Just as the media backlash was gaining steam, McCain made a few attempts to settle down his crowds.
I don’t know if this is a sincere change of direction or if he is just trying to distance himself from the attacks while letting Palin and his surrogates make them. I suspect it’s the latter. His campaign spokesman defended the attacks the same day McCain challenged a few of his supporters on them. It’s better than nothing though.
The anger at McCain’s rallies is starting to worry me.
His new tact to link Obama to William Ayers and focus on Obama’s “otherness” has ratched up the anger and frustration of his supporters. The new intensity is starting to be picked up by media outlets, such as Politico and The Washington Post.
Anger is a destructive, uncontrollalble force. McCain and Palin are playing with fire when they accuse Obama of being friends with terrorists, and remain silent while the speakers at their rallies call him Barack “Hussein” Obama and their supporters yell for his downfall.
This is different from previous campaigns. This isn’t “You’re a flip-flopper” or “You’re unintelligent”. It is bordering the incitement of violence. It doesn’t take much to get a crazy person to think he can save the country by assassinating a leader. Especially if that’s leader’s opponent helped demonize him.
(Update: This is a good overview of the situation.)
If a politician is so ridiculous that by merely repeatedly what he or she says, you can get laughs, is that politician saving comedy, or destroying it?
I makes everyone’s job easy. You don’t have to think of a funny angle or spin. But if no effort is exerted, are we even being comedians? Is it possible to be funny in a world where reality is already ridiculous?
Here’s an example. Fake news article. “Gov. Palin clears Gov. Palin in Troppergate probe”. I started a draft.
“‘I thank Gov. Palin for clearing Gov. Palin of any wrong doing in this affair.’ said Gov. Palin through a written statement from the McCain campaign. ‘Some in the liberal media tried through slander and libel to imply that Gov. Palin would not discover what Gov. Palin has been saying all along: Gov. Palin did nothing wrong in the firing of public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, who through no fault of her own is not named Gov. Palin.”
Funny? Too ridiculous? Doesn’t make sense? (”How can she clear herself from an independent probe?”) Well, guess what? SHE FUCKING DID THIS.
How can one be funny in this environment?
I know candidates are in their own bubble, but unless you are Yahweh, Buddha, or God, your words do not have the power to fabricate reality. It would be cool if they did have that power. “Hmm, I’m hungry. ‘There is a ham sandwich in front of me.’ [plop] Oops! Forgot to say ‘plate’.”
One of the most frustrating things about the Bush administration what that it acted as if fact and reality were mounds of clay to be shaped for their own needs rather than bedrocks to be respected and used for guidance. I’ve seen this trait exhibited by the McCain campaign, espceially Gov. Palin, to a disturbing degree.
The core of good policy is rationality and reasoning based on he best data and observations we have at the moment. The core of bad policy is ideology, a rigid view of the world unchanging and unaffected by events. It is why the truth matters in campaigns.
All politicians fudge the truth, but not to the same degree. How truthful they are on the campaign trail is roughly how truthful they will be in office. Poltiicans who take it too far, who deny basic facts and principles, and dismiss criticism whole-handedly (”the liberal media”) are going to make the same mistake the Bush administration did: running the country through a lens of bad ideology until the country gets so screwed up that even they are forced to realize they were wrong.
It’s disturbing how screwed up things had to get before the country is even considering electing somone who values rationality more than your average politician.
No live blogging or non-live debate blogging this time. I watched the debate in a bar and I was pretty drunk, so I’m short on insight. A few thoughts:
1. The first 15 minutes, McCain seemed to be moving around the debate hall like a Roomba.
2. I’m happy with how Obama did. I think the debate was a draw at worst. I had low expectations for him because his debate performances in the primaries ran the gamut from “terrible” to “as good as Clinton”. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised so far in the past two debates. At the very least, he is holding his own, and I think you could make a non-biased case that he is doing better than McCain.
3. You can’t tell, but I’m still drunk and misspelling every other word. The amount of drunk editing and spell-checking going on in this post is beyond the comprehension of your average peon. And yes, I had to spell-check “peon”.
4. For a few of McCain’s responses, and this might just be the drunk filter talking, I thought he sounded like Sarah Palin. He had a few rambling, five topics in one statement responses that made it seem like he was covering for Palin (”See? I use ‘also” too.”)
5. Oh, and what was McCain writing before the debate started? ”Don’t drool on self?” “Shopping list: vitamins, Metamucil, running mate who won’t embarass me…”
6. (Late update) There were a few times when McCain spoke first and I said to my friend, “McCain’s right on this one.” Then Obama said “I agree with McCain on this one” and then gave a more detailed response. This is one reason why I’m proud to support Obama.
[rant]
“With the longer resume on foreign policy, McCain is expected to overtly raise doubts about Obama’s readiness to become president, arguing that his election would amount to a high-stakes gamble.” (Politico)
Seriously? After everything that has happened over the past two months, it’s Obama who’s the gamble?
You know what language I’ve heard describe McCain’s campaign in the past two months? Risk-taking. Impulsive. High-stakes gamble. And this is from his supporters. They talk about his “act first, figure it out later” brand of decision making as a good thing.
Back in January, I was rooting for McCain to win the Republican primary. Not because he was a weak candidate, but because I thought he was the best Republican in the field. My image of him was the moderate maverick of 2000, and I felt that our country was in such dire straits, we needed the best from both parties to fight it out.
What we ended up getting was someone fundamentally unserious about the business of running this country. The man is a fingernail away from death, and he picked a VP candidate so unqualified that even die-hard conservatives are questioning whether she should stay on the ticket.
He has gone out of his way to recreate fabricated controversies and consider truth as a matter of opinion. He introduced instability and uncertainty into what will probably be the most important decision Congress will make for the past 10 years–the financial bailout package–solely to grandstand, and at a time when what is needed most is calm and stability.
Think about his latest action for a bit. There is a lot of debate on what we should do to resolve the financial crisis–a Congressional bailout, investing money directly into banks, etc. But most economists agree that what we end up doing will determine whether we go into a bad rescission for a year or two or another Great Depression for several years.
What type of a person fucks around at a time like this?
A lot of political analysts focus on that fact that McCain is making big gambles and chat about if these gambles will work out. I have a different take. A person who takes high-stakes gambles is unfit to lead this country, regardless of whether those gambles turn out to work.
[/rant]
To quote President Bush, a man second in elegance only to Winston Churchill, on the state of the Wall Street bailout: “If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.” (quote)
Indeed. But why is this sucker in threat of going down?
I think a lot of the problems at hand could have been avoided if Treasury Paulson called it “The Rainbow Unicorn Package! With Sprinkes!” rather than a “bailout.” You bail out screew-ups, and who wants to do that?
The real stumbling block though is uncertainty. What I find amazing is that not only are economists still debating the structure of the bailout, some of then are still debating whether we even need a bailout.
Take a look at The Washington Post today. On the front page is an article on how some economists are doubting the premises behind the bailout.
But I’ve also read many commentaries by analysts like Steven Pearlstein, someone whose opinion I respect a lot, summing up the current debate and making a sound argument on why we need to do something.
Political debates need engines to drive them. It could be the engine of expert opinion, of special interest groups, of public consensus, of ideology, of a strong leader, or more often, some mix. In this debate, a clear driving force has yet to bubble up.
Ideology hasn’t even helped define the debate. Conservative and liberals have crossed lines to both support federal intervention and argue for doing nothing.
Sec. Paulson, President Bush, and Senate leaders are the default engine, agreeing to a bailout in principle and negotiating the details. That’s where we were on Wednesday. The problem is that the negotiation is fragile and can’t withstand even a small challenge, which is why the plan got tabled when Senator McCain (representing House Republicans) injected himself into the process.
My sense from the negotiations and what I’ve read is that some sort of bailout is needed, but no one wants to own the bailout because the political downside is great and the upside small. People won’t like you more if you support the bailout, but they will like you less. In an election year, that makes action in the House impossible unless both sides give each other cover by signing on to the plan.
Senator McCain did a lot of grandstanding by canceling-without-canceling his campaign and then ducking out of the debate peekaboo, I’m-back! Yet if the Republican leaders in the house are unwilling to get their members in line behind the bailout, then perhaps he has a useful role to play.
Is McCain making his decisions with a Ouija board at this point? Seriously. I wish to know if he and Cindy are sitting every night in a room lit by blood candles with a Ouija board in front of them. “Q…U…I…honey, are you feeling something from the ‘t’?”
And why does Gov.Palin have to cancel her events too? I mean, I know why, but what excuse are they giving? Does McCain have an electronic monitoring bracelet on her ankle? Is that why she blinks oddly? “H-E-L-P…S-O-S”? It would suck if she did because who knows Morse code nowadays? How are we even remembering that Morse code used to exist? It hasn’t been used in 50 years.
…but if I’m fighting stereotypes of being out of touch with the economic concerns of the poor and middle class and only focused on the interests of the rich, I’m not putting a “Golf Gear” tab on the front page of my web site.
Some sneaky liberals wrote fake user reviews for the McCain Father’s Day Golf Pack.
Update: The fake comments became too popular and were taken down. Someone archived the comments, which you can read here.
Here’s what I think presidential candidates should look for when selecting a V.P., in order of importance:
* Able to handle the job of President.
I know it’s simplistic and almost naive, but shouldn’t that be a major factor? I don’t want the first black guy nominated by a political party and a man so old he looks like Colonel Tigh without the makeup picking Gov. Yahoo from Shitslvania just because the governor will help bring in a few more working-class Hispanic Jewish white voters.
There’s a higher than usual chance that the next President of the United States will not serve a full term in office. Besides racism and age, a terrorist assassination is a real threat. If you wanted to damage the psyche and disrupt the political system of America in the worst way possible, and not even have to spend much money or resources to do so, what better option is there than assassinating a President?
I know security has increased since the days when a nut like John Hinckley could run up to a President and take a few shots, but do you really think it couldn’t be done? I’m a little surprised it hasn’t been tried yet.
* Loves campaigning.
With the long campaign season and amount of media coverage we’ve had so far, it’s easy for anyone watching the process half-closely to wonder how anyone could be unfamiliar with the candidates at this point. But there are plenty of people who aren’t paying much attention and won’t for months, if at all. This is a particular problem for Obama, whose newness makes him unfamiliar to many voters. Going from town to town and holding rallies and meetings to get undecided voters a few hundred at a time is part of what it takes to win, and you need a V.P. who is personable and enjoys the process.
As long as this campaign season has been, I think Obama is in a race against the clock. His biggest obstacle to the presidency is unfamiliarity, and sometimes you just have to meet with people personally to get them comfortable with you. It’s a slow process that takes lots of time, and he needs a V.P. who could double his efforts.
On a related note, the traditional V.P. role in recent campaigns has been of attack dog–making vicious attacks that the presidential candidate wants to be heard but not from his own mouth.
* Not a gaffe machine / no skeletons in the closet
Self-explanatory. The V.P. candidate shouldn’t interfere with the campaign’s message and be a distraction.
I don’t put any value in picking someone to win a state. When has that worked recently? Edwards couldn’t help Kerry win N.C. in 2004, and Gore lost his home state in 2000.
I don’t put a lot of value either in picking someone to counter a candidate’s perceived demographic (e.g. older voters) or political deficiencies (e.g. foreign policy). Sure, that’s a nice bonus, but you could probably get as many votes picking someone that compliments a candidate’s strengths and getting higher turnout from your base.
George Bush picked Dick Cheney, someone the opposite of him in terms of age and foreign policy experience. Bill Clinton picked Al Gore, another young Southerner. They both won. What lesson can you draw from that?
I have no idea who Obama or McCain will pick. I’m surprised though how few people are mentioning John Edwards as a pick for V.P. I think he would make a good choice.
Update: As much as I hate the idea, by my own criteria, Hillary Clinton would be a good choice too.
Mike brought up in the comments the latest development in Panderthon 2008: the proposed gas tax holiday by McCain (and a few days later, by Clinton) for the summer.
The idea of a gas tax holiday will resonate with some voters. Voters who:
1. Have no idea what the current federal gas tax is (18 cents for gas, 24 cents for diesel).
2. Are horrible at math (18 cents x 20 gallon tank =$3.60 saved per fill up. An average of $30 for the summer by a CBO estimate.)
3. Don’t understand that it will delete the transportation fund of $10 billion dollars, which maintains our highways, roads, and bridges…and provides jobs to transportation workers.
4. Don’t understand Economics 101. If you lower the tax, demand will increase. Which decreases supply. Which…makes prices go up. It’s unlikely people will even get back the entire dime, nickel, and three pennies.
5. Don’t understand the environmental benefits of higher gas prices. I live paycheck to paycheck and have been hurt by the sharp rise in gas prices, but I can see the upside. High gas prices is probably the only thing that will force people to change their driving habits, their car buying habits, and their lifestyles, including pressing employers for telecommuting, living closer to work, demanding politicians invest in public transportation and alternate energy research, and so on.
6. Think that economists against this idea, which is almost every single economist, and I say almost just to cover by bases in case one turns up later on, is an idiot who dag nab it just don’t understand trucking.
In other words, this is directed to about 25% of the public, and may well decide the Democratic primary in Indiana. And guess who is taking a political hit by standing against the idea?
Why doesn’t McCain and McClinton just promise voters a pocketful of fairies?
MCCAIN: “My fairies will help you do your laundry, and watch over your kids.”
CLINTON: “My fairy proposal isn’t irresponsible. I’ll pay it with a windfall tax on bridge trolls.”
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD: “Barack Obama. Doesn’t believe in fairies. Doesn’t believe in America.”
You know what’s audacious about Obama? He believes enough Americans are able to move beyond being pandered to and guilt-by-association politics and go in a different direction because of the great challenges facing our country. We’ll see.
The 20th and perhaps final Democratic party debate starts at 9:00, MSNBC. I’m a huge political junkie. I’ve watched probably 15 of these debates. Listened to the radio-only NPR debate a few months ago. I can’t muster much enthusiasm for this one though.
Part of the reason is that I don’t see this debate making an iota of a difference in the race, barring a major gaffe from Obama or the hand of God breaking through the roof of the auditorium and pointing to a celestially-illuminated Hillary Clinton: “I CHOOSE YOU.” And even them, some of Obama’s supporters would have a hard decision to make.
General election thoughts, assuming it’s Obama vs. McCain: this is the first Presidential election in my short memory where both of the candidates in the race have a truly compelling life story. There is potential for great nastiness, but there is also potential for a repeat of what many Democratic voters faced this season: a difficult choice between two appealing, well-qualified candidates. Perhaps my opinion will change a few months down the road, but there are some things I like and admire about John McCain, and that’s more than I can say about the past Republican picks for President in my voting lifetime.
I have no idea how the general election campaign will turn out (eight months seems like an eternity for a campaign), but I suspect it will be much closer than the Obama vs. McCain polls suggest at the moment (some of which give Obama a significant lead). What is interesting is that while Obama hasn’t been hit with months of negative attacks in his political career, neither has McCain to my knowledge. I find the idea of being “vetted” ridiculous, as Clinton claims, because Presidential campaigns are a different beast entirely. They bring a level of national scrutiny that just doesn’t occur anywhere else. You are never vetted until you win the nomination and have to run as your party’s nominee.
Furthermore, people have short memories. I think that’s the function of the Internet age, but that’s for another time. Those scandals that happened 10 years ago that you thought were behind you? They are new to 18-30 year olds, along with everyone else with a fuzzy memory.
Sometimes there is a feeling that if it happened in the past, it’s not worthy to report on again, but I think a growing realization in the media that it is part of their job to reshine the media spotlight on important events in the past, so people who were too young to remember them at the time, or just plain forgot the details, can be able to make a more informed decision. Couple this with the fact that reporters will have to fill up to eight months with Obama and McCain stories, and the idea of Clinton or McCain already being vetted becomes a little silly. We’re going to know the candidates’ wastelines for their boxers by the time all this is done.
One last thing: Science Debate 2008!