- 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, October 11, 2008
John McCain: Sarah Palin is No George Wallace
Posted by on 10.11.08 @ 3:26PM
That it should be necessary to say such a thing is half the joke:
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement:
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.
quot;I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement issued today for Politico's Arena forum. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse." . . .
"George Wallace never threw a bomb," Lewis noted. "He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."
I must have missed whatever it was that inspired this from Lewis. Was it the Richard Petty endorsement?
Weaver, Kirk... Brooks?
Posted by on 10.11.08 @ 1:23PM
I was struck by the first three sentences of David Brooks' most recent New York Times column:
Modern conservatism began as a movement of dissident intellectuals. Richard Weaver wrote a book called, “Ideas Have Consequences.” Russell Kirk placed Edmund Burke in an American context.
Brooks then descends into a didactic history presuming to show that the problem with the modern Republican Party is that it doesn't get enough votes in Georgetown, Hyde Park and Berkeley. The GOP, says Brooks, "has lost the educated class by sins of commission -- by telling members of that class to go away." That notion might deserve more examination, but let's look at the two conservative thinkers Brooks name-checked in the opening of that column:
- Richard M. Weaver was a native of North Carolina who grew up in Kentucky, graduating from the University of Kentucky and getting his master's degree at Vanderbilt. He was a student, at one time or another, of John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brooks. He got his Ph.D. at Louisiana State University.
- Russell Kirk was a native of Plymouth, Mich. -- then a small town, now a suburb of Detroit -- who graduated from Michigan State University, got his master's degree at Duke University, and his Ph.D. at St. Andrews in Scotland.
They were very different men, but they had something in common: Neither was a native of any metropolis and both got their undergraduate education at state universities. By contrast, David Brooks grew up in Greenwich Village and is a graduate of the University of Chicago (annual tuition: $35,000).
Beyond these biographical data, it is impossible to place Brooks within the intellectual stream that Weaver and Kirk represent. Weaver's 1943 Ph.D. thesis is available as The Southern Tradition at Bay. Kirk's most famous work, The Conservative Mind, included chapters on John C. Calhoun and John Randolph of Roanoke, the latter of whom Kirk made the subject of an excellent 1951 biography.
Both men were profound admirers of Southern agrarianism, and neither was an admirer of Brooks' heroes, Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt. Brooks, then, has accomplished the neat trick of denouncing Republicans for abandoning a conservative intellectual tradition to which Brooks himself has never belonged, dragooning Kirk and Weaver from the grave as posthumous allies of the apostle of "national greatness."
My Apologies
Posted by on 10.11.08 @ 10:20AM
I have asked Wlady to publish this statement in the letters column, and I have sent it to my mailing list, too.
I’ll be busy this week with a couple of minor surgeries – switching over from peritoneal to hemo dialysis. Your loving responses have humbled me with gratitude, and also made me realize what a complete horse’s ass I made of myself, popping off the way I did. “Writers write,” yes indeed, but more writers, myself included, ought to pay attention to Bill Wilson’s dictum, “Nothing pays off like restraint of tongue and pen.”
I will reproduce a paragraph from a friend’s letter to me for now, and leave it at that.
“Your article broke my heart. First for its dire nature, secondly for your presumption that controlling pain is a character flaw. It isn’t. Neither is it the same as chronic alcoholism. I speak with a knowing clear heart. If God offers a physical measuring to lessen the pain you are going through and your doctor feels it will help in whatever lies ahead, then use it. This in no manner implies you are a mindless addict.”
I will pick up writing in two weeks, and I hope by that time I will write about something a lot more interesting than myself.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama Outspends McCain
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 11:18PM
Everyone seems to have a pet explanation for why John McCain's campaign is tanking. But the fact is that Barack Obama's campaign has massively outspent the Republican in TV advertising over the past month. Here are the TV ad amounts in four swing states during the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4:
Pennsylvania:Ohio:
- Obama -- $2.2 million
- McCain -- $1.6 million
- Obama -- $2.2 million
- McCain -- $1.7 million
Florida:
- Obama -- $2.2 million
- McCain -- $659,000
Virginia:
- Obama -- $2.1 million
- McCain -- $547,000
In those four states (with a combined 81 Electoral College votes), Obama's $8.7 million TV ad expenditure is 93% larger than McCain's $4.5 million.
Re: Antle and Buckley
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 10:33PM
Well, I don't think this should be considered National Review's editorial line anymore than the Derb's village atheism. I'd just call both examples of unpersuasive contrarianism by talented writers. Christopher Buckley himself makes clear that neither NR nor his dad would exactly approve of his choice. And as indefensible as I think a conservative endorsement of Barack Obama is, let's not forget that the alternative is John McCain.
Re: Antle and Buckley
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 10:16PM
That's it, Jim. National Review is dead to me. First, the village atheism of the once interesting Derbyshire and now this.
You finished it. Thank God there's a heaven and WFB is in it. Who would have believed Chris Buckley would turn all Ron Reagan, Jr.?
Okay, I'm emoting a little irrationally, but darn, this is sad, maddening stuff. I'm sure the good folks on the NR ship are mystified.
Erratic
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 6:11PM
J.P., while old and crazy works as an explanation of Maverick's peregrinations, what to make of his aides? When the House initially rejected the bailout, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin blamed Obama:
"Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement after the vote.
"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Holtz-Eakin said.
But in a conference call today, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis took credit for his candidate sinking that bill:
Davis expressed outrage that, "in the middle of the greatest disaster in our financial system that we’d had in our lifetime, that the Democrats in the United States Senate would actually link payments to ACORN in the bailout package that they promoted -- prior to Sen. McCain coming to town and actually blowing that package up. So we can actually say that in addition to saving taxpayers millions of dollars, and we’re very happy that no more taxpayer dollars were added to the pile of money going to ACORN."
So, according to Holtz-Eakin, the failure of the bill was the result of putting "politics ahead of country," whereas according to Davis, the failure saved taxpayers millions. This campaign's looking like the greatest improvisational comedy project since Second City.
Christopher Buckley: Confirmed Obamacon
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 6:10PM
Christopher Buckley comes out and says it: he's voting for Obama. It's a not bad read, though his arguments seem to boil down to hating Sarah Palin, not believing John McCain will balance the federal budget, and enjoying Obama's books.
Supportive, Eh?
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 3:59PM
My heart warms at such kind words: "I'd be embarrassed if I were you. I've never heard of him before... but according to MSNBC he's a managing editor???? You gotta be kidding me." [sic] "tell your boss jp to get some new glasses....guess he likes looking like a clown" [sic] "The Republican Party is, in essence, attempting to lynch Barack Obama." "I just watched some news deal with one of your/our guys getting schooled...this is not good, unless of course you are trying to help Obama. Jp freier [sic] needs to stay off TV..please please...its not about him or his ego....and tell him to lose the clown glasses." For the luvva pete, my contacts were bothering me today. One thing I didn't have the presence of mind to get into was that the "desperation" of the McCain campaign is driving them to attacks. Strangely, it's fairly effective (look up "swiftboating"), so I don't think it's a bad thing to do. But I did notice how Ari Melber of The Nation, who's a party operative, accused the McCain campaign of engaging in "hate," but then took issue with my characterizing his argument as "playing the race card." He deftly employed the "I didn't say race. You did." Welcome to the world of doublespeak. Hate crimes, acts of hate, hateful motives, Hate (with a capital H) are all words associated with racism. If the apologists for Obama really think there's racism abounding, they should just come out and say so, rather than skirt around it and use the euphemisms. Otherwise, they should be more careful in their wording. After all, I've had about enough with Democratic descriptions of John McCain as "erratic." The man is not "erratic." He's old and crazy. Really old. Really crazy.
Gay Marriage in Connecticut
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 3:57PM
The Connecticut Supreme Court has just ruled that Connecticut must recognize same sex marriage, and must use the word "marriage." Dale Carpenter comments:
Needless to say, the timing of the decision is awkward for gay-marriage supporters trying to fend off SSM bans on the November 4 ballot in Arizona, California, and Florida. Stoking resentment of judicial activism, the Connecticut Supreme Court has at the very least probably increased the likelihood that Prop 8 will pass in California.
Biopolitical? Is That Like A Body Politic?
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 3:08PM
I've taken plenty of obnoxious-sounding, esoterically-oriented graduate courses before, but this takes the cake. Official description of an NYU course offered next spring:
"Mediating the Biopolitical Body":
This seminar will engage the material histories, philosophy and political culture of embodiment/disembodiment. The body is situated as the interface of our era’s most contentious political terrains including human rights violations, epidermal stigma, gendered gazes, targeting gazes, and confinement in refugee, detention, torture and concentration camps. For Foucault the formation of the political subject is isomorphic to the formation of the body as a mediating and mediated site. The body has become the screen, the archive and the stylus for political inscription and encryption. For Foucault, Agamben and Esposito the political is concerned with producing forms of life as biopower-- the governing of life and death through subject forming and deforming body-media from surveillance to violence. Previously Hegel, Kojeve, Lacan and Fanon theorized political domination as the spectral occupation and inhabitation of one body by another. Derrida described the current war on terror as the shift from communitas to immunitas, to auto-co-immunity in which the body-politic sacrifices its actuality to protect itself as virtuality. In the above theories the body unfolds as the place where our current historical actuality originates and culminates in a politics of somatic virtuality centered on rogue bodies, illicitly circulating bodies, bodies of animality, disabled, and disabling bodies, and bodies of ideological and bio-medical contagion.
We will examine the body as a political semiotechnique, as material support for political ideology and spectacle and as enabled/disabled by techno-political prosthetics and as the means of political virtualization. We will track several orienting genealogies of the body that roughly run from Hegel and Kojeve to Lacan and Fanon; from Spinoza, Nietzsche and Heidegger, to Deleuze, Foucault, Agamben, Esposito and Derrida; from Merleau-Ponty to Lefort and Ranciere. Among the themes to be explored are: exposability and disposability of the body; torture, embodied witnessing and truth; postcolonial typographies of the body; second bodies, subversive mimesis and political virtuality; political animality and monstrosity; communicable and excommunicated bodies; political violence as auto-immunization.
Only someone with a severe inferiority complex would feel compelled to use such preposterous words to describe what can very concisely be explained as a course on the political relevance of the body. There is no such thing as "biopolitical."
I bet the professor of this course goes up to grad students at Peculiar Pub and says stuff like, "I want to map my epidermal stigma on your biopolitical body."
More Christopher Buckley and Obama
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 3:06PM
At Peter Robinson's request, Christopher Buckley unpacks his views on Obama and the state of American conservatism.
Another Weak McCain Ad
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 12:05PM
I'm sorry, but even when the McCain team does something right -- bring up Bill Ayers -- they do it wrong. See this ad. Chris Cilizza at the Post is right to write this: It feels like two totally different ads in the space of 30 seconds. The first 10 seconds are aimed at tying Obama to Ayers as a way of questioning his judgment; the last 20 seconds are dedicated to painting congressional Democrats as blindly opportunistic when it came to the bailout package. Huh? What does Ayers have to do with congressional Democrats? (A point of clarification from experts in campaign finance law: Because the cost of the ad is split between the McCain campaign and the RNC, it must make mention of Congress. So, that explains that. But, it doesn't make the ad any less confusing for the average viewer.)
I have liked only one (or maybe two) McCain ad(s) since the GOP convention. Every one of the others seems heavy-handed; most of them aren't entirely coherent (they don't close the loop, logically); and almost none of them offer the right sort of tone or (if a positive ad) of serious-, sober-minded hopefulness. But this ad, well, stinks. It doesn't explain who Ayers is, or why or how Obama lied. And it takes a logical leap -- no, a Snake River Canyon Evel Knievel blastoff (and pathetic flameout) -- to meld Ayers with congressional Democrats. Cilizza isn't the only one who just won't get it, largely because there's nothing logical to, uh.... to get got.
Another thing: All of this ominous music and scary-sounding narration is terrible. It defeats the purpose of the ad. Voters DO want relevant information; they do NOT want negative or nasty campaigns. By using all the ominous music, ominous wording, and omimous narrator's intonations, the commercials SCREAMABSOLUTELYFRIGGINSCREAMWAYTOOLOUD that this is an ATTACK COMMERCIAL. It basically tells the viewer two things: First, we think you are too stupid to get it unless we use every device known to man to beat the message into your skull; and second, that we are on the attack and are trying to scare you about the other guy. So it therefore comes across, on its face, as, yes, a sign of a negative or nasty campaign. The effect is for the viewer to tune out the substance of the message, to discount it immediately, or even to react AGAINST it and therefore against McCain.
There is every good reason to raise real concerns about Ayers and Wright and Rezco and the other conglomeration of low-lifes who have been so important a part of Obama's career. The concerns are a wholly legitimate issue. But the way to do it is by presenting the facts in a concise and cogent manner, with no bells and whistles and Friday-the-13th music, in a way that makes clear WHY the issue should be important to the viewer.
The McCain ads fail on all counts. Badly. Disastrously.
Re: The Democrats' 1980
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 11:10AM
Jim, one has to be careful with analogies. We are in a situation -- with neither an incumbent president nor incumbent vice president running -- that we haven't seen since 1952. This election features the oldest nominee ever versus the first black nominee. We're having an election in the middle of two wars and an economic meltdown. So mining history in search of an apt analogy may be a waste of time.
The other day, a friend said to me, "Well, Al Gore was ahead by 11 and lost." Yes, but Gore was the de facto incumbent in 2000, and George W. Bush was the fresh young face of change. The analogy doesn't fit.
On the general topic of polling, it is worth mentioning that we've got a lot more polls to look at now than we've ever had before, and all available with one click at Real Clear Politics. (Eight years ago, RCP didn't exist and when my job at The Washington Times required me to put together weekly swing-state poll roundup graphics, that meant Google searching and compiling them myself.)
Now, one can see all the battleground-state polls on one page. Also, there are now five national daily tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, Battleground and Hotline) which means that there is less likelihood that we're going to be misled by a bad sample or a short-term statistical glitch in one poll. So while, yes, polls have been wrong before, we now have access to a much larger pool of data and surely some of it must be right.
Liberal Question of the Day
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 11:02AM
Asked in a comments thread about Sarah Palin: "How can she be pro-life, but then go on hunting trips with her family?" It reminds me of a conversation I recounted some years ago on the main site between a pro-life friend and the then-antiabortion Dennis Kucinich:
A friend of mine makes it a point to thank politicians who share his commitment to the pro-life cause whenever the opportunity presents itself. A few years ago, he approached his congressman, Dennis Kucinich, and thanked him for standing up for the unborn despite the pressures of belonging to a pro-choice party.
"I am very consistent on this issue," Kucinich replied. "I don’t eat meat."
Babies=hamburgers. Or mooseburgers.
The Democrats' 1980
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 11:00AM
Frequently when I express pessismism about McCain's electoral prospects, people bring up the 1980 election. The polls said that race was close too, but Ronald Reagan won in a landslide -- by nearly 10 points in the popular vote and with the electoral votes of 44 states. But that example may bolster my case rather than theirs. If you accept the theory that McCain is the quasi-incumbent, since he is running as the nominee of the incumbent party, then Obama is in the Reagan role and McCain is reprising Carter.
If Obama can close the sale the way Reagan did, he can win the election. The fact that several national polls still show Obama with only a small lead means that he hasn't completely closed the sale and McCain has at least some chance. But if I were running for president, I'd rather be in Obama's shoes right now.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 10:30AM
I'm a Vermontah, I do what I wantah (Culture11)
Politicians who lace up the gloves (WSJ)
George McGovern thinks Obama's way too liberal on card-check (NRO)
Politicians love Fannie and Freddie, hate free-market reformers (Forbes)
Tough compromises ahead in Afghanistan for the new president to face (Christian Science Monitor)
A Catholic voting for Obama despite his pro-choice proclivities is like... (Inside Catholic)
False dichotomy: cultural conservatives and intellectual conservative principles (Cruchy Con)
One way to keep politicians honest: hook 'em up to polygraphs (AP)
How Left Can We Get?
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 10:08AM
On the main site, Jim has an important article about the increasingly grim prospects for the GOP in Senate races. With each pasing day, it's looking more and more feasible that Democrats could either gain a literal filibuster-proof majority of 60, or at least get close enough to it that it would be effectively filibuster-proof, with the only bulwark against liberal legislation nominally Republican Senators such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
But one thing that may offer a glimmer of hope is that even though Democrats are poised for another huge victory next month, by in large, they aren't running as liberals, at least not at the presidential level, which I've obviously been following more closely. Barack Obama has spent his entire general election campaign actually running away from his liberal record, trying to convince Americans that he's for lower taxes, gun rights, aggressive pursuit of terrorists (outside of Iraq), a "net spending cut," and health care that isn't government run.
No doubt that Obama, aided by an even more Democratic Congress, would try to push liberal legislation, but when the euphoria over campaign season "change" rhetoric has passed, and Americans actually see some details, will public outcry help to stymie any progressive agenda as it did during the Clinton years? Sure, a lot of bad stuff would get through, but how left can they go without seriously endangering their prospects in 2010? Remember, Democratic politicians may be liberal, but they'll always be politicians first.
UPDATE: A Susan Collins defender has written in to argue that she gets a bum rap from conservatives, citing Collins's opposition to the Farm Bill, strong opposition to card check legislation, and votes to confirm Roberts and Alito.
Obama's Dodgy Donations
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 9:23AM
The NY Times has a new article out finding additional suspicious names given for people making a series of small contributions under $200. I was surprised that the Times would run such an article, but the more I read, the more it became clear how guilty the paper was for having run something that raised any questions about Obama, so there's a series of passages in which the paper is sure to point out that it isn't suggesting the donations wouldn't involve fraud, and at no point does the article mention the most serious potential problem with the contributions -- that they could allow foreign donors to influence American elections. We already know, for instance, that the Obama campaign had to return $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in Gaza who had placed a bulk t-shirt order. This came on top of an Al Jazeera report of Palestinians in Gaza phonebanking for Obama.
In just a few days of analysis, the Times was able to come up with 3,000 questionable donations including $40,000 worth of shady contributions merely by eyeballing suspicious names. That suggests to me that that there would be a whole heck of a lot more going on if you went through Obama's universe of 2.5 million donors and began challenging each one, especially if he disclosed the donors who donated under $200, which is not required by law.
Some of my favorite lines in the Times piece:
It is unclear why someone making a political donation would want to enter a false name. Some perhaps did it for privacy reasons. Another, more ominous possibility, of course, is fraud, perhaps in order to donate beyond the maximum limits....
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, highlighted the more than 2.5 million donors it had to wade through. "We have been aggressive about taking every available step," he said, "to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary."
But even a contributor who used the name "Jgtj Jfggjjfgj," and listed an address of "thjtrj" in "gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP," was able to contribute $370 in a series of $10 donations in August.
A pair of donors named "Derty West" and "Derty Poiiuy," who listed "rewq, ME" as their addresses and "Qwertyyy" or "Qwerttyyu" as either their employer or occupation, contributed a combined $1,110 in July.
Maverick: Slogan, Not A Philosophy
Posted by on 10.10.08 @ 9:00AM
It seems to me David Harsanyi has got the mess that is the John McCain campaign just about right.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Let. Her. Loose. Please.
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 5:40PM
Read this transcript. Look. Palin's nervous about the attack dog reporters on the bus. She's uncomfortable in her speech. So here's my thought -- let *her* figure out the message of the McCain campaign, and find a way for it to exclude the term "maverick."
Re: Buckley and Obama?
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 5:30PM
If Christopher Buckley does end up voting for Obama, he'll have flipped a bit in this election cycle too. In February, he took to the pages of the New York Times to defend John McCain from conservative critics. Specifically, Buckley said:
It may strike some conservatives today as odd, if not absurd, to see John McCain being subjected to an auto-da-fé conducted by such Torquemadas of the right as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity. The other day, he even endured jeers at a conservative gathering in Washington, by otherwise well-behaved exemplars of conservatism. Indeed, turn on the TV at any hour of the day and you'll find Mr. McCain being excoriated in harsher terms than he endured from his jailers at the Hanoi Hilton - variously denounced as a) not conservative, b) really, really not conservative, or even c) so not-conservative as to make you wonder if he isn't just the latest re-issue of the Manchurian Candidate.
In response, let me offer a thoughtful, considered, carefully worded comment: Would you all please just...shut...up? (I'd insert an intensifier, but this is a family newspaper.)
Later on he was associated with this cast of characters (though he was already a Ron Paul donor by the time he wrote that pro-McCain op-ed, so perhaps he just likes his conservatives "mavericky"). Then again, if he was a Paul supporter and is contemplating becoming an Obamacon, he is probably less than enamored of neoconservative foreign policy. Many of us on the right who fit that description are good little Republicans during peacetime but find McCain types a little harder to support in times like these. I'd have voted for Rudy Giuliani in the 2000 Senate race too. This year, I would be more inclined to throw my vote away.
UPDATE: Dan McCarthy has more on the younger Buckley's Obamacon status. It's thoughtfulness as part of the politics of prudence.
Buckley and Obama?
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 3:23PM
A big fuss was made about Christopher Buckley's support of Barack Obama. Whether or not it's true, I wondered my way into the FEC database to see where he's put his money:
BUCKLEY, CHRISTOPHER MR.
WASHINGTON, DC
FORBES INC/EDITOR
| PAUL, RON VIA RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE |
Re: The Blank Check
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 2:15PM
Veteran adman Alex Castellanos told Byron York the other day that if he were working for McCain, he'd be hammering this theme with a "two accelerators and no brake" ad. It seems pretty obvious that this is about the best closing argument McCain can make; it would almost be political malpractice not to give it a shot.
Not Presidential?
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 2:06PM
I've watched this new McCain commercial twice now, and I want all 60 seconds back. In fact, I'm billing the campaign for this post now, because I don't actually want to have to write it:
When your only tool is a hammer...
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 1:51PM
In the first debate, McCain highlighted the success of the surge in Iraq that he helped author. He also, when clashing with Obama on foreign policy, argued for a similar surge in Afghanistan.
Then last night, in an effort to assuage voters' fears that he doesn't stack up to Obama on economics, he unveiled his ace-in-the-hole: having the government buy home mortgages.
The name for this plan? Revealed today: the McCain ReSURGEnce Plan. (capitalization mine)
If only he could enact some kind of surge in battleground states...
Re: The Blank Check
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 1:03PM
Last night, I actually saw Fred Thompson employ that argument, saying that Obama would be "unchecked" because the Congress would likely be controlled by Democrats. I wondered at the time whether that was just Fred freelancing, or if it was a trial balloon for an emerging argument that the McCain campaign expects to start deploying.
Aren't Elections Fun?!
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 1:02PM
Radley Balko on last night's debate:
The Blank Check Argument
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 12:57PM
John McCain's last shot at this is to cut the congressional Republicans loose and ask the American people over and over again whether they want to give the Democrats a blank check. This is essentially what the Gingrich Republicans did to their presidential candidate, Bob Dole, in 1996. Not only does this put McCain in the position of running against the unpopular Democratic Congress and promising swing voters divided government. It also harmonizes the two conflicting narratives McCain is trying to push -- the conservative McCain who will veto Democratic tax and spending increases and the bipartisan McCain who will work with Kennedy, Lieberman, and Feingold.
McCain can say he is the only presidential candidate who can both work with the Democrats where possible and block their liberal excesses where necessary. He might even name those excesses: middle-class tax increases, taxpayer-funded abortion, economy-wrecking indulgence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the enactment of the Freedom of Choice Act. Will it work? Maybe not, but it is probably McCain's last, best chance.
Daily Must-Reads, Afternoon Edition
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 12:56PM
The truth about Dem's involvement with Freddie and Fannie too
harsh for SNL (WSJ)
The present might be the time to align with Russia (Washington Post)
Is it reasonable to flip-flop on genocide? (Boston Globe)
When will a moderator bring up abortion? (NRO)
GM just so happened -- coincidentally -- to benefit hugely by the bailout bill (Cafe Hayek)
If "fundamental" was a word in your debate drinking game, you got hammered (Politico)
EU's climate change and energy independence plan turns out to be
pie in the sky (The Economist)
Is now the time to finally open up to Cuba? (Christian Science Monitor)
The Future...
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 12:50PM
...as envisioned way back in 1999. Someone at AEI give Peter Wallison a raise.
No Excuse
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 11:46AM
For a moment last night there was a glimmer of hope. Obama is leading in the polls because of the economy, and in particular, the banking failures. As usual he blamed the financial crisis on Bush-McCain deregulation (though, as some one here pointed, didn't give a single example). McCain started to say the problem was that Obama and the Democrats forced banks to make bad loans to risky loan applicants. All he needed to do was to quote Stanley Kurtz: "Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit." But he didn't press the point. A lot of voters think Obama is right, that deregulation caused the banking mess. McCain and the Republicans have failed to show how the crisis was not the fault of the free market and deregulators, but social engineering and interference in the market by liberal politicians. That's why McCain is trailing. And there is no excuse for this.
Re: McCain's Missed Opportunity
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 11:41AM
Jim: Here's another one. When challenged by McCain that his tax hikes would hurt small businessmen, Obama responded by saying no they wouldn't because most don't make $250,000 a year. So much for killing incentives to expand and grow and add jobs, in other words. Why didn't McCain come back with that?
McCain's Missed Opportunity
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 11:17AM
Last night, Barack Obama promised to deliver universal health care, cut taxes for 95 percent of taxpayers including most small businesses, and be a net spending cutter even though he has not specified a major program he would eliminate to offset the several he would create or expand. When Republicans promise to cut taxes and balance the budget simultaneously, even when the tax cuts are growth-oriented reductions in marginal rates with proven dynamic revenue effects, Democrats always call them on it. Unless I missed, Bob Dole, I mean, John McCain let this pass by, except maybe when bringing up some earmark with a trivial price tag. Obama has even hinted that he might keep some of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and withdraw more slowly from Iraq while he is building up troops in Afghanistan -- where is this money going to come from? Obama didn't say and McCain sure didn't ask.
Re: Continuing Resolutions
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 11:15AM
Bob Dole had the same problem when it came to talking in Senate-ese. Obama's short service in Washington has provided him with at least this advantage over his opponent with 26 years in Congress: Obama hasn't had time to learn how to speak like a creature of Washington. It is immensely helpful in kitchen table debates.
SUSPECT ARRESTED IN PALIN E-MAIL CASE
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 11:01AM
David Kernell, son of a Democratic state legislator in Tennessee, is under arrest, after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of hacking Sarah Palin's e-mail account.
Don't Know Much About History
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 10:25AM
When asked by Tom Brokaw last night to give his criteria for use of American military power for humanitarian purposes, Obama said the Holocaust would have been a good reason to intervene.
Could Obama be such a historical illiterate that he doesn't know the allies DID use military force to liberate the Nazi death camps? When the camps were liberated, more than 11 million Americans were in uniform.
A stumble like this by Sarah Palin would have earned her a Dan Quayle de-merit badge, and would have sent Maureen Dowd into full sneer.
Douthatism, Redux
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 10:13AM
I was gratified by the approach McCain took . . . and yes, by the promise to buy up home mortgages, which was exactly the kind of blatantly panderish thing McCain needs to do if he wants to actually win this thing.
Michelle Malkin has an entire thread devoted to what a wretched idea this is, as policy. As to its idiocy as politics, if the electorate wants socialism, they'll elect the Democrat, so when a Republican advocates socialism, he might as well change his slogan to, "Vote Democrat."
UPDATE: A reader e-mails Mark Steyn: "This election is over." Warning: This is not a popular sentiment.
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 10:02AM
One of the problems that McCain had in last night's debate -- and it's actually a problem I notice often with him -- is that in many cases he assumes a certain level of knowledge among the audience and will often make offhand comments that seem odd or evasive to those who don't know what he's talking about. At least two examples come to mind from last night. At one point, when he was talking about health care mandates, he made a joke about hair transplants, which would have probably sounded bizarre if you didn't know that several states require insurance companies to cover such services (though granted, it would probably seem less bizzare if you knew it was to treat hair loss from chemotherapy). Another example came when he was asked whether the U.S. would commit troops if Iran invaded Israel and whether he would do so without approval of the U.N. Security Council. He started by saying he wouldn't require Security Council approval, and mentioned how, "I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles." I'm not sure how many Americans understand that Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council, giving them veto power that they have been using consistently to block serious action against Iran. As a result, it may have seemed to somebody who didn't know better, that McCain was changing the subject back to Russia, which was the previous question. I remember in the first debate, McCain got caught up in Washington lingo several times, even once referring to a "continuing resolution" that Democrats were going to pass -- had he said klaatu barada nikto instead, about as many people would have gotten the reference. One of the drawbacks of having been in the Congress for 25 years is that in many cases you get too caught up in small details, but as a presidential candidate you have to be able to convey your knowledge in terms that the average person understands.
And They Think Cheney Has A Manichean Worldview?
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 9:43AM
Here is the founder of Daily Kos' post-debate victory dance:
If the lack of hate mail in recent days is any indication, their spirit really is broken. Now's the time for us to press the advantage and crush their movement for a generation or more. The question isn't whether we get complacent. No one around these parts is getting complacent. The question is whether we take full advantage of what is shaping up to be a rout and truly press our advantage. Our enemy is on the retreat. We can't let them get away and regroup. It's time to crush them.
And then he appropriates one of the best tough guy scenes from Conan the Barbarian--"Conan, what is best in life?"; "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"--to finish off the chest-pounding, which is kind of funny coming from a movement that has deflected most criticism this cycle not with brute force in open battle, but by crying racism, classism, meanism or by hiding from the issue entirely or by trying to get lawyers to do their fighting for them behind the scenes.
Call your lawyer wasn't exactly the takeaway message I got from the Conanfilms. To each his own, I suppose...Anyway, the point of all this seems to be: Anyone holding out hope that a McCain loss would, at the very least, mean an end to the insufferable carping and whining and high school drama club-esque lamentations of the left--sorry! The kids are maybe going to get their election 2008 popsicle, but they are planning to immediately start throwing another fit. It's going to be a long four years.
Go Mormons!
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 6:57AM
Sean Higgins was not impressed with Bill Maher's new anti-religion film Religulous, though he does cop to coming "out of the film with a new respect for Mormons, who -- apparently alone among the faith groups that Maher sought to interview -- recognized early on what he was up to and shut him out. Maher is ushered off of church grounds and is forced to do his Mormon bit from what appears to be a hotel room." (Maher did get tossed out of the Vatican as well, but a few Catholic priests agreed to be interviewed.)
Who Won? Who Cares?
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 6:25AM
In the Guardian today, I lament the debate that wasn't.
Not Even Close
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 12:20AM
Again I was only able to watch with one eye and listen with one ear, but that was enough to give me a sense of deja vu 1992, beginning with it being a stupid economy and ending with Obama's growing confidence in his own Clintonite slickness.
Meanwhile, the Republican was floundering, unable to articulate the most important points about the most important topic. McCain did invoke Ronald Reagan again, but only in a foreign policy context. For all his genuine affection for Reagan, he is absolutely clueless about Reagan's positions on government and the economy. So there he went again, promising to give away the store. And I bet there are no ponies in the thick of that dung heap.
Even what townhall format there was didn't help McCain, other than perhaps during his fine exchange with the chief petty officer. Obama was out of his league when it was his turn to respond to the Navy vet. But otherwise McCain's movements and gestures accentuated his age, and unlike at the first debate he appeared tired. Or perhaps resigned.
Did he even once mention his running mate?
Re: Master of Town Halls
Posted by on 10.8.08 @ 12:01AM
McCain certainly didn't embarrass himself and a few exchanges even went pretty well for him. But anyone who thinks McCain won tonight and is not already on the campaign's payroll ought to sign up fast.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Debate Take
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 11:02PM
I thought this debate was a pretty dull affair, filled mostly with lines ripped from stump speeches and other talking points we've heard before, and I don't really see what the point of having a town hall debate is if they're so structured. Neither one of these candidates inspires much confidence, and both of them showed their own weaknesses tonight. Going in, I was pretty much convinced that unless Obama got a hostile question and responded by punching an audience member in the face, he'd be home free. But Obama avoided any major stumbles, and McCain didn't have have any big moments to take over the debate. So, in that sense, you have to say this was a good night for Obama.
Rounding It Up
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:50PM
- VodkaPundit: "McCain won, but not by nearly enough to matter. He was up against a punk kid, and barely came away on points. Barely."
- Jules Crittenden: "Bickerfest, exchange of dope slaps. McCain takes it on the last line, raised doubts all over the place. But no one changed anyone's mind."
- Michelle Malkin: "We're Screwed '08."
- Ace of Spades: "McCain has one debate and two weeks of serious negative campaigning left. That's all that can help."
I'll keep searching the blogs, but I don't think anybody's going to say, "Wow! Game-changer! Obama's in big trouble after that one." I'm checking Instapundit and don't see him quoting any conservative bloggers doing virtual high-fives over this one.
So Much for McCain As The Master of Townhalls
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:44PM
As Quin notes below, McCain got better as the topics moved to things he's actually interested in. But does anyone think he won this debate? I don't.
Final Impressions
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:42PM
I thought that, quite unfortunately, this was big win for Obama tonight. Not that he did anything great, but that he was very steady while McCain had a very ineffective first two-thirds of the debate. Darn.
'The Last 8 Years' vs. 'My Friends'
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:41PM
If those were the key phrases in your debate drinking game, you must be in a coma by now.
What Don't You Know?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:38PM
The "Zen-like" question that ended the night drew scorn from several of my fellow bloggers here. I, however, think it is a great question. I think one of President W. Bush's biggest faults is that he doesn't know what it is that he doesn't know. I think any leader NEEDS to know that there are things he doesn't know, and that he should therefore know where to look for help on it.
McCain is Closing Strongly
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:37PM
I really am coming to the conclusion that his interest level in the subject matter strongly affects how well he comes across. I don't know exactly WHAT the specific clues are, but I think there must be good body language or other non-verbal cues (intonation also being non-verbal) that he is sending on the foreign policy questions that he just doesn't send on the economic questions.
Re: On Russia
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:35PM
McCain talked fairly broadly about providing moral support to Georgia and Ukraine without reigniting a new Cold War (whatever that means). Obama mostly agreed with him. You missed less than you think.
Obama now talking
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:32PM
On the CNN insta-graph (and I promise that that is NOT all I am watching, despite how many times I mention it), I have noticed all night that Obama's answers are getting better responses from men than women. That plays against type. I wonder why that is.
On Russia
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:29PM
I couldn't hear what McCain was saying about Russia, because of a conversation right next to me for the filming of the documentary. So all I did was watch the CNN insta-react graph of undecided Ohio voters. This was the first time all night that McCain overwhelmingly got grades at the very top of the chart. The line was high and steady throughout. I wish I had heard what he said. It must've been good.
McCain's Only Chance Tonight
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:22PM
The only way McCain can salvage a clear win tonight, or even a draw, is to directly engage Obama. He is on the same stage as the man, after all. he should directly engage him in conversation, and challenge him. Speak TO Obama, not about him. Not in a mean way, not in a threatening way, but in a quietly forceful way. It might just throw Obama off. You can't throw a knockout punch if you are looking out at the audience.
As for Obama
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:19PM
My blogging tonight so far has been very McCain-centric. That's because he is the one who needs to make up ground. But it's also because Obama is Steady Eddie. He remains on an even keel. He sounds and looks good: reasonable, thoughtful, knowledgeable. It's not that he is saying anything in particular that is a home run, but he is hitting double after double after double. He never strikes out. He never overruns the base. he never gets picked off. And he also never takes a risk. Darn him. He is wrong on so many subjects. But he doesn't leave himself open for any easy ways to show he is wrong.
The Obama Doctrine
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:15PM
It is in our national interest to stop humanitarian disasters. Except in Iraq.
US as Greatest Force for Good in the World
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:15PM
McCain just said that the U.S. is "the greatest force for good in the world." It is a statement that needs to be made again and again, and then built upon. I'm glad he said it. He's becoming more focused, more energized -- just as one would expect when he is talking about foreign affairs and the military.
The McCain Doctrine
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:15PM
American military power should be used everywhere, except for Lebanon and Somalia.
Obama on Health Care
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:14PM
Obama says that if we allowed people to purchase insurance out of state, all insurers would move to a state in which they could offer plans that didn't mandate coverage of certain treatments. But under the current system in which there are nearly 2,000 mandates nationwide, Americans in highly regulated states are denied the ability to purchase cheaper, basic plans if that's all they desire. It's as if the government required you to purchase a Porsche, and if you can't afford one, you end up with no car at all.
McCain Trying to Come Back
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:13PM
On foreign policy question, McCain's energy level picked up. Noticeably. In a good way. Of course, his answer was solid on substance as well. Is there any way he can throw a knockout blow in the final half-hour? Right now he is like a boxer clearly losing on points, but still standing, and trying to find an opening to throw a haymaker. He needs one. To his credit, he sure as heck hasn't given up.
The Obama Doctrine
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:12PM
American military force should only be used when there is no vital national security interest at stake.
Health Care, on Substance
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:04PM
On the health care question, McCain is giving an excellent answer. But for some reason, he doesn't seem to be connecting, according to the CNN chart. I think it has to do with intonation and body language. Especially intonation. Because not just on substance, but even in the words he is using, he is finally giving an answer that SHOULD connect with people. He has been clear on this, and easy to understand, and his arguments are ones that should appeal to people. But there's just something that isn't galvanizing about him. Not only is that apparent from the CNN insta-react chart, but I sense it, too, and I think I see it in the live audience. I think his voice sounds nasally, thin, and high-pitched. Unfortunately, it matters.
Both Candidates
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:00PM
Might be a little too negative toward each other for this debate format.
McCain Must Turn This Around, FAST
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:59PM
McCain looks like he came in with no discernible game plan. He needed a game-changer, but he's just talking sort of randomly. It's not that he's off topic, but he's not focused enough, not organized enough in his comments, not effectively thematic enough. James Carville said either today or yesterday that McCain needed to pound home a theme in a pointed fashion, easy to understand. Carville was right. But McCain is not doing it.
I Think the Health Care Question
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:58PM
Really means, "Can we just fund cheap witch doctors so we don't have to go the hospital and get all these expensive surgeries?"
McCain is going to have to defend his health care plan.
Meet Charles Babbage
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:57PM
... an apparently long-secret government operative:
Entitlements
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:57PM
Obama says he'll solve the problem within his first term, then pivots to talking about taxes. McCain talks about entitlements slightly more, saying that we can fix Social Security if the parties come together like Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and that Medicare, is more complicated, so we'll have to do something bold...create a commission! Then he talks more about taxes.
This is the most important long-term domestic issue facing Americans, and neither of the two candidates running for president can think of enough to say about it to give a two-minute answer. How many people think either of these guys will do anything about it once in office.
After that weird energy question...
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:55PM
We can all be glad that Tom Brokaw will under no circumstances be president.
Computer went on fritz; Mac not good
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:55PM
Eleven minutes before the debate, my computer went haywire, and some very smart computer people here could not figure out how to fix it. Now I'm borrowing somebody else's computer. But first impressions of the first 45 minutes: McCain is just fading away, like McArthur's famous old soldier....
"The Computer"
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:54PM
Was not invented by a bunch of government scientists. (Obama must mean Arpanet, the precursor to the internet.)
"Let's look at our records..."
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:50PM
This is probably one of the strongest lines McCain has had to offer. Obama's record is too little discussed.
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:49PM
McCain does know that commission raised taxes, right? And that we've had other bipartisan entitlement reform commissions?
Tom Brokaw
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:47PM
Enforces time constraints on Obama and unveils his own entitlement reform plan.
"... my first term as president."
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:45PM
Yeesh. To the folks who felt he should have run for president in 2012, well, he's definitely doing that too.
McCain's lost the debate.
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:42PM
None of his attacks are carrying. He's being vague. He's dodging questions. Though Obama's not being substantive, he appears far more in command of real facts. He's also connecting with the audience. McCain's not connecting with a single person. I don't particularly care for Obama, but I've found him a far more interesting speaker.
Obama's Priorities
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:35PM
Says government has to prioritize, but then gives a laundry list of stuff he'll do as president.
Obama's Spending Cuts
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:35PM
I never heard that he was going be a net spending cutter before -- had you?
McCain Veers Off
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:33PM
Asked about fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, McCain says we can fix all three at the same time, but then starts talking about energy independence.
Re: Off to Bad Start
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:23PM
Yup. Obama gives the wrong answer to the question, McCain gives an answer to the wrong question.
We are so screwed.
Obama on Deregulation
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:23PM
Obama blames McCain's support for deregulation for the financial crisis, but doesn't give one example of any such dereugulation.
Off to a Bad Start?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:17PM
On the first question about the economy, John McCain began his reply with a non sequitur about energy, then said "we must do something about home values. . . . I would order the Treasury secretary to buy up bad home loans. . . ."
Going to be a long night, I fear.
McCain Endorses Price Fixing
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:17PM
In the same answer in which he says we need to limit spending and fight the $10 trillion debt, McCain argues that we have to do something about declining home values and proposes spending money to buy distressed mortgages and then renegotiate mortgage contracts, acknowledging that it would cost a lot of money. Does he propose this on top of the bailout or as part of the bailout? Besides, wasn't it inflated home values that helped create this mess in the first place?
UPDATE: In his subsequent answer, McCain acknowledges that the bailout isn't enough, and that he supports further action to stabilize home values.
What Can You Do To Bail Us Out?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:12PM
Great. Now old people want a bailout, too. Wake me when they get to the bailout for political journalists.
Obama Camp Tries To Connect Ayers to..Mark Sanford
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 8:59PM
I'm one of those who doesn't think the Ayers relationship will be enough to defeat Barack Obama, but his campaign has certainly done an odd job responding to the criticism, and now, via the AP, I see that they've making an outright bizarre charge:
In an e-mail to reporters, the Obama campaign said Ayers is a "distinguished scholar" at the University of South Carolina, where Sanford serves as the ex-officio trustee while governor.
"By Governor Palin's standards, that means Governor Sanford shares Ayers' views," the e-mail read.
What an absurd story. If Sanford monitored speaking invitations from a state university and intervened to revoke the invitations to those speakers who he found objectionable, he'd be attacked for violating free speech. Further, Sanford ran for governor and overseeing the university system is one of his many duties -- Obama specifically luanched his political career with a fundraiser held at Ayers's house, and voluntarily chose to serve on a board with him.Other bloggers here
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 8:44PM
Other bloggers here: Leslie Carbone, Charlie Banks with Witsnapper, Laura Clawson with Daily Kos, Lynette Long, Mary Beth Ellis with Morning Works Media. This is part of a segment related to a documentary on Alexander Hamilton, with the idea that if Hamilton were alive today he would be a blogger, too. Again, the documentary is being hosted by Rick Brookhiser, and the producer is the very talented Michael Pack.
Live Blogging the Debate
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 8:23PM
I'll be live-blogging the debate tonight in the company of a number of other bloggers, in a project overseen by National Review's Rick Brookhiser. I'll try, therefore, not only to provide my insta-analysis, but also to at least occasionally give the flavor of what some other bloggers are saying. I hope it comes across as interesting, rather than just a jumble.....
How McCain Can Win The Debate
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 6:11PM
"I called for Fannie and Freddie to be reined in. The Democrats blocked it. I called for stricter accounting on Wall Street. I called for an end to wasteful spending which drove up government debt, which added to the toxic debt load that caused this problem. As Casey Stengel used to say, 'you could look it up.' Even with all the bias in the establishment media, there is not a reporter in the country who will deny the words I have just spoken. Not one.
"But that's looking backward. The American people can sort out credit and blame later. What they want to know is, what should we do now? How do we avoid having this crisis ruin the family finances?
"To understand the answer, you have to understand that a phrase for which my opponent mocked me is actually the key. I did not explain it well then, but I stand by it. I never run from my principles. What I said was that "the fundamentals" of the economy are strong. My running mate, Gov. Palin, accurately said that one of those fundamentals to which I was referring was the strength of the American workforce. But that's not ALL.
"There is one American economy, but it has two subsets. One subset is the high-flying paper traders on Wall Street with their complicated deals that are more like casino gambling than anything else. Those fundamentals are NOT strong, and I was the one who argued for years that they were a problem. Again, I warned about Fannie and Freddie and all the other things I said at the beginning of this answer. That part of the economy is a mess, and now it's dragging the rest of the economy down with it.
"But the other part of the economy, what some people in shorthand call 'the real economy,' IS still strong. By 'real,' I don't mean that the problems with the Wall Street paper don't have real consequences, but I mean that they are not part of the economy based on real things like goods and services: steel, computers, widgets, haircuts, shoe shines, taxi cab service. In THAT part of the economy, the fundamentals are mostly strong, and in that part of the economy, the so-called real economy, lies the seeds of our recovery.
"We have good workers. We have great small businesses that make good products and perform good services. We have tremendous natural resources. We have technological innovation. We have good universities. We have a free market of real goods and services where companies like FedEx and E-bay can come out of nowhere and not only become tremendous success stories, but also make life for all the rest of us a little easier, more convenient, more efficient. THOSE parts of the American economy are strong. THOSE fundamentals are solid. And my time is up on the answer, but in the rest of tonight's forum, I will return to this subject and explain how we can use those strengths to cushion the blow from the present crisis, and then recover from it most quickly, so that this scary time will, not just in the long run, but in the medium run as well, be something we can look back on as JUST a scare and not a decisive blow to our family finances.
"We are Americans. If we stop talking panic, and start talking positively, and follow with positive actions, we can overcome this. I plan to spend the rest of tonight, and the rest of the campaign, explaining how and why."
Re: What Must Happen Tonight?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 4:52PM
The difficulty of answering that question is that it's hard to think of any scenario under which John McCain can make up much ground in this debate. The fundamentals are playing into Barack Obama's favor now, so all he has to do to win is ride the wave. Most Americans believe that Republicans are to blame for the current economic crisis, so as long as Obama keeps reminding the audience that McCain is another Republican, and he's their only opportunity for genuine change, and avoids a monumental gaffe, he'll be fine.
As for McCain, he has a much higher hurdle. He has to convince skeptical Americans that he has a plan to deal with the economic crisis that's distinct from the policies of the Bush era, while Obama's plans would cause economic catastrophe. The one advantage he has going in is that it's a town hall format, so he'll feel at home, and has more opportunities for informal give and take and spontaneous humor that he's known for.
UPDATE: Apparently, the strict rules of the debate will limit interaction with the audience, which I think inhibits McCain's ability to connect.
McGovern vs. Big Labor
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 4:36PM
You heard that right. During one of the commercial breaks during Fox News Channel's coverage of the debate tonight, George McGovern will take to the airwaves to speak out against the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act, which in reality would deny workers the ability to secret ballot votes on unionization, and thus allow union bosses to intimidate workers into voting to unionize. Should Obama win, this will be at the top of the agenda, because Democrats want to reward their buddies in big labor, and if unions are able to rapidly increase their membership it will boost contributions to Democratic candidates and solidify the party's grip on power. The ad is on behalf of the group EmployeeFreedom.org. Evidently, Democrats have moved so far to the left, that even McGovern has been forced to speak out.
Here's the script, with the video below:
I'm concerned about a bill on Congress that would that would effectively eliminate an employee's right to a private vote when deciding whether to join a union. It's hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote. I've always been a champion of labor unions but I fear that today's union leaders are turning their backs on democratic workplace elections I've listened to all their arguments and reviewed the facts on both sides. Quite simply this proposed law cannot be justified. Working families deserve a voice and a private vote. I'm Sen. George McGovern and I approved this message because democracy is something that should never be sacrificed.
The Future of Conservatism
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 4:13PM
That was the title of a Heritage Foundation lecture I attended this afternoon, delivered by Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield. The title was somewhat misleading in that it ended up being less a prescriptive talk on what conservatism should be going forward, but more of a meditation on what conservatism is and has been.
Mansfield traced the origins of conservatism back to the French Revolution, when it arose out of a need to check the excesses of liberalism. Ever since then it has faced the dilemma of whether to offer an alternative to liberalism, or to essentially act as the best defender of liberalism by saving it from its extreme application. As he put it, "Does it go back, or go slow?"
In an Aristotelian sense, conservatives see democratic society as an end by itself, while liberals see it as a means, and constantly charge forward in the name of equality, without thinking about the consequences.
Mansfield is an engaging lecturer and while he speaks, everything he says sounds simple and self evidently true, but on further reflection his efforts to craft a coherent framework for defining conservatism and liberalism weren't totally satisfying to me. In addition, he creates a lot of dualities and juxtapositions that sound really clever at first, but don't always ring true when fleshed out.
For instance, he set up the contrast between big government liberals who believe that the state is needed to put rational controls on people and conservatives who rely on the free market. However, he argued that in the free market, stock advisers replace government bureaucrats as "rational controllers." If you remove this from the realm of an academic discussion and place it in reality, there's a world of difference between the coercive and unavoidable controls of the government and the voluntary controls of an adviser. In a free market, the profit and loss system is the equalizing force, and people can choose whether or not they want advice to navigate through it.
Mansfield also argued that dating back to Rousseau, the central critiques of liberalism have been that it is too focused on self interest rather than community, and that it inspired mediocrity. On the extreme left, he noted, communism responded by seeking to cure selfishness, while fascism responded by seeking to cure mediocrity. But such a dichotomy neglects the fact that fascism, too, sought to cure selfishness by subordinating self-interest for the glory of the state.
Mansfield used liberalism in two ways, both in its modern application and classical, generic sense, of a society that is built around rights. But at times the definitions became conflated, and at any given time you could use them to argue that either side is actually behaving as the other.
For instance, in the more modern sense, he argued that the elder Bush (who decried "the vision thing") and Bob Dole were examples of "responsible" pragmatists who sought to slow down liberalism. Most conservatives have come to accept the underlying idea of entitlements, and seek to reform them rather than challenge them on principle.
But in
Either way, it was refreshing to take a break from some of the horse race stuff and listen to a thoughtful lecture, and hope that whatever the outcome of the election is, we can have an open debate on the nature of conservatism, as well as its future.
Biden Goofed Badly on Judges
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 3:41PM
Joe Biden gave John McCain a HUGE opportunity last week to make judges a winning issue in this campaign. I explain why in the Examiner today.
Could I Be . . . Wrong?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 3:21PM
Having declared the election over, I'm now beginning to have doubts. Why? Because the Left seems to be starting its victory lap early, convinced that calling Americans racists is the winning ticket.
Exhibit A - Glenn Greenwald:
[O]ne of the ugliest, nastiest, most invective-filled personality attacks a major candidate has ever delivered, blatantly designed to stoke raw racial resentments and depict Obama as a Manchurian candidate funded by secret Arab Terrorist sources -- a truly unstable and hate-mongering rant . . .
Exhibit B - Mike Dukakis:
"That ad with Frank Raines was despicable. . . . I mean, what was that anyway? First, it was bald-faced lies. Right? These guys had met once, and Raines is not his housing adviser. Secondly, he put two black guys up there with this older white woman who's losing her house or whatever. What do you think that's all about? It isn't even subtle."
Exhibit C - Firedoglake:
I can't wait to see these people completely broken and humiliated. I really can't.Self-righteousness and hubris are a bad combination in politics, and it's possible that Democrats are mounting a desperate last-ditch effort to lose this election.
Re: What Must Happen Tonight?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 2:47PM
The tempo of a townhall-style debate can be hard to control, because you never know what will be on the voters' minds. McCain usually does well in this format, but occasionally has off days and doesn't do well with the economic subject matter that is likely to dominate.
All Obama has to do is be likable, competent, and non-condescending. McCain has the tougher challenge because he's behind. If he wants to do well, he could do worse than listening to Bill McGurn: hammer away at tax increases, run against the unpopular Democratic Congress, and remind voters what happened the last time a Democratic presidential candidate promised a middle-class tax cut. But he'll have to be careful: a lot of those voters wouldn't mind having the 1990s economy, which is Obama's obvious retort.
Re: An Intellectual Endorsement
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 2:46PM
J.P., as to the "names of up-and-coming leaders," the GOP operates on the "it's-his-turn" principle, and you know what that means, don't you?
JEB BUSH 2012: THE DYNASTY RETURNS
Being the bearer of bad news is becoming sort of a specialty for me.
Re: The New Mark Foley
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 2:32PM
That's a pretty good analogy, Jim, except this: It was not pre-determined that John McCain should be blamed for the meltdown. This is why his high-profile support for the bailout was so devastating. In trying to associate himself with the solution, McCain ended up associating himself with the problem.
Yesterday, conservatives were cheering because McCain "took the gloves off," connecting the dots between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, congressional Democrats and Obama. Which would have been effective, if he had done that in the first place -- instead of blaming "reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed . . . on Wall Street." and then trying to scapegoat SEC Chairman Chris Cox.
Why do voters blame Republicans for the crisis? Because McCain told them to! And then he took ownership of the "solution" that (a) voters saw as rewarding those who caused the problem, and (b) doesn't seem to have fixed the crisis.
AIG Execs Head to Resort, Spa
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 2:26PM
Now this is what I like to see. Executives who know how to enjoy themselves.
Re: We're All Racists Now
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 2:07PM
Phil, you've made a slight error. The "only non-racist position" is to vote for Obama.
You didn't get the memo, or what?
Neoblogism
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 1:57PM
A new blogger I'm yare in adding to my RSS feed is Barbara Wallraff, a wordsmith columnist whose work I've followed for a while. The very fact that there is an Atlantic blog for philologists, which my nerd brain perceives as more important than economics or history (sorry, buddies), is more than enough to spoom me to it regularly. Consider me aveugled.
Yoko Ono Vs. Ben Stein
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 1:52PM
What Must Happen Tonight?
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 1:17PM
I ask the question to my colleagues. What are the things McCain, and heck, Obama, have to do in order to come out a winner?
Obama: Needs to attack more, and even be willing to cut off McCain. He needs to hammer on the economy, and continually link McCain to the legislative failure of the first bailout package. He needs to have a solid, witty, single-phrase retort to McCain's, "He doesn't get it" meme -- one that will be memorable. Not mess up the name of some person who handed him a bracelet.
McCain: Play up Obama's inexperience in getting things done in congress and in the state legislature. Talk about how tax hikes will make the economy worse, and scare away jobs, leading to outsourcing. Wink a lot, but without making it look like a twitch. Talk about the fundraising scandal now haunting the Obama team. Talk about previous economic disasters and cite experience in dealing with them. Not die of a heart attack on stage.
An Intellectual Endorsement
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 1:11PM
Asked whether he sees any conservative leaders during his talk at Heritage today, Harvey Mansfield puckishly replied, "Well, how about our Sarah?"
He then noted that he doesn't quite have any names of up-and-coming leaders (this is always a question that comes up when senior conservatives speak to a younger audience).
The Wall Street Meltdown is the New Mark Foley
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 12:10PM
I don't mean to trivialize what could turn into the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression by comparing it to an ex-congressman and sexual predator. But for Republicans, the latest financial crisis may play the same role that Mark Foley played in the 2006 elections.
That year, the political climate never favored Republicans. Bush was unpopular, judged harshly for his handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. Wage stagnation was starting to convince Americans that the economy was shakier than it appeared and that the country was on the wrong track. Republican congressional incumbents were without an agenda and in many cases mired in scandal. Iraq, Katrina, and overspending joined forces to destroy the GOP's image as the party best equipped to handle the nation's defenses and purse. The Democrats were poised to make major gains, maybe even retake Congress.
Yet the Republicans managed a late summer/early fall comeback and seemed to be turning the tide. They might still lose the House but they were at least even to keep the Senate. Then in September, the Mark Foley scandal broke. It was the final nail in the GOP's coffin and eroded whatever progress the Republicans had made.
John McCain made some progress in an election year that never favored the Republicans. He had some effective anti-Obama ads, a successful convention, and rallied the base with his pick of Sarah Palin. But the other shoe may have dropped, causing the election to revert back to Democratic form. We'll see.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty mines a CBS News poll for evidence things aren't so bad for McCain.
Clearing the Ayers: This Won't Do It for McCain
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 11:23AM
On the question of "Does Bill Ayers matter?" I find this David Bernstein post persuasive: the Ayers and Wright connections speak both to the political culture in which Obama thrived and the intellectual bubble in which he has existed. Or as Bernstein puts it:
[H]ow else do you explain that when Obama was asked in a debate with Clinton about his ties to Ayers, he analogized his friendship with Ayers to his friendship with Senator Tom Coburn, as if being friends with a very conservative senatorial colleague is somehow analogous with being friends with an unrepentant extreme leftist domestic terrorist?In short, Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright suggest to me NOT that Obama agrees with their views, but that he is the product of a particular intellectual culture that finds the likes of Wright and Ayers to be no more objectionable, and likely less so, than the likes of Tom Coburn, or, perhaps, a Rush Limbaugh. Not only that, but he has been in his particular intellectual bubble so long that he was unable to recognize just how offensive the views of a Wright are to mainstream America, or how his ties to Ayers would play with the public, especially post-9/11.
But on the question of whether this will have much of an impact politically, I'm with David Frum and Ross Douthat. The Willie Horton and Helms "white hand" ads weren't effective merely because they were culture war dogwhistles. Those ads actually spoke to pressing voter concerns and reinforced already existing negative images the electorate had of the Democratic candidate. Crime, jobs, and the costs affirmative action imposed on working-class whites were real issues in those races. The Weather Underground, however loathsome, is simply not an issue in this year's election and a zillion conservative blog posts can't make it so.
Hitting the Ayers connection in October during a slide in the polls, rather than in July when Obama was still being defined in the minds of the voters, looks less like Willie Horton and Bush '88 than attacks on Bill Clinton's Vietnam-era activities by Bush '92. I think Douthat is right about the message this sends: "The stock market is tanking. The global economy is in peril. And we think the most important subject on your mind should be whether Barack Obama was too chummy with a Sixties terrorist you've probably never heard of. "
Do I think an association with an unrepentant terrorist should
matter? Absolutely. It would be fair game if McCain were palling
around with an abortion clinic bomber. But Bill Ayers isn't going
to put John McCain in the White House.
Bail Out on the Bailout
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 11:21AM
That's my advice for John McCain (though if Barack Obama decided to take it instead, I'd be thrilled) in tonight's town hall. Normally, McCain kills in this format, but I've a feeling things won't be so easy.
Not a Details Man
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:52AM
Obama communications director Robert Gibbs is tongue tied and a
bit light on details when it comes to Obama's relationship with
unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers:
We're All Racists Now
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:45AM
Do you think that the Democrats' efforts to expand affordable housing played a role in the current crisis? Well then you're a racist, says Barney Frank.
I suppose the only non-racist position is the Democratic one: mortgage lenders should be encouraged to make loans to people who can't afford houses, and then punished for making loans to people who can't afford houses.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:35AM
If Obama's "tax cuts" are like Clinton's, the middle class should
be afraid (WSJ)
Obama's Chicago pals not just "associations" (NRO)
Town hall pitfalls: the ponytail guy (Slate)
Palin somehow shows better legal sense than Biden, a
lawyer(Culture11)
Harvard grads: haven't you done enough to destroy the economy?
(EconLog)
Global capitalism is far from dead (WSJ)
Celebrating terrorists on the left (The Atlantic)
A destabilized nation with ethnic strife and rich natural
resources? Sound familiar? It's Bolivia (Christian Science Monitor)
Ohio's Shifting Winds
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:13AM
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll (story here, full data here) has Obama opening up a 6-point lead over McCain in Ohio, a state that is a must win for Republicans. While voters still trust McCain more on handling terrorism and the war in Iraq, Obama now has a 13 point edge when it comes to handling the economy. If this were 2004, McCain would be in strong position -- after all, Ohio exit polls last time around showed that a combined 30 percent of voters considered terrorism or Iraq their most important issue compared with 24 percent who cited the econmy/jobs. However, in the new Post/ABC poll, just 9 percent of Ohioans chose Iraq or terrorism, while 52 percent identified "economy/jobs" as their most important issue. Also, in 2004, the much-discussed moral values issues were the most important to 23 percent of the Ohio electorate, and Bush dominated among the group. In the Post/ABC poll, however, moral/family values were named by just 1 percent of participants. If you define the term more broadly to include ethics/honesty/corruption in government and abortion, that gets you up to a total of 8 percent for values-related issues. The bottom line, as I mentioned last week, is that the presidential campaign has largely been overtaken by events. The economy is now the issue and the Democratic candidate has a built in advantage because an unpopular Republican has been in the White House for eight years. It's difficult to see what McCain can do to change these basic dynamics.
UPDATE: I will note that the CNN/Time poll has the race in Ohio tighter, with Obama up 3 points, and a Fox News/Rasmussen poll has McCain up by 1. Overall, the RCP average has Obama up by 3.8.
ELIZABETH EDWARDS, BY OWN ADMISSION, "IMPERFECT"!
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 10:04AM
No, really, it's true! You'll be happy to learn, however, that she believes it is this very imperfection that has deputized her to demand the rest of us be corralled into a coercive government-run healthcare system of her choosing.
"I Like Him, He's Mad All The Time"
Posted by on 10.7.08 @ 9:46AM
Is this man the real third party threat to John McCain?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Dept. of Bad Media Relations
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 9:00PM
It is important that reporters not be allowed to do any actual reporting at Republican campaign events:
Constantly under the watchful eyes of security, the media wasn't permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park to talk to Sarah Palin supporters. When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head toward the bleachers where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out of nowhere and confront him or her and say, "Can I help you?'' and turn the person around.Treat the press as enemies, the complain about media bias. Classic.
When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn't allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written. The campaign wanted to avoid that possibility Monday.
Is Palin's Folksiness for Real? You Betcha!
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 7:11PM
John Schwenkler and Daniel Larison disagree with the argument that Sarah Palin's folksiness is an act. My sense is that it isn't an act either. If it is, then the act predates the 2008 presidential campaign. But I don't quite agree that her interviews and debate performances have always sounded exactly like she has sounded recently. She's no Cicero, but the older footage I've seen shows much less winking at Joe Sixpack and the Hockey Moms. Some of these differences come down to perspective, however. If you find Palin's perkiness annoying and her shtick unpersuasive, you are going to be more likely to detect that which irritates you when watching her on TV. If you find her charming and likable, you are going to be inclined to reach a different verdict. And then are some things -- "Err, the Bush Doctrine? Wha?" -- that just aren't subjective.
Putting on Ayers
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 2:48PM
Ayers strikes me as a perfectly legitimate issue and the argument that this is somehow race-baiting is completely bogus. But for a lot of voters even Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber are distant memories, to say nothing of the Weathermen. The AP is at least right about this much: aging hippies aren't what most people picture when they think about terrorists.
UPDATE: I see Richard Stern used the same title for his post over at TNR about what lovely dinner companions Weathermen make for Hyde Park liberals. I wish I could say great minds think alike, but I'm not sure that's the right takeaway.
Bailout Idiocy Exposed
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 2:43PM
Before the House voted to pass the Wall Street bailout on Friday, the Dow industrial average was up about 250 points for the day. When it passed, the Dow gave up those 250 points plus about another 150 more. Today, the Dow is down more than 700 points at this writing. Gee, wasn't the bailout supposed to stop the panic?!? This bailout was bad policy from the start, and (as Martin Feldstein argued Saturday in the Wall Street Journal) it was never likely to have the intended beneficial effect. I actually think it will make matters worse, and the Dow response so far is certainly not providing much evidence against my analysis. These are bad times. Our leaders/knaves in the Oval Office, the Treasury, the Fed, and Congress are making bad times worse. Never have so many struggled mightily with such good intentions to take a serious problem and turn it into a crisis of astronomical proportions. This whole thing should make all of us victims of it sick, and incredibly angry.
Senate Slip-Sliding Away
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 12:48PM
The latest round of Senate polls don't look too good for Republicans. Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico look likely to flip (this doesn't include any data for Alaska). There's a split decision in Minnesota, with one poll showing Al Franken up 9, another showing Norm Coleman up 10. Oregon is now in danger, with Gordon Smith trailing for the first time. Republican incumbents don't seem to have consistently closed the sale in North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi, or even Georgia. That Saxby Chambliss seat wasn't on anyone's radar just a few months ago. Frank Lautenberg is starting to pull ahead of Dick Zimmer in New Jersey, Mary Landrieu is up 13 in Louisiana. (Louisiana is supposed to be the GOP's pickup opportunity this year.)
The only good news for the GOP is that some polls still show Mitch McConnell ahead, Coleman's seat at the very least looks salvagable, Susan Collins is still safe in Maine, and New Hampshire has tightened. The Colorado race is also competitive. But a Democratic pickup of five to eight Senate seats really isn't out of the question.
Talk About Getting Ahead of Yourself
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 12:37PM
It's premature to talk about the 2012 race. It's really premature to assume that President Obama will be unbeatable.
Just A Guy in the Neighborhood
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 11:51AM
This Drudge linked item from 1997 reporting on a 1997 panel discussion on
juvenile justice in which both Bill Ayers and Barack Obama
participated makes it harder for Obama to dismiss Ayers as somebody
who he didn't know too well, especially given the Michelle Obama
quote praising the panel and their "experience" with the juvenile
justice system.
Politically, I wonder whether bringing up Obama's relationship with Ayers will work for McCain given the severity of the financial crisis the blowback from "going negative." But nonetheless, it seems worthwhile for Americans to consider that they are on the verge of electing a president who spent most of his life among the most radical fringe elements of the left. Obama likes to say that he didn't know Ayers well, but seriously, how many terrorists does the average person know, even tangentially?
Obama's Foreign Funny Money
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 11:33AM
Barack Obama's campaign's ineffective policing of its small dollar donations -- which add up to $200 million -- has all the makings of a Clinton style fundraising scandal, so it should be interesting to watch whether the FEC acts on the RNC's complaint on the matter. The fact that donors who give under $200 aren't publicly disclosed opens the door for abuse and worse, the ability of foreign donors to influence U.S. elections.
As Newsweek reports in a short item:
The amazing thing is that before being called on it, the Obama campaign was accepting online donations from foreign addresses. So basically, if you were a foreign national who had a Visa card, you could go online and donate $199 dollars to the campaign without it drawing scrutiny.
More Reaction to AP
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 10:53AM
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings has a good roundup of reaction to the outrageous AP "analysis" about "racism" coming from Sarah Palin. And here's even more of the "story behind the story," including third-hand reporting that Ron Fournier had a role in this monstrosity of a story.
Finally, in a sort of related thing, looking at establishment
media coverage of this race more broadly, here's a great quote from
our good friend Craig Shirley:
"Of course the mainstream media is completely covering the Obama
campaign….just like a warm blanket."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 10:23AM
Kristol's hockey mom interview (NY Times)
Scapegoating deregulation could cost Pres. Obama bigtime.
(Washington Post)
Ayers is a bad dude, but people care more about Franklin Raines
right now (NRO The Campaign Spot)
Obama can't make extremism a thing of the/his past with one
speech (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
Americans can't afford to fail on Iran policy much longer
(Jerusalem Post)
Conservative dating rules (Touchstone Mere Comments)
No number of Ph.D.'s and MBA's could replace Sarah Palin's role
in the capital markets (Asia Times)
The Race Is Over
Posted by on 10.6.08 @ 10:22AM
Or at least the one held this weekend at the Mall of America:
BLOOMINGTON, Minn. (Oct. 6, 2008) - Americans will head to the polls in just 34 days to cast their vote for the next president of the United States, but who do kids think should be president? The gumballs have shown that kids would pick Obama for the next U.S. president if they were able to vote. In our unscientific poll, more than 1800 kids voted at Mall of America® this weekend. While it was a close competition, just as the national polls, the count of blue gumballs at 1000 compared to the 800 red gumballs.Aside from the Mall of America's need to point out this was an "unscientific" poll, my favorite part of this release is learning that the kids who just thought it wise to participate in a sham gumball election immediately followed it up with a request that "people of all ages" be able to vote. Why not just say kids, first of all, since all other "ages" already can vote? And, second, if this is the kind of public spectacle they'll get into for a gumball, can you imagine how easily their vote could be bought? (I mean, I know the Obama campaign would love such an arrangement, but...) Call us when you're mature enough for cupcakes, 'kay?
Until then, I maintain my previous position.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The AP Cries Wolf -- BLACK Wolf
Posted by on 10.5.08 @ 2:16PM
This might be the single most irresponsible piece the Associated Press has EVER run. Not only does it badly misstate (i.e. excuses, plays down, hides) the level of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, but it goes to phenomenally bizarre lengths to claim that Sarah Palin's repeated references to Ayers -- who is white -- somehow "carry a racially tinged subtext." HUH????!!???? This is sick. Literally sick. Have things really reached the point where ANY criticism of Obama is racist? Next thing you know, criticism of Obama for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate will be called racist. Criticism of Obama for being against the surge will be called racist. Hell, next thing you know, criticism of Joe Biden will be called racist, because Biden is the running mate for a black man and, well, any criticism of him is code for racist opposition to Obama.
Read the linked AP "analysis" for yourself. It's just flat-out irresponsible. It is more than that; it is outrageously slanderous. How that piece ever made it past any editor with any decency or common sense is beyond me.
