- 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, November 8, 2008
Not a Sore Loser, Just a Loser
Posted by on 11.8.08 @ 10:35PM
McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt explains that it's not his fault:
The moment that I will look back at as the moment deep in my gut that I knew, was September 29, when I was flying on a plane with Governor Palin to Sedona for debate prep, watching the split screen on the TVs . . . and it showed the stock market down seven, eight hundred points; it showed the Congress voting down the bailout package on the other side, and then, House Republicans went out and told the world that the reason that they voted against this legislation, allowed the stock market to crash, allowed the economy to be so injured, was because Nancy Pelosi had given a mean and partisan speech on the floor. And this was their response. And I just viewed it as beyond devastating, and thought that at that moment running with an "R" next to your name, in this year, was probably lethal.
Got that? House Republicans "allowed the stock market to crash," and that's why John McCain lost, rather than because of Schmidt's insistence on Sept. 24 that the candidate suspend the campaign, call for a postponement of the debate, and fly to Washington to push for the unpopular $700 billion bailout. Classic.
If …
Posted by on 11.8.08 @ 7:35PM
Had McCain won the election Tuesday and the Dow Jones had fallen a thousand points in the subsequent two days, do you suppose the name "McCain" might have been printed or mentioned adjacent to that news?
Why ever would you think so? Obama's name was not even mentioned near that story in our even-handed media.
Serve the State
Posted by on 11.8.08 @ 1:07PM
Kudos to Greg Mankiw for catching this from the President-Elect's transition website:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation's challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. [Italics mine]
Mankiw correctly identifies this for what it is: conscription. Putting children in the service of the government in order to teach them the virtue of sacrifice to the collective: is it just because I'm listening to Penderecki's Threnody that I find this incredibly creepy?
UPDATE: Within a few hours of Mankiw pointing this out, Obama's website has changed the language from to require to setting a goal. If that demonstrates anything, it's that Obama's rhetoric does not reflect his intent unless, like Mankiw or Joe the Plumber, you can catch him in a rare mistake.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Palin and Romney, Tessio and Barzini
Posted by on 11.7.08 @ 10:20PM
There was a time when the worst thing one Republican could say about another was that he was aligned with "the Eastern Establishment," a "Rockefeller Republican." A few years later, accusing your GOP rival of favoring detente with the Soviets was the favorite submarine tactic.
Now? If you really want to undercut a Republican antagonist's conservative credibility, accuse him of spreading dirt about Sarah Palin, as Marc Ambinder notes:
Rumor: Aides and advisers to Mitt Romney are responsible for spreading most of the anti-Palin stories that have been going around; during the campaign, they pressured reporters to look into reports of tension between McCain and Palin factions. . . .
Palin is the most popular figure in the Republican Party right now, and if you want a future in that party, you can't be seen as spreading gossip about her.
The rumors are mostly false, Ambinder says, but this raises the question of who's spreading this smear? My guess: The McCain aides who bashed Palin are now the ones trying to hang the blame on the Romneyites.
So it's like Tessio proposing a meeting with Barzini: Any McCain aide blaming Romney thereby becomes identified as an anti-Palin traitor.
Applying to this situation the logic of Sherlock Holmes and the dog who did not bark, therefore, I observe that Nicolle Wallace has reportedly denied being the anti-Palin leaker and ask: Did Nicolle Wallace ever say anything nice about Mitt? (Let the folks at Operation Leper take note.)
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Ross Douthat Is Very Mean
Posted by on 11.7.08 @ 4:27PM
So says Doug Kmiec. I actually thought Douthat's post about Kmiec's pro-life Obama shilling was about right, though I'm probably very mean too.
Merchandising Obama
Posted by on 11.7.08 @ 11:53AM
Today's Prowler column should has some interesting implications. If the Obama team maintains its 501(c)4, it could well become a clearinghouse for a White House slushfund. Remember Clinton renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? This will be even better.
I for one hope that they'll have the good business sense to also sell these cups that are a big hit on the West Bank:
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Triangulation of Hope
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 9:45PM
Barack Obama's vague campaign of Hope and Change has created contradictory expectations for his administration. Rasmussen Reports found that 61 percent of Republican voters expect their taxes will go up, compared to just 17 percent of Democrats. While 39 percent of white voters expect to pay higher taxes under Obama, 39 percent of blacks say they'll pay lower taxes.
Obama's repeated promise that 95 percent of Americans will receive tax cuts -- at the expense of the richest 5 percent -- created an unusual perception: A tax-cutter who's also a redistributionist. If he fails to keep that promise, Republicans will batter him as a liar. If he keeps the promise, however, Obama will add to a budget deficit already swollen by $1.1 trillion in bailouts (with perhaps more bailouts to come). And Obama's budget math won't benefit from any Laffer-curve effect, since his neo-Keynesian formula is the exact opposite of the reductions of top marginal rates favored by supply-siders.
Karl Rove noted today that the self-reported ideological affliation of the electorate remains unchanged from 2004 -- 34% say they're conservative, 21% liberal and 45% moderate. Nonetheless, they elected as president the most liberal member of the Senate, with Obama getting the votes of 20% of self-described "conservatives" and 60% of "moderates."
What does this mean? It means that two decades of rhetorical fudging and policy incoherence have obscured the meaning of our political lexicon. George Bush the elder promised a "kinder, gentler" conservatism, raised taxes and signed onto a minimum-wage increase. Bill Clinton cleverly (and duplicitously) "triangulated," promising a middle-class tax cut he never delivered, vetoing welfare-reform twice before signing it, taking credit for a balanced budget that was mostly the result of a reduced military and Republican opposition to his spending proposals. The "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush has introduced still more confusion. In what sense are the No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare Part D "conservative" policies?
Considering that the Republican 2008 candidate, John McCain, had opposed tax cuts, collaborated with Russ Feingold on campaign finance regulation that helped Democrats achieve a decisive fundraising advantage, and collaborated with Ted Kennedy on an amnesty bill that infuriated conservative voters, it isn't hard to see why Obama so easily veiled his liberalism behind vague platitudes.
Philip Klein's report from today's gathering of the conservative movement's senior leadership indicates that these leaders understand how Republicans have squandered the ideological clarity of the Reagan era. Obama has succeeded by inspiring unrealistic notions of what he (or any president) can accomplish. Mixed messages from Republicans made it easier for Obama to convince Americans that he is a moderate -- what does "moderate" mean, if "conservative" has lost its meaning?
Beginning Jan. 20, Obama must stop promising and start delivering, and with his army of online "progressive" activists demanding that he and the Democratic Congress enact liberal policies, what he aims to deliver won't be easily mistaken as "conservative." Republicans have triangulated themselves into the wilderness, and they'll stay there a long time, if they support Obama's agenda.
Discussing Conservatism's Future
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 4:28PM
I just filed a report up on our main site with details from the meeting of conservative leaders about the future of the movement, held at Brent Bozell's house in Virgina.
Re: Jim's Re: Sarah Palin
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 2:15PM
Jim, I knew you would bring that up. I meant to address it in my last post, but forgot. As it turns out, Kasich was unambiguously part of one of the sections of Lehman that WAS doing well, and he was not in overall management, so I think he would have been able to fend that off pretty quickly -- ESPECIALLY since Lehman did NOT get a taxpayer bailout. The Dems would have tried to make hay of it but it would have failed, because Kasich is so good at communicating and would have parried it quickly. Or so I think, anyway.....
Boehner Returns
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 2:05PM
Can you imagine John Boehner suriving these two consecutive election losses if there was someone as ambitious as Newt Gingrich in today's House Republican Conference? I cannot.
Re: Sarah Palin
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 2:03PM
Kasich might have run into some problems too. (I quote one Quin Hillyer in the piece.)
Re: Sarah Palin
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 1:02PM
I thank Phil for his mention. And I also refer to Jim's post. My fundamental argument with the mode or framework of analysis in both otherwise insightful posts, and in so much of the other pro-Palin commentary on the right these days, is the ex post facto assumption that because Palin galvanized the right, she was the only candidate who could galvanize the right. As I spent all year arguing, there were at least a handful, and up to 10 or 12, potential Veep picks who could similarly galvanize the right without turning off moderates/independents/Perotistas, and who also quite clearly passed the "ready at a moment's notice for the Oval Office" test. Granted, my longtime pick of Chris Cox would not have worked because of the credit crisis for which he completely unfairly got the blame, but the guy who became my top choice by the summer, John Kasich, would have been almsot perfectly situated to fill all three bills. And Paul Ryan would have been able to do so, too. Likewise with Mike Pence, probably. Jim DeMint probably, too. And even a less galvanizing figure like Richard Burr would have reassured the right without turning off anybody else.
Here's the key thing: The right was almost desperate for some signal from McCain that he would welcome them to the governing table. Conservatives would have responded positively to ANY "movement" type. Combined with the growing evidence of Obama's radicalism, the right would have rallied behind ANY of the above-named tickets. The key was to move right without scaring the middle or turning them off. Palin is a great lady with a great future, but she wasn't ready this time around, and it was unfair to thrust her into a position where she could get "Quayled."
Blunt Out, Time to Dump Boehner
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 12:53PM
A good indication of whether Republicans have learned anything from the shellacking they suffered at the polls for the second straight election is whether they decide to shake up their Congressional leadership. After the 2006 thumpin', I wrote that they should replace John Bohner as minority leader. At the time, one could defend him by saying that he didn't rule long enough to get blamed for the magnitude of the defeat. But now, more than two years has passed of Boehner leading with a minority mindset, and Republicans lost at least another 18 seats. There's no excuse for keeping him as leader, though unfortunately, it looks like that's exactly what they're poised to do. In more positive news, Roy Blut has stepped aside as minority whip, and is likely to be replaced by Eric Cantor.
Hail to the Chief
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 12:52PM
Rahm Emanuel is a partisan, a liberal, and a bare-knuckled political brawler. But there is a silver lining in this pick: Emanuel has vivid memories of 1994 and has been fiercely protective of the more moderate red-state Democrats he has gotten elected as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While these facts may complicate Republican efforts to retake Congress or the presidency, they could also serve as a check on some of Obama's most liberal ambitions. Emanuel will be perfectly willing to use the new Democratic majorities, but not lose them.
UPDATE: See what I mean?
Chief Rahm
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 12:44PM
Rahm Emanuel has accepted the chief of staff post, the Politico reports.
The Quayle-ing of Sarah Palin
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 12:30PM
Like Phil, I have no idea whether the less flatterring bits about Sarah Palin's knowledge are true, though I do know that her lack of preparedness made these accusations believable. But before we conclude that Palin was a net drag on the ticket, I think we have to remember where John McCain was before he picked her. He had a serious base problem and enthusiasm gap. Swing voters are important, but if you don't have your base locked down they can't do very much for you. Based on the usual Libertarian vote totals, Bob Barr probably took less than 100,000 votes from McCain on Tuesday. That was not inevitable -- Barr was polling 6 percent nationally this summer. Sarah Palin is a major reason why.
There was a brief period where Palin was attracting women and shoring up the base. This was when McCain put up some of his strongest numbers against Barack Obama. But the danger of a bland presidential nominee turning his running mate into a base-pleaser like Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew is that the number two becomes polarizing and begins to turn off swing voters. That's exactly what happened to Palin as the campaign progressed. But I'm still not sure McCain would have been better off with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, and I'm confident he would have been worse off with Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.
As far as what Palin should do next, she could do worse than starting with this Slate column by Christopher beam
Frum Blames Nicolle Wallace for Palin Leaks
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 11:47AM
Apparently, when David Frum was a speechwriter for President Bush, he "crossed swords" with Nicolle Wallace over the Harriet Miers nomination. Wallace, a McCain campaign aide assigned to Sarah Palin, is behind the "savage cutting & gutting" of Palin, Frum says:
Would it not better serve the cause of understanding for Nicole Wallace to give an on-camera interview to Carl Cameron and state these points in her own voice - and allow viewers to asses their credibility? Wallace's fingerprints are all over these leaks anyway, so it's not as if she has any anonymity to lose.
Let's see if Wallace denies it. Last week, a source told me that the McCain campaign had devoted more effort to protecting Wallace than it did to protecting Palin.
UPDATE: Bill Kristol accuses McCain's campaign aides of "paranoia":
Staffers going through colleagues' e-mail accounts to try to find out who was leaking -- that's what your contributions to the McCain campaign paid for.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 10:36AM
- Remember, tides of opinion shift easily (Washington Post)
- FCC opens white space, consumers win big (Wired)
- The GOP has a chance to become much more (classically) liberal (Bloomberg)
- Obama is actually one of the best known and most documented president-elects (Culture11)
- Prop. 8's victory carries import implications (NRO)
- If it's socialism you want, it's socialism you got (RealClearMarkets)
- It's easy to forget why we liked Bush in the first place (International Herald Tribune)
Re: The "Blame Sarah First" Crowd
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 10:32AM
Sarah Palin has proved such a polarizing figure that it's hard for people on either side to take a step back and offer an honest assessment of her candidacy. Yes, it's true that she was smeared -- accused of banning library books and lying about the birth of her child, among other things -- but it's also true that she proved herself woefully unprepared for the office she was seeking. Yes, it's true that she added a boost of energy to the ticket, and brought a lot of conservatives on board who were previously skittish about John McCain, but it's also true that she turned off a lot of independents, who thought that she was unprepared, got nervous about electing her as VP for a 72 year-old McCain, and thought the Palin pick said something about how McCain makes decisions. As it turns out, 60 percent of voters believed that Palin was not qualified enough.
Watching the video about the McCain campaign's frustration with Palin, a few things struck me. I have no way of knowing whether it's true that Palin didn't know what countries were in NAFTA or whether she didn't realize Africa was a continent, but I'm sad to say that based on her public appearances and especially interviews, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. She was completely out of her depth when talking about foreign policy and many national domestic issues. I do think that it's rather lame of the McCain people to try and point fingers at her, though. If Palin was that awful, it means that there was a severe breakdown in the vetting process, and that is the responsibility of the campaign.
As far as whether she should be a future conservative leader for the Republican Party, consider me a skeptic. She's clearly culturally conservative, but beyond that it gets a bit blurry. Upon further scrutiny, she didn't turn out to be as much of a reformer and fiscal conservative as it seemed at first blush. She was a blank slate on national security before she ran for VP, and gave me little confidence that she had an in-depth understanding of the world during the campaign. I have no idea what she would be like if she were running her own campaign without having to square her views with the quirky stances of John McCain, but I found her economic populism grating at times.
In a sense, I think we may have come full circle. Back in June, when the idea of Palin being VP was largely a debate among conservative bloggers, I argued that from a purely political perspective, Palin may be McCain's best bet for VP, but I also noted that I had reservations about her lack of experience. Quin soon responded, "Phil, I'm sorry, but I have to part ways with you on this one. In fact, I would propose a rule that NOBODY could be proposed as Veep who cannot immediately, on Day One, be seen as legitimately ready to be president." In hindsight, I think Quin was right, but then again, I don't think McCain could have won, no matter who he picked as VP.
That's So . . . October
Posted by on 11.6.08 @ 1:42AM
Count 'em at The Next Right:
- Why McCain Lost, by Nathan Benefield
- Why McCain Lost, by Daniel Ruwe
- Why McCain Lost, by Idahoconservative
Dudes, you're a month late.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The 'Blame Sarah First' Crowd
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:06PM
In language that might shock some family-values types, Conservative Blogger of the Year Ace of Spades denounces the "kneecapping" of Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staffers. And Michelle Malkin is equally furious:
Sarah Palin worked her heart out. She energized tens of thousands to come out who would have otherwise stayed home. She touched countless families. I didn't agree with everything she said on the campaign trail. But two fundamental conservative stands she took mattered greatly to me: She vigorously defended the Second Amendment and the sanctity of life more eloquently in practice than any of the educated conservative aristocracy.
And she did it all with a tirelessness and infectious optimism that defied the shameless, bottomless attempts by elites in both parties to bring her and her family down.
Shame on the smearers who don't have the balls to show their faces.
What they're talking about is the sliming in Newsweek and elsewhere, including Fox News:
Let me make a small point about the McCain campaign's hamhanded mishandling of Palin's press relations. Michelle Malkin has been a huge advocate and defender of Sarah Palin. Between Michelle's own site and her Hot Air video blog, Malkin Inc. gets 1.5 million online visitors daily, to say nothing of Malkin's Fox News connection. Michelle and her Hot Air crew were in St. Paul for the Republican convention. Did anybody at Team Maverick think, "Hey, why don't we hook up Malkin with an exclusive one-on-one with Palin? That would be buzzworthy -- an innovative use of New Media!" No, apparently that blindingly obvious idea never crossed their feeble little minds.
That such a bunch of clueless campaign hacks would then go out and trash Palin behind her back . . . well, I can't blame Ace for cussing a blue streak.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin e-mails to clarify:
I was in Denver for the DNC, but not at the RNC. Ed Morrissey was there for Hot Air, though.
Allah and I both requested an interview with Palin for Hot Air. They were somehow never able to make it happen...
For want of a nail . . .
Obama Kills the Economy
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 5:37PM
So today the Dow is down about 500 points. Yet I bet not a single news story about it tomorrow will attribute the drop to a negative reaction to yesterday's elections. Not one. Well, I will do so. The market knows Obama-biden-Pelosi-Reid-Frank spell economic d-o-o-m. But here's what will happen: As the economy continues to tank into next year, Obama and the media will play it as all Bush's fault and it will just give Obama leave to insert government more and more into things and spread more and more wealth. And possibly curtail more freedoms while doing so.
The End of the Bell Curve Theory of Politics
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 5:16PM
Back when I was a student of political science, we spent a lot of time discussing the bell curve theory of American politics. The idea was simple. Americans are supposedly arrayed along an ideological spectrum. The vast majority of voters are in the center, while small numbers lurk out at the edges. So, the theory goes, the winning party will be the one that finds a candidate to plausibly occupy the center position.
I think that theory is out the window.
There is no way rational voters could have looked at the choice offered by John McCain and Barack Obama and concluded that Barack was closer to the ideological center than McCain. Obama had no record of cooperation with Republicans. McCain has passed major legislative packages with Democrats. Obama has never broken with his party other than to go left of his party. McCain has regularly broken with his party to move in with centrist coalitions.
Yet, McCain was beaten soundly.
I suspect that voters are not really rational centrists.
I think voters are highly emotional and I think they are often looking for a narrative they can understand. Barack Obama appealed to both of those things. Disgust with Bush as the author of a long, expensive Iraq adventure that even if effective, feels like castor oil going down. Anger at the economic problems that seem to have no bottom of late. And the narrative, of course, is the candidate of hope. The one who can bring us together, heal wounds, and importantly, who is not a Republican like George W. Bush.
Goodbye bell curve. May political consultants and party bosses everywhere cut you loose.
More on Gordon Smith and Questionable Vote Counting
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 2:38PM
We received a note that there was a possibility that Multnomah County's election offices were flooded and that the "press was being asked to leave." It sounded sketchy, so I called to check it out.
According to Shawn Cunningham in their public affairs office, no press has been asked to leave whatsoever. There's a little bit of water in the basement, "the building was built in 1925," and they needed to move the ballots, which the press is welcome to bear witness to. He says that there are observers watching this process closely. I haven't yet checked in with GOP or DNC observers, but that's the word so far.
If anyone has been prohibited from viewing a part of this effort, however, please contact us immediately via email at editor@spectator.org, with "OREGON:" in the subject line.
UPDATE: Does anyone know anyone who's actually observing here?
Obama and the Role of Government
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 2:24PM
In my article on the main site, I suggest that people who voted for Obama out of an abstract desire for change may not be on board if he tries to govern from the far left. If you look at exit polls, it turns out that only a slight majority of the country -- 51 percent -- said that government "should do more." While I'd prefer a lower number, I hardly think this counts as a mandate for a sweeping expansion of the federal government. I know that progressive activists will try to push Obama in that direction, but if he follows their agenda, I imagine he'll meet stiff resistance among the general public.
Things Not Looking Good for Gordon Smith
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 1:03PM
Although Republican Gordon Smith is still ahead, the Oregonian reports:
Despite the closeness of the count, expert number crunchers said they expect Merkley to win, perhaps handily. Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts, appearing as an analyst on Fox News(12), outright called the race for Merkley, based primarily on how many votes remain uncounted in Democrat-rich Multnomah County.
Jules Crittenden on 'Omerica'
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 12:48PM
A long-form meditation on what to expect:
Look for accusations of racism every time someone opposes them, and earnest navel-gazing searches for the wretched lint of racism when their polling numbers inevitably drop. It's sad, but I highly doubt the election of the first black president has actually put us in the post-racial era. The campaign sure didn't, with rampant Democratic and media race-baiting every time the GOP attempted to raise a legitimate concern about the preparedness of the candidate, the importance of his associations and the wisdom of his policy proposals.
Worth reading the whole thing.
Carolina Blue
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 12:24PM
For my money, the most shocking result of this election was that Obama won North Carolina. Though he won it by a slender 20,000-vote margin, I remind you that Bush beat Kerry by 12 points (440,000 votes) in the Old North State in 2004. Was there any other state that saw a 13-point swing like that?
Doing What Ulysses S. Grant Couldn't?
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 12:03PM
Thomas Friedman gets typically overwrought and self-entranced over Obama's election:
And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States.
A civil war that, in many ways, began at Bull Run, Virginia, on July 21, 1861, ended 147 years later via a ballot box in the very same state. For nothing more symbolically illustrated the final chapter of America’s Civil War than the fact that the Commonwealth of Virginia — the state that once exalted slavery and whose secession from the Union in 1861 gave the Confederacy both strategic weight and its commanding general — voted Democratic, thus assuring that Barack Obama would become the 44th president of the United States.
Lee's surrender at Appomattox was apparently just a head-fake. That must be another of those lies my teachers told me. Good to know!
Whipping and Thumping Redux
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:55AM
Re: The Race for Third
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:50AM
Jim, it looks like Barr's total will be about equal to what Harry Browne got in 1996. I'm sure that's a disappointment to the Libertarian Party, but it's 100,000 more votes than Browne got in 2000, and about 90,000 more than Michael Badnarik got in 2004.
David Weigel was at Barr HQ in Atlanta last night, and I'm sure he'll soon file a full report, but I'll offer my own brief explanation for the disappointment of the Barr juggernaut:
- PAULISTAS -- In May, it was the hope of many LP activists that Ron Paul would endorse his friend and former congressional colleague, thus putting the Paulista energy (and money) behind the Libertarian candidate. That didn't happen. The Paulistas were more interested in staging a protest at the RNC in Minneapolis, and as for Paul himself . . . well, stuff happens.
- MEDIA BIAS -- If the McCainiacs can whine about the liberal media, Barr could (but won't) whine about conservative media. National Review, the Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- Barr's campaign was briefly ridiculed then carefully ignored by the giants of the rightward media. GlennBeck and Neil Cavuto were among the few conservative broadcasters who gave Barr any serious attention. If you were reading NRO's Corner, Red State or Townhall at any point from July onward, you wouldn't even have known that such a person as Bob Barr existed, much less that he was running for president.
Of course, the sodomy-and-assisted-suicide wing of the LP -- the folks who viewed Barr's candidacy as a "neocon takeover" plot -- will blame Barr, and their reaction likely will be to abjure future flirtations with political relevance.
The Hammer on the Whipping and Thumping
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:43AM
Tom DeLay explains the Republicans' loss.
A Gay Marriage Bradley Effect?
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:28AM
Some of the early exit polls suggested that California's Proposition 8 might lose narrowly (though I see CNN's weighted exits are now more consistent with the actual results). With 95 percent of precincts reporting, it looks all but certain that it is going to pass despite a Democratic landslide in the state, the controversy over the initiative's wording, and the fact that same-sex marriage was already in effect. All along, I suspected large numbers of black and Hispanic voters would turn out to vote for Barack Obama and against gay marriage. (Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians also voted more pro-life than whites.) With Arizona easily adopting a ballot initiative that was less broadly worded than the one that failed in 2006, every state that has gotten to vote on gay marriage has rejected it -- even blue states and states that have voted for it more than once. The only states that have adoped this innovation are the ones where the people can't vote or, in Massachusetts' case, the politicians won't let them.
The Right Also Loses Race for Third
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:19AM
With 97 percent of precincts reporting, Ralph Nader leads Bob Barr 647,310 to 484,225. Nader and Cynthia McKinney combined also outpoll Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and Alan Keyes combined.
In Other News
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 11:01AM
Senator wannabe Al Franken, it appears, is prepared to turn Minnesota into this year's Florida 2000.
In California, meanwhile, a not much yet publicized setback for gay marriage. Does this make California a center-right state?
The Winners Congratulate Themselves
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 10:17AM
Network anchors and reporters vied for airtime in which to express their own elation at Obama's win, and a sometimes inappropriate personal sense of victory; were reporters who said they were thrilled by Obama's winning sort of confirming charges of pro-Obama bias that had been leveled by McCain forces during the campaign?
"Sort of?" Yeah, I'd say.
lessons from four terms ago
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 10:11AM
Back in the 3rd week of 1993, the same week as Bill Clinton's first inagural, National Review sponsored a Conservative Summit in D.C. I attended was quite invigorated by the gig which featured a wide selection of the leading conservative pols, writers and thinkers at that time. Republicans had been laid low and like today found themselves rejected by the voters and out of power everywhere. To a certain degree the gathering was therapeutic as it ofered the chance to clear out some of the dead wood and offer up fresh faces and voices. Newt Gingrich, not mcuh removed from backbencher status gave the most compelling speech from my perspective. Looking back now I can't believe that anyone in the audience would have dared dream at tat time that he would be Speaker of the House in two short years. As we ponder circumstances today, perhaps this is another similar opportunity for rebirth. In my opinion the GOP is best understood as a party with two wings - the Rockefeller/Business Roundtable wing and the Entrepreneurial/Growth wing. Alas the Bushes for all the wildcat talk are at heart oldline Rockefeller Republicans (witness their cabinet selections from the business roundtable) the wing that inevitably drags the party to minority status. It is the entrepreneurial wing that focuses on small and start-up business and wealth creation that carries the ideas, energy and enthusiasm necessary to obtain and maintain majority status. The party's primary task today is to dislodge much of the deadwood that was not already cleared out yesterday and find the new faces and voices that can bring the entrepreneurial wing back to prominence. McCain's lasting legacy may well be his elevation of Sarah Palin as one of those entrepreneurial leaders.
The Repeal of 1994
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 9:58AM
If the current numbers hold, Republicans will knocked back down to their pre-1994 levels in the House and Senate. That's not great but it's better than things looked before the election. One wonders if the results on the East Coast persuaded wavering voters in later-voting states to re-elect their GOP senators.
State of the Senate Update
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 9:18AM
The Senate could be one area in which things actually are looking like they might turn out better than expected for Republicans. The big news is that the AP has called the Minnesota Senate race for Norm Coleman, but with 100% of precincts in, the CNN numbers have Al Franken within 571 votes -- this will easily trigger the automatic recount for races within 1 percent. In Oregon, Republican Gordon Smith has more than a 14,000 vote lead, and all of the results from the populous and heavily Democratic Multnomah County encompassing Portland are in, though we've yet to get results from some other Democratic leaning counties, so if you're a junkie, you can keep refreshing this page. We may not know for sure for 2 weeks as absentee ballots roll in, but right now it looks like frikin' Alaska re-elected convicted felon Ted Stevens. Should Stevens lose his appeal, a special election will be held for his seat, and perhaps there would be hope that Sarah Palin's Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell (who barely lost to Don Young in the Congressional primary), would win.
So basically, if these results hold, Republicans will end up with 44 votes in the Senate. That's not great, but it's something to work with. The Republicans wouldn't be able to filibuster everything, but they'd be able to prevent some things.
UPDATE: The CNN count I was looking at seems to have been altered, and it turns out that Multnomah County is not in yet, making it unlikely that Gordon Smith will hang on.
'What Do We Do Now?'
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 8:07AM
"I'm getting a lot of moan-y, sad-face "What do we do now, Michelle?" e-mails.
The first thing to do, I would say to such people, is to try to deal with the situation objectively. Step back from your own disappointed hopes, get outside the echo chamber -- where people were telling you Tuesday that John McCain was going to win Pennsylvania -- and try to obtain a realistic perspective on the results:
Good candidates win elections, and bad candidates lose. John McCain was a bad candidate and he lost. Those who try to put an ideological spin on this election will miss that basic point.
Nominating a bald 72-year-old for president? What were they thinking?
Advice to Ignore
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 2:40AM
Understand, once and for all, that the old media is part of the Democratic Party now. Ignore it. Never send Michele Bachmann onto Hardball again. Never send Sarah to play nice with Katie. We need to develop and create our own work-arounds - Fox, talk radio, NRO, etc. - and use them. Don't play by their rules: make our own.
What is being advised, in effect, is this: Don't bother explaining conservative policies to anyone in the news business. Don't try to locate friends -- or at least, non-enemies -- in journalism. Retreat to your echo chamber and pretend that the nation's largest news organizations don't exist.
Media relations is about relationships. Treating reporters as the enemy is self-defeating. It seems, however, that a generation of Republican operatives have been taught to (a) treat reporters like crap, and (b) whine constantly about bias. How's that been working for you, Tucker Bounds?
Indiana
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 2:27AM
Obama wins there. He's now out-performing my electoral college prediction.
The Bradley Effect Defeated
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 2:25AM
In addition to seconding what John and Phil have said about President-elect Obama, I'd like to bury the Bradley effect. Some predicted -- hoped? -- that Obama would lose this election, failing in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, because he is a black man. We should be glad they were wrong. Conservatives above all should know ours is not a racist country. The taint of racism has already done enough harm to America generally and our political movement specifically. John McCain, whatever his other faults, has been an opponent of bigotry for much of his public life who would probably not have wanted to win an election that way.
Obama campaigned on a promise to reinstate failed big-government policies of the past and to add a few new ones along the way. On that basis, he did not deserve to be elected president and conservatives must continue to oppose much of his agenda in office. But if he could not be beaten based on his ideas and policies, it is for the good of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and above all our country that he was not beaten because of the color of his skin. Of course, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been surprised.
Live From Obamaville
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 1:46AM
It's nearly 2 a.m. here in DC, where Barack Obama won 93 percent of the vote, and I couldn't get to sleep even if I wanted to, because the horns won't stop honking and the people won't stop screaming. I took a trip down to the White House awhile ago, and the streets were reminiscent of the New Year's Eve in Havana scene from the Godfather Part II.
Mr. Obama, President
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 1:07AM
When Senator Obama had suggested that there was a righteous wind at his back, he was criticized as being somewhat presumptuous. But he was, to a great extent, correct. There was a wind at his back, and it could be observed in those who were excited for him. McCain, on the other hand, was himself winded.
There is an excitement surrounding Obama that never could have been conjured by McCain. It is, in fact, surprising that McCain was ever able to get so far without it. Indeed, experience is an excellent qualifier, but experience is not magic. And those who pulled the lever did so in the hopes that maybe this longshot candidate could fulfill their dreams for the country. That pull of the lever was, of course, similar to working the slot machine, and we will not truly know if it will pay off any time soon. But it is not insignificant that so many felt the need to gamble in the first place.
Here in the rain-soaked streets of Washington, young and old, but all excited, voters swarm in and out of cars. The honking (frequently three staccato beeps) accompanies cheers of a name. Posters sway. Driving past the White House, Lafayette Square Park gathered more onlookers. Where they once stood and wondered "What if," has finally, for them, changed to "Now that."
That excitement is real. Yes, this is a historical moment, and one we should be proud of it. A legacy of racism and slavery has been strongly rejected in this election. And Barack Obama's greatest strength turned out to be his inexperience. There was so small a record to point to, it was far easier for people hopeful for change to turn to him as the embodiment of their hopes. There was little to contradict them. What he lacked in experience, they made up for themselves. History was less important than simply making history.
Some see this as a recipe for disaster. A survey of blogs around the web note, almost gleefully, that this man will completely and utterly fail. He can't help to, they say. This is foolishness. No one really knows. But a serious opposition ought to take its opponent seriously. More seriously, one hopes, than it did during the campaign.
What do conservatives have to look forward to? Years in opposition, something in which they excel. It's easier to fight the growth of government than to govern without growth. And while certainly the policies ushered forward in coming years won't be favorable to those who would prefer to live with liberty, they will definitely animate a movement struggling to define itself against what it isn't. If nothing else, it's a helping hand.
In this sense, I wish this for our dear readers. Do not be angry conservatives. Do not let the politics overrule your day-to-day lives. Continue living (to the extent you can) without concern for what the State might do. In this sense, we are so very different from the left. We won't allow anger to guide our discourse. Instead, I hope it'll be optimism. We will no doubt have fights ahead for the soul of American politics, but our own souls should remain unaffected. There are, after all, greater things.
This republic has a new president, baptized in the bloodless revolutions we enjoy every four years. Think about the woman in Iraq who holds her finger aloft, coated in purple dye. Just because we've practiced this so often for so long doesn't mean it should thrill us any less.
Whatever politics are to come, please remember this one thing: We are free.
God bless America.
The State of the Senate
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 12:55AM
The Democrats can't get to 60 now, but they are at 56 Senate seats (assuming they don't exile Joe Lieberman) with Alaska still voting and both Minnesota and Oregon too close to call. So they can still get close enough to make Mitch McConnell's job nigh impossible. I haven't seen any exit polls from Alaska but the other two states aren't yet out of reach. It looks like McCain has held Obama to a less than 10-point lead in Minnesota, which I predicted would bode well for Norm Coleman. My predictions haven't always panned out, but I've been right more often than not. I'm still holding to this one, though Coleman's margin is razor-thin right now.
UPDATE: Obama's margin is currently at exactly 10, yet Coleman is still just barely hanging on with 80 percent reporting.
My President
Posted by on 11.5.08 @ 12:37AM
Let me echo Jim Geraghty:
I have seen a few critics say, "he won't be my president," but that is nonsense. He will be my president, and I will wish him well, particularly as he takes on the duty of protecting the American people in a dangerous world.
I've seen the "not my president" crap, too, including among commenters on this blog. I'm not happy with the election results, but we've been listening to this garbage from the goons at Daily Kos et al. for the past eight years, and we don't need any more of it.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Lou Barletta Falls Short
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:46PM
The fact that a Democratic incumbent who has been polling less than 50 percent for months -- and often below 40 percent -- was able to pull off a victory is a testament to the Obama-led Democratic get-out-the-vote operation in Pennsylvania and the sheer drag that Bush/McCain were on even promising Republican challengers. Republicans did hold John Murtha below 60 percent, regained the Mark Foley House seat, and are on the verge of regaining the DeLay seat, as I predicted.
A Class Act
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:36PM
Others on this blog may disagree, but John McCain delivered the most gracious and heartfelt speech of his career tonight, and he walked off the stage with honor intact.
The American people have spoken, and tonight McCain honored them as much as he honored President-elect Obama.
Not Like You Weren't Warned
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:35PM
"McCain is not a conservative, he will lose in November . . ."
Just Short in Louisiana
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:12PM
Hopes for an upset in Louisiana are fading. I just went over the parish-by-parish results, and looked at which parishes still have outstanding votes, and it looks to me like another squeaker win for Mary Landrieu. Only 51% of Orleans Parish has reported, and that is her stronghold. There are some other parishes still not totally reported that will be pretty solidly for John Kennedy, but probably not enough to overcome both Orleans Parish and what already is a 37,000 vote deficit.
A Pundit's Prayer
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:11PM
Give us the wit to savage President Obama when he deserves it, without sounding deranged;
Give us the grace to praise President Obama when he earns it, without compromising our principles;
And give us the wisdom to tell the difference.
Obama's Win--Stating The Obvious
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:07PM
I have been very critical of Barack Obama throughout this campaign and expect to be during his presidency. I would have preferred a different result tonight, but I need to comment on the obvious -- the fact that a black man can be elected President of the United States is a great development for our nation. The legacy of slavery, segregation, and racial prejudice has been the biggest stain on a nation that has done more to advance liberty than any country on earth. While I have always felt deeply that the country has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last several decades on race relations, the media's focus on instances of racial division in our society has always distracted from the tremendous progress that has been made. Sure, there are still racists out there, but Obama's victory, thankfully, proves that they are relegated to an insignificant minority. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this world have thrived by stirring up racial resentment and creating the impression that racism is institutionalized and overwhelming in contemporary America, but Obama's election is a devastating blow to them and their ilk, and to the entire racial grievance industry. America decided that they liked Obama and trusted him to lead the country in a time of crisis, and they gave him a fair shake despite the color of his skin. While I dread what the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have in store for us, I am glad that we now have incontrovertible evidence that skin color does not place limits on one's ability to succeed in today's America.
For Conservatives
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 11:02PM
Fox calls the election for Obama just as taps is played in Fort Myer, outside my apartment.
Fitting.
California is Still Out!!!!
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:59PM
Many smiles. ;) Of course, if McCain had followed my advice and picked Chris Cox, he would have won both California and Minnesota!!!
Again, ;)
Or if he had followed my advice and chosen John Kasich, he would have won both Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Actually, that last might have been true. Kasich might actually have made a difference in those two states.
Taxachusetts Lives
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:58PM
A ballot initiative to abolish the state income tax was overwhelmingly defeated. When I wrote about the axe-the-tax initiative on the main site, the yes vote was polling within the margin of error. This was threatening to the political establishment, because the same question polled much worse in 2002 but came surprisingly close to passing. So what did the income tax's defenders do? Outspend the abolitionists 10 to 1, leaving nothing to chance this time. They got what they wanted and while I'm sure many Massachusetts voters who think taxes are too high found this idea too extreme or feared their property taxes would go up, by defeating the initiative so handily they have sent Beacon Hill's robber barons the message that they can get away with anything.
Massachusetts voters also, by a closer margin, voted to ban dog racing. Though they did approve marijuana decriminalization, showing that libertarianism isn't completely dead there.
Keep an Eye on Louisiana
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:53PM
Mary Landrieu is ahead by just 50 percent to 48 percent.
Growing in Office
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:26PM
Barack Obama is going to be our next president. It is now time to pray for better outcomes and better policies than many of us expect. The best hope is that he will heed the general movement of the past quarter century and not head left on economics. You've got to believe there are some smart Brookings types offering that kind of counsel.
On healthcare, I do think changes are on the way. The premiums are just way higher than they were in 1992. More people are ready to give in on this front. I think it will happen. Again, hope for a plan with some serious policy smarts to it rather than rank collectivization.
Abortion. This is my biggest concern. Will Obama attempt to pass a Freedom of Choice Act that will invalidate thirty years of incremental restrictions carefully built up at the state level? I predict he will not. What he will do is cement the fundamental holding of Roe/Casey for a few generations with Supreme Court picks. Planned Parenthood will settle for that.
The war? I'm no expert, but I have to believe we are committed regardless of what Obama promised in the campaign. Too much blood and treasure. Too much chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Hear! Hear!
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:18PM
John McCain, personally, is responsible for the single worst Republican general election presidential campaign sinc 1964.
That's the important point, and obviates the column I was going to write. Perhaps the most important statistic for conservatives to keep in mind today - as pundits pore over and pour out exit-poll data to tell us What It Means - is this: 53 percent of Republican primary voters did not vote for John McCain.
If there is a failure that conservatives can feel bad about, it is their failure to prevent McCain from getting the nomination. But that happened months ago. To lose with a bad candidate that you opposed is not like losing with a good candidate, nor is it like losing with a bad candidate you supported.
Conservatives should try to look on the bright side. Paul Jacob of Citizens in Charge just told me. "We've got 'em right where we want 'em. . . . There is no way that Obama and the Democrats can live up to expectations."
The Popular Vote
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:17PM
I realize that two-thirds of the precincts are still out and Obama will rack up big margins in California and many of the remaining states, but the popular vote is much closer than the electoral vote right now.
Yes, It Was McCain's Fault
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:09PM
Phil, I give credit to McCain for building up a "brand name" during the past 10 years that made him far more competitive than most other Republicans would have been. But what he did with that brand this year was pathetic. He missed opportunity after opportunity, both negative and positive, and never even put forth a coherent message. And he was a jerk. A flat-out jerk. The economic "crisis" was tailor-made for him to prove that he is the guy to trust in a tough spot, and instead he came off like a panicky, buck-passing, scapegoating, hack. Plus, his almost spur-of-the-meoment choice of Sarah Palin turned off more voters than it turned on. MAYBE, if he and his campaign had done some advance work, Palin might have been more help than hindrance. But they "winged it," and put Palin in a position she wasn't ready for and had not been prepared for -- and it turned off tons of educated white women, exactly the demographic they were actually trying to attract. That, too, was McCain's fault. Too much playing things by his gut like riverboat gambler, not enough calm and steady leadership.
The whole campaign, until the last five days, he was an angry old man. Angry old men lose American elections. The voters adjudged him temperamentally unsuitable for the office, and they were right.
The Iowa Trap
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:06PM
After making a measured defense of McCain, I'll offer this criticism. For weeks, I've been scratching my head as to why Iowa was one of the few states where McCain was outspending Obama, and I couldn't figure out why McCain and Palin continued to visit the state, considering: a) McCain trailed by double digits in most polls b) Gore won the state in 2000 and Bush barely won it in 2004 c) Obama spent much of 2007 campaigning there while McCain was in New Hampshire d) Obama launched his candidacy with a win in the caucuses there and e) McCain opposes ethanol subsidies. I thought, maybe the McCain campaign knows something the rest of the political world doesn't. Well, Fox News called Iowa for Obama within seconds of the polls closing.
House Update
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:06PM
Souder has won in IN-03. Rooney has won in FL-16. Keller has lost in FL-08. (Those are all Republicans -- Rooney a GOP gain, the others GOP holds -- and all following my predictions.) Still waiting on the Diaz-Balart brothers' races in FL-21 and F-25, among others.
UPDATE: Chris Shays has lost in CT-04 -- I got that one wrong. New England now has no Republican Representatives in the House.
Re: Bob Barr and Nader
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:04PM
Nader, though still stuck in fourth, is catching up to Barr but McKinney is way back in sixth place behind Chuck Baldwin. Though we're dealing with candidates winning less than 200,000 votes apiece with 23 percent of precincts in, so a lot can change.
UPDATE: Nader has narrowly passed Barr, and both have broken 200,000 with 33 percent of the vote in.i
UPDATE II: With 71 percent of precincts reporting and Nader now ahead by nearly 100,000 votes as the West Coast swelll his totals, it seems pretty unlikely that Barr will come in third.
It's Also Over
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:00PM
Without Ohio, I'm hard pressed to come up with a realistic scenario for a McCain victory.
Re: McCain Was Terrible
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:44PM
Quin, I share a lot of your problems with the McCain campaign, and I, too, was a fierce critic of his reaction to the financial crisis. I thought he lost the race with his suspension, which will be looked back at as one of the greatest blunders in the history of presidential politics. With that said, I'm going to defend McCain a little here. Republicans came into this race with the odds way against them, and he had to pay for the mistakes of President Bush. Despite this, he was very much in this race until the biggest financial meltdown, arguably, since the Great Depression. No Republican could have won under these conditions. Perhaps he could have made it closer, but that's about it. Also, I would argue that a lot of the bad decisions he made, in part, were caused by a need to distance himself from Bush or inoculate himself from other Republican liabilities.
I would add, too, that by promoting the idea that McCain somehow blew the election, it underestimates the political talents of Barack Obama. Here's a guy who a lot of conservatives thought had no chance of beating Clinton, and he pulled it off, and then he was able to win over her voters, and overcome his primary problems with working class voters. I've been going to Obama campaign events since March 2007, and have attended dozens of them, and he has shown extraordinary growth as a politician. His ability to adapt to circumstances and make everything sound moderate and reasonable to those who don't parse his words and look into his record, is quite remarkable. And yes, he had the whole media on his side.
To be sure, I agree that McCain could have run a much better campaign. But I think it would be a mistake for conservatives to come out of this election thinking that they would have won, if only McCain wasn't a crappy candidate.
It's Virginia
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:44PM
That's the state whose name slipped my mind, dear radio listeners. You know, the one where I live much of the time.
And the Band Played On
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:35PM
I'm here at the RNC party in DC, and when Fox News called Ohio for Obama, a short hush came over the crowd, and then the band continued to play "We Are Family" as partygoers went back to their conversations. Tonight hasn't been much of a surprise, and the crowd here was bracing for the worst. They seem to be distracting themselves right now with cocktails, desserts, and the multiple meat carving stations. I, for one, am regretting that I already ate dinner.
If Lou Barletta Wins ...
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:31PM
. . . you can thank Bay Buchanan and Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC for radio ads like this:
At this point, incumbent Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski holds a narrow lead.
McCain Was Terrible
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:28PM
John McCain, personally, is responsible for the single worst Republican general election presidential campaign sinc 1964. Worse than the fair-to-middling Dole effort, and even worse than the execrable Bush 1992 campaign. I could, and probably will, write far more in coming days to flesh this out. I started writing this as a column two days ago, before the results were in, but various reasons precluded me from getting the column done in advance, for tomorrow, which would have been the only fair way to write it without being unduly affected by the results themselves. I do note, however, that I have written before that this was the worst campaign I have seen on the GOP side, so this isn't just 20-20 hindsight. I will go farther: I think McCain acted dishonorably for the entire past year, in case after case. I have noted some of these instances in past columns and blog posts. The worst of all was his scapegoating of Chris Cox at the SEC, while offering reasons that were just flat-out factually inaccurate. But there were lots of other examples of dishonrably behavior. Yes, I said disHONORable. I reject the notion that McCain's vaunted "honor" is unimpeachable -- although I do think his personal probity in terms of not being "buyable" is unimpeachable, as I wrote in a column the other day.
Again, there will be plenty of time to flesh all this out, and also to flesh out the conclusion that McCain has serious problems of temperament. For now, though, I can say this: If it weren't for the fact that the new president is an Alinskyite hard-left liar, I would say with great gusto to McCain this phrase: "Good riddance!"
Semi-Supermajority?
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:28PM
Mitch McConnell and Saxby Chambliss have taken the Republicans' nightmare scenario -- a 60-seat Democratic majority -- off the table. But keep watching these races. A loss of even three more seats will make filibusters difficult, though not impossible. And Sununu would have been more helpful in that area than Susan Collins.
Ohio
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:24PM
MSNBC just called it for Obama, the first red state he flips (they seem to have taken the Virginia call back).
Change Scott Stein Can Believe In
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:21PM
Not from Obama or McCain, but:
I want politicians to stop leaving robot voice-mails for me and to stop calling my house every five minutes. I want to be done seeing political ads on TV and lawn signs on lawns. I want the news to go back to telling me about something — anything — less annoying than the political campaign … a return to reporting on the latest multiple homicides would do nicely, thank you very much. I want friends I mostly like to stop talking about politics, so I can go back to mostly liking them again. I want politics to stop being the center of existence.
Re: Bob Barr
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:14PM
That's good news, and not just because it's nice to see Nader and McKinney failing. (I'm back, with bourbon.) I voted for Barr, because while I think the Libertarian Party, generally speaking, does libertarianism no favors, if the LP won't curl up and die we might as well reward them when they nominate a candidate who's actually sane. (I live in Maryland, by the way; if I were in a swing state I would have voted for McCain without hesitation.)
The Big 'What If'
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:11PM
I'm blogging from an Election Night event at the offices of the National Taxpayer Union in Alexandria, Va., where NTU spokesman Pete Sepp says John McCain's support for the $700 billion bailout bill "definitely" hurt him in the election.
Noting that support for the bailout also caused trouble for Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu, Sepp said, "You think, what if McCain had come out forcefully against it? He might have tipped several key states."
Bob Barr
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:10PM
Is the first third-party candidate to cross the 100,000-vote threshold.
Allen West Trailing in FL22
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:59PM
Lt. Col. Allen West, whom I profiled in July, is currently trailing Democratic freshman Rep. Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd District, by a margin of 57%-43%.
Taking a Quick Break
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:51PM
I'll be back to blogging in a little bit, but right now I have to go run an errand before the liquor store closes...
Saxby Chambliss Wins in Georgia, McCain Takes State
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:42PM
No run-off needed, Fox News projects. So that leaves Democrats with no realistic chance of getting to 60.
Racist Hillbillies for Obama
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:38PM
Confronted with early returns showing Floridians voting for Obama and against same-sex marriage, Mike Riggs explains "a large chunk of North Florida's Bible-beating hillbillies decided they were fine with letting a black man write off the mortgages on their trailers and give them free health care, but not with allowing their neighbors in the rest of the state to marry." He goes on to lament, "It's amazing (and sad) to see which of their prejudices people are able to ignore when their own self-interests are at stake." Or when they think their prejudices are enlightenment.
IN-03
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:30PM
Souder's running ahead with half of precincts reporting, but it looks like much of Fort Wayne hasn't reported yet. Slow reporting may help explain why Indiana's still too close to call at the presidential level.
Sununu Goes Down in NH
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:27PM
That's now three seats already gained by the Democrats. Again, the evening is going exactly as expected thus far. The polling assumptions seem right on target.
Re: Pennsylvania
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:25PM
Michael Barone just explained that Fox is holding off calling PA because of a lack of precinct data. The other networks seem to be emphasizing the lopsided exit polling.
UPDATE: And now Fox calls it for Obama. I don't see how McCain can win.
Virginia
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:20PM
Goes for Obama according to NBC and MSNBC (haven't seen other networks call it yet). Unless McCain scores multiple major upsets out west, either Obama will win or NBC's political desk will be humiliated.
UPDATE: It looks like they rescinded the call at some point while I was channel surfing (or it was just a graphic error that I spotted before).
McConnell Hangs On, Dole Falls
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 8:09PM
Fox News just called both races. So right now, Democrats look like they'll gain from 6-8 seats. It's unlikely they'll reach the filibuster proof majority, but they should get close enough. All eyes will be on Minnesota and Oregon.
It's Still Early...
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 7:52PM
But thus far, I'm not seeing anything that's making me want to rethink my prediction of an Obama win. Blacks and young voters, by all reports, have been turning out. Nearly an hour after polls closed, they have not been able to call Georgia for McCain, and they just called South Carolina a few minutes ago. Meanwhile, Indiana and Virginia remain to close to call. These were all easy Bush states in 2004, my friends.
West Virginia
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 7:43PM
Goes for McCain, as I predicted. Fox took less than 15 minutes to call it, FWIW -- it would have been huge for Obama if it had taken much longer than that.
The First Senate Seat Falls
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 7:21PM
The networks are calling the Virginia Senate seat being vacated by squishy Republican John Warner for squishy, tax-hiking Democrat Mark Warner.
Elections
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 6:11PM
Before elation or depression follows the election results it may
be well to reflect that this nation runs itself, and in the long
run nothing was decided that cannot be undone.
Obama by 15 in Pennsylvania?
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 5:58PM
That's the line at Drudge, supposedly based on exit polls. We shall see what John Murtha's redneck/racist constituents do . . .
Exit Polls Show Obama Outperforming Kerry Among White Men in OH, IN, VA
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 5:48PM
Fox News just announced some exit polls showing John McCain with double digit leads among white men in Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia, but I just looked at the corresponding exits from 2004, and it turns out that Obama is drastically outperforming Kerry among this demographic, according to exits which, granted, need to be taken with a grain of salt. In Ohio, McCain is leading Obama 51-47 among white men, but Bush won them 56-43; in Indiana, it's 54-44 for McCain, compared to 65-34 for Bush; in Virginia, it's 58-37 in favor of McCain, compared to 72-27 for Bush. True, Bush won Virginia and Indiana by comfortable margins, so there's some buffer for McCain.
In better news for McCain, the exits showed him leading by 11 points among late deciders in Virginia, but he's trailing Obama among this group in Indiana and Ohio.
Again, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as we learned last time. But how can I resist?
The Longest Campaign Ever... Why?
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 5:33PM
Here's a question worth pondering no matter what happens tonight: Was there any point to the 2007 stretch of this painfully long campaign? For most of 2007, the polls suggested a Rudy Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton race. John McCain was broke and sinking in the polls. Barack Obama let his historic opportunity pass him by. Even most black voters preferred Hillary for the Democratic nomination. None of this, it is now obvious, turned out to be true. Giuliani didn't even win a single primary. Hillary is now stumping, however reluctantly, for Obama. Did we really need to go through the first stretch of a campaign that only professionals paid any attention to and didn't turn out to matter?
America Moves on From Sept. 11
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 5:23PM
Exit polls show that when asked to name their top issue, Americans answered the following way: economy 62%, Iraq 10%, terrorism 9%, health care 9%. In 2004, economy/jobs was at 20 percent, Iraq was at 15 percent, terrorism was at 19 percent, and health care was at 9 percent. So, in other words, if you combine Iraq and terrorism as an issue, 34 percent saw national security-related issues as most important in 2004, compared to 19 percent this time around.
My Final Predictions
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 4:47PM
John Tabin's tip sheet on the main site is a great place to look if you want to get a sense of how the election is going once the returns start coming in. He outlines what you're likely to see in the event of a McCain upset, decisive Obama victory, or inconclusive long night. But, for the sake of posterity and to perhaps make a fool of myself, I'll share with you my last round of pre-election predictions.
Barack Obama will win the presidency with results similar to Bill Clinton's in 1992 -- it will be relatively close, within five points, in the popular vote but he'll win 300 + votes in the Electoral College. Obama will hold on to all the 2004 Kerry states and flip Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, and even Ohio and Florida, though both states have seen some movement in McCain's favor in recent days. McCain, however, will pull it out in Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, the Dakotas, and his home state of Arizona. Montana could be spoiled by Ron Paul -- he's on the ballot there against his wishes -- and Bob Barr, but I'm still going to call it for McCain.
Barr will run ahead of Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney to become the first Libertarian presidential candidate to finish third since Dr. Paul in 1988. I don't think he'll break Ed Clark's record as top Libertarian vote-getter (Clark got nearly a million votes for 1.1 percent in 1980), but I do think Baldwin will break Howard Phillips' 1996 record as the Constitution Party's top vote-getter.
Democrats will pick up Republican-held Senate seats in Virginia, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire (it gives me no pleasure to say), Alaska, and North Carolina. Mitch McConnell will hang on in Kentucky and Roger Wicker in Mississippi. Saxby Chambliss may end up in a runoff in Georgia, but will ultimately prevail. Susan Collins in Maine has joined the ranks of the safe Republicans, despite the Democrats' efforts to challenge her. Republicans will pick up no Democratic-held seats.
That leaves Norm Coleman in Minnesota. He seemed to be pulling away around the time of the GOP convention, then Al Franken took the lead after the Wall Street meltdown. Things seem to be trending in Coleman's favor once again. But he's still an incumbent below 50 percent. Even allowing for some of Mickey Kaus' seasaw theory, if Obama's victory margin is greater than 10 Coleman is done. If McCain can hold Obama to single digits, Coleman will be re-elected.
The Democrats are going to win 20 to 30 Republican-held seats in the House, but there Republicans will have some offsetting picks. Republicans are going to retake the Tom DeLay and Mark Foley seats, beat Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania, and even give John Murtha a scare. Tom McClintock will pull the football away from Democrat Charlie Brown in John Doolittle's California district. But I think Don Young, Chris Shays, Joe Knollenberg, Michelle Bachmann, and Tom Feeney are some of the incumbents who are going to fall short while the GOP bleeds open seats. If there were fewer retirements and the Republicans could have focused all their resources on marginal districts the Democrats won in 2006, things wouldn't be nearly this bad.
Read 'em and weep. If you don't like them or they turn out to be wildly wrong, I'll refund all of the money you paid for them.
Report:Obama Told Abbas He Supported Dividing Jerusalem
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 4:12PM
Israel National News has the following disturbing report:
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama privately expressed his support for a new Arab state within Israel's current borders, including eastern Jerusalem, during his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah this summer.
According to a report published Tuesday in the Lebanese newspaper al-Ahbar, Obama told Abbas that he supports a PA state, and Arab "rights to east Jerusalem" as well. The sources said Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad "heard the best things they ever heard from an American president" during the meeting. However, said sources quoted in the report, the candidate asked them to keep his declaration a secret.
To recap, this means that he went before AIPAC in June and told a pro-Israel audience that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," then, after Palestinians raised a fuss, he said it was a "final status issue," and then he went to the Palestinian leadership and told them the exact opposite -- that he actively supports a Palestinian state with a capital in eastern Jerusalem.
If, like me, you've approached Obama with skepticism, nothing about this should suprise you. There has been ample reason to believe that Obama's election-year statements on Israel are meant to mask his true feelings on the subject, and now, on the day of the election, we get an account that if accurate, means that all along he was secretly planning to shift U.S. policy in the region toward the Palestinian point of view.
No matter what your position is on the conflict, it should disturb you that Obama is so fast and loose with his words, especially since that's virtually all we have to measure him by. And making promises to both sides is especially dangerous when moderating a conflict that has been exacerbated by ambiguous promises ever since the days of British control.
The Great Communicators
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 3:55PM
Recently I exchanged a few emails with Elvin T. Lim, a professor of government at Wesleyan University and author of the book The Anti Intellectual Presidency. Lim's particular expertise is in the area of political communication, and I found his comments about Barack Obama's oratory to be particularly interesting.
The key to Barack Obama's rhetorical success is not too different from Ronald Reagan's. Recall that many liberals thought Reagan's speeches too vacuous, but conservatives thought they were sublime. Well, the tables have turned. Many conservatives today think that Obama offers platitudes (a charge that you will recall Hillary Clinton made during the primary season), but liberals think his speeches are thoughtful and considered.
I don't think this perfect inversion is coincidental. In both cases, those who already agreed with a particular president read substance into his rhetorical symbology but those who disagreed with him saw only empty soundbites. Both supporters and detractors of Obama and Reagan are right. Obama and Reagan (and indeed Franklin Roosvelt and Abraham Lincoln and other "great" American orators) shared at least one thing in common - they knew how to use "spacious" rhetoric to generate assent by appealing to mythic ideas without getting bogged down by divisive details. They were both vacuous and intellectual. It is this hybridity that explains Obama's spellbinding magic.
Department of Unnecessary Clarifications
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 3:50PM
Any college student who can remain snarky in the face of a billyclub wielding Black Panther is a person welcome to an internship at AmSpec.
I think the quote of the day is: "But you have a nightstick in your hand ... I have a cameraphone, which is not a weapon." Watch this video and have a drink for a democratic process, free from intimidation!
The Mother of All Corrections
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 3:33PM
An editorial discussing a recent LGBT "educational" event from the Columbia University newspaper, the Spectator (no relation):
Because of an editorial mistake, the original version misstated that Columbia Queer Alliance was responsible for Queer Awareness Month. While CQA and QuAM collaborate on some programs, QuAM is its own unique group. The editorial also misstated that a giant inflatable penis was part of QuAM's opening tabling. It was in fact part of a different campus event.
At AmSpec we would never, ever, ever make the mistake of assuming the Columbia Queer Alliance is one and the same as the Queer Awareness Month group.
Speaking of important lessons learned, the Spectator sprays more wisdom onto an unassuming audience:
Future QuAM organizers should recognize that not all Columbia students are comfortable enough in their own skin for an explicit celebration of their sexuality. The month-long event is a celebration of the LBGT community, but it must be sure to focus on awareness and education before revelry.
Here here! Now for the true moral of the tale:
No student should be so overwhelmed by the more explicit revelry during Queer Awareness Month that he or she misses its effective educational programming.
Man, that is so true.
'Regrets, I Have a Few ...'
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 3:28PM
'... but then again, too few to mention':
Asked if she had any regrets about the campaign, Palin bemoaned "the state of journalism today." "The blogosphere, the two, three hour news cycles, where just too much is reported based on gossip and innuendo and things taken out of context," she explained, adding that she'd like to help improve the profession because she has "great respect for the world of journalism."
Translation: "Roger Ailes, call me."
Florida in 2000 Was Nothin'
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 1:59PM
If the public polling turns out to be wrong and we end up with an election result that is within the margin of litigation, things could get uglier than we've ever seen before. Even in 2000. Or so says Mike Carvin, a former Justice Department official who represented the Bush/Cheney campaign in Bush v. Gore.
"If this election is at all close, the litigation needed to straighten it out will dwarf anything we saw in Florida in 2000," Carvin said in a statement. "We've already seen challenges to the failure to count military ballots in Virginia and to exclude legitimate Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia. Coupled with the enormous validation problems caused by ACORN's dubious registrations, record turnout, new voting technology, and the provisional ballot provisions of the Help America Vote Act, we could see systemic post-election litigation challenges even where one candidate is tens of thousands voters ahead in a particular state. So both sides may be very active today in challenges to ineligible voters and machine malfunctions, and in efforts to extend polling hours. An early signal on how litigious things will get may be whether the Obama campaign in Virginia will actually support excluding the votes of military service personnel because they were not provided timely ballots."
The Dixville Notch Curse
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 1:07PM
Mark Steyn highlights past results in early-voting Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. The little town went for Richard Nixon in 1960, Gerald Ford in 1976, and George H.W. Bush in 1992. In the last, Bill Clinton finished fourth with just three votes, behind Bush, Ross Perot, and Libertarian Andre Marrou. This year, Barack Obama beat John McCain there. Some Steyn readers, clutching at notches as he puts it, think this indicates a Dixville Notch curse where the winner of this town loses the presidential election. I had a different reaction -- Dixville Notch usually votes Republican even in Democratic election cycles and didn't this time.
Can I See Some ID?
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 12:54PM
I'm home in Massachusetts today to cast my various quixotic votes. I happened to be here on Super Tuesday to cover Mitt Romney's swan song and when I voted in the Republican primary, I wasn't asked for ID. The ID requirement is now in effect. Secretary of State Bill Galvin has a radio commercial in which he solemnly reminds everyone to bring identification and promises to make sure every registered voter's ballot counts -- with some exceptions, as Michael Graham points out.
UPDATE: They did not, in fact, request my ID when I voted.
Turnout Is Fair Play
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 12:05PM
Below Phil notes that some Republicans are holding out hope that the race, like objects in the rearview mirror, is actually closer than it appears. Even the public polling that assumes fairly traditional turnout tends to show a competitive Obama-McCain contest. It's the polls predicting a large uptick in new, particularly young and black, voters -- and an unprecedented Democratic party ID advantage -- that have Obama up big. I'm skeptical that self-identified Democrats will outnumber Republicans by double digits and think some of these popular vote leads are inflated. But like Phil, I think people assuming traditional turnout are also mistaken.
Here's just one small bit of anecdotal evidence. On a train to Baltimore last night, I sat near an elderly black gentleman. He asked me if I had voted yet. I told him I was voting on election day. He said he had already voted and stood in very long lines despite the early voting. He also informed me that he had never voted before. He didn't ask me who I was voting for and I didn't ask him who won his vote. I didn't have to.
Keeping Hope Alive
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:54AM
For those who lean rightward, here I was yesterday trying to keep hope alive. And also here, if you can get the video to work.
How Barr Will Win
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:48AM
Unlike some people, I don't require an Electoral College victory scenario to justify my vote. I just voted for Bob Barr. I vowed on Feb. 7 -- the day Mitt Romney suspended his campaign -- that I'd vote Libertarian this year, and I did.
I reject the idea that it is a "wasted vote" to vote for anyone but a winner (or a contender). That is an appeal to bandwagon psychology. I also reject the idea that it's somehow unpatriotic not to vote. "Freedom from politics" is one of the most important freedoms we have. If you examine the demographics of non-voters, frankly . . . thank God for apathy!
Also, I took my 19-year-old daughter to vote for the first time today. She is an education major, wants to be an elementary school teacher, and hates No Child Left Behind. She refuses to tell me who she voted for, but she did get a personal phone pitch from Bob Barr this morning.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 10:01AM
- Baby boomers have left us a broken system the liberals can't
fix
(NY Times)
- Forgetting 9/11 (WSJ)
- "My hands were tied" -- Chris Cox (Washington Post)
- Poor people are poor for reasons that don't include the rich being rich (Investor's Business Daily)
- McCain thinks he owes his country. Obama thinks the country
owes him
(Mere Comments)
- Flourish. Exeunt. (Politico)
- The laundry list of Christian reasons Obama is a horrible candidate (Catholic Insight)
The McCain Scenario
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 9:04AM
The Politico has a story up explaining why some Republicans, in spite of all the public polling, still think the race is a lot closer than it seems, and that McCain has a legitimate shot of pulling it off:
“I’ve been saying for some time that from our polling I think it's much tighter, a 3-point national race on Friday,” said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who consults with the McCain campaign. “I think this race is going to be extremely tight.”
Goeas predicts, as does top McCain pollster Bill McInturff, that Obama will not significantly increase the percentage of young voters or black voters from the last election, voters they say the Democrat needs to come out in record numbers to get over the top in several crucial swing states.
Perhaps the national popular vote will be closer than suggested by some polls, but I think Goeas and McInturff are mistaken to believe that the black and youth turnout won't come out in massive force for Obama. And I base this not on media hype, but my own experiences covering this campaign, and witnessing first hand the enthusiasiam Obama has generated among both these groups.
I remember back in Iowa, a lot of the experienced voices I'd speak to were telling me that Obama wouldn't have a shot, because young voters don't come out for the caucuses, that colleges were on break and thus many students weren't in the state, and that the caucus process was so complicated so even if they did show up, they'd get buillied around by the seasoned Edwards and Clinton voters, just like Deaniacs got pushed around in 2004. Well, we all know what happened, and the post-Iowa spin is now that caucuses are biased toward the young, because it's harder for older people to get to the caucus sites. This is not going to be a repeat of 2004, when the youth did not show up for Kerry. Kerry did not inspire younger voters. There is simply no comparison.
And anybody who thinks that blacks won't turn out in unprecedented numbers when they have a chance to elect the first black president is badly mistaken.
Again, this is not 2004 -- the electorate has shifted substantially to Democrats over the past four years, and Barack Obama is not John Kerry. Actual Election Day polls that year showed the race too close to call, but this year Obama has a significant lead nationally, as well as in Pennsylvania. Perhaps hundreds of public polls are completely mistaken and McCain will pull off the greatest upset in history today, but I can't base my analysis on a gut feeling or what I hope will happen, I can only dispassionately draw a conclusion based on the empirical data available to me, as well as my own hands on observations covering the campaign for two years now.
Political Football
Posted by on 11.4.08 @ 1:08AM
Instead of dooming Barack Obama, the football gods may be smiling upon him. The Washington Redskins' loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers is a favorable sign for the party that lost the popular vote in the last election. Score one for the Democrats. Of course, this is an amended version of the Redskins rule. Other incarnations have been that the incumbent party goes the way of the D.C. football team in its last game before the election, which would have given us President John Kerry in 2004. You can go to ESPN's website to see Obama and McCain being interviewed by Chris Berman on Monday Night Football.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Liberal Spin on Palin
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 11:13PM
Josh Marshall is the latest liberal pundit (joining Peter Beinart, among others) to write Sarah Palin's political obituary. Notice that both Marshall and Beinart are reacting to a media-filtered perception of who Palin is and what she stands for, based on the attack messages she's been delivering on behalf of a McCain campaign that's been trailing in every poll since the third week in September.
To my knowledge, neither Marshall nor Beinart has ever seen Palin in person or talked with the ordinary people in the crowds who turn out to see her. Certainly, they've never talked to Palin herself. So she is being evaluated on second- and third-hand impressions based on a campaign that isn't her own.
Let me share this one anecdote: At Shippensburg, Pa., the "overflow" crowd -- those who hadn't made it through the doors in time to get into the main rally -- waited in the performing arts center. Palin and her husband Todd came out on stage and the governor had changed into a T-shirt with the Shippensburg University joke slogan, "Ship Happens." I jotted that down on my notepad.
When she'd finished giving her short speech, the crowd rushed the stage for handshakes and autographs and I pushed forward to get some photos. Palin worked her way toward where I was standing. I figured, "What the heck? Why not?" and handed up my notepad for her to sign. She looked at the pad, saw where I'd written the T-shirt slogan, then looked at me and with a laugh pointed to her shirt, saying, "Ship! Ship!" -- just to make sure I had it right.
Think about that. Amid a madhouse of fans and autograph-seekers, after a day of campaigning, she deciphered my scrawled note, recognized the potential misunderstanding, and cheerfully played it off. A minor incident, but displaying a keen perception that some others who've met her have likewise noticed.
Relieved of the pressure of this campaign, and allowed to craft her own message, I suspect Sarah Palin will reappear as a personality much different than the one Marshall, Beinart and other hostile pundits now criticize. And once the media is no longer acting as Obama's Praetorian Guard, Palin won't be subjected to this relentless slagging.
Speaking Of Not-Totally-Endorsement-Endorsements...
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 8:23PM
Joe Carter recently made a very good, if reluctant, conservative case for John McCain.
Goldberg Succumbs to Optimism
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 8:02PM
Jonah, step away from the Kool-Aid:
I was just playing with the RCP electoral map. . . . And I have to say, it's actually much easier to see how McCain could pull it off than I had thought.
If there is a miracle, I will be shocked and gratified. Given the overwhelming contrary evidence, however, I refuse to hope. Hope is for chumps.
(And, yes, "Hope is for chumps" would have been an excellent GOP slogan this year, but nobody ever asks me about this stuff.)
Not That Obama Devotees Will Care...
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 7:49PM
...but anybody who believes what this guy has been saying during the campaign is getting fleeced.
The Non-Endorsement of McCain
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 5:48PM
Last week's column expressing my "non-endorsement" of McCain, which laid out the best intellectual case I could make for him while first acknowledging that there are at least a few countervailing arguments, evoked quite a response from readers. Shorn of all the lengthy introductory paragraphs, here is that case again:
Here is why John McCain should be the next president of the United States:
There is something special about this country. The United States is exceptional. We are blessed by the good Lord, and in turn we have done more, far more, than any other people to spread freedom across the globe, and prosperity across the globe, and human rights across this great good Earth. We are a particularly good people -- and John McCain understands all this and believes it with every fiber of his being, down to his very marrow, in a way that is deeply spiritual in nature. There is nothing fake about McCain's belief in American Exceptionalism. His belief in this is as genuine, and as deeply felt, as is a son's love for his father. He will defend this country, fight for this country, with every last breath in his body.
And McCain has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world. He was right to back Ronald Reagan to the hilt in the greatest foreign challenge of the past 60 years, namely the victorious effort to win the Cold War despite the strenuous and at times vicious opposition of the American Left. But he was right to oppose Reagan when Reagan, with all good intentions, decided to station Marines in Lebanon. McCain broke with his entire party, and warned that the Marines would be sitting ducks, and voted against the deployment. Tragically, McCain was right: More than 200 Americans died in Lebanon in a suicide truck bombing about a month after McCain's warning.
McCain was right to support -- and Joe Biden was wrong to oppose -- the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in 1991. McCain was right to support intervention in Kosovo later that decade: It worked. He was right to support a stronger military and greater numbers of personnel when Bill Clinton was cutting it. He was right to fight against wasteful weapons systems, and against corruption in military contracting. He was right to fight a specific boondoggle involving an Air Force tanker; he brought corruption to light (the perpetrators both in the Air Force and at the contractor went to jail) and saved the public $6 billion.
McCain was right to say that Saddam Hussein could be overthrown fairly quickly, with little loss of American life. He was right to say that Hussein was a terrible threat. But he was right, very early on, well before anybody else in the Senate, to say that it would take more troops and a different strategy to secure the peace after we had won the war. He broke with President Bush to say so, way back in 2003, and he was right.
John McCain has suffered for his country in a way only a tiny slice of the population ever has. The story is well known -- not just that he suffered in Vietcong captivity, but that he turned down early release in a profound expression of solidarity with his fellow prisoners. Yet McCain had the grace, when the time was right, to hold out an olive branch to the Vietnamese a couple of decades later when they showed a movement toward greater economic freedom.
John McCain is committed to reaching beyond party labels. Whether always right or wrong to do so, he really cares about doing what he thinks is right no matter whose political ox is gored. Barack Obama may talk a bipartisan game, but he never has actually played on that field. The reality, meanwhile, is that sometimes it helps conservative ends to work with people from the other party. Ronald Reagan knew this. Ronald Reagan knew how to bring Democratic congressmen his way -- for tax cuts and for defense improvements and for spending discipline. McCain, because of his long record of bipartisanship, can do likewise -- especially when it comes to spending. McCain has promised to veto any bill, any bill at all, that contains purely local-interest earmarks -- and with a veto, he can make it stick, even against a Democratic Congress. Eventually, once he makes it stick a few times, he can start bringing Democratic "Blue Dogs" his way on spending. Just watch it happen: Yes, it will.
This bears repeating: No candidate for president since Barry Goldwater has been as committed to spending discipline across the board as John McCain is. His entire record for 25 years gives evidence of that reality. Reagan came close to the Goldwater/McCain level of commitment, but McCain has kept up that fight, a lonely fight, for a quarter century. For limited-government conservatives -- actually, that's a redundancy -- this McCainite stubbornness should be cause for far deeper appreciation than it has received.
McCain also has the right instincts on the key issue of the judiciary. It may not be at the top of his list of importance, but he does, unambiguously, favor the appointment of judges who carefully construe the actual text of the Constitution and laws and are willing to be bound by those texts no matter what their own policy preferences. McCain's judicial nominees would be far more likely, by light years, than would be Obama's nominees, to maintain the Constitution's balance between national and state governments, and its restrictions on Congress's powers. His judges would be less likely to make decisions based on their preferred policy results -- but, because the Constitution is written as it is, a close adherence to the text would result in less hostility to religion, less hostility to honest police action, less hostility to private property, and less hostility to local community standards than would the radically liberal judges of the sort Obama favors.
Also, John McCain is an individualist. He believes in private action. He believes that individuals can live their lives responsibly without government acting as nanny and overseer and ultimate decision-maker on virtually every aspect of daily life. McCain trusts people with their own hard-earned money. McCain has never voted for a tax hike. McCain has supported almost every important tax-cut proposal for 25 years. Even on the two cuts he opposed, he stringently has supported keeping the lower level once it was set: It is a point of honor to him that American taxpayers should be able to count on lower tax rates once they are established and once they have begun to make plans based on those rates. McCain particularly understands that investors -- pensioners, 401(k) holders, homeowners -- are the engine of the economy, and that American investors right now are at a huge disadvantage to the entire rest of the developed world because our investment taxes are higher. McCain will cut investment taxes, and that's a very good thing for everybody.
Finally, there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, that John McCain will brook no corruption in his administration. Woe be to the appointee who would risk sullying McCain's vaunted honor by crooked deals and self-serving actions. It is likely that no administration in history will be so concerned with maintaining high ethical standards as a McCain administration would. And it will be blessed relief to have an administration where not even a hint of scandal will be even whispered by honest observers.
So there you have it: John McCain as a patriot firmly rooted in the American traditions of free enterprise, limited government, strong defense, personal accountability, and a decent respect for the cultural standards of the broad middle of the American public. Those are the constituent elements of American exceptionalism -- and to his great credit, John McCain is an American exceptionalist, and an exceptional American.
Re: Blogger Sneers At Reporting
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 5:30PM
Two posts later, Yglesias takes a ridiculously unfair shot at Stephen Hayes, who he accuses of being a liar:
His first book, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the subject at hand... To the best of my knowledge, Hayes has never made a single good analytic point on any subject, or introduced any useful new information into the public debate. Nobody outside the deepest recesses of the conservative cocoon has ever been impressed by a Stephen F. Hayes article.
I don't think Peter Bergen qualifies as a conservative cocooner. I once heard Bergen say that The Connection is a good book that you should read, but that he disagreed with the conclusion; Bergen doesn't think the links between Saddam and al Qaeda that Hayes documents constituted a serious threat. Bergen said this at the AEI panel that Matt wrote about in the article he links back to; I was also there and mentioned it here. At this point I could use Matt's own standard and call him a liar, but instead I'll assume his memory for events that he's charged with observing on behalf of his readers isn't very good. Perhaps that's why he doesn't like reporting: He sucks at it.
Our Lying Eyes and Ears
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 5:25PM
Here is a video record of a host of Barack Obama's lies and flip-flops.
Half-Time Speech
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 4:14PM
This is my half-time speech with 24 hours to go: It was 41 years ago this past Sunday (October 26, 1967), that John McCain took one for the team - the American Team that is. It was that day McCain's A4 Skyhawk had its right wing blown off micro seconds after John triggered the release of his ordnance over North Vietnam. He'd heard the warning tone but wanted to finish the mission before evading the SAM. Broken bones and all, he survived the crash to become a P.O.W. Needless to say John McCain would continue to take 'ones' for the team for the next 1966 days up until his release from captivity on March 14, 1973. Well if you were part of the team back in 1967, and by that I mean, an American citizen enjoying the good life - however you chose to define that, then it is time to stand up and return the favor. Not to payback John McCain for his past deeds, he's already been awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions 40 years ago. No, elections are about the future and you've got one more day to get your butt off the bench for the millions of everday Joes who make up the heart of today's American Team. I'll name just two that you know very well - Joe the Plumber and Joe the G.I. - they show up in the arena everyday, here and abroad, reporting for DUTY, good weather or bad. Their individual contribution may be modest but as a group they HONOR all of us by providing the quality of life and freedoms that we too often just take for granted around here. You may not agree with John McCain on every issue in this election but he just happens to be the one candidate still in this race, who is standing up for Joe and more importantly understands that this COUNTRY is a cause much bigger than himself. So that's it, no more time to waste here in the locker room - its time to get out in the arena and make phone calls, send emails and get out the vote for John and kick some butt for our team of Joes.
Semper Fidelis,
Ashby
Blogger Sneers at Reporting
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 3:47PM
Not only is this business of traveling with the candidate not very useful, with its huge ratio of time spent traveling to time spent doing stuff, but it's also quite expensive for the news organization paying for your travel. And yet, it's considered essential to do it. After all, that's "reporting." And reporting, as we all know, is the essence of "journalism." Spend hours on planes and buses and so forth and vast sums of money and then you can report on what John McCain said at a rally. Sit at home and watch the rally on television or look up transcripts, and that's not reporting at all.
Idiot. You wouldn't be able to watch the rally on TV if it weren't for the TV crews following the campaign. And while it could be argued that there is wasted manpower in the pack-journalism of a big presidential campaign trip, nevertheless, the blogger -- or other news consumer -- benefits from the opportunity to see events through multiple pairs of eyes. If the candidate gives a 2,000-word speech, which 25-word quote is the most important? Aren't reporters who've been following the campaign for several days best qualified to notice what's new in today's speech?
As someone who does both blogging and reporting, I appreciate the value of reporting. One of my big beefs about journalism today is the perverse esteem given to pundits who've never done first-source reporting. There is a lamentable tendency to take for granted the people who do the basic 5Ws-and-an-H stuff, while idolizing the "big picture" guy telling us What It Means. (Hey, just give me the facts and let me worry about the meaning.)
There are competing tendencies in presidential campaign reporting. Local press tends to be straightforward about what the candidate said -- to quote the speech as a meaningful expression of the candidate's positions -- and to supply lots of quotes from local supporters about how great it is to have the candidate in town. The traveling national press corps is more concerned with the topline narrative of what the candidate's strategy is and how well (or how poorly) the strategy seems to be working. My own forays onto the campaign trail have been episodic, and I've tried to use each event -- the quotes from candidates and supporters, the "color" details -- to supply some particular insight into the campaign.
However reporting is done, or by whom, there is simply no substitute for direct observation. If you didn't see and hear Republican crowds go wild when the "Straight Talk Express" bus rolled into an arena with "Eye of the Tiger" blasting from the speakers, if you didn't talk with the folks who turned out for those rallies, you can't claim to know who these people are, or what their moods and motivations are. Some things simply can't be done by watching TV and reading transcripts.
Who's Afraid of the Hockey Mom?
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 3:20PM
Sarah Palin drew an estimated 18,000 in Jefferson City, Mo., today. Remember this when liberals try to tell you that she's a net liability for Republicans.
UPDATE: A reported crowd of 5,000 for Palin in Dubuque, Iowa.
Democrat Paul Kanjorski in Trouble
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 1:55PM
A few Republican challengers in the House may buck the trend, however. According to a Survey USA poll, Republican Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta leads 13-term Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski 51 percent to 45 percent. The same poll shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain in this Pennsylvania district, by 53 percent to 43 percent. Barletta is well known for his opposition to illegal immigration and has hit Kanjorski hard for his incumbency and vote for the bailout.
It's Hard Out There for a Republican
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 1:23PM
Over at Reason, Dave Weigel has a good write-up of B.J. Lawson, the most credible of the Ron Paul Republicans running for Congress this year. Running against an entrenched incumbent in a gerrymandered Democratic North Carolina district, he's nevertheless been able to wake Congressman Price from his slumber. Yet even a Republican like Lawson, who has broken with the Bush administration on amnesty, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, wiretapping, and, above all, the Iraq war has found himself brought low by the Bush brand. If the latest generic ballot numbers are any indication, a lot of Republican challengers are going to find themselves in a precarious position.
The Smoking Gun Against Khalidi
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 12:50PM
Martin Kramer has posted the audio of a 1979 radio documentary that should leave little doubt in the mind of any honest observer that Rashid Khalidi was, in fact, a spokesman for the PLO. As Kramer notes:
Khalidi is given an affiliation by the narrator five times, as follows (with the elapsed time in parentheses):
• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)
• "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi" (11:45)
• "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO" (21:00)
• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut" (29:57)• "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51)
Add this to the evidence that I presented last week, and it should be case closed. In the radio interview, Khalidi speaks of the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people, and defends Palestinians' use of terrorism as their only means to resist Israel.
So again, Khalidi was a frequent dinner companion of Obama, a man whose conversation Obama said should be be echoed around "this entire world." What, exactly, did Obama find so enlightening about this terrorist flak?
John McCain's Last, Best Hope
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 12:45PM
Is that Barack Obama will retain Bill Belichick as a senior campaign adviser and then, right when the Democrats are on the verge of winning, Belichick will call a timeout and negate the election. Maybe Joe Biden can drop the ball in the end zone for good measure.
Re: There's Something Happening Here
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 12:43PM
More than anything the news of recent days that went against Obama -- especially the "bankrupt the coal industry" remark -- illustrates the foolishness of early voting. Why would anyone who is on the fence (or is within 10 feet of it) about their choice vote any earlier than the last possible day? You never know what surprises will be revealed.
I wonder how many whose livelihood depends on coal and related industries -- or even those who understand the issue and treasure less expensive electricity -- have already voted and now wish they had it back.
Bull Shift
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 11:36AM
Quin, I join Phil in the camp of dire pessimism. The "massive shift" took place between Sept. 16 and Oct. 2, the date Team Maverick effectively conceded defeat by pulling out of Michigan. McCain's endorsement of the bailout was the decisive event of the campaign. After the first debate (Sept. 26), the swing voters swung solidly to Obama, and any apparent motion in the polls since then has been a statistical mirage. The eight-point advantage Obama held in the Sept. 29 Gallup tracking poll is likely to be his final margin of victory -- call it 53%-45%.
Obama's popular vote margin will not be less than 5 points (52%-47%) although I doubt it will be as large as 54-44. Still, Obama will win a crushing Electoral College majority -- including Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and (obviously) Pennsylvania -- and easily exceed Bush's record 2004 total of 62 million votes, becoming the first Democrat to get a popular-vote majority since Jimmy Carter in 1976. (And we all know what a triumph the Carter administration proved to be.)
Obama Surrogate Says Obama Lacked "Political Courage" To Leave Wright's Church
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 11:04AM
Pamela Geller of Atlas Sruggs captured this video of New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, arguing with Jews at a Boca Raton, Florida synagoguge. Nadler, who made the visit to make the case for Obama, argued that Obama joined Trinity United Church for political reasons because it was the largest church in his Senate district, and "he didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out" once he had joined, even though he didn't share the views of Rev. Wright. It's actually an explanation that I think is a lot closer to the truth than what Obama and most of his defenders have argued, but quite shocking that Nadler would make that argument so close to the election. In another clip, he declared, "Let Russia invade [Georgia]. It's right next to them."
The Voter's Fetish
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 10:34AM
The great, always insightful Peter Sunderman makes an argument for principled non-voting over at Culture 11 today, which not only references the one political book I would force every partisan to read if I were (ironically enough!) emperor, The Cult of the Presidency--my chat with author Gene Healy lives here--but also ends with a sane and thus almost entirely overlooked truth:
So vote, or don't, but either way, don't agonize over it, don't raise an eyebrow at your friends and neighbors if they stay home, and don't worry if the other side wins. Democracy will march on, endlessly entertaining, endlessly frustrating, endlessly compromised, and endlessly mediocre. American greatness has persisted not in spite, but because of this: It is not that our politics make us great; it is that they allow us to do so on our own.
I could quibble a bit and say that more than a few elections have resulted in restrictions on the personal and economic freedoms that allow us the leeway to live lives that, if perhaps not great, are at least more fully our own, which is why I'll be voting in an election I think will not bode well for individual liberty whoever wins. I'll admit, however, that the why make myself complicit/encourage the bastards theory of non-voting is singing sweetly as a siren to me this Monday morning. And on this Suderman is exactly right: The fetishization of voting as the supreme civic act is an extraordinarily unfortunate fact of modern political life. Like the welfare state, it absolves people of the need to take any of the real, complex responsibility for what happens to their communities, to their neighbors and loved ones, and, frequently and most sadly, themselves.
Pass the buck and walk around feeling morally superior for spending thirty second in a voting booth? Yes! We! Can!
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 9:59AM
-
If the law becomes a tool of redistribution, everything else comes crashing down (WSJ)
-
Prop. 8 isn't about gays and lesbians. It's about the courts (NRO)
-
Obama's plans frighten some Joe the Plumbers in Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
-
Second guessing McCain on Jeremiah Wright (Politico)
-
Inexperienced presidents cause more trouble than they're worth (Investor's Business Daily)
-
Political expedience guides Obama's security policy, which is why he can't beat McCain on that score (RealClearWorld)
There's Something Happening Here....
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 9:55AM
What it is, ain't exactly clear..... hey, baby, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down.
There's a massive last-minute shift in the electorate. Massive. What's not clear is whether it is all in one direction or not. If it is all or mostly in one direction, it is in McCain's direction. But it could be a shift in two directions: One, a bandwagon effect, leading some semi-McCain leaners to go to Obama; versus two, a "safety" effect, leading a whole bunch of undecideds and some semi-Obama leaners to move to McCain as the better known quantity in uncertain times.
But what's clear to me is that there is an incredible amount of movement. And as all the "bad" news in t he past few days has been bad for Obama -- bankrupting the coal industry, an illegal-immigrant aunt who isn't being cared for, more information about Khalidi and vote fraud -- I tend to think that even if there are countervailing movements in general, the movement in McCain's direction will be stronger.
If McCain were smart, he would air a commercial throughout coal country playing the audio of Obama's "bankrupt" statement. And if he were smart, he would air a commercial in Colorado only saying: "This is where I stand on two issues of crucial importance to Coloradans. First, I will promote offshore drilling and development of oil shale and oil sands; my opponent won't. Second, I endorse Ward Connerly's Colorado initiative to ban racial preferences."
State-specific advertisements, in the final days, if they do not hurt in other states, are the way to go.
But back to my central point of this blog entry: Yogi was right: It ain't over. Dick Motta was right: The fat lady hasn't sung. And Yogi was right again: Good pitching always beats good hitting, and vice versa. (In electoral terms, in times of crisis, change always beats reassuring familiarity, and vice versa.) Step outside. Talk to your neighbors. Listen to the wind. Feel the movement. This race is wild.
PREDICTION: Obama Wins With 338 Electoral Votes, Democrats Gain 8 Senate Seats
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 9:54AM
Although I reserve the right to alter my predictions until the first polls close tomorrow at 7 p.m., right now I predict that Barack Obama will be elected our next president, by an electoral count of 338-200. Of the swing states, I believe that Obama will win: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. I think McCain will win his newly competitive home state of Arizona, as well as Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia.
I'd put Obama's potential range at a minimum of 291 electoral votes and a maximum of 375 electoral votes. I haven't been convinced by those arguing that McCain has a legitimate shot at Pennsylvania (sorry, Quin), and I don't think Obama will win Georgia.
In the Senate, I think Democrats will pick up 8 seats, making the Senate technically 57-41-2, but actually 59-41 given that Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucus with the Democrats. So effectively, this will mean a filibuster-proof Senate when you consider that wobbly Republicans can't be counted on to block Democratic legislation. I'd put the potential range at a gain of five to eight seats.
I'm not breaking new ground by assuming that Democrats have a lock on at least five seats: Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, and New Hampshire. Also, I can't see the Democrats reaching 60 seats because I think the Mississippi, Kentucky, and Georgia seats are firmly in Republican hands now (though Saxby Chambliss may need to win in a run-off in Georgia because he may not hit the required 50 percent as a result of a libertarian third party candidate).
Minnesota is shaping up as the most difficult race to predict, because Norm Coleman has looked strong in recent polls. I'm basing my prediction on the belief that Obama's large coattails in the state will pull Al Franken ahead. I hope I'm really, really, wrong about this one.
I'm now pretty sure that this is the end for Elizabeth Dole, but the traditionally conservative nature of North Carolina provides some hope that she can survive the challenge from Kay Hagan.
I also think that Gordon Smith is toast in Oregon, but it's worth noting that some polls show that the Constitution Party candidate is drawing enough to account for the margin, so if enough conservatives decide at the last minute that they'd rather prevent the Democrats from gaining a supermajority by holding their noses and voting for a moderate Republican rather than taking a stand with a third party, Smith could theoretically pull it off.
I'm too chicken to predict individual House races, so I'll weasel out and say Democrats gain 25-35 seats.
Now They've Got Their Crisis
Posted by on 11.3.08 @ 9:24AM
On the main site, we posted an article I wrote for the October print edition about progressive activists meeting in Denver during the Democratic convention. Their aim is to make sure Obama, if elected, governs as a transformational liberal in the tradition of LBJ and FDR. I wrote:
For all their optimism, it's worth pointing out that there are substantial differences between now and the other periods of transformational change in American political history. Both LBJ and FDR assumed office during times when the climate was far more suited for sweeping changes. Progressives can do all the talking they want about how the economy is in a state of severe crisis, but empirically, our current economic problems pale in comparison to what they were when FDR was elected in 1932. That year, the nation's economy shrunk by more than 13 percent and the unemployment rate was 23.6; by contrast, the economy grew 3.3 percent in this year's second quarter, while as of July the unemployment rate was 5.7. LBJ assumed office in the wake of the tragic assassination of the beloved John F. Kennedy and the outpouring of sympathy made it a lot easier for his successor to push legislation through Congress -- and it didn't hurt that at one point Democrats had 68 Senators.
A few weeks after I wrote this, the financial collapse ensued, and so now Democrats would have a crisis that can be used to justify a massive expansion of government along the lines of the Great Society and New Deal. Should Obama get elected with an effectively filibuster-proof Senate, the key question now is whether Democrats will be able to exploit the crisis to push initiatives such as universal health care, or whether the massive budgetary hole we're in as a result of the bailout, plus declining tax revenues as the economy shrinks, will tie their hands. Remember that prior to FDR, there weren't any major entitlements, and prior to LBJ, there was no Medicare or Medicaid, so there was room for the government to grow. That is no longer the case.
Either way, I think my conclusion still holds:
The biggest mistake progressives are making is to believe that the diminished prospects for the Republican Party this November mean that the conservative movement itself has been vanquished. But regardless of who wins this election, the network of conservative media, policy organizations, and activist groups will still be in a much stronger position to resist radical liberal reforms than their predecessors in the earlier eras of transformational progressive change.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Adverts for the Imminent Coronation
Posted by on 11.2.08 @ 4:32PM
Posters have sprung up all over my Philadelphia neighborhood featuring the ubiquitous Shepard Fairey portrait, decorated with the label "President Barack Obama" alongside the giddy declaration "Yes, we did it!"
So there you have it. Everyone go ahead and get a good night's sleep Tuesday.
Northern Virginia is for Obama Lovers
Posted by on 11.2.08 @ 3:52PM
Obama supporters are out in full force in northern Virginia this weekend. I found a flier asking me to vote for Barack Obama and Mark Warner on the door of my Fairfax townhouse yesterday. Today, Arlington's streets are lined with sign-waving Obama fans. Drivers wave and honk as they pass by. "You guys don't have to worry about Arlington County," I said to one sign-waver as I walked by. "No," he replied. "It's all about getting out the vote."
There was even an Obama supporter outside St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Clarendon. I looked very closely and it was not Doug Kmiec.
A Hot TIPP for McCain
Posted by on 11.2.08 @ 1:37PM
TIPP, the most accurate pollster in 2004, shows serious movement
in McCain's favor, with the overall margin at 2.1 points. To me
it looks like the poll may be weighted just a tiny bit too
heavily in favor of self-described conservatives, but still, I
think directionally they are on to something and this is one poll
definitely worth watching. I think the best thing to do is not
look at the Real Clear Politics poll average, even though RCP is
usually invaluable, but instead to understand that RCP includes
nutty outliers like Newsweek. Instead, if you take an
average of just four polls with good records, I think you might
be onto something. Those four are, to the best of my discernment,
TIPP (Obama +2), Rasmussen (+5), GWU/Battleground (+4), and, on
the advice of the Examiner's brilliant Chris Stirewalt,
WSJ/NBC -- but WSJ hasn't done a poll since Oct. 20. Just for
now, then, I substitute in Fox News (which may be wishful
thinking), at +3, and the average margin for Obama right now is
3.5 points, with all the movement in McCain's direction. I then
add a point and a half to Obama because of his superb
organization and because of the rampant vote fraud in his favor
-- and I firmly believe this will be the most fraudulent election
in history -- which means I think Obama is up by 5 points,
effectively.
Two more days of momentum for McCain and, one can hope, another
good day on Wall Street on Monday, could get it within 2 points.
And if it is within 2 points nationwide (which means half a point
if you don't buy my organization-plus-vote-fraud theory), then
the distribution of the votes might, just might, allow McCain to
pick the Electoral College lock even while losing the popular
vote. The key, as I wrote about ten days ago, will be
Pennsylvania. I still think that as Pennsylvania goes, so will go
the nation -- and I still think McCain has a decent chance at
winning Pennsylvania.
In short, McCain needs everything to break right. But he doesn't
need everything to break miraculously right, but only for
everything within the mid-ranges of reason to break his way. The
good news is, therefore, that a victory for him is within reason.
The bad news is that he needs every variable within reason, and
with so many variables at play, the combination of all of those
together does, indeed, push his chances to the outer edges of --
but not beyond -- yes, reason.
Alive in New York on Saturday Night
Posted by on 11.2.08 @ 12:46PM
Last night on Saturday Night Live, John McCain was
hysterically funny. Standing next to Tina Fey's mock Sarah Palin,
they did a QVC channel routine ("all we can afford" to respond to
Obama's 30-minute network gig) in which the writing was very good
and the delivery even better. McCain looked relaxed, likable,
engaging, witty, and fun. This was the guy -- as I said
in a post yesterday about how good his Virginia campaign
appearance was yesterday, an assessment shared by Phil -- who
barnstormed the country for Bob Dole in the summer and fall of
1996, charming people everywhere he went. It's as if he found his
Inner Happy Warrior -- somebody McCain seemed to have lost in
South Carolina in 2000 and never recovered until these
past four days or so. If this McCain had been on the campaign
trail all year, he would be leading every poll. Anyway,
particularly priceless during the opening skit was when McCain
started hawking "McCain Fine Gold" (say those last two words
together!), with Cindy standing behind the display of gold
necklaces and other jewelry showing it off like she was Carol
Merrell from Let's Make a Deal. My wife and I were
laughing not just out loud, but loudly.
Later in the show, McCain returned for the "Weekend Update." It
wasn't written as well, but his delivery was still good enough to
make the absolute most of the opportunity. If anybody out there
can find a replay of both skits to watch, you really ought to do
so. Where was this guy all year?
I literally think that for every five undecided voters out there
who watched last night, McCain might have picked up a net gain of
two votes just by virtue of finally coming across as extremely
likable.
Finally, simultaneously, I think the RNC's commercials on
McCain's behalf -- various ones warning about Obama's
inexperience -- are the first good set of commercials I
have seen all year for McCain. I have hated almost every official
McCain campaign commercial all fall, but these RNC ones are
effective. Combine those with the Saturday Night Live
success and the continuing flow of big-government statements from
Obama in the last week, and I do see reason to think McCain is
the one with momentum. It's a long way to go, though, in a short
time. And the Obama GOTV organization might be the best in the
history of mankind. Let's hope McCain finds something to
add to his momentum and not just ride it.
