- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Spencer for Liar, Continued
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 10:59PM
I mentioned the other day that I wasn't much in the mood to pick through Spencer Ackerman's ridiculous apologia for Scott Beauchamp. Thankfully, Bob Owens has made short work of it. (I confess: I emailed Ackerman's article to Owens in hopes that he'd deal with it and I could just lazily post a link. Hooray for outsourcing!)
Re: Nominate Hillary for VP
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 9:51PM
I can understand why diehard Hillary supporters would be miffed, but Kristol's argument is mostly nonsense. First, the Democrats shattered their "glass ceiling" in vice presidential nominations 24 years ago by nominating Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. Will Kristol complain about a glass ceiling if the Republicans nominate McCain-Romney, McCain-Pawlenty or, perhaps his personal favorite, McCain-Lieberman? I think not. Nor should conservatives start advocating gender quotas.
Second, while it's strange to pick a running mate who finished so poorly in the presidential primaries, this isn't the pre-Twelfth Amendment Electoral College. There is no rule that the runner-up be given the vice presidential nomination and Hillary isn't entitled to the nomination. The last three vice presidents didn't run in the primaries at all, and two of the three had no prior presidential campaign whatsoever.
Third, Biden's claim to have more foreign-policy experience than Obama or Clinton doesn't look much different than McCain's: He has served decades in the Senate focusing on these issues and serving on relevant committees. Biden has chaired the Foreign Relations Committee. You may not like what he has done foreign-policy-wise and McCain's military service may give him the edge, but you can't argue that McCain's Senate record gives him foreign-policy experience and Biden's doesn't.
Finally, if idiot feminists want to elect a pro-life Republican president or Obama wants to throw the White House away in a fit of anti-Clinton pique, be my guest. It shouldn't concern conservatives in the least. The people who voted for Hillary in places like West Virginia, on the other hand, were mainly voting against Obama and would not necessarily be moved by an Obama-Clinton ticket. All that being said, if Hillary supporters want to take Kristol's advice, hey, knock yourselves out.
Kristol: Nominate Hillary for VP
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 8:40PM
Hard to imagine that Clinton supporters would take advice from Bill Kristol, but . . .
Will the Democratic party, which is committed (to say the least) to gender equity, and which in fact has a 50 percent quota for female delegates, accept Obama's imposition of a glass ceiling at its convention?Ah, but is the Democratic convention a democratic convention?A modest suggestion to my justifiably outraged Democratic friends: Hillary's name should be placed in nomination not for the presidency (Obama won that more or less fair and square)--but for the vice presidency. It would be an interesting roll call vote.
Bidenfreude
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 7:58PM
Bidenfreude (n.) The joy Republicans feel at Democratic despondency over Obama's vice presidential choice.
The confidence among the True Believers encountered by Phil in the Hyatt Bar doesn't mean Old Pluggy is a winner. It's tautological that anything Obama does is automatically the right thing in the eyes of those who truly believe.
More important, perhaps, will be whether Biden's choice produces the backlash I've predicted among Hillary voters who had been holding out hope for an Obama-Clinton "dream team." CNN reports that some high-level Hillary supporters are outraged that she wasn't even vetted for the running-mate spot.
Whether that outrage is reflected among the 18 million ordinary Democratic voters who supported Hillary in the primaries is the big question. Given that 18 percent of those voters were already saying they'd vote for John McCain instead of Obama, disgruntled Clinton supporters could be a serious factor in a close election.
The Biden Challenge
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 6:42PM
The difficulty for an Obama-Biden ticket will be leveraging Joe Biden's assetts without them turning into liabilities. (No, that's not a dirty joke.) One of the benefits of choosing Biden is that he is charismatic, funny, and can come across as a normal guy on the stump -- all problem areas for Obama. But the same shoot-from-the-hip tendency has produced a long list of Biden gaffes. Let Biden be a loose canon and the Obama camp will run into trouble. Rein him in too tightly and you might as well have picked ultra-boring Kathelen Sebelius.
Another upside to Biden is his Washingotn experience and foreign-policy cred. But these same qualities can undermine Obama's change narrative and dull the distinctions on foreign policy. In his famous 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said patriots both supported and opposed the Iraq war. In 2008, that might not be good enough for some antiwar Dems who see Biden as too hawkish and conventional. If you let Biden be Biden, you run the risk of inflaming these tensions. If you soft-pedal his record or try to push him in a less hawkish direction, you might as well have picked commander-in-chief Tim Kaine.
Biden Reax
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 5:02PM
I'm here at the Hyatt in downtown Denver where I watched the Obama-Biden appearance with a few dozen Democrats huddled around flat-screen TVs by the bar. I'd say the reaction to Biden's speech was positive -- they erupted into applause and laughter throughout.
I struck up a conversation with an Obama volunteer from Portland, Oregon, and told him who I write for. After the speech, he came over and confidently said, "you guys are in trouble."
Though he acknowledged that Biden could be a "loose cannon," he thinks he's a known quantity who will bring experience to the ticket.
He was also convinced that Obama was not going to be like John Kerry, but would be prepared to fight back against Republican attacks -- especially because he took on the Clinton Machine. "That's like taking on the frickin' mafia," he exclaimed.
My new friend said the McCain gaffe on his houses was "a gift" and that seemed to be a particularly popular line of attack with this crowd.
They just ate it up when Biden spoke of economic problems at Americans' kitchen tables and joked that McCain would "have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit."
Hey, Man, Joe Biden's a Narc
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 4:22PM
Tommy Chong, who spent nine months in federal prison on a drug paraphernalia charge, is not exactly a fan of Barack Obama's vice-presidential choice:
Check out the people you're voting for. For instance, Joseph Biden comes off as a liberal democrat, but he's the one who authored the bill that put me in jail. He wrote the law against shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail -- which could be anything from a pipe to a clip or cigarette papers.
No comment yet from Cheech Marin. So if Obama's writing off the Cannabis Coalition, cui bono?
(Hat tip: Jeralyn Merritt.)
Pedantic Antle Post of the Day
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 3:46PM
Richard Miniter writes, "By the way, both Fox and MSNBC are wrong when they report he was elected to the Senate at age 29. He ran for the office at that age, but was 30 when he was sworn in." No, they are not wrong if that is how they phrased their reports because being elected and being sworn in are two separate things. Joe Biden was elected to the Senate on November 7, 1972. He was born on November 20, 1942. That means he was 29 when he was elected but turned 30 thirteen days later, making him old enough under the Constitution to take office in January 1973.
Re: Obama Pulling Out of Red States?
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 1:00PM
Stacy: You might be right that Obama never had a realistic chance in Georgia, but Bill Clinton carried the state in 1992. How'd that happen? Here's how: Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from George H.W. Bush to throw it to the Democrat. Good thing there isn't a third party candidate right now who is particularly popular with Georgians.
Obama Pulling Out of Red States?
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 11:56AM
At least halting advertising temporarily, according to Fox News, although as I said from the git-go and repeated often ever since, there was never any realistic expectation for Obama to win Georgia.
Hillary's Biden Her Time
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 11:51AM
Obama was always over a barrel when it came to picking a running mate. Almost everyone he could choose was either going to be highly risky or seem like a boring let-down. Jim Webb risky; Tim Kaine a boring let-down; Evan Bayh maybe a little of both. Hillary Clinton's failure to go quietly into the night compounded this predicament. Obama could risk a ticket of too many firsts*-- or even take on the especially risky Mrs. Clinton -- or he could let down millions of women who voted for Hillary. With possibilities like Clinton-endorsing Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland out of the veepstakes, things became even harder.
The closeness of the McCain-Obama race has convinced the Democratic nominee to play it safe (though I think he's going to discover Biden is far from risk-free). B-o-o-ring. But somewhere, Hillary is smiling.
* I know it wouldn't be the first woman nominated for vice president, but it would be the first elected.
The Obama-Bush Connection
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 10:53AM
Although Obama has run his campaign almost completely as a reaction to the administration of one George W. Bush, the parallels between their campaigns are apparent.
1. Bush ran against eight years of bad judgment and personality failures of the previous administration. Obama is doing the same.
2. Bush ran as the one who could transcend partisan differences in Washington. So is Obama.
3. Bush faced concerns about his misspent youth. So has Obama.
4. Bush was believed to have done hard drugs. Obama has admitted it.
5. Bush picked Dick Cheney to reassure voters about experience on the ticket and foreign policy gravitas. What do you suppose Obama just did? Heres the International Herald Tribune:
An Army of Photoshoppers
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 9:52AM
Something tells me the
graphics department at Obama HQ wasn't very excited about having to
work late Friday night on this announcement.
Change you can believe in -- because it's been in Washington since 1973 already.
Yeah. That works.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
On To Denver
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 8:04AM
I'm about to board my plane to Denver, so will be offline until later in the day. But check back here over the weekend and throughout the week for live reports from the scene.
McCain Camp Wasting No Time
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 7:56AM
A fresh ad shows a debate clip of Biden questioning Obama's readiness for the presidency and another one in which he praises John McCain.
Small Change
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 6:51AM
There's a bit of a debate over whether Barack Obama broke his promise to let his supporters know his VP decision first via text and email message. One DailyKos blogger blames news networks for actually reporting news that was leaked to them rather than carrying water for Obama to maintain the surprise. Marc Ambinder, meanwhile, offers the following defense:
The bottom line is that the Obama campaign boasted for weeks that it would boldly change the way the VP choice was announced, and in the end the conventional VP choice got leaked in the conventional way. It isn't a huge deal, but in its own way it's a fitting metaphor for the entire Obama campaign.
Obama's Thoughtful Gift
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 4:17AM
Happy birthday to Shawn Macomber, who crossed his fingers on Monday and hoped that Obama would pick Biden.
Okay, I suppose it might be a coincidence...
Biden: Obama hasn't passed anything I'm aware of
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 3:58AM
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will be all smiles when they make their first joint appearance as running mates later today, but on the day before the Iowa caucuses, Biden told me in an interview that he couldn't think of anything that Obama had passed as a U.S. Senator.
Following a January 2 campaign stop at the Douma Elementary School in Ottumwa, Iowa, I had a chance to speak with Biden (David Brooks was also present), and I raised the subject of Hillary Clinton's experience. Biden said that though he wouldn't want to take anything away from his rivals' accomplishments, their level of experience didn't compare to his.
Biden then gave the following appraisal of his rivals' careers in the Senate:
Biden
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 3:05AM
Expect his anti-Obama pronouncements to figure prominently in McCain campaign attacks. And so much for having superior judgment to the Democratic foreign-policy establishment.
Lies, Damned Lies, And Campaign Emails
Posted by on 8.23.08 @ 2:38AM
Let's not forget these messages that Obama campaign manager David Plouffle sent out earlier this month. From August 10:
Subject: Barack's VP: Be the First to KnowAnd from August 12:Dear Friend --
Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.
You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.
Sign up today to be the first to know:
http://my.barackobama.com/vp
You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.
Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.
No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.
Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate:
http://my.barackobama.com/vp
Thanks,
David
Subject: RE: Be the First to KnowNow Obama has picked Biden, and it's being reported all over the place.Friend --
People keep asking me if we're really going to announce Barack's VP directly to our supporters.
The answer is yes.
Let me be very clear. You are the ones who built this campaign, and Barack wants you to be the first to know who will join him in leading our movement for change.
So, if you haven't signed up to receive an email or a text message, sign up now:
http://my.barackobama.com/vp
Or you can text VP to 62262 from your mobile phone.
Make sure to forward this message to your friends and let them know about this special opportunity.
Thanks,
David
The text message still hasn't gone out.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Biden Our Time
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 11:02PM
The Weekly Standard's blog reported 20 minutes ago, with not a single bit of wiggle room, that Obama has chosen Biden. I just did a quick check around a bunch of other sites, and nobody else has it. Assuming the Standard is right, they get the credit for the scoop. I think it is a bold choice by Obama. A bit risky because Biden is a loose cannon, but also with a very big upside because Biden is a very effective, personable politician with lots of knowledge. Also, as insufferable as he sometimes is, there are indeed times when Biden has shown the ability to rise above mere politics and show a bit of statesmanship. I do think that at heart he is a patriot. He's a cheap-shot politician at times, and a supreme egotist, but he also has a better side that rarely but definitely occasionally shows itself. I would feel better about him as president, frankly, than about Obama, or for that matter better about him than about anybody else who ran for the Demo nomination this year. That's faint praise, but it is something. And if I as a conservative movement guy can see that, I bet that many other Americans will get the same impression. And that makes him a potentially effective campaigner.
From the Wolf Annals
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 6:34PM
I'm watching CNN and waiting for the Obama VP text message. What is the cable network doing to fill the time in the absence of any new information? John King reported that the Obama campaign may wait until tomorrow morning to send out the text, prompting Wolf Blitzer to ask whether the campaign would risk alienating voters on the west coast whose phones/blackberries would start ringing and buzzing in the middle of the night western time. As far as I can tell, he meant this as a serious question. What happened to the saying "no news is no news"?
For Something Completely Different
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 6:04PM
When I was on vacation last week, the president announced new members of the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. It would love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting. A more diverse lot I cannot imagine. Among the new members:
Chair: Jean Case, wife of tech executive Steve. Okay so far.
Also: Actress Janine Turner of Northern Exposure fame.
Journalist Cokie Roberts.
American Idol performer Jordin Sparks.
Deeply religious former Heisman Trophy winner Danny Wuerrfel.
Michelle Nunn, wife of former Sen. Sam.
several who are full-time in the social service industry, such as
Boys and Girls Club leader Roxanne Spillett of Georgia and
Volunteer Florida chief Wendy Spencer
Christian music star Michael Smith (vice chairman)
Actress and multiple-time Playboy model Bo Derek
Hope Taft, wife of former Ohio Gov. Bob
Kelly Perdew, winner of The Apprentice
Mark Yudof, president of the University of California.
All good people, surely. But still a rather strange conglomeration -- wouldn't you say?
Semi-Republican vs Unusual Liberal Democrat
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 5:35PM
I don't agree with everything Jay Cost says here but these five points strike me as spot-on:
(1) The macro conditions favor the Democrats in a way we have not seen in at least 28 years.(2) In response, the Democrats nominated a candidate with relatively little governing experience and a background quite different from white voters, who swing presidential elections.
(3) The Republicans nominated a candidate who built a national reputation by disagreeing with George W. Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general, in the hopes that this man is immune from the public disaffection with the GOP.
(4) The public now gets to choose a man with little experience and a different background, or a semi-Republican. They're not sure which one they want. And because there are two wars on, a credit crisis, a weak economy, and high gas prices - they're taking their sweet time in deciding.
(5) Anybody who tells you what is going to happen is probably trying to sell you something.
My only minor quibble would be that the Republicans nominated McCain more by accident than as part of some master plan and the Democrats nominated Obama in no small part because the more experienced Democrats had been too timid to oppose the war in 2002-03.
Obama-Malkin '08
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 5:11PM
My final (?) prediction. Not that Brendan Conway's going to interview me anytime soon . . .
Bernanke Still Wrong
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 4:45PM
Again today, Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sounded like a dove in terms of willingness to really fight inflation. I repeat what I have written numerous times before that the Fed approaches all of this all wrong when it manipulates interest rates rather than targets a steady dollar (through other means at its disposal). In the long run, I would NOT advertise a significant rate hike, therefore, or for that matter ANY particular effort by the Fed to set interest rates. The rates should float. That said, in the short run, if the Fed is indeed to keep using the interest rate manipulation model that it has used for the past few decades, it will be making a huge mistake if it keeps interest rates way down at 2 percent while inflation rampages. I still believe that if he becamse hawkish vs inflation now, while he still can, by doing one quick rate hike to 2.5 percent, it would send such a signal to the markets that the Fed will keep inflation in check that lending institutions would, counterintuitively, being cutting long-term mortgage rates. I explained this to a greater degree in an earlier post I do not have time to dig up. But the point is that inflation is a serious danger, and Bernanke is playing with fire by not nipping it in the bud. It's very disheartening.
Obama-Lott '08?
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 4:26PM
Hell no, but Brendan Conway does have an interview in the Washington Times with a certain vice presidential expert.
Obama-McCain '08
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 2:52PM
Look, if it's name-ID value he's looking for, I've got Chet Edwards beat all to hell.
Namechecked by Nader
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:47PM
Stumbled upon the following while reading a Rocky Mountain News
interview with Ralph Nader. Slightly surreal: "If you read this
article
two weeks ago in Politico by Jeremy Lott,
he thinks we've already had an impact over the last eight years on
the Democratic Party. It was quite an eye-opener to me that he
writes that way. I don't even know him. He didn't even interview
me..." Ralph, if you want to talk, just call.
Obama-Antle '08
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:37PM
That might make me rethink my support for a certain dark horse candidate.
If the Phone Doesn't Ring, It's Me
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:35PM
Incidentally, I haven't received a phone call from Barack Obama saying I'm not his running mate, so I guess I'm still in the running.
Re: If It's Chet Edwards
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:33PM
Chet Edwards is Joe Lieberman with a Southern accent. Basically an economic and social liberal with the occasional feint to the right, but a fairly reliable hawk. Shouldn't do Obama many favors with culturally conservative working-class voters and Catholics, unless they're moved by Edwards's support for the flag-burning amendment, and won't rally his antiwar base.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:25PM
Say the words, John: one term only
What would prompt NATO to do anything?
Usain Bolt's Olympics were quite an outlier
Americans perk up on the economy
If It's Chet Edwards...
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:14PM
I would expect the McCain campaign to go after him on spending. Edwards sits on both the House Budget and the Appropriations Committees, and if you check out his official campaign website, it's filled with links to stories boasting about how many earmarks Edwards secured for his Texas district (see an example here). In fact, the site even features an interactive map inviting constituents to "click an area on the map for more about Chet's Accomplishments" -- and wherever you click, it produces another example of money he "secured" for a local project.
UPDATE: Edwards has a 19 percent rating with Citizens Against Government Waste, a score which they define as "hostile" to taxpayers. In its database for 2007 alone, CAGW lists 73 earmarks with Edwards's fingerprints on them, totaling $128.4 million. A quick glance at some of the projects include money for pecan research and for bee research. This was just a quick search on my part. I would guess that over the course of his 18-year career, there's plenty more fodder.
OBAMA VEEP HILLARY!
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:11PM
Sorry, just a joke. Quick, text all your friends:
Cruel, cruel summer.By the time Barack Obama is ready to announce his vice presidential pick, will anyone believe him? In recent days, as speculation and anticipation has mounted, so too have phony text messages declaring Obama's supposed running mate -- from Evan Bayh and Hillary Rodham Clinton to Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps. It's a cruel twist in a prolonged game of guessing that has put political junkies and Democratic supporters on edge since the campaign announced last week that it would disclose Obama's choice through text messaging, which is expected to happen by Saturday. In the absence of real information, pranksters have filled the gap with guidance from the website Wonkette.
Egads! Edwards a Finalist for Running Mate
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 12:40PM
Nothing like a gratuitous shock to the senses, eh?
Meanwhile, my friend Jon Sanders notes the many misleading "veep" headlines lately.
Hope in New Mexico?
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 11:44AM
Even the Kossites have noticed that Steve Pearce does have a chance in the Senate race to replace the retiring Pete Domenici.
Clay Feet, and Arms, Win Gold
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 11:23AM
Greatest athlete in the world? Not Michael Phelps. Actually, Phelps may merit that honor, but the TITLE of "Greatest Athlete in the World" once was reserved, with darn good reason, to the winner of the Olympic Decathlon. To do all ten events in two days, covering everything from sprints to distance runs, jumps to throwing events, and to do them all well, is surely the best test ever devised of all-around athletic prowess. It is beyond me why there hasn't been a HUGE focus during this entire second week of the Games on the Decathlon; it is, after all, the last big event for a reason, because it is thought to be the culmination, the piece de resistance, of the entire fortnight-plus.
There was a time, too, when any American who won the Decathlon (and it usually was an American) was famous for life. Bob Mathias went on to be a congressmen. Rafer Johnson was famous for decades and was with RFK when he died. Bruce Jenner was on every Wheaties box, it seemed, for the entire 1970s. So why aren't people paying more attention now?
For the record, American Bryan Clay won the Olympic Decathlon earlier today, after Americans fell short in 2000 and 2004. Many congratulations to him. Many!!!!!
Now, another Olympic note: Again and again I see people debate about what is the best way to report the national "medal counts," with some people saying the total medals are what's important (US well ahead) and others saying the gold medal lead is most important (China well ahead). To me, there's an easy way to score it: one point for bronze, two points for silver, three for gold. By that standard, as I write, the US and China are in an exact tie with 200Â points each, with only a fwe Olympic events remaining. The US has 31 golds for 93 points, 36 silvers for 72 points, and 35 bronzes. 200 total. China has 47 golds for 141 points, 17 silver for 34 points, and 25 bronzes. Do the math: 200 total. Looked at that way, there is LOTS of drama, for those of us patriots who the Left would call jingoistic, in these last few events. Go USA!
Maybe A Little Harsh?
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 10:48AM
The CNN ticker right now is telling the world: "Obama VP losers get bad news."
McCain Campaign on White Powder Letters
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 9:54AM
From McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker:
"Also yesterday afternoon, a similar letter was found in the campaign's Manchester, New Hampshire office. After closing that office, the Manchester Police Department determined that there was no threat.
"Senator and Mrs. McCain thank the local and federal authorities for their swift response and will continue to monitor the situation closely."
Re: Pawlenty or Romney?
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 9:45AM
I continue to believe that the best vice-presidential choice Barack Obama could make would be for John McCain to chose Mitt Romney. (Reasons here).
I'm not a fan of Tim Pawlenty by any means and paricularly find his views on the role of government troubling. I'd much rather have an actual conservative as VP -- somebody along the lines of Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford, or Paul Ryan. So by no means am I endorsing Pawlenty for VP. However, if I were to take off my conservative hat and put on my political analyst hat, Pawlenty definitely appears to be the safest pick on the reported short list. Like Romney, he has gubernatorial experience, but he doesn't have the flip flop problems or high negative ratings. Pawlenty has more appeal among two constituencies that will be key to a McCain victory -- evangelicals and blue-collar workers. With Democrats poised to run a campaign portraying Republicans as out of touch (see yesterday's houses debate), it makes more political sense to tap Pawlenty, who grew up as the son of a milk driver, to blunt such attacks rather than nominate another really rich dude who will only add fuel to the fire. Furthermore, Pawlenty was a McCain supporter from the beginning, while Democrats would have access to reams of video of Romney ripping apart McCain, including on the fact that he doesn't understand economics. What is Romney's response going to be? That he changed his mind? Yeah, that'll be helpful.
Unfortunately, whether it's Romney or Pawlenty, either way, Republicans end up with somebody who supports big government health care (only in Romney's case he calls it "market-based" because within a system in which government designed plans are sold at a government store and purchased by individuals under government mandates and with government subsidies, there's a role for private companies).
New Data Show Why McCain Can't Pick a Pro-Choicer
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 8:55AM
The idea that John McCain would benefit from picking a pro-choicer is rooted in the assumption that he already has locked up the base. In his recent case for Joe Lieberman, for instance, John Podhoretz wrote that, "McCain no longer has to close the sale with conservatives," bizarrely citing as evidence the fact that there are two best selling anti-Obama books.
But examining actual data on the white evangelical vote just released by Pew tells a different story. At first glance, it looks like McCain is doing quite well -- he's beating Obama 68-24 among this group, which is virtually identical to the 71-24 advantage Bush had over Kerry in August of 2004. However, if you take a deeper look at the numbers, it turns out that McCain's support is much softer -- only 28 percent "strongly" support McCain, compared to 57 percent who "strongly" supported Bush.
What this says to me is that if McCain continues his outreach to evangelicals, he'll see his numbers improve and may end up with comparable numbers as Bush (and this survey was taken prior to McCain's strong performance at Saddleback and the subsequent focus on Obama's extreme pro-choice views). However, as it is, the less enthusiastic support makes me wonder about turnout. In Ohio, for instance, if evangelical turnout dropped just a few points at the same time that Obama was able to boost black turnout, that could very well be the ball game. If McCain continues to send the right signals to this voting bloc, he may very well be fine. But, based on these numbers, it seems he doesn't have much wiggle room to gamble on a pro-choice pick.Â
NY Times: Pawlenty or Romney?
Posted by on 8.22.08 @ 1:33AM
The flirtations with Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman appear to be over:
Senator John McCain has narrowed his list of potential running mates to a handful of candidates and appears unlikely to select anyone who supports abortion rights, several advisers close to his campaign said on Thursday.There are many theories of what Maverick was up to, floating the names of pro-choicers last week. Perhaps it was serious, perhaps just an effort to "soften up" Christian conservatives who might have had reservations about Romney. A big question, in my mind, is whether Romney would actually help McCain win Michigan.Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota are the top candidates as Mr. McCain and his advisers gather over the next several days at Mr. McCain�s cabin near Sedona, they said.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Health Care Notes
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 4:45PM
Now that my health-care story from our July/August issue is online, I just wanted to include a few updates.
In my article I discuss how the health-care issue should be of significance to every branch of the conservative movement, and note that social conservatives should be concerned about the fact that if government dominates this $2 trillion sector of the economy, it will be put in the position to decide who lives and dies in some cases because of the need to ration care. Since writing the story, I found this disturbing report from Oregon, where it turns out that the state denied care to some terminally ill patients, but offered them doctor-assisted suicide.
My piece discusses the problems with the single-payer healthcare systems in Canada, the UK, and France. Since writing, I came across the website BigGovHealth, which has video testimony from patients who have suffered under government-run systems.
Also, I wrote at length about how liberals in general and Barack Obama in particular plan to achieve a single-payer, or socialized*, system through an incremental approach. At a campaign stop this week, Obama made it even more obvious that single-payer is his ultimate goal. I blogged about it here, and the WSJ has now weighed in.
*Some liberals will draw a distinction between single-payer and socialized medicine by arguing that government being the sole purchaser of health care isn't the same as the state actually running the system, but I view this as a distinction without much difference given that in any case government picks up the tab and thus sets regulations and decides how to ration care.
Debra Saunders on Demo Whining
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 4:25PM
My friend Debra Saunders has a terrific column this morning. Thesis: The Dems play the "mudslinging victim" game to the hilt even while they are perpetrators. But she says it much better than that. Good stuff.
The Return of the One
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 3:12PM
The McCain campaign has a new web ad building off "The One" theme heading into the Denver convention. This ad has fresh quotes from Nancy Pelosi and possible VP, Tim Kaine.
Lots of Houses
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 3:06PM
John McCain definitely stumbled when he told the Politico he didn't know how many houses he and his wife had, and had to ask his staff. With polls showing that Barack Obama hasn't been able to gain any advantage over McCain on economic issues, it isn't surprising that he jumped all over it, integrating it into his stump speech and taking out an ad. I think this class warfare argument is a bit silly, but don't forget silly things like marveling at a high-tech grocery scanner helped create the impression that the elder President Bush was out of touch in 1992. The problem for Obama is that all of the talk of houses, gives the McCain people an opening to bring up Tony Rezko, the convicted Chicago businessman who helped Obama buy his current home.
UPDATE: The RNC has a new Obama-Rezko Shady Deal site up.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 2:50PM
Microsoft looks to Seinfeld, yada yada...
Turns out free speech is helpful
Apparently there's still nothing funny about Obama
Forget About the Polls
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 2:28PM
Says Susan Estrich, architect of the 1988 Dukakis landslide.
Spencer for Liar
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 12:25PM
Scott Beauchamp says he never fabricated anything, and apparently that's good enough for Spencer Ackerman.
Like everyone who has ever stepped up to defend Beauchamp's work, Ackerman is missing important swaths of the story. He therefore failed to ask Beauchamp a whole lot of important questions when he caught up with him. Do we have to go through this all over again? If so, I really wish this hadn't come up while I'm a) trying to focus on preparatory research for stuff I'm planning to report on in Denver next week and b) really tired. (Acute insomnia last night.) I'll try to pick over some of the problems with Ackerman's article at some point, if I can find the time and energy.
Another Problem With a Pro-Choice Pick
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 11:23AM
While others have stated the obvious reasons for why picking a pro-choice vice-presidential nominee would be problematic for John McCain, I think one of the less obvious but still significant reasons why it would be a mistake is that it would reflect on the type of judges McCain would appoint. A huge part of McCain's outreach efforts to conservatives has involved pledging to appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas (for example, see his Wake Forest speech on judicial philosophy). But if, in one of the most important appointments he'll have to make, McCain disregards values voters and goes with a pro-choice pick, than why would social conservatives consider his reassurances on judges credible? If he ignores their outcry in the midst of an election, why would he care about them once in office, when he no longer needs them?
And I say this as somebody who preferred Giuliani in the primaries. It was pretty clear to me that if either Giuliani, McCain or Romney won the nomination, any one of them would have to pick somebody as their running mate who was a solid conservative on social issues to clear up any doubts (Giuliani obviously would have had the highest bar).
RE: A Bumpologist Speaks
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 10:53AM
When Kerry got virtually no convention bounce in 2004, I knew he was toast.
A Bumpologist Speaks
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 10:45AM
Newsweek speaks to political science professor Tom Holbrook, who has spent a lot of time analyzing the data on bumps coming out of party conventions. His theory is that conventions are essentially correcting mechanisms, and the bounce is a reflection of the gap between where a candidate is in the polls, and where they should be. Holbrook sees it as essential that Obama gets a nice bump coming out of the election (in the 6-8 point league), because, "if Obama doesn't get a big bump out of this convention, I think that will say something about how hard it's going to be for him to increase his lead in the polls. If he can't do it substantially over a four-day period when it's all his show, then I think his campaign should be worried about the months ahead."
One thing that's interesting about looking at this chart of post-convention bumps is that it doesn't necessarily correlate to the outcome of the elections. In fact, out of 11 elections between 1964 and 2004, the candidate with the higher bounce ended up winning only 6 times. Interestingly, check out 1964 -- Goldwater got a 12.9% bump, and Johnson got bubkes. Holbrook says that's because Goldwater was behind by 22 points going in.
Obama Schedule Update
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 9:56AM
The latest schedule, which I received from the campaign this morning, has Obama making two stops in Virginia today. He's scheduled to be back in Chicago tomorrow, with no public appearances, and then on to Springfield on Saturday, which is expected to be his first appearance with his running mate.
Ayers Document Controversy Goes Mainstream
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 9:51AM
On Monday, Stanley Kurtz wrote in the National Review that he had been denied access to a cache of files housed at the University of Illinois pertaining to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the nonprofit institution where Barack Obama worked with Bill Ayers. It's been heating up the conservative media all week, but now the the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune are now on the case. The current operating excuse is that the donor of the records has not given the ownership rights of the records to the university, which says it is "aggressively pursuing" an agreement with the donor. Though the hometown Tribune columnist John Kass says one needs look no further than the the name of the library: The Richard J. Daley Library.
There are few things that rile up journalists more than being
denied access to something. Now that some mainstream newspapers
have picked up on it, I think they will keep pursuing this story,
and like pent up steam, these documents will somehow find a way
out. So, the only thing that sealing the documents is doing is
generating a stream of stories about Obama's relationship with a
domestic terrorist. So if somebody is trying to protect Obama, he
or she isn't doing the candidate any favors.
March of the Obots
Posted by on 8.21.08 @ 7:07AM
Remember the SNL skit that suggested former Democrats-turned-Reagan voters had become pod peoplesque victims of the conservative body-snatchers? Something equally sinister is at work today, notes James Lewis:
My son-in-law is an Obot. I'm sorry, that's the kindest thing I can say. A specimen of his thinking is this: He likes Barack Obama because Hillary is just too white...This is a mid-twenties, delayed adolescent, MTV-impaired, drug-taking, hung-over, well-meaning, ne'er-do-well liberal kid, who is certainly not a racist-except against his own race, which is just fine by the Left. A white guy sneering at whitey just proves how cool you are. And Barack Obama is his hero because he's black, and Obama's a slick hustler, and well, he's just so cool. Ya know? ……I like this kid, but he reminds me of that hiker who just got swatted by an enraged mountain lioness in the California hills, after trying to cuddle her three cute little cubs. Why did he do it, according to the local CBS TV station? The answer: "I'm a Leo ... I'm a lion, too." …This guy is a guaranteed Obot. Total zombie. There's millions of 'em. They're all going to march into voting booths in November, when they shouldn't even be allowed to cross a busy street without adult supervision.
H/T John Broome
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Underage Gymnasts Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 9:50PM
The Plank at The New Republic has been running a great series of posts on Chinese dissidents. Just a reminder of how our glorious Olympic hosts run their country.
Re: Media Etiquette
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 9:19PM
Thanks for the 411, Phil. And I would argue that Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency deserved to be cut off, after that puerile stunt. He didn't ask a question, he gave a lecture, and then started filibustering. I don't know what you were thinking, but my thoughts were: "We got your freaking point, Bozo. Please shut up and let the guy answer."
Ambinder Surprised
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 9:01PM
Remember when John McCain first went on the attack? Barack Obama landed in Afghanistan on Saturday, July 19, trailed by an entourage that included all three network TV broadcast news anchors. By Tuesday, July 22, everyone was laughing at this YouTube video mocking the media's infatuation with Obama. The same day, reporters covering the McCain campaign in Pennsylvania received a press pass dubbing them the "JV Squad: Left Behind to Report in America." Meanwhile, a new McCain TV ad blamed high gas prices on Obama's opposition to drilling offshore. By Thursday, the McCain campaign had released a series of video clips illustrating Obama's opposition to the "surge" in Iraq.
Marc Ambinder seems shocked by this:I do not think the Obama campaign expected this from John McCain, and certainly didn't expect it to begin while Obama was overseas.Well, for crying out loud, Obama turned his back on his opponent and went traipsing off around the globe as if he were an incumbent running for re-election. What did he expect Team Maverick to do? Twiddle their thumbs?
Funny thing about basking in the adulation of the masses in Berlin. It sure makes it hard to respond effectively to talk about gas prices in Ohio. Congratulations on the shark jump, Fonzie.
Obama Praises Rev. Wright in 1995 Interview
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 6:47PM
In a recently resurfaced television interview from 1995, Barack Obama describes Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a "wonderful man" who "represents the best of what the black Church has to offer."
The pro-Obama blog Old Man McCain posted a three part video interview of Obama, in which he was discussing his memoir, Dreams From My Father.
At one point the interviewer, Connie Martinson says, "wonderful man there, Rev. Wright."
To which Obama responded:
"Wright, who is my pastor, and he is a wonderful man…He's a pastor of a large congregation in Chicago, and one of the interesting things that I discover in my journey to discover what my identity is and who my father is, is also discovering my own faith, which is not necessarily a traditional faith. I don't come out of an institutionalized religious setting, but what becomes important to me as I work with churches in the South Side of Chicago and low income neighborhoods is to realize that all of the stories and songs of the Church, the hope that is embodied in the Church, the sense of liberation that is embodied in the historically African American Church, is really something that moves me deeply, and I think is probably the main pillar around which a lot of inner city communities are going to be built, and Rev. Wright, my pastor who I speak about in the chapter in the book, I think represents the best of what the black Church has to offer."
What's also interesting is that here, Obama talks about his faith in terms of its ability to help build black communities, but these days (most recently in the Saddleback Church forum), his discussions of faith are much more religious, and rooted in biblical quotations.
Video below (the excerpted portion around the 2:40 mark):
Obama's Announcement
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 6:16PM
From the Obama campaign:
Chicago, IL - Senator Barack Obama will kick off his trip to the Democratic National Convention on Saturday, August 23, 2008 with an event at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, where Obama officially announced his campaign for president on February 10, 2007.
It now seems the most likely scenario is that the campaign will reveal the choice sometime on Friday, and Obama will make his first appearance with his running mate in Springfield.
Bloomberg-Paul '08!
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 5:59PM
Dave Weigel has the scoop on the Virginia Independent Greens' efforts to qualify a ticket of Michael Bloomberg for president and Ron Paul for vice president on Virginia's state ballot.
Carey Campbell is right that Paul probably could have won the Libertarian and Constitution Party presidential nominations -- there was a move to put Paul's name in nomination at the CP convention, but it was defeated on the grounds that Paul would not accept -- but I'm somewhat surprised to hear he had a chance at winning the Green Party's nod as well. Even taking into account the war, I didn't know there were that many hard-lefties willing to put up with a pro-life devotee of Austrian economics.
Re: Rudy Says Party Would Accept Pro-Choice VP
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 4:19PM
Rudy's judgment about whether the party would accept a pro-choice nominee sure panned out well.
Re: Media Etiquette
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 3:38PM
His name was Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), and he's claiming he was intentionally cut off.
Rudy Says Party Would Accept Pro-Choice VP
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 3:22PM
Asked in a McCain campaign call to respond to reports that McCain was considering a pro-choice running mate, Rudy Giuliani said that the Republican Party is not a one issue party, and ultimately Republicans would get behind whoever McCain chooses as his vice president.
"Any choice you make will have pros and cons," Giuliani said. "It would seem to me that the Republican Party is not, as far as I can tell, and I traveled to thousands of places last year, a one issue party. And that would be just one issue out of many that would have to be evaluated by the party. But I believe the party would support Sen. McCain's choice."
He added, "I think we realize that this is a very important choice...I know from talking from John McCain about this, not just now, but in the past, when we both used to think about choosing vice presidents when we were opponents, that our main critera would be a person that would allow us to sleep at night knowing that we had selected someone who could immediately be President of the United States."
The call was focused on the report that Obama adviser Daniel Kurtzner had traveled to Damascus and met with the Syrian foreign minister. Giuliani said the "revelation" was important and should have been disclosed by the Obama campaign, and the fact that it wasn't raises questions about what the other 300 or so Obama advisers are doing. Giuliani flubbed by saying that the adviser had met with Syrian President Bashar Assad rather than the foreign minister. Randy Scheunemann, McCain's senior foreign policy advisor, clarified that the meeting was with the foreign minster.
Media Etiquette
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 3:20PM
Just got off of a McCain campaign conference call, during which some reporter (I'll update with his ID in a minute) started playing "gotcha" with Rudy Giuliani and Randy Scheunemann.
Kids, don't ever do this. If you want to bust somebody's chops in print, bust 'em. But on a conference call, or in a press conference, a reporter should never start grandstanding and lecturing or otherwise trying to embarrass his hosts. This is why David Gregory and Helen Thomas are so widely hated.
It's one thing to ask sharp, tough questions, but this idiot on the conference call went on for about three minutes, being an insufferable hot dog and wasting everyone's time. A press conference isn't the comment field at Daily Kos, and it shouldn't be an opportunity for former class clowns to relive their middle-school years.
UPDATE: Listening to my recording of the call, I can't make out the reporter's name -- sounded like "Ron Campia" -- nor could I make out the name of his organization, but his "question" (actually a lecture) was a 2-minute diversion in which he embarrassed himself.
The Unmaking of Obama?
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 2:42PM
This John McCain wisecrack sums up Barack Obama's problems as well as anything I've seen: "Taking in my opponent's performances is a little like watching a big summer blockbuster and an hour in, realizing that all the best scenes were in the trailer you saw last fall." Obama was able to tap into a lot sentiment in the country in favor of turning the page on the Bush administration, moving beyond red state versus blue state, and transcending race. His early opposition to the Iraq war was crucial in the Democratic primaries. But once he drew people in, Obama didn't have a second act. There wasn't any there there, and what substance there was undercut key parts of his narrative (that he had moved beyond race and the old left-right divide). Jeremiah Wright was devastating. "Bittergate" was devastating. The trip to Europe, I suspect, was on balance not very helpful. And pro-choice absolutism isn't going to be very helpful either.
When you dig into some of this polling data, it seems that Obama's liberalism is starting to moblize conservatives while either his feints to the center or inability to effectively hit back at McCain is starting to annoy the liberal Democratic base. That's frankly not a very good place for the Democratic nominee to be. One also wonders to what extent independent voters are aware that Democrats control Congress and are consciously looking for divided government. That said, there are still several potential game-changers yet to happen in this race, neither candidate is at 50 percent, Obama had a lousy summer in 2007 as well, and there will come a time that McCain is subject to all the spending constraints of the public financing system while Obama is not.
To put things another way, as I've said before, if the Democrats can't win this presidential election, they should really consider disbanding as a political party.
Hi Bayh
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 2:27PM
I think these two items -- here and here -- are pretty solid indicators that Bayh is the one. With that in mind, I HEARTILY recommend the McCain start considering Mike Pence, especially considering Pence's indispensable work (and resultant high profile) with the rump Congress in support of drilling. I noted in an earlier column (see choice Number 5) that Pence should be considered to counter Bayh. Earlier today, I asked Frank Luntz what he thought about Pence as Veep. Luntz said not as Veep, but: "The House Republicans owe Mike Pence not just a debt of gratitude but undying appreciation [for his leadership this month on drilling]. It should elevate him to a congressional leadership position." Then I asked Luntz if Obama picks Bayh, would Pence THEN be a good choice for Veep. Luntz said yes: "I can accept that."
I repeat my predilections in favor of John Kasich and Chris Cox,
but to quote my earlier column about what McCain should do if Bayh
is the Demo choice:
"then Pence should go to the very
top of the list."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 2:21PM
Mass. Romney-care enrolls more and more, but overruns still threaten
Compare and contrast: Merrill and Fannie/Freddie
The presidency is above Obama's paygrade
Obama has to walk a tightrope in stadium full of people
Calorie display mandates are just nagging
More 'Dog Whistle' Smears
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 1:53PM
David Neiwert adds David Freddoso and James Taranto to the list of cryptoracist code-talkers, for calling Obama "audacious":
It's kind of clever, really -- take a keyword from the title of one of his books and use it to call him "uppity" without actually saying it. But then, the dog-whistle components of this campaign, as we've seen, are becoming increasingly sophisticated.And the Rorschach inkblot reactions from the Left are becoming increasingly bizarre.
Speakers at the GOP Bash
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 1:47PM
Philip earlier noted the speaker list for the Republican confab in two weeks. I think he's right to ask us to look at it and wonder if it means anything for the Veep choice. I will note that of the people most often mentioned as being on the "short list," the only one NOT listed as a speaker is Rob Portman -- who, of course, also happens to live fairly close to the Dayton, Ohio rally at which McCain is expected to announce his choice next Friday. Another not on the speaker's list who is thought to be on the slightly-expanded short list for Veep is Fred Smith of FedEx. Neither is Eric Cantor. Make of that what you will. Of those who SHOULD be on the short list, it is notable that John Kasich isn't listed as a speaker. He ought to be, if only to give him a boost for governor of Ohio in two years. Mike Pence isn't listed as a speaker either, even though he is as responsible as anyone for the recovery of the GOP in the past month, due to his leadership on the pro-drilling rump session of Congress.
Then again, what we know so far is just the "headline" speakers; there probably will be other speakers added to the list at some point.
Now, back to Kasich: For those still holding out hope that McCain is after all smart enough to be considering Kasich (even though all indications are to the contrary), and also willing to read way too much into the tea leaves, it is worth noting that right after the big rally in Dayton (also not far from Kasich's old House district), the next stop for McCain, that same day, will be in Pennsylvania -- which is where Kasich grew up.
I'll write lots more on this next topic, but I spoke to Frank Luntz today about the communications abilities of a whole list of possible Veeps. As I say, I'll report on the whole list later. While he didn't think Kasich would be likely to be Veep, Luntz was emphatic and enthusiastic about Kasich's ability to connect with middle-American voters. "John Kasich is brilliant!" he said.
Just saying.....
Hillary?
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 1:39PM
All of a sudden there's a rumor floating around DC (e.g.) that Obama is going to pick Hillary Clinton for the VP slot. As best I can tell, this traces back to gossiping Democratic party hacks. It might just be idle speculation prompted by "why isn't he announcing Kaine today?" questions, but I thought I'd pass it along anyway.
MSNBC Acknowledges Poll Shift
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 1:29PM
Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice has a nice roundup of reaction to the emergent anti-Obama trend, including this from MSNBC's blog:
Nevertheless, there is no longer this widespread belief among the wise guys and gals of both parties that we're all just sitting around waiting for this race to break in Obama's direction.
By "wise guys and gals" the MSNBC crew actually means "all our sources and press-corps buddies." This is exactly the point in today's article about "the conventional wisdom among the political press that Obama is a sure thing to win in November."
Team Obama has worked very hard to create the impression among political reporters that their guy is unbeatable. This spin was easy to sell to reporters who spent a year covering the Democratic primary, where Hope triumphed so spectacularly over Hillary. A general election is not a primary, however, and as I explained last month, the rookie is up against big-league pitching now.
Now, Team Obama has another problem of their own making: Liberal reporters who've felt they'd climbed aboard a winning bandwagon will now feel that they've been misled, and produce a steady stream of "what went wrong" stories.
Lieberman to Speak at the Republican Convention
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:54PM
On Monday, the same night as Bush and Cheney. What will Harry Reid do? The full convention speaking lineup is here. Draw your own conclusions about the implications for the veepstakes.
UPDATE: Rudy Giuliani's Tuesday speech on reform will be considered the Keynote Address.
Post-Modern Genius
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:42PM
Career strategy for the 21st century: Get a sex-change, claim to be a victim of sex discrimination.
Obama and Damascus
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:35PM
One of the key aspects of the Obama foreign policy agenda is to conduct unconditional talks with hostile regimes within the first year of his administration. But really, why wait?
Eli Lake has a disturbing report in the NY Sun about Obama middle east adviser Daniel Kurtzner visiting Damascus to attend a conference sponsored by the British Syrian Society (which, according to its website, "aims at strengthening relations at all levels between the United Kingdom and Syria").
Kurtzner also met with the Syrian foreign minister, and recounts, "I urged him to move ahead in the Israel-Syria negotiations as much as possible so that whoever is the next president would not start from too far down the track."
Speaking about the conference, Kurtzner said, "None of us thought we were being used or abused. But we will see over time."
This is quite a comforting attitude coming from a man who is advising Obama on the region, and who traveled with him in Israel last month. Of course, all the usual Obama disclaimers apply. This was not related to the Obama campaign, and he is not a paid staffer. Sort of like former Obama adviser Robert Malley's meeting with Hamas.
Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies notes that "it's not a secret that the Syrians are openly banking on Barack Obama. It's not surprising that they would build bridges in advance and do this through the window of the peace process."
Abortions for Some, Small Unjust Wars for Others
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:25PM
That's that impossible choice that this election offers Catholics, I argue in the Guardian today.
Re: DNCC TicketGate
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:09PM
Hmm...I wonder how much I could get for a press pass.
Re: McCain's Gains
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 12:09PM
Or is it Obama's losses? I agree, Phil, that Team Maverick's "celebrity" attack has been the main factor. Solid tactics: Locate the opponent's weak point and hit it with everything you've got. This goes back to Patrick Ruffini's notion of the "all about Obama" strategy.
Some left-wing bloggers are whistling past the graveyard, pretending that Obama's meltdown isn't really happening, but a slew of other indicators reinforce the Zogby/Reuters poll data. There's the RCP map and the Intrade trend, plus the LA Times/Bloomberg poll.
Credit clearly goes to Steve Schmidt's aggressive strategy, and to John McCain himself -- everybody knows he doesn't like negative politics, but Maverick proved willing to do what it takes to win. The key from here: Don't let up. Keep up the pressure and try to force the opponent into full-blown panic: "... and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit . . . Such tactics will win every time."
Hope for Sale: DNCC TicketGate
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 11:40AM
Via Hot Air comes this Denver TV news report about an "underground ... unethical" effort by Team Obama to raise money by selling "free" tickets to the Invesco Field speech:
Want to bet that scalpers will be hustling these tickets outside Invesco Field next Thursday?If It Were Kaine
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 11:30AM
Why wouldn't Obama have announced it already? This morning, he started a two-day swing through Virginia.
Re: McCain's Gains
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 11:15AM
One of the interesting things about that Zogby poll is that Obama's support dropped 11 percent among Catholics to an abysmal 36 percent -- and this survey was taken before all of the recent focus on Obama's abortion views in the wake of the Saddleback forum. To put this in some perspective, in 2000, Gore captured 50 percent of Catholics and in 2004, Kerry captured 47 pecent.
Also, the poll showed a dramatic 12 point decline in support for Obama among voters under the age of 35, and -- at 47 percent --Obama no longer has a clear majority of support within this age group, which is utterly shocking.
In a little more than two weeks, we will have had two conventions and two VP selections, so there's only so much you can take from any one poll at this point. But it's pretty clear now that McCain' strategy of going after Obama's celebrity image has had its effect.
Enquirer: Rielle & Edwards' Love Child
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 10:35AM
(Via Hot Air) Love that blurb: "He begged her NOT to abort the baby." Seems Edwards is a closet pro-lifer. Who knew?
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
This Gives New Meaning...
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 10:03AM
...to the phrase, "Brother, can you spare a dime?"
Disturbing
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 9:50AM
POLL: MCCAIN 46%, OBAMA 41%
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 8:28AM
Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey shows.Almost enough to make you suspect that Obama has been overrated.
McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin. . . .
This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month - in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%.
The Turning Tide
Posted by on 8.20.08 @ 1:05AM
David Gergen's question -- "Is the Tide Turning?" -- gets a possible answer from a Real Clear Politics map showing John McCain moving ahead in the Electoral College for the first time. This includes "leaners" and it might be a bit early to start making D.C. hotel reservations for Jan. 20, but . . .
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Messaging Gap
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 6:46PM
What a difference a few weeks make. It wasn't too long ago that the prevailing viewpoint was that Obama was running on a clear change message, while McCain's campaign lacked a coherent, overarching, theme.
Today, liberal blogger Josh Marshall writes:
McCain's message is pretty clear and essentially twofold: 1) Obama is, in so many words, a frivolous phony, someone who really doesn't have any business running for president. 2) McCain is a strong leader who can defend the country. There are all sorts of sub- and secondary themes -- Obama's an outsider, questionably American, etc. But all the nitty gritty points are subservient to those two interlocking messages.
From Obama, honestly, I don't sense a really clear message. There are attacks on McCain, some of which are quite good. There are positive uplifting commercials. And there are ads/messages targeted to particular states -- like Yucca Mountain in Utah and the DHL layoffs in Ohio. But it's hard for me to come up with a clear cut Obama message in way that it's pretty simple for me to do with McCain. Even the 'change' message, which is the basis of Obama's campaign, seems much more diffuse to me than it was during the pimaries.
The difference, I think, is that during the Democratic primaries, the eagerness for change was felt so passionately among the electorate, that once Obama tapped into that desire, he was off to the races. Clearly the electorate as a whole also wants change, but I'm not sure that they are frothing at the mouth to the extent that Democratic voters were. That's not to say that Obama can't win. It's just that the bar is higher. Giving lofty speeches about "change" is no longer enough. Obama needs a second act.
Obama Declining Favorables
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 5:40PM
The new LA Times/Bloomberg poll
Overall, Obama holds a narrow edge over the Arizona senator, 45% to 43%, which falls within the poll's margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. In June, Obama was ahead by 12 points. Other polls at that time showed him with a narrower lead.
More striking than the head-to-head matchup, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating in the run-up to his selection of a running mate and the Democratic National Convention next week in Denver.
Obama's favorable rating has sunk to 48% from 59% since the last Times/Bloomberg poll in June. At the same time, his negative rating has risen to 35% from 27%.
By comparison, McCain's ratings have hardly budged during the same period: 46% of voters have a positive feeling about him; 38% give him negative ratings.
It seems that with the celebrity theme, the McCain campaign finally hit on something that is sticking.
Giant Snake Crisis Averted!
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 5:01PM
It seems that not too long ago certain global warming doomsayers were predicting the imminent invasion of the American homeland by pythons. Here's how National Geographic's news blog puts it:
A new study using a different computer model released this week suggests otherwise. Climate change will actually seriously impact the current range of the reptile in the U.S., confining it to the swampy southern fringe of Florida.
But what won't happen in fact should most certainly happen in fiction. Samuel L. Jackson call your agent!
Intrade Trends Favor McCain
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 4:27PM
In mid-July, Barack Obama's shares in the Intrade speculation market peaked at 68. Today, he's at 59.9.
Meanwhile, John McCain's shares, which were trading around 30 in mid-July, are now at 37.
That's a 15-point swing to McCain in the space of a month.
Why Not Portman?
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:59PM
The supposed selection of Dayton, Ohio, just up the road from Rob Portman's Cincinnati, has people once again putting him higher on the list of McCain's possible Veep picks. While I actually think Portman would be a fine selection, because by all accounts he is a solid guy, I repeat my earlier contention that politically he falls WELL short of BOTH of the other should-be candidates that he has most in common with.
Compared to John Kasich, also former congressman from Ohio, Portman has less of the personal touch, less of the "everyman" persona, no blue-collar background, represented a safer Ohio district (and thus brings with him fewer "swing" voters), has only one state he calls home compared to Kasich's Ohio AND Pennyslvania, has fewer real accomplishments as a legislator, was a Budget Chief (OMB) during a time of high deficits compared to the balanced budget under Kasich as House Budget Chief, is extremely closely tied with the Bushes (a big negative) whereas Kasich isn't, and has a lower profile because he doesn't have a national TV show.
Compared to Chris Cox, he has the extensive Bush ties rather than the helpful Cox ties to the Reagan White House (and also Cox heads an agency independent of the White House rather than being a trade rep and budget director FOR this Bush White House), has FAR fewer accomplishments in Congress, has no real experience with Russia and far less with China than Cox, has a much less interesting back story (no broken back, no hockey injuries), has a slightly less impressive academic record (no DUAL grad degree in law AND business), has far less support among knowledgeable grass-roots folks, has less cache with the conservative movement and especially with movement intellectuals (such as George Will or the WSJ edit board), offers no entree into any "new" constituency (compared to Cox's ability to be cast as an absolute hero to the whole tech world because of his authorship of the Internet Tax Free Act and his defense of Silicon Valley from the ravages of trial lawyer scofflaw Bill Lerach).... and lots else, too. And they rank equal in terms of geographic advantages: the Cincy suburbs are GOP anyway, and McCain needs to fish elsewhere for Ohio votes; whereas Cox helps marginally in his birth state of Minnesota.
Politically, he offers nothing that is BETTER than what Kasich or Cox offers. Again, he's safe and he's smart and he's a good guy -- but what, pray tell, does he ADD to the ticket?
'Dream Ticket' Dreams Won't Die
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:07PM
Some Democrats do not rule out the possibility that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton could be playing it supercool, only to increase the splash of seeing Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, reach out to his old bete noire. . . .With 28% of Denver convention delegates saying they want Hillary as VP, it's important to encourage this soon-to-be-extinguished spark of hope, just so their disappointment is as bitter as possible.
"If he determines that Hillary after all is the best choice to help him to win and to govern," said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant in New York, "they are capable of pulling off what would be the greatest head fake in American political history."
Andrew Sullivan, Meet Jerome Corsi
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:05PM
Ross Douthat on Corsi and one of his colleagues. He obviously isn't arguing that they are morally equivalent, but he is saying their recent fixations have a comparable impact on the campaign's tone.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 11:44AM
Fairness, even if that just means robbing the rich
Narrowing... in New York?
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 9:56AM
A new Sienna poll has John McCain within 8 points of Barack Obama in New York -- the same poll had him trailing by 18 in August, while the New York Sun also notes the closeness of the race in Pennslyvania ( a recent poll had it within 5). In the wake of the pro-choice trial balloon you have to wonder if McCain is thinking he could have a chance to pick off a Northeastern state with Rudy, Ridge, or Lieberman on the ticket. For what it's worth, I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If It's Biden...
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 9:41AM
Republican ad makers will have a field day creating television spots with clips of Joe Biden saying that Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience. Biden's "articulate and bright and clean" comments received a lot of play, but it's worth noting that in the same interview, he said, that Obama couldn't win because he's "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate....I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic." I interviewed Biden in Ottumwa, Iowa a day before the caucuses and he said, "Barack Obama hasn't passed anything that I'm aware of. "
This Ain't Over
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 6:17AM
Lee Stranahan looks ahead to where the Edwards scandal is headed next. And he has a nice run-on riposte to the how-dare-you-report-this chorus:
A former Senator and vice-presidential candidate misused campaign contributions and money pledged to fight poverty so he could bring his mistress on the campaign trail with him during the presidential campaign where he was constantly making appearances with his widely admired cancer stricken wife then fathered the mistress's child sometime around the time he was getting a Father Of The Year Award and then asked his loyal aid who already has a wife and kids to falsely claim paternity while the fake dad and the mistress were funneled money so they could move to be near the mistress's psychic healer friend while the former candidate continued to meet the mistress and baby until he was caught by tabloid reporters and hid in the bathroom and then confessed on national TV a couple of weeks later but both he and his wife continued to lie during that interview and in subsequent statements.In related news: As you might have heard, John Edwards's father worked at a mill. The mill just burned down, possibly due to a highly combustible metaphor.And the press is supposed to yawn that story off?
Re: Did CNN Jump the Gun on Bayh?
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 1:45AM
Oh, come on, that's an obvious hoax. The story is impossible -- if the name had leaked that widely, CNN wouldn't be the only one who got it -- and the copy in the "screenshot" is full of typos and is in the wrong font (compare to e.g.). Keep your heads in the game, people!
Re: Did CNN Jump the Gun on Bayh?
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:52AM
If the Bayh rumor turns out to be true, I'll be happier than a clam in Denmark.
Dynamic Divergence
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:50AM
Today TAS has two (count 'em!) articles on the second biggest blockbuster of all time, The Dark Knight. James Bowman hates it with the passion of a thousand movie critics who had to sit through Biodome. Jeffrey Lord thinks the fantastical flick is a signal in the clouds showing that John McCain will win the election and beat those super villians... er, terrorists!
And while you're getting your daily dose of Batmanalia, check
out
this piece in the Guardian by yours
truly. Learn why the the first words that escaped my lips after
this two-and-a-half hour tour de something
were "Holy
hypocrisy, Batman!"
Did CNN Jump the Gun on Bayh?
Posted by on 8.19.08 @ 12:10AM
The blog Shots on the House has a screen capture of a quickly-pulled CNN story that reported an error by an Obama intern prematurely revealed that the VP pick was Evan Bayh. Something is fishy about this story. How would a 21 year-old intern have access to information that's supposed to be such a closely guarded secret? We'll know soon enough, but if it turns out that this is how the VP announcement gets out, it'll be a serious flub by the Obama camp.
Monday, August 18, 2008
McCain To Announce on Aug. 29?
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 8:38PM
In Ohio, Mike Allen reports. That would be a day after Barack Obama gives his acceptance speech.
Mark Salter Tells Byron York...
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 7:02PM
DRUDGE: OBAMA VP WED. A.M.?
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 6:56PM
Obama has set an elaborate roll-out to announce his decision that will begin with an early morning e-mail to supporters, perhaps as early as Tuesday, [NY Times reporters] Zeleny and Adam Nagourney have been told.
A top source close to Caroline Kennedy tells DRUDGE -- the pick is more likely to come early Wednesday morning.
Which almost certainly means Tim Kaine, who'll appear with Obama in Martinsville, Va., at an invitation-only event Wednesday.
UPDATE: The New York Times story is now online and no big whoop:
Senator Barack Obama has all but finalized his choice for a running mate and set an elaborate roll-out plan for his decision, beginning with an early morning alert to supporters, perhaps as soon as Wednesday, followed by a trip to swing states by the new Democratic ticket, aides said. . . .Nothing really earthshaking in this story, for anyone who's been watching the veepstakes closely.
Mr. Obama had not notified his choice -- or any of those not selected -- of his decision as of late Monday, advisers said. Going into the final days, Mr. Obama was said to be focused mainly on three candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.
Fingers Crossed...
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 6:23PM
Obama's Road to Socialized Medicine
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 6:12PM
In my health care article for our July/August issue, I note that while it isn't accurate to say that Barack Obama's health care plan is socialized medicine, it's true that if implemented it would lead to a socialized system over time.
At a campaign event today in
Well, I’ve said this before. If I were designing a system from scratch, then I'd probably set up a single-payer system…. But the problem is we're not starting from scratch...You've got a whole system of institutions that have been set up. Making that transition in a rapid way I think would be very difficult. And people don't have time to wait. They need relief now. So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we may be over time -- as we make the system more efficient and everybody's cover -- decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.
Video here.
The key here is that Obama's health care plan is rigged so that the only conclusion people will reach over time is that we have to go to a single-payer system. For instance, his plan would require insurers to accept anybody who applies for coverage. This will mean a mass exodus of healthy people from the market, because they know they can now save premiums by simply waiting until they get sick to apply for coverage. Therefore, the private market would collapse – something we've already seen in states that have implemented so-called "guaranteed issue" plans. Meanwhile, Obama's plan includes a new government-run option modeled after Medicare. So, over time, Obama's hope is that he can simultaneously build up the government-run part of the system while destroying the private market. It's been pretty obvious to anybody who closely examined the issue, but Obama telegraphed his intentions today.
Also, ever since the primaries, Obama has denied ever being a proponent of a single-payer system, arguing only that he had supported one theoretically, if we were "starting from scratch."
But here's what he actually said in 2003 (video here):
I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the
United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world…cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. … A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. … [A]s all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House."
Since then, Democrats have taken back the House and Senate. The presidency is the only thing now standing in the way of Obama's long-term plan to bring socialized medicine to
Biden Time?
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 5:28PM
Eric Pfeiffer rounds up the buzz. Marc Ambinder mentions that Biden is back from his trip to Georgia. Biden is something of a gaffe machine, but he's still a better pick than Tim Kaine.
T-Paw Against the Surge
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 5:26PM
I missed this, but Chris Cilizza caught it: After Pawlenty attacked Obama for standing by his opposition to the surge, Bayh responded incredulously: "Tim, you opposed the surge....I read about it in your hometown newspaper." Pawlenty was rocked back on his heels, noting that he had said at the time that he was "skeptical" of the surge.
To me, this should disqualify Pawlenty. It steps all
over one of McCain's key talking points. If McCain thinks he has
settled on T-Paw, well, there's a line from a song in the movie
Oliver: I think he better think it out again!
"Vice President of Lameness, Maybe"
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 3:52PM
The Onion imagines the perspective that Tim Kaine's kids might bring to the veep speculation.
Another Vote for Kasich
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 3:44PM
Here's a perceptive writer (I would say that even if he had not been so kind as to mention me in the column) who casts another vote for Kasich for Veep. He makes a good case.
McCain's Veepstakes
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 2:52PM
I assume it will be Pawlenty. Mitt Romney seems like the only other name that's even in the mix, and there's a campaign against him led by Mike Huckabee.
Re: Demoralized Va. GOP
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 2:38PM
Tabin: "I've talked to Virginia Republicans who are so demoralized that they privately think Obama has their state in the bag already."
These are Northern Virginia Republicans, I presume? Proximity to DC always makes Republicans faint-hearted. I remember in 2006, they barely even ran yard-sign operations for Allen in Arlington and Fairfax. You can look at the vote totals and see that there are still tens of thousands of Republican voters in those counties, but in terms of activism, they're pathetic.
RE: Veepstakes
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 2:31PM
Yeah, Quin and Jim, you're probably right about Pawlenty. The reason I picked Romney is because the Democats' trouble with Kwame Kilpatrick (scandal) and Jennifer Granholm (taxes) seems to have put Michigan in play, and the Romney name might mean a few thousand votes there. But I suppose Pawlenty's got more Midwestern Rust Belt credibility to help in Michigan.
Giuliani? Phil, have you been getting enough rest lately? Your friends are getting worried.
Your reactions to the Kaine pick as "stupid" and "foolish" echoes what I just heard from a reporter who's still got a thick stack of oppo-research left over from 2005.
Obama's Veepstakes
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 2:23PM
The camera following Tim Kaine is good evidence that Team Obama is leaning toward a bad pick. Kaine just isn't ready for prime time. Exhibit A: his embarrassing response last week to fairly transparent Russian disinformation. Chuck Todd speculated yesterday that Putin knocked Kaine off the list. Besides, I've talked to Virginia Republicans who are so demoralized that they privately think Obama has their state in the bag already.
It seems to me that the smart pick for Obama would be Gen. Anthony Zinni. You don't get more foreign policy gravitas in the Democratic universe; Zinni was one of the few people who was against invading Iraq and in favor of the surge. Naturally, he's barely on the radar in the latest round of speculation. But just in case, I called Zinni's publicist this afternoon to check on his appearance schedule; he was in transit but said he'd get back to me by email. UPDATE: Zinni has "a brutal travel schedule well into the future, and any speaking appearances are all closed to the public," says the publicist. I assume that means he's not expecting to be on the campaign trail.
Even Agnotheists Get It
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 2:17PM
Megan McArdle explains why it's not so strange for religious faith to influence one's politics.
Veepstakes
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 1:57PM
My guess is that McCain will pick Pawlenty. His Tom Ridge comments were a serious trial balloon, so Ridge is a possibility unless the conservative reacton dissuaded him (which you can never guarantee with McCain). There's an outside chance he'll pick Eric Cantor. Cantor would be the least bad, but I take Quin's point about the political risks.
Obama seems to be inching toward Tim Kaine, foolishly in my view, though it could help him flip Virginia. If he wants a more seasoned foreign-policy hand, he could choose Sam Nunn. Or he could try to replicate Walter Mondale's success and have an Obama-Ferraro unity ticket.
UPDATE: Of course, the Ridge comments could just as easily have been a trial balloon for Giuliani as for Ridge himself.
Never Let 'Em See You Think
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 1:25PM
Wall Street Journal takes a solid whack at Mr. This Thing Is Over--God apparently confirmed this via Nancy Pelosi--for his Thomas diss this weekend. Here's a goodly portion:
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Pawlenty
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 12:55PM
Our own Mr. McCain (Robert Stacy, not John) asked for our predictions on the Veepstakes by 3 p.m. Well, I'll bite. Obama will choose Kaine. (A stupid move, by the way. All along, I have thought he would go Bayh or Sibelius, but the signs point to Kaine now.) The three most likely are in that order: Kaine, Bayh, Sibelius, with my long-shot being Nunn.
McCain will pick Pawlenty. I don't like it, but there it is. The second most likely move would be a panic move of picking Cantor to counter Kaine. Would not be smart. Cantor's K Street ties would be used to seriously dent McCain's anti-lobbyist schtick.
For whatever reason, the McCain camp doesn't seem to be
considering Kasich (or Cox, for that matter, but they surely were
interested in him at one point).
Again, my predictions: Kaine and Pawlenty.
My further predictions: Neither one carries his home state for his
ticket.
Obama-Kaine '08
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 11:59AM
The signs are waaaay too obvious:
"Kaine spent 20 minutes huddled in a backroom, where he said he was 'filming a little thing' for the Obama campaign," Tim Craig reports for The Washington Post. "The cameraman later followed Kaine to Henrico County, where he held a town-hall meeting for Obama. But campaign officials stress the 'filming' of Kaine has nothing to do with Obama's choice of a running mate."You don't need a secret decoder ring to read this one, kids: When they send a camera crew to get footage for the candidate's convention biopic, it's a done deal.
Virginia is the new Ohio.
The Rudy Scenario
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 11:44AM
He's pro-choice. He's close to John McCain. And now Rudy Giuliani's former spokeswoman, Maria Comella, sends word that she is joing the McCain campaign where she "will be serving as the press secretary to the eventual Vice Presidential nominee."
I can't really see McCain-Giuliani happening, because Giuliani has never seemed to be in the VP mix. And though I like Rudy and thought he would have made a good president, I don't think he'd be well suited for the second slot, and always thought that if either McCain or Giuliani were the nominee, they'd have to select a VP who would satisfy conservatives.
But McCain and Giuliani do get along well, and Giuliani's endorsement right after Florida helped seal the deal for McCain. It would certainly double down on the experience and national security themes, and Giuliani is well-versed in talking about economic issues.
If I were a betting man, I'd be betting against this. But hey, it's McCain we're talking about here. Anything can happen.
UPDATE: Rudy will be in Denver next week to offer reaction on the Democratic convention.
Re: Sullivan's Smear
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 10:54AM
Does anybody take Sully seriously anymore? He's just so transparently subjective, and seems completely lacking in self-awareness, as Ace of Spades noted the other day when Sully called John McCain (I kid you not) a "drama queen."
Sullivan Spreads Smear of McCain's POW Record
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 10:27AM
It's not surprising that Andrew Sullivan is a bit touchy about the fact that John McCain outperformed Barack Obama on Saturday, but he reaches a new low by approvingly linking to a post on DailyKos accusing McCain of fabricating his story about a North Vietnamese guard drawing a cross in the sand on Christmas while he was a POW.
The DailyKos post says that McCain stole the story from Solzhenitsyn, who recounted a fellow prisoner drawing a cross in the sand -- as if, with 2 billion Christians in the world, it's totally impossible that two separate crosses could have been drawn in the ground in two different prison camps.
The other "evidence"? In McCain's initial account of his captivity for a 1973 magazine article, Sullivan notes, McCain doesn't tell the story! I'd like to see anybody attempt to consolidate five and a half years of their life into a single article, and see if they include everything that ever happened to them -- let alone spending that time as a POW. Yet Sullivan hyperventilates, "I have one simple question: when was the first time that McCain told this story?"
Technically, there's no real way to confirm the story, since it was a personal experience of McCain. But what we do know is that McCain's fellow prisoners have consistently corroborated other aspects of his captivity account, and have nothing but the highest praise for his character. Yet now Sullivan is engaging in partisan smear tactics by implying that McCain is making up stories about his POW experience for political gain.
One expects this sort of thing from DailyKos, because the angry left is eager to get back at Republicans for going after John Kerry's war record. But Sullivan has been consistently sanctimonious whenever anybody questions the character -- or war record -- of a politician. Any criticism of Obama's character generates an instant irate response from Sullivan as a vicious "smear." In fact, the very appeal of Obama, Sullivan has argued, is that he will move the nation beyond this destructive brand of Rovian/Swift Boat politics.
Yet now he's become such a shameless shill for the Obama campaign that without a shred of evidence, he's ready to question McCain's account of his own captivity, leapfrogging off of a frantic post on a partisan left-wing site. Absolutely shameful.
Veepstakes: Spectator Office Pool
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 10:15AM
OK, guys, the guessing game's getting close enough to showtime that we're liable to get a bona fide leak before supper, so it's time to lay your money down. Remember: This is who you think will get the nod, not who you think should. Here's my picks:
OBAMA
- WIN -- Tim Kaine
- PLACE -- Joe Biden
- SHOW -- Hillary Clinton
McCAIN
- WIN -- Mitt Romney
- PLACE -- Tom Ridge
- SHOW -- Tim Pawlenty
Bob Barr Be Jammin'
Posted by on 8.18.08 @ 9:47AM
With some Bob Marley. Would have been cooler if it had been Marvin Gaye, ZZ Top or the Gap Band, but Marley's pretty cool. Way cooler than Abba, that's for sure.
On the other hand, Barr may just be pandering for the Rastafarian vote. He should grow some dreads.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Tea Leaves Spell K-A-I-N-E?
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 10:43PM
An invitation-only town hall Wednesday in Martinsville, Va., population 15,416, and at least one liberal blogger sees this as a sign that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine will be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.
Clinton Delegates Support Hillary as VP
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 8:02PM
As I pointed out at Pajamas Media, the common-sense logic of the Obama-Clinton "dream ticket" is such that many Hillary supporters still believe her to be the obvious choice as running mate. Most Oklahoma Democratic convention delegates agree:
Of the 14 Clinton delegates who responded to an Oklahoman survey last week, 11 named Clinton as their first choice for running mate. Obama is expected to announce his choice this week. Mildred Banks, a delegate from Tulsa, said, "As a delegate pledged to Hillary Clinton, and as chair of Tulsa Area Hillraisers for Hillary Clinton, my pick for VP is Hillary Clinton. She brings 18 million voters -- more than any candidate in history."
Don't bother arguing with me. Take it up with Mildred.
UPDATE: Similar news from New Mexico:
Hillary supporters in the audience included Paulette Atencio, 61, of Chama, who worked for Clinton in the primary. Clinton narrowly won New Mexico's Democratic caucus in February, getting 14 delegates, compared to 12 for Obama. "Way deep in our hearts we are very disappointed," Atencio said. If Obama doesn't select Clinton as his running mate, she said she would support McCain in the general election Nov. 4.Does Obama think these ladies are kidding?
UPDATE II: The Hillary-or-else message is also being heard from Texas:
Ramona "Monchi" De La Paz Torres wants to see that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton gets the respect she deserves at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. "I'm going to stick to Hillary to the end," said De La Paz Torres, who lives in Central El Paso. She's one of 10 El Paso Democrats who will be delegates at the convention Aug. 25-28. . . .UPDATE III: Big Tent Democrat says of Clinton as VP, "I've never seen a bigger no-brainer in my life," and links Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, who says:
De La Paz Torres said she's not sure she can vote for Obama. . . .
"He's not experienced enough for him to handle the presidential decisions right now," she said. "I feel that he should have waited."
Blanche Darley, a fellow Clinton delegate from Central El Paso, said she doesn't like Obama, doesn't trust him and doesn't think he has paid attention to the needs of Mexican-Americans.
"I don't believe in him," she said.
I think Obama might get an immediate 10-15 point bounce if he named her. . . . It's a crazy scenario, but the whole Obama veepstakes has been crazy enough that I wouldn't rule it out.(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Andrea Mitchell: McCain Cheated
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 7:42PM
On "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell passed along an unsubstantiated and anonymous charge from Team Obama that John McCain cheated in the Saddleback forum:
The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.Obviously, no mere mortal could outperform Obama in a debate, and therefore there is no need to offer evidence in support of this anonymous assertion, or to seek a response from the McCain campaign.
The Warren Courtship
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 7:13PM
I agree that McCain did better than Obama. Obama's greenness occasionally showed and it is clear that the two candidates can't really compare in life stories, even if Obama does a better job of writing about his. McCain was more effective at connecting with the audience and displaying his sense of humor. But it's worth noting that this was a friendly crowd. McCain has rarely been so comfortable talking about abortion and other social issues, but rarely does he get to speak to an audience that so overwhelmingly agrees with him over Obama on "culture war" topics. While Obama has made some modest inroads among evangelicals, McCain is still beating him among these voters 68 percent to 24 percent.
Renewed Case for Cox
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 4:06PM
Look, I know that Chris Cox hasn't shown much interest in the vice presidency. But the McCain team ought to try to convince him to run. Four considerations now should make Cox's star ascendant.
First and most importantly, there is the renewed focus on the threat from Russia. The Georgia disaster has gotten through the clutter and impressed the American public mind as something very important. And it makes it all the more important, therefore, to have an administration that understands Russia. Chris Cox, better than anybody out there, can make that claim. He actually knows the Russian language, fluently. So fluently in fact that he once ran a business translating Pravda into English, during the height of the Cold War, so that State Department types could see what the Soviets really were saying (and thus better be able to counter whatever the Soviets were up to).
Second, there is the big Olympic spotlight on China right now, and on how potentially dangerous China can be, along with what opportunities they offer as well. While Fred Thompson's special committee looking into Chinese influence-peddling was fizzling a bit in the 1990s, Cox led a similar House committee, focused mostly on Chinese espionage, and it was a tremendous success. It unearthed a bunch of highly useful data, and it issued a unanimous, bipartisan report -- a near miracle during a time of strong partisan antipathy on Capitol Hill. The report was almost universally praised at the time. And in recent months I have been at a private lunch where, apropos of nothing, the host (an impressive man) began reminiscing about the days when Cox was leading House Policy Committee discussions on the Hill, specifically on China, and about how thoughtful and insightful Cox was.
Third, there is the uptick in the past month in the stock market, and in the value of the dollar. It is true that Cox has been widely pilloried for his move at the SEC to crack down on naked short selling, but the simple fact is that the market began recovering ON THE VERY DAY that Cox announced his plan, indeed almost to the minute. The McCain camp can make a serious argument that the Cox move on short-selling was exactly the thing that stopped the economic panic and started the recovery. Along the same lines, I and others who know him far better than I do can all attest that Cox's knowledge of economics, commitment to conservative economic principles, and ability to talk about (and explain in comprehensible terms) those principles, are all absolutely first-rate. Again, this ability of his would greatly help alleviate one of McCain's weaknesses.
Fourth, while this isn't a major public issue, it also should be of way more help than hindrance: This is THE year, of all years, that the class-action plaintiffs' bar is most in disprepute, what with folks like Bill Lerach, Mel Weiss, and Dickie Scruggs all going to prison. Well, the fact is that the guy most responsible for putting Lerach and Weiss in jail is Chris Cox. IT was Cox who wrote the law, almost singlehandedly, that explicitly made it illegal for lawyers to do the exat sorts of underhanded things that Lerach and Weiss were doing. Cox even mentioned Lerach by name, at the time, as a target of the law. After Lerach visited Clinton at the White House, Clinton vetoed Cox's law -- and then Congress overrode the veto and implemented the law anyway, the ONLY time in eight years that Congress overrode a Clinton veto. Then Lerach and Weiss broke the new law, and now they have been caught and imprisoned.
There: Those are four good reasons. Add to it the pro-life record of Cox, even going so far as to write a pro-life column on the Supreme Court for the Wall Street Journal when Cox was a junior congressman, at a time when McCain needs to continue working to reassure the Christian right of his pro-life commitment, and you see why Cox would add a lot to the ticket.
Even if Cox hasn't shown much interest in the job, there is still time for McCain's forces to vet him fully (the job is easier because Cox already was fully vetted by the FBI just three years back when he was up for the SEC Chairmanship, a job for which he was unanimously approved by the Senate) and to prepare a great, moving, convincing narrative around a McCain-Cox ticket.
No Separation of Faith and Politics
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 12:04PM
Here's my take in the Guardian on Rick Warren, John McCain, and Barack Obama.
Re: L.A. Times Columnist vs. Corsi
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 11:39AM
I wasn't wasting pixels, John. I was pointing out that Rutten was criticizing publishers -- including Regnery -- for seeking to make a profit. As for defending Corsi, his boss, Joseph Farah, is standing behind him, and Farah can handle the heat.
Borders, who needs em?
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 11:38AM
Am I the only one who can't take either W or John McCain seriously as they ham it up about the sanctity of Georgia's borders? (The Tbilisi Georgia, not the Atlanta Georgia) Neither of these guys has shown much interest in America's borders. Both have suggested that Americans who make a fuss about borders and standards for citizenship are a bunch of nativist yahoos.
Re: LA Times Columnist vs. Corsi
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 6:54AM
I'd advise against expending too many pixels defending Corsi, Stacy. As Jon Henke documents, the guy's a wackjob.
L.A. Times Columnist vs. Corsi
Posted by on 8.17.08 @ 2:43AM
"The Obama Nation" was written and printed because major American publishing houses have decided that there's money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints modeled after the Washington-based Regnery, which has made a small fortune stoking the hard-right furnace with combustible prose. Corsi's book is published by Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster, which hired right-wing political operative Mary Matalin to edit the imprint. Random House has a similar imprint in Crown Forum, and Penguin Group USA has Sentinel. Their business model -- and this is all about business -- is predicated on the existence of an echo chamber of right-wing radio and television shows willing to promote these publishers' products -- however noxious. Beyond that is a network of conservative book clubs and organizations willing to place the sort of advance bulk orders for controversial books that will guarantee them a place on the bestseller lists.
So, basically, Rutten is saying that making money -- profit -- is an unacceptable motive in the publishing industry. If folks at the L.A. Times wonder why they are "struggling with declining revenue," allow me to suggest that having editors who are anti-profit might have something to do with it.
Note also that "right-wing" = "noxious" in Tim Rutten's universe. Is there any left-wing book that Rutten would deem "noxious"?
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
