 5-10 years the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the issue that will suck all the oxygen out of the room (barring any further terrorist attacks or foreign policy blow ups) is Medicare. Period. Full stop.
Environmental Innovation--Democrats want a cleaner environment. Great. All of us do. So now what? Invest in technology? Repair the electric grid? Develop fuel alternatives? Add a $1/gal gas tax (as even Charles Krauthammer has advocated?)? I am still waiting for the Democratic ideas to flow. With no such ideas, "drill, baby drill" is all I am hearing. I am waiting for that leadership we don't see on the Democratic side on this issue.
Iraq--the message here is simple. Democrats want to leave. I don't know if that's going to be a reality, even if Obama were to win. What is the plan, guys? How do we maintain peace there? Who do we need to bring into the situation? Who will lead the effort?
Afghanistan--see Iraq
Foreign Policy--see Iraq
Immigration--clearly, we can't have undocumented workers here, and entitlements to health care and crime are a concern in this debate. The race-baiting and scape-goating of Mexican immigrants, however, has been disgraceful. Tom Tancredo tried to turn this fear and loathing into a run for President. I give Republicans kudos for NOT voting for such a lunatic. But what is the plan from the Democrats? Someone help me out here.
Look, I am not trying to say that because the Democrats don't have a plan, that, ipso facto, the Republicans should have the baton again. My point is that I haven't heard a lot in terms of real policy to back up the rhetoric on the Democratic side. I am not necessarily looking to Obama on this, although he is the standard bearer. I am merely pointing out that people who are not voting for Obama may be pointing to all of this as a reason to vote for Brand R, with the mantra "stick with the Devil I know..."
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Case For McCain
Okay, it has become clear to me that the blogspot for the Runnin' Fool has become way too partisan. The Democrat in me has come out. So, here is the case for a McCain victory, and why it matters for Republicans:
1. Taxes--I have yet to meet a McCain supporter (and I work with, and am friends with SEVERAL) who truly believes Barack Obama, when he says that he will cut middle class taxes. There is a universal belief that he will revert to Bill Clinton a la 1993, and come back with a story that the Bush administration left him in a hole, and he will have to back out on his promise.
From there, the case for a McCain presidency grows. McCain can hold the line on taxes. He will cut capital gains taxes, and spur growth. The Laffer Curve will be on display in all its greatness, as funds flood the federal reserves, and revive the economy. That, along with the mortgages we are now buying, will prove to pay off, and will enable America to become the engine of new growth in the world for a new decade.
2. Energy--Green technology is better inspired through tax breaks and 1,000 different people working on the next solution in their garages, than a massive Manhattan Project. And why not drill now? We can send a message to the world that America doesn't need oil from Venezuela or the Middle East. We have what we need now, and we can get back to the late 80's prices, while bankrupting the Middle East OPEC countries at the same time. It's an arguement.
3. Divided Government--honestly, do you really want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running things, as they run roughshod over the inexperienced Obama? Our tax rates will go up, regulation will choke off new business, the tree huggers will take over the interior, etc, etc. McCain can hold the line, and even break away enough Democrats to implement some conservative policies, and at least block the ones that will destroy America.
4. Conservative Courts--Can you really see a situation where Barack Obama gets to put 2-3 new justices on the court? And all of the ones who he would be appointing would replace the Liberals on the current court (Stevens--pushing 90, Ginsburg--in her 70's, and in poor health, Souter--looking to get out...all liberals). This is the one issue I would think could rally Conservatives like no other. Yet it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. This is THE TIME to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Never in the last 35 years has there been a time like now to get the Core Conservative agenda put in place for a generation. All McCain would have to do is not screw up the nominations. Piece of cake right?
5. American Values--A vote for McCain would solidify all that is right with America. Good family man, military war hero, straight talking, church-going--represents the evangelical agenda. Well, for the most part. At least his cabinet would be sympathetic to the evangelical agenda, right?
6. American Defense/Iraq--McCain is going to bring the troops home with honor. He stayed in Iraq when it wasn't popular, or politically viable, and proved that the proper strategy could turn the tide. Now America has a chance to be successful in Iraq, and it is McCain's crowning achievement.
7. The Reagan/Bush Legacy--The vote for McCain would solidify the conservative legacy, and allow McCain to repair the image of the Bush Presidency somewhat. Certainly leading America out of the depths of the current market and economic downturn would be the stuff of legends. And with Palin as VP, McCain could set up Brand R with a new generation of Conservative followers. Who knows, perhaps Palin/Jindhal in 2012?
There are more, to be sure, but each of these start to represent the case for McCain, and why he would be the better choice for President. At least in some people's minds...
1. Taxes--I have yet to meet a McCain supporter (and I work with, and am friends with SEVERAL) who truly believes Barack Obama, when he says that he will cut middle class taxes. There is a universal belief that he will revert to Bill Clinton a la 1993, and come back with a story that the Bush administration left him in a hole, and he will have to back out on his promise.
From there, the case for a McCain presidency grows. McCain can hold the line on taxes. He will cut capital gains taxes, and spur growth. The Laffer Curve will be on display in all its greatness, as funds flood the federal reserves, and revive the economy. That, along with the mortgages we are now buying, will prove to pay off, and will enable America to become the engine of new growth in the world for a new decade.
2. Energy--Green technology is better inspired through tax breaks and 1,000 different people working on the next solution in their garages, than a massive Manhattan Project. And why not drill now? We can send a message to the world that America doesn't need oil from Venezuela or the Middle East. We have what we need now, and we can get back to the late 80's prices, while bankrupting the Middle East OPEC countries at the same time. It's an arguement.
3. Divided Government--honestly, do you really want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running things, as they run roughshod over the inexperienced Obama? Our tax rates will go up, regulation will choke off new business, the tree huggers will take over the interior, etc, etc. McCain can hold the line, and even break away enough Democrats to implement some conservative policies, and at least block the ones that will destroy America.
4. Conservative Courts--Can you really see a situation where Barack Obama gets to put 2-3 new justices on the court? And all of the ones who he would be appointing would replace the Liberals on the current court (Stevens--pushing 90, Ginsburg--in her 70's, and in poor health, Souter--looking to get out...all liberals). This is the one issue I would think could rally Conservatives like no other. Yet it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. This is THE TIME to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Never in the last 35 years has there been a time like now to get the Core Conservative agenda put in place for a generation. All McCain would have to do is not screw up the nominations. Piece of cake right?
5. American Values--A vote for McCain would solidify all that is right with America. Good family man, military war hero, straight talking, church-going--represents the evangelical agenda. Well, for the most part. At least his cabinet would be sympathetic to the evangelical agenda, right?
6. American Defense/Iraq--McCain is going to bring the troops home with honor. He stayed in Iraq when it wasn't popular, or politically viable, and proved that the proper strategy could turn the tide. Now America has a chance to be successful in Iraq, and it is McCain's crowning achievement.
7. The Reagan/Bush Legacy--The vote for McCain would solidify the conservative legacy, and allow McCain to repair the image of the Bush Presidency somewhat. Certainly leading America out of the depths of the current market and economic downturn would be the stuff of legends. And with Palin as VP, McCain could set up Brand R with a new generation of Conservative followers. Who knows, perhaps Palin/Jindhal in 2012?
There are more, to be sure, but each of these start to represent the case for McCain, and why he would be the better choice for President. At least in some people's minds...
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Powell Endorsement--"The Republican's Have No Clothes"
I can't think of many times in my life that someone's words took my breath away. But today's announcement by Colin Powell that he was endorsing, and would vote for Barack Obama was one of those moments. I was watching Meet the Press, pacing (as I usually do while watching the Sunday Morning talk shows...), and as each sentence flowed out of Powell's mouth, I found myself more and more amazed. Amazed at his systematic dismatling of the entire McCain campaign, its tactics, the Republican Party (whatever's left of it), and the direction of the Country over the past 8 years.
The dagger in the heart to McCain on this is NOT the mere fact that Powell endorsed Obama. That is a sin that could be forgiven. The "stinging rebuke" of the campaign McCain has run, the criticism of McCain's choice of Palin as running mate, how McCain handled himself during the Market Meltdown, and the idea that this Republican party no longer represents the ideals that once made them a party which controlled all three branches of Government. That's the point of pain for the McCain camp. It was the party of Reagan, the Party of Gingrich, combined with the Party of Bush, Baker and Skowcroft. This party has fractured.
The amazing thing is that it took Colin Powell to finally come out and say it. "The Emperor has no clothes" "The Party has lost its way".
Sadly, I have since seen two prominent Conservative Media members come out with two very conflicting viewpoints on this.
David Brooks asked the best question of his party, later on this morning's Meet the Press--"Why is our Party Narrowing?" David is one who has what I can only assume is the Self-confidence to ask tough questions to himself and his party about their overall message, tone, ideas, leadership and positions.
Pat Buchanan went on Matthews' show this evening and, in my opinion, insinuated that the Powell decision was based primarily on race, and that was obvious by Powell's reference to Michelle Bachman's overtures to the media to research Congressional representatives as to "who was pro or anti-american?".
Pat seems to have missed the first 7 minutes of reasons why Powell has decided to endorse Obama. But his response smacks of McCarthyism, and shows exactly why the Republican party's doctrine of division, antagonism, and "playing to the base" have created a scared party--scared to lose--and it is lashing out in all directions, looking for a winning message to hold onto power. Not to move the country forward, but to hold onto power. Everyone saw what the McCain campaign has been doing. No one had been able to say, in 18 months of campaigning, what Colin Powell said in about 20 minutes this Sunday Morning.
"The Republicans have no clothes..."
The dagger in the heart to McCain on this is NOT the mere fact that Powell endorsed Obama. That is a sin that could be forgiven. The "stinging rebuke" of the campaign McCain has run, the criticism of McCain's choice of Palin as running mate, how McCain handled himself during the Market Meltdown, and the idea that this Republican party no longer represents the ideals that once made them a party which controlled all three branches of Government. That's the point of pain for the McCain camp. It was the party of Reagan, the Party of Gingrich, combined with the Party of Bush, Baker and Skowcroft. This party has fractured.
The amazing thing is that it took Colin Powell to finally come out and say it. "The Emperor has no clothes" "The Party has lost its way".
Sadly, I have since seen two prominent Conservative Media members come out with two very conflicting viewpoints on this.
David Brooks asked the best question of his party, later on this morning's Meet the Press--"Why is our Party Narrowing?" David is one who has what I can only assume is the Self-confidence to ask tough questions to himself and his party about their overall message, tone, ideas, leadership and positions.
Pat Buchanan went on Matthews' show this evening and, in my opinion, insinuated that the Powell decision was based primarily on race, and that was obvious by Powell's reference to Michelle Bachman's overtures to the media to research Congressional representatives as to "who was pro or anti-american?".
Pat seems to have missed the first 7 minutes of reasons why Powell has decided to endorse Obama. But his response smacks of McCarthyism, and shows exactly why the Republican party's doctrine of division, antagonism, and "playing to the base" have created a scared party--scared to lose--and it is lashing out in all directions, looking for a winning message to hold onto power. Not to move the country forward, but to hold onto power. Everyone saw what the McCain campaign has been doing. No one had been able to say, in 18 months of campaigning, what Colin Powell said in about 20 minutes this Sunday Morning.
"The Republicans have no clothes..."
Friday, October 17, 2008
Virginia--There's something happening here...
"...There's something happening here...What it is ain't exactly clear...I think it's time we STOP LISTEN WHATS THAT SOUND? EVERYBODY LOOK WHAT'S GOING DOWN..." (Buffalo Springfield)
If Barack Obama goes on to win the Presidential election, I will be interested to see whether it is Virginia that puts him over the top. Because if Virginia peels away from the "Solid South" voting block, it will represent one of the first times in the modern political landscape (post 1976), that a Southern State broke away from its neighbors without extenuating circumstances (ie, one of the candidates was from a particular Southern state, or a third party candidate skewed results.).
Why is this significant? Particularly for Democrats, this is a seismic shift in the political landscape, and could tilt the playing field in their favor for the first time in 30 years.
The "Solid South", along with Texas, the Mountain West and the plains states, have represented a base of support for Republicans that have led to landslides (1980, 1984, 1988), and helped to escape narrow victories (2000, 2004). The only elections that Democrats have won in 40 years have been with sons of the South, to peel away support from this base (Carter--1976, Clinton--1992, 1996). Even Tennessee native Al Gore couldn't win in the South in 2000, not even his own home state.
But this year could prove to be different. If states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, or even Florida (which isn't a "southern state" as much as it is a "state of insanity") voted for Obama, it wouldn't be unusual, unique, or even atypical, given that two out of four voted for Gore, and some would argue that three out of four did in 2000.
If Virginia were to vote for Obama, it would represent a "peeling away" of the Southern strategy--a crack in the block of the Republican base. More importantly, it would represent the first true "defection" from the bastion of Conservatism, and could produce a change in the state from a "Southern Republican" state to a "Mid-Atlantic Democratic" state.
Such a shift doesn't happen easily in the US. The Civil War, resentment towards the Northern states, and their Liberal viewpoints, create a real aversion for Southerners to vote along similar party lines as their northern counterparts, regardless of their politics. But Virginia has started to become a "Mid-Atlantic" state, and less of a "Southern State", at least politically.
To be fair, this is still a state that is proud of its heritage, being the cradle of liberty in the United States, home to General Robert E Lee. It is still a conservative state--one that would not easily be confused with, say, Vermont or Massachusetts.
But the election of Jim Webb as Senator in 2006 struck a chord in me. Here was a situation where the incumbent Senator (George Allen) was being considered as a possible Presidential candidate, or at least on a short list for VP. Someone who was popular, and should have won in a cake walk. He did step in it with his use of a racial ephitet (the "Macaca" incident...), but in other Southern States, such a blunder wouldn't cost a popular, up-and-comer in the party his seat. It couldn't, could it?
Yet by 2006, Allen had other forces against him--the party ideology, and sense of entitlement, and a state with a demographic makeup that was shifting to the left. The Washington suburbs were becoming more Liberal, and the rural areas had seen Mark Warner and Tim Kaine lead their state, and the world had not ended. Suddenly, it seemed okay to vote for a Democrat. Webb ran a tough campaign, and showed that he understood Virginia, was a military and defense expert, and had been a man who had finally had enough with the establishment party in charge of his state.
Now roll forward to 2008. The state has moved even closer to the dividing line between left and right, Republicans are in a tough electoral year, and Mark Warner is running in a Senate race, where there doesn't even seem to BE an opposing candidate (Jim Gilmore, where in the world is your campaign these days?).
If Virginia goes for Obama (and the polls are showing a lead there that is getting pretty formidable with 18 days to go), it could be the beginning of the "peeling away" of the Southern voting bloc.
In 2010 and 2012, should Obama win, and the country not absolutely fall to pieces, we could see a scenario where North Carolina and Georgia, with a growing percentage of young, college-educated populations, start to believe that a Democrat can represent their positions, and not just bend to the will of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. A fracture in the Solid South would mean that Brand R would need to rethink how they choose candidates, and decide whether they wanted to be a pure Conservative party, and begin to rebuild their base from this core (a la Goldwater), or try to move to the middle, and win major elections, to keep the country from moving away from them (a la Clinton).
We are a long way from this scenario, but no matter who wins, the Republican party is going to have to face the fact that its base may no longer be enough to keep its dogmatic Conservative leaders in charge of things, either at the Presidential level, or in Congress.
I wonder what that would look like? I think the first sign of this could be what is taking place in Virginia...
If Barack Obama goes on to win the Presidential election, I will be interested to see whether it is Virginia that puts him over the top. Because if Virginia peels away from the "Solid South" voting block, it will represent one of the first times in the modern political landscape (post 1976), that a Southern State broke away from its neighbors without extenuating circumstances (ie, one of the candidates was from a particular Southern state, or a third party candidate skewed results.).
Why is this significant? Particularly for Democrats, this is a seismic shift in the political landscape, and could tilt the playing field in their favor for the first time in 30 years.
The "Solid South", along with Texas, the Mountain West and the plains states, have represented a base of support for Republicans that have led to landslides (1980, 1984, 1988), and helped to escape narrow victories (2000, 2004). The only elections that Democrats have won in 40 years have been with sons of the South, to peel away support from this base (Carter--1976, Clinton--1992, 1996). Even Tennessee native Al Gore couldn't win in the South in 2000, not even his own home state.
But this year could prove to be different. If states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, or even Florida (which isn't a "southern state" as much as it is a "state of insanity") voted for Obama, it wouldn't be unusual, unique, or even atypical, given that two out of four voted for Gore, and some would argue that three out of four did in 2000.
If Virginia were to vote for Obama, it would represent a "peeling away" of the Southern strategy--a crack in the block of the Republican base. More importantly, it would represent the first true "defection" from the bastion of Conservatism, and could produce a change in the state from a "Southern Republican" state to a "Mid-Atlantic Democratic" state.
Such a shift doesn't happen easily in the US. The Civil War, resentment towards the Northern states, and their Liberal viewpoints, create a real aversion for Southerners to vote along similar party lines as their northern counterparts, regardless of their politics. But Virginia has started to become a "Mid-Atlantic" state, and less of a "Southern State", at least politically.
To be fair, this is still a state that is proud of its heritage, being the cradle of liberty in the United States, home to General Robert E Lee. It is still a conservative state--one that would not easily be confused with, say, Vermont or Massachusetts.
But the election of Jim Webb as Senator in 2006 struck a chord in me. Here was a situation where the incumbent Senator (George Allen) was being considered as a possible Presidential candidate, or at least on a short list for VP. Someone who was popular, and should have won in a cake walk. He did step in it with his use of a racial ephitet (the "Macaca" incident...), but in other Southern States, such a blunder wouldn't cost a popular, up-and-comer in the party his seat. It couldn't, could it?
Yet by 2006, Allen had other forces against him--the party ideology, and sense of entitlement, and a state with a demographic makeup that was shifting to the left. The Washington suburbs were becoming more Liberal, and the rural areas had seen Mark Warner and Tim Kaine lead their state, and the world had not ended. Suddenly, it seemed okay to vote for a Democrat. Webb ran a tough campaign, and showed that he understood Virginia, was a military and defense expert, and had been a man who had finally had enough with the establishment party in charge of his state.
Now roll forward to 2008. The state has moved even closer to the dividing line between left and right, Republicans are in a tough electoral year, and Mark Warner is running in a Senate race, where there doesn't even seem to BE an opposing candidate (Jim Gilmore, where in the world is your campaign these days?).
If Virginia goes for Obama (and the polls are showing a lead there that is getting pretty formidable with 18 days to go), it could be the beginning of the "peeling away" of the Southern voting bloc.
In 2010 and 2012, should Obama win, and the country not absolutely fall to pieces, we could see a scenario where North Carolina and Georgia, with a growing percentage of young, college-educated populations, start to believe that a Democrat can represent their positions, and not just bend to the will of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. A fracture in the Solid South would mean that Brand R would need to rethink how they choose candidates, and decide whether they wanted to be a pure Conservative party, and begin to rebuild their base from this core (a la Goldwater), or try to move to the middle, and win major elections, to keep the country from moving away from them (a la Clinton).
We are a long way from this scenario, but no matter who wins, the Republican party is going to have to face the fact that its base may no longer be enough to keep its dogmatic Conservative leaders in charge of things, either at the Presidential level, or in Congress.
I wonder what that would look like? I think the first sign of this could be what is taking place in Virginia...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ready to Fight? Ready to Lead.
October 16--
As I watched the debates, and all the pre-debate spin, I kept thinking about the same thing over and over again.
What we have here is a decision to make about what kind of President we want. But I will try to frame this in a different way. I think we want to decide if we want a leader or a fighter. A pragmatist, or a dogmatist.
Barack Obama has looked at America, its problems, and its people, and wants to be a leader of the nation. He wants to listen to the problems of its people, its allies and adversaries, and work towards pragmatic solutions, (on War, energy, Finance, etc) wherever possible. I will call this a pragmatic approach to dealing with issues, and showing leadership.
John McCain has looked at America, it problems, and its people, and wants to be a leader of the nation. He wants to lay out a clear plan for America's victory in the world of finance, energy, and war, and define the enemy, so that the American's can get ready for the fight. It's us against the world, the good guys vs. the bad guys. Let's call this the more dogmatic approach to dealing with issues and showing leadership.
Neither man is interested in doing the country harm. Both men want to leave America in a better place than where they found it. The question is, are Americans ready for Pragmatic leadership, or Dogmatic leadership?
We have had 8 years of Pragmatic leadership (Bill Clinton), followed by 8 years of Dogmatic leadership (George W. Bush). Both styles have their pros and cons.
Pragmatism is often accompanied with reactions to polls, a confusing set of principles to guide decision making, and a leadership style that is opaque, sometimes slow, and conciliatory. It is also inclusive, clear-eyed, and less-emotional.
Dogmatism is often accompanied by an easily defineable a belief structure (religious or otherwise), top-down decisions that come quickly, and with immediate results (good or bad). Leaders take strong stands, rile emotions for good and evil, and do NOT consult or amend positions based upon differing points of view.
Either one CAN be effective in a crisis.
As I watch these debates, it is clear to me that McCain is the Dogmatist--the fighter. He wants America to "stand up and fight".
The reason I think this is a losing line, though, is that America doesn't want to stand up and fight. Chris Matthews said it so well on his show. (I am paraphrasing here). He said that American's don't want to fight. They are scared about losing their retirements. They are looking for leaders. I think that's spot on. But I would say it a little differently. I would say that McCain, having been a military man all his life, sees these political situations as "battles" or "fights" where we have to "stand up" to the enemy. I think a lot of people out there see that we are already fighting two wars (with varying results), and are weary of the battles. And who would we be "fighting" here? Greed on Wall Street? That's too obscure an enemy. You can't punch out Merrill Lynch. You can't perform a midnight raid on Bear Stearns, or put Countrywide Financial in Guantanamo, for questioning.
Obama has spent the past few weeks talking to Volker, Buffet, Rubin, and the smartest minds on the subject he can find. His proposals have been more moderate, and sensible than the crazy "liberal agenda" items that we were warned he would come up with. He has remained calm. Calm at the debates, calm in his speeches, calm in his message to the American people.
I think people have been pulled into decisions by a dogmatic administration for so long, that they had forgotten what a pragmatic leader looks like. The fact that this leader has a different skin tone, and funny ears (I should talk! You know the saying, people in glass houses...) has given people reason for pause. But as they listen, they are reminded of what an executive leader COULD sound like. We have all forgotten that a pragmatist can also be inspiring, and not remind us all of the staid, vanilla offerings of someone like Al Gore.
In the end, the Pragmatist (Obama) looks like a leader, and the Dogmatist (McCain) looks like a fighter. In other years, the fighter would be winning. It remains to be seen if we would prefer a leader this time around...
As I watched the debates, and all the pre-debate spin, I kept thinking about the same thing over and over again.
What we have here is a decision to make about what kind of President we want. But I will try to frame this in a different way. I think we want to decide if we want a leader or a fighter. A pragmatist, or a dogmatist.
Barack Obama has looked at America, its problems, and its people, and wants to be a leader of the nation. He wants to listen to the problems of its people, its allies and adversaries, and work towards pragmatic solutions, (on War, energy, Finance, etc) wherever possible. I will call this a pragmatic approach to dealing with issues, and showing leadership.
John McCain has looked at America, it problems, and its people, and wants to be a leader of the nation. He wants to lay out a clear plan for America's victory in the world of finance, energy, and war, and define the enemy, so that the American's can get ready for the fight. It's us against the world, the good guys vs. the bad guys. Let's call this the more dogmatic approach to dealing with issues and showing leadership.
Neither man is interested in doing the country harm. Both men want to leave America in a better place than where they found it. The question is, are Americans ready for Pragmatic leadership, or Dogmatic leadership?
We have had 8 years of Pragmatic leadership (Bill Clinton), followed by 8 years of Dogmatic leadership (George W. Bush). Both styles have their pros and cons.
Pragmatism is often accompanied with reactions to polls, a confusing set of principles to guide decision making, and a leadership style that is opaque, sometimes slow, and conciliatory. It is also inclusive, clear-eyed, and less-emotional.
Dogmatism is often accompanied by an easily defineable a belief structure (religious or otherwise), top-down decisions that come quickly, and with immediate results (good or bad). Leaders take strong stands, rile emotions for good and evil, and do NOT consult or amend positions based upon differing points of view.
Either one CAN be effective in a crisis.
As I watch these debates, it is clear to me that McCain is the Dogmatist--the fighter. He wants America to "stand up and fight".
The reason I think this is a losing line, though, is that America doesn't want to stand up and fight. Chris Matthews said it so well on his show. (I am paraphrasing here). He said that American's don't want to fight. They are scared about losing their retirements. They are looking for leaders. I think that's spot on. But I would say it a little differently. I would say that McCain, having been a military man all his life, sees these political situations as "battles" or "fights" where we have to "stand up" to the enemy. I think a lot of people out there see that we are already fighting two wars (with varying results), and are weary of the battles. And who would we be "fighting" here? Greed on Wall Street? That's too obscure an enemy. You can't punch out Merrill Lynch. You can't perform a midnight raid on Bear Stearns, or put Countrywide Financial in Guantanamo, for questioning.
Obama has spent the past few weeks talking to Volker, Buffet, Rubin, and the smartest minds on the subject he can find. His proposals have been more moderate, and sensible than the crazy "liberal agenda" items that we were warned he would come up with. He has remained calm. Calm at the debates, calm in his speeches, calm in his message to the American people.
I think people have been pulled into decisions by a dogmatic administration for so long, that they had forgotten what a pragmatic leader looks like. The fact that this leader has a different skin tone, and funny ears (I should talk! You know the saying, people in glass houses...) has given people reason for pause. But as they listen, they are reminded of what an executive leader COULD sound like. We have all forgotten that a pragmatist can also be inspiring, and not remind us all of the staid, vanilla offerings of someone like Al Gore.
In the end, the Pragmatist (Obama) looks like a leader, and the Dogmatist (McCain) looks like a fighter. In other years, the fighter would be winning. It remains to be seen if we would prefer a leader this time around...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Where are all the Republicans?
I have been wondering this recently. I watch a lot of political talk shows (probably too many). I talk to a lot of people about their political views. In my job, I run across a lot of Conservatives. I know they are Conservatives, because they tell me. I think that's fine.
My question, though, is this: Why don't they call themselves Republicans anymore? Is the term so toxic, or is it just that Conservatives really identify themselves with an ideology, rather than a party? (I get the same thing on the Democrat side, but I will blog about that later...) I am wondering--if this election goes badly for the GOP (and it could given recent polling...), why continue to use a label that I never hear its members use?
Love her or hate her (and I will blog about THAT sometime during the next few weeks too!), Sarah Palin has energized "the base", or the Conservatives. What does that say about the non-Conservatives in the Republican party? I have been wondering, are there any left? If there are, please let me know. I haven't run into many recently. Why bother to keep the label? Let's just have a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party. Who knows, there may even be a Libertarian Party somewhere in the near future, that actually stands for something...
My question, though, is this: Why don't they call themselves Republicans anymore? Is the term so toxic, or is it just that Conservatives really identify themselves with an ideology, rather than a party? (I get the same thing on the Democrat side, but I will blog about that later...) I am wondering--if this election goes badly for the GOP (and it could given recent polling...), why continue to use a label that I never hear its members use?
Love her or hate her (and I will blog about THAT sometime during the next few weeks too!), Sarah Palin has energized "the base", or the Conservatives. What does that say about the non-Conservatives in the Republican party? I have been wondering, are there any left? If there are, please let me know. I haven't run into many recently. Why bother to keep the label? Let's just have a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party. Who knows, there may even be a Libertarian Party somewhere in the near future, that actually stands for something...
what do the states look like?
Just a quick runnin-fool's take on the states, and how they are shaking out right now:
Just looking at the Electoral map, like I sometimes do. Let's start with the map where we left it after the 2004 election. Kerry 252, Bush, 286. That means McCain just has to hold serve. Win all of W's states, and he's made in the shade. But he wants to expand the base, as one would expect. Obama wants to turn the tables, so let's see what each of them can swing.
Swing states (gawd, I hate that term, but here goes):
McCain's wish list states--
Pennsylvania (21)--I think we have all heard James Carville's line about PA (Philly, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between, or something like that). In reality, it looks like an Obama winner. Since Biden is running to be the Mayor of Scranton (honestly, how many times do I have to hear about his Scranton roots!), perhaps we should consider the fact that Rendell, Casey, and the rest of the PA brass help pull about 1-2% of the electorate Obama's way. I don't even know that Obama needs that right now. But he might by the time November 4 rolls around...
PA goes for Obama
New Hampshire (4)--Yeah, people think McCain is the Senator from New Hampshire, and all that. I think it is a state that is getting more Democratic each year, and not choosing Romney may have cost McCain this state. Don't hold your breath...
NH goes for Obama
Minnesota(10)--This one puzzles me. I thought for sure this was a lock for Obama. Not so sure any more. I still think Obama wins it in a close call, but this is one of those states that is trending red. It isn't red, but it's "open to suggestion", if you know what I mean (and no, I don't mean that in a racial, sexual, or any other way you may be thinking of! get your mind out of the gutter, people!). What I mean by that is that they have elected Republicans to statewide office, and to Washington, and it is a state that would flip in the right political climate. Unfortunately for McCain, if he doesn't do something soon, that climate will leave him out in the cold.
MN goes for Obama
I could continue with New Jersey (15), Michigan (17) or even Washington (11) or Oregon (7), but I think if any of those three states went Republican, it would be the sign that the winds had shifted so drastically as to turn into a McCain rout.
Obama's Wish List--
Iowa (7) --This is a state that Obama campaigned in for a year solid, and set up a great organization. It is a state that likes the messages about biodiesel, and ethanol, and likes being paid attention to. McCain basically skipped this state during the primary, and will pay a price, unless things shift significantly in the short term here.
IA goes for Obama
New Mexic0 (5)--This is a state with a strong Democratic leadership apparatus, but has been pretty down the middle. Sadly, one of McCain's allies in this state (Pete Domenici) is sick, and one (Heather Wilson) has been ineffective, leading to a state that has been leaning Democratic in both the Presidential and Senate races. It's going to be hard to stop Obama here.
NM goes for Obama
Those were the easy ones. Now it gets tough
Colorado (9)--This is a state that defies logic in some respects. The frontal range is a combination of granola-eating, sandal-wearing liberals from the Denver-Boulder area, and hard-c0re, military-lovin, bible-thumpin conservatives from the Colorado Springs area. Brand R has been the leading party for years, but the tide seems to be turning. I still don't see enough of a clear move to Obama on this front, though, and while I think it's a tossup, I think McCain's military service rallies the base here, and he squeaks by
CO goes for McCain
Ohio (20)--this state has definitely moved towards brand D, but it's by no means a lock. This state continues to have voter issues, both registraions and machines. While the Dems are in positions of power, to avoid another "theft" of the election, I don't think it will prevent McCain from cleaning up in more rural areas, and greater Cincinatti. Tax cuts, and straight talk will probably carry the day here.
OH goes for McCain.
Florida (27)--this state should have been McCain's without an issue. Only one problem. People on social security started watching their 401k's lose significant value. Once reminded that it was the Republicans who wanted to open up the stock market to their Social Security funds, things started to move. I do think that as the markets stabilize, people will start to come home. This is still a state that is probably about 52-48 Republican in a normal year. I think it ends up 51-49 McCain
FL goes for McCain
North Carolina (15)--Obama has made the case in this state, that it represents the new South. One where he is viable. And he is. I don't think this is a state that is ready to make the leap to the Democratic ticket in this environment, however. I think Obama performs admirably, but in the end, loses by about 4-5 points.
NC goes for McCain
Nevada (5)--Obama certainly has some advantages here. Hispanics have turned from McCain. Labor is important here. Many have moved here from California, and elsewhere who don't bring the old, more conservative viewpoints. However, this state has stayed stubbornly red, and I don't see any game-changers at this point, that would lead me to believe that it will flip in this election cycle.
NV goes for McCain.
Virginia (13)--I think this becomes the state for all the marbles. Obama should end up with 264 electoral votes without Virginia. I don't think he will be able to win Missouri, Indiana, or West Virginia, unless there is a swing nationwide towards Obama (in which case, all of these swing states would probably go for Obama). In this case, Barack has a field game, an aparatus, a popular Democrat running for the senate (Mark Warner), and a popular Governor (Tim Kaine) in his corner. I think this becomes the state that flips to blue, and becomes the tie breaker.
VA goes for Obama.
I see an Obama victory, at 277 to 261. Let's see how it all plays out...
Just looking at the Electoral map, like I sometimes do. Let's start with the map where we left it after the 2004 election. Kerry 252, Bush, 286. That means McCain just has to hold serve. Win all of W's states, and he's made in the shade. But he wants to expand the base, as one would expect. Obama wants to turn the tables, so let's see what each of them can swing.
Swing states (gawd, I hate that term, but here goes):
McCain's wish list states--
Pennsylvania (21)--I think we have all heard James Carville's line about PA (Philly, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between, or something like that). In reality, it looks like an Obama winner. Since Biden is running to be the Mayor of Scranton (honestly, how many times do I have to hear about his Scranton roots!), perhaps we should consider the fact that Rendell, Casey, and the rest of the PA brass help pull about 1-2% of the electorate Obama's way. I don't even know that Obama needs that right now. But he might by the time November 4 rolls around...
PA goes for Obama
New Hampshire (4)--Yeah, people think McCain is the Senator from New Hampshire, and all that. I think it is a state that is getting more Democratic each year, and not choosing Romney may have cost McCain this state. Don't hold your breath...
NH goes for Obama
Minnesota(10)--This one puzzles me. I thought for sure this was a lock for Obama. Not so sure any more. I still think Obama wins it in a close call, but this is one of those states that is trending red. It isn't red, but it's "open to suggestion", if you know what I mean (and no, I don't mean that in a racial, sexual, or any other way you may be thinking of! get your mind out of the gutter, people!). What I mean by that is that they have elected Republicans to statewide office, and to Washington, and it is a state that would flip in the right political climate. Unfortunately for McCain, if he doesn't do something soon, that climate will leave him out in the cold.
MN goes for Obama
I could continue with New Jersey (15), Michigan (17) or even Washington (11) or Oregon (7), but I think if any of those three states went Republican, it would be the sign that the winds had shifted so drastically as to turn into a McCain rout.
Obama's Wish List--
Iowa (7) --This is a state that Obama campaigned in for a year solid, and set up a great organization. It is a state that likes the messages about biodiesel, and ethanol, and likes being paid attention to. McCain basically skipped this state during the primary, and will pay a price, unless things shift significantly in the short term here.
IA goes for Obama
New Mexic0 (5)--This is a state with a strong Democratic leadership apparatus, but has been pretty down the middle. Sadly, one of McCain's allies in this state (Pete Domenici) is sick, and one (Heather Wilson) has been ineffective, leading to a state that has been leaning Democratic in both the Presidential and Senate races. It's going to be hard to stop Obama here.
NM goes for Obama
Those were the easy ones. Now it gets tough
Colorado (9)--This is a state that defies logic in some respects. The frontal range is a combination of granola-eating, sandal-wearing liberals from the Denver-Boulder area, and hard-c0re, military-lovin, bible-thumpin conservatives from the Colorado Springs area. Brand R has been the leading party for years, but the tide seems to be turning. I still don't see enough of a clear move to Obama on this front, though, and while I think it's a tossup, I think McCain's military service rallies the base here, and he squeaks by
CO goes for McCain
Ohio (20)--this state has definitely moved towards brand D, but it's by no means a lock. This state continues to have voter issues, both registraions and machines. While the Dems are in positions of power, to avoid another "theft" of the election, I don't think it will prevent McCain from cleaning up in more rural areas, and greater Cincinatti. Tax cuts, and straight talk will probably carry the day here.
OH goes for McCain.
Florida (27)--this state should have been McCain's without an issue. Only one problem. People on social security started watching their 401k's lose significant value. Once reminded that it was the Republicans who wanted to open up the stock market to their Social Security funds, things started to move. I do think that as the markets stabilize, people will start to come home. This is still a state that is probably about 52-48 Republican in a normal year. I think it ends up 51-49 McCain
FL goes for McCain
North Carolina (15)--Obama has made the case in this state, that it represents the new South. One where he is viable. And he is. I don't think this is a state that is ready to make the leap to the Democratic ticket in this environment, however. I think Obama performs admirably, but in the end, loses by about 4-5 points.
NC goes for McCain
Nevada (5)--Obama certainly has some advantages here. Hispanics have turned from McCain. Labor is important here. Many have moved here from California, and elsewhere who don't bring the old, more conservative viewpoints. However, this state has stayed stubbornly red, and I don't see any game-changers at this point, that would lead me to believe that it will flip in this election cycle.
NV goes for McCain.
Virginia (13)--I think this becomes the state for all the marbles. Obama should end up with 264 electoral votes without Virginia. I don't think he will be able to win Missouri, Indiana, or West Virginia, unless there is a swing nationwide towards Obama (in which case, all of these swing states would probably go for Obama). In this case, Barack has a field game, an aparatus, a popular Democrat running for the senate (Mark Warner), and a popular Governor (Tim Kaine) in his corner. I think this becomes the state that flips to blue, and becomes the tie breaker.
VA goes for Obama.
I see an Obama victory, at 277 to 261. Let's see how it all plays out...
Daily Movement--For the paranoid poll watcher...
October 28--It is amazing that the McCain campaign has managed to narrow the gap on the election over the past few days, despite running, by all accounts, one of the worst campaigns imaginable. Reported infighting, tension between the candidates, lack of a succinct message, etc. Still Reuters/Zogby has the race at 4 points, and tightening. I am interested to see what this Syria news means for the election. Do people get scared, and run back to the daddy party (Brand R)? It only takes 4 in 100 to make a trend...
October 26--I have been getting lax on the updates. It does seem as if there is a drift to McCain lately. But I don't see it in the states, which means there is either a lag factor, or it isn't a real drift at all. The standard deviations are are getting larger (ie, all the polls used to be between 7-10 points for Obama, now they are more like 2-13 points and anywhere in between.). What does that mean? I am not sure at this point. I am looking to see if the numbers recompress around a new spine, that is somewhere different than 6-7 points in favor of Obama. McCain looked less than sharp on Meet The Press...
October 21--Polls have stretched out to favor Obama. I will be interested to see if Biden's gaffe on "America coming under attack from somewhere in the world" during an Obama presidency, could ignite the population at large to re-think their affinity for an untested leader. Also, Obama will be visiting his sick Grandmother for the next couple of days, and will not be available for comment, or counterpunches during this time. The door is still open a crack. Can McCain and Palin get through, and capitalize? We shall see. If they can't make the case on this, they may be running short of opportunities. The counter to their arguement is that the country just saw Colin Powell endorse Obama for President. Kind of hard to make the case that McCain would be the steady leader in a time of crisis, foreign or domestic. But we shall see. After all, I am not from a small town, so perhaps I just don't understand the values of "real america..."
October 20--Polls tightened, and then started to swing to Obama a little by this morning. I don't think we know the impact of Joe The Plumber, Sarah Palin on SNL, or the Powell endorsement yet. This is probably the last week I think about the national polls. Next week I will keep an eye on state polls, starting with Virginia, and moving out to Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri and North Carolina. At this point, it looks like Obama has 264 close to locked down, and the battle will be to pull one of the states I have mentioned here, over to his side. Despite the polls, I will believe it only when I see it...
October 17--Polls continue to tighten. Strangely no one seems to notice. I think they will if McCain starts to win some of the tracking polls. What I have yet to see is the movement away from Obama in the state polls. But the states do tend to lag the national polls, so let's see in the next few days. McCain is closer than people think. The media has been missing the boat on this.
October 16--We will have to see what the debate may have caused, but polls out today show the race narrowing even further. No major poll has Obama up more than 8, and Gallup has it as close as 2 points (depending on how they look at things). Here comes General (or should I say Admiral?) McCain, charging up the hill! As usual, Karl Rove put out the seeds of doubt that Obama still hasn't closed the deal. While I disagree with that, I do think that the race is really closer to a 3 point lead than an 8 point lead.
The markets are relatively flat, but that will probably change by 4pm. I have yet to see a good post debate poll that shows any real movement, but the overall trend has been away from Obama...
October 15--I think it is starting to move to McCain. I have a bet with co-workers on the election, and who is going to win. Naturally, it was easy to take a bet, considering how many people were betting on Obama. I took McCain, and took the over on the 286 over/under line. I think this race will tighten, and eventually, it could flip McCain's way.
There are a few factors to consider, before that happens. The market is down 500 points, and McCain has shown he can't debate for anything. He's snippy, and doesn't hide his disdain for Obama. If he can keep it in check, and beat the tax cut drum, and get Obama on his heels, he can cut the lead a few points. It's only about a 5 point race now. If he can get it to 2-3 points by the weekend, it's basically a tossup. If he can't, or if the race widens through the weekend, he could be toast. We shall see...
October 26--I have been getting lax on the updates. It does seem as if there is a drift to McCain lately. But I don't see it in the states, which means there is either a lag factor, or it isn't a real drift at all. The standard deviations are are getting larger (ie, all the polls used to be between 7-10 points for Obama, now they are more like 2-13 points and anywhere in between.). What does that mean? I am not sure at this point. I am looking to see if the numbers recompress around a new spine, that is somewhere different than 6-7 points in favor of Obama. McCain looked less than sharp on Meet The Press...
October 21--Polls have stretched out to favor Obama. I will be interested to see if Biden's gaffe on "America coming under attack from somewhere in the world" during an Obama presidency, could ignite the population at large to re-think their affinity for an untested leader. Also, Obama will be visiting his sick Grandmother for the next couple of days, and will not be available for comment, or counterpunches during this time. The door is still open a crack. Can McCain and Palin get through, and capitalize? We shall see. If they can't make the case on this, they may be running short of opportunities. The counter to their arguement is that the country just saw Colin Powell endorse Obama for President. Kind of hard to make the case that McCain would be the steady leader in a time of crisis, foreign or domestic. But we shall see. After all, I am not from a small town, so perhaps I just don't understand the values of "real america..."
October 20--Polls tightened, and then started to swing to Obama a little by this morning. I don't think we know the impact of Joe The Plumber, Sarah Palin on SNL, or the Powell endorsement yet. This is probably the last week I think about the national polls. Next week I will keep an eye on state polls, starting with Virginia, and moving out to Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri and North Carolina. At this point, it looks like Obama has 264 close to locked down, and the battle will be to pull one of the states I have mentioned here, over to his side. Despite the polls, I will believe it only when I see it...
October 17--Polls continue to tighten. Strangely no one seems to notice. I think they will if McCain starts to win some of the tracking polls. What I have yet to see is the movement away from Obama in the state polls. But the states do tend to lag the national polls, so let's see in the next few days. McCain is closer than people think. The media has been missing the boat on this.
October 16--We will have to see what the debate may have caused, but polls out today show the race narrowing even further. No major poll has Obama up more than 8, and Gallup has it as close as 2 points (depending on how they look at things). Here comes General (or should I say Admiral?) McCain, charging up the hill! As usual, Karl Rove put out the seeds of doubt that Obama still hasn't closed the deal. While I disagree with that, I do think that the race is really closer to a 3 point lead than an 8 point lead.
The markets are relatively flat, but that will probably change by 4pm. I have yet to see a good post debate poll that shows any real movement, but the overall trend has been away from Obama...
October 15--I think it is starting to move to McCain. I have a bet with co-workers on the election, and who is going to win. Naturally, it was easy to take a bet, considering how many people were betting on Obama. I took McCain, and took the over on the 286 over/under line. I think this race will tighten, and eventually, it could flip McCain's way.
There are a few factors to consider, before that happens. The market is down 500 points, and McCain has shown he can't debate for anything. He's snippy, and doesn't hide his disdain for Obama. If he can keep it in check, and beat the tax cut drum, and get Obama on his heels, he can cut the lead a few points. It's only about a 5 point race now. If he can get it to 2-3 points by the weekend, it's basically a tossup. If he can't, or if the race widens through the weekend, he could be toast. We shall see...
The McCain/Skeletor link
has anyone noticed that McCain is looking more and more like He-Man's nemisis, Skeletor, from the 80's cartoon "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" ? What's up with that?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
on the election...
I think I am going to vote FOR Barack Obama. This may be the first election where I am not voting against a candidate, in a long time. My reasons for this are too numerous to articulate in this article (but I may try in future blogspots). But here is one reason:
LEADERSHIP IN A CRISIS:
The Market meltdown posed problems for McCain, since he had been a big believer in de-regulation for years. Clearly, actions that needed to be taken in this situation were unprecedented, and left McCain having to take a stance--support a Socialist, or at best, Keynesian-style solution, or watch as his supply-side ideology melted down everyone's retirement savings. So McCain decided to avoid the question, and show his leadership by rushing to Washington. The Campaign (I say this because I have a hard time believing that McCain himself would attempt such a clearly choreographed stunt) decided to try to win some political points, by showing McCain's "leadership in a crisis", and having McCain suspend everything, cancel the debates, and rush to Washington and save the day. He invited Obama to do the same.
I remember this, because I was driving home, listening to POTUS '08 on XM Sattelite Radio, and I was thinking, "why is he doing this NOW? He said a week ago that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I thought he was full of it then, but if he really wanted to do something, why wait until the deal was basically in place, (as it had been rumored to have been at the time)?"
I flipped the radio to FM, and I remember hearing Jay Severin screaming something about how this was a brilliant move by McCain and how Obama had no way out. He would have to follow McCain's lead, and look like an als0-ran.
Then an hour later, Obama got out of it. With a very calm, shrewd maneuver. He said that Presidents should be able to handle more than one thing at a time, and he would not suspend the debate, or panic.
Obama called McCain's bluff. McCain blinked. McCain showed up at the debate. He didn't even "Rush" back to Washington, as David Letterman made clear. He didn't really suspend the campaign (other than not giving any stump speeches. Others have made it clear that the campaign offices stayed open, and there were news reports on Huffington Post that showed that McCain ads were still running during the "suspended campaign"). Basically, McCain created an environment where he appeared to have no grounding in handling such a challenge.
Obama, on the other hand, did not get riled. He may not have rode in to save the day, a la John Wayne, but he calmly executed the support-building tasks to help the situation, and get a bill passed. When things deteriorated, Obama said that people shouldn't panic, and started to suggest sensible approaches to stabilizing the situation (ex. a $250k limit on FDIC deposits).
This was not lost on the public. While it could be said (and HAS been said by the Joe Scarborough's and Pat Buchannan's of the world) that McCain has lost his lead due to just being a Republican during the stock market drop, I would say that his own behavior did not contriubte to the cause. I don't disagree with either of their points of view, but I wouldn't go as far as to say McCain would be winning today, were it not for Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac.
The problem for me was that trying times test the mettle of leaders. McCain has made that a central theme of his candidacy. However, when the times got tough, we got to see the candidates in action. In my opinion, it wasn't even close. McCain showed how he would REACT in a crisis, and Obama showed how he would LEAD in a time of crisis. McCain showed how he would FIGHT in a time of struggle, Obama showed how he would LISTEN in a time of struggle (with a team of economic advisors at his side, including Warren Buffett and Robert Rubin).
I think I am ready for leaders who are ready to listen, rather than reactors who are ready to fight.
LEADERSHIP IN A CRISIS:
The Market meltdown posed problems for McCain, since he had been a big believer in de-regulation for years. Clearly, actions that needed to be taken in this situation were unprecedented, and left McCain having to take a stance--support a Socialist, or at best, Keynesian-style solution, or watch as his supply-side ideology melted down everyone's retirement savings. So McCain decided to avoid the question, and show his leadership by rushing to Washington. The Campaign (I say this because I have a hard time believing that McCain himself would attempt such a clearly choreographed stunt) decided to try to win some political points, by showing McCain's "leadership in a crisis", and having McCain suspend everything, cancel the debates, and rush to Washington and save the day. He invited Obama to do the same.
I remember this, because I was driving home, listening to POTUS '08 on XM Sattelite Radio, and I was thinking, "why is he doing this NOW? He said a week ago that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I thought he was full of it then, but if he really wanted to do something, why wait until the deal was basically in place, (as it had been rumored to have been at the time)?"
I flipped the radio to FM, and I remember hearing Jay Severin screaming something about how this was a brilliant move by McCain and how Obama had no way out. He would have to follow McCain's lead, and look like an als0-ran.
Then an hour later, Obama got out of it. With a very calm, shrewd maneuver. He said that Presidents should be able to handle more than one thing at a time, and he would not suspend the debate, or panic.
Obama called McCain's bluff. McCain blinked. McCain showed up at the debate. He didn't even "Rush" back to Washington, as David Letterman made clear. He didn't really suspend the campaign (other than not giving any stump speeches. Others have made it clear that the campaign offices stayed open, and there were news reports on Huffington Post that showed that McCain ads were still running during the "suspended campaign"). Basically, McCain created an environment where he appeared to have no grounding in handling such a challenge.
Obama, on the other hand, did not get riled. He may not have rode in to save the day, a la John Wayne, but he calmly executed the support-building tasks to help the situation, and get a bill passed. When things deteriorated, Obama said that people shouldn't panic, and started to suggest sensible approaches to stabilizing the situation (ex. a $250k limit on FDIC deposits).
This was not lost on the public. While it could be said (and HAS been said by the Joe Scarborough's and Pat Buchannan's of the world) that McCain has lost his lead due to just being a Republican during the stock market drop, I would say that his own behavior did not contriubte to the cause. I don't disagree with either of their points of view, but I wouldn't go as far as to say McCain would be winning today, were it not for Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac.
The problem for me was that trying times test the mettle of leaders. McCain has made that a central theme of his candidacy. However, when the times got tough, we got to see the candidates in action. In my opinion, it wasn't even close. McCain showed how he would REACT in a crisis, and Obama showed how he would LEAD in a time of crisis. McCain showed how he would FIGHT in a time of struggle, Obama showed how he would LISTEN in a time of struggle (with a team of economic advisors at his side, including Warren Buffett and Robert Rubin).
I think I am ready for leaders who are ready to listen, rather than reactors who are ready to fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
