Archive for

America’s “Direction”: A Simple Recipe for Debate Victory

In a recent article, politics bloggers at The Atlantic hypothesized that, the more the election veers into personality, the better it suits McCain; as a converse, the more the election is about the country’s “direction,” the better for Obama. Thus, on the economy issue (which goes more to “direction”), Obama wins. We concur. Obama has to make this election about direction: if McCain pushes “experience,” Obama should push back by parsing the difference between “experience” and “judgment” to emphasize McCain’s lack of the latter.

That distinction is often subtle. Alternately, Obama could try a blunt approach, and take a cue from Ronald Reagan:

Attack ad lovingly crafted (in about half an hour… does it show?) by yours truly.

McCain’s 3/5ths Plan

Although his site has been scrubbed since the economy really hit the fan, McCain used to prominently advocate requiring a 3/5ths Congressional majority to pass legislation raising taxes (you can now only find that proposition on backwater pages). This is an interesting proposition, and one modestly in line with current Constitutional values (Art. I, § 7: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”), but it would also require a constitutional amendment to pass.

The question, then, is just how much of this position is grandstanding: I’d say, at least 95%. Constitutional amendments rarely pass, especially if they originate from the backwater of a losing candidate’s webpage. And it’d be of uncertain & confounding effect (when are tax increases controversial?). This plank of McCain’s platform, then – now somewhat repudiated – is another attempt to pander without any real promise of change behind it.  Had McCain made this a major issue, I would have worried.

The McCain Campaign’s Immediate, Dishonest, and Deceitful Spin on the Debate

Within a few hours of the conclusion of last night’s presidential debate, John McCain had sunk to a new low, by questioning Obama’s ability to lead based only on the respectful, consensus-seeking tone the Democratic candidate struck during the debate. That’s right: bipartisan, maverick Tricky Jim, making fun of bipartisanship. That tears it. John McCain is dead, and I don’t much like Robo-McCain the Republicans have put in his place.

But McCain’s ad (titled “McCain is Right”) is more than just abstractly dishonorable and dissonant with McCain’s one strength (bipartisanship). It’s outright dishonest, highlighting Obama’s initial approval of McCain’s principles (responsibility, an end to earmarks, and fair taxes) without noting that, in each case, Obama noted his approval of McCain’s first principle before taking McCain to task for failing to live up to the same. In short, McCain “quote mined” Obama’s “I agree” moments.

Below, the full excerpts from the transcript, with the portions in McCain’s ad bolded, and Obama’s “but McCain’s wrong” moment in blue. You’ll notice that in two of those cases, the “but he breaks his own rule” part immediately follows Obama’s nominal agreement, meaning the McCain video team had to do some snazzy video editing.

• “Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. I mean, we’ve had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what’s good for Wall Street, but not what’s good for Main Street. . . .  10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.”
• “Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused . . . . [b]ut let’s be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget. Senator McCain is proposing — and this is a fundamental difference between us — $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.”
• “Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.”

At most, Obama can be accused of burying the lead. McCain, on the other hand, has simply opted to continue a campaign based on lies and misinformation. McCain is right? No. McCain is wrong, on so many levels.

UPDATED: Debate Reactions?

It was Obama’s until he opened the door to the “meeting without preconditions” debate: while Obama’s position is defensible, it’s too nuanced for debate airtime… Primary violation of Rove’s Law. Obama needed to shout McCain down and get his points in: he didn’t. Obama’s working his way back up now, but that was a bad exchange.

Update: Tie Goes to Obama

After a debate that I, personally, would call a tie, I’m surprised to see that the opinion polls are giving it to Obama. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, it’s more important to note who the media views as the winner than it is to see how the candidates actually perform… so this is a good sign.

A couple of notes. Obama clearly won questions on the economy. More importantly, he got to directly rebut McCain’s old lie about the effects of the Obama tax plan on the middle class: in unequivocal terms, Obama spelled out how his plan benefits middle America. No attack ad will be able to claim that turf again.

He was significantly weaker on foreign policy, but foreign policy, of course, is traditional Republican turf. If McCain was looking to obliterate Obama on foreign policy, he did not succeed. On account of the expectations game, then, McCain does lose.

Two comments on demeanor: McCain was downright odd, vacillating between contempt, anger, sneering laughter, and some legitimately strange expressions (what was that face?). Obama, on the other hand, was too frequently conciliatory. At various times, Obama agreed with McCain on some fairly basic valence issues (earmarks are bad, responsibility is good) and, in truly contemptible but predictable manner, the McCain camp has tried to characterize Obama’s polite & statesmanlike endorsement of basic, abstract principles of good governance as surrender. For shame – but predictable shame. McCain, the bipartisan “maverick,” mocking bipartisanship. Obama should know by now that the McCain camp will stoop this low, and he should avoid giving them the opportunity

How cool is it, though, that the McCain camp is trying to ride Obama’s coattails to victory!?

Also, at some points of disagreement, Obama let McCain shout him down, which is (1) bad debate and (2) not the image he needs to project. When McCain got hold of a point, he wouldn’t let anyone – moderator or Obama – stand in the way. Obama played by the rules, and looked like the weaker (albeit more honorable) party. That was good form but bad debate.

That said, the polls show what the polls show. At this point in the cycle (as tmtoulouse points out below the line), tie goes to Obama.

And, while we debate the debate, lurking in the background is the fact that McCain’s campaign is in shambles. Conservatives are deserting Palin in droves, disappointed with her truly shocking ineptitude and inability to field even basic questions. And conservatives are referring to McCain’s endorsement of the bailout as “the last straw.” All the goodwill McCain reaped by picking Palin is draining away. He needed a game-changer, and this was not it.

Watch the debate below the line, on an embedded video from CNN. Comments, as always, are welcome!

Update #2: see our article on McCain’s newest TV ad, “McCain is Right,” here.

Continue reading »

Palin Links Iraq to 9/11… Again… While the Right Calls for her Head

Albeit incoherently, Palin has continued to falsely link the Iraq War to the 9/11 hijackers. This is a talking point abandoned even by Dick Cheney. As her favorability ratings plummet, and her bosses attempt to defray or cancel altogether her debate with Joe Biden, the right has renewed its concerns about the Alaska Governor, even to the point of suggesting she step down. Last time, it took a divisive, lie filled, culture-war era speech to quiet her doubters… but since party bosses won’t let Palin talk, it’s doubtful she’ll be able to quell the opposition this time. Of course, Palin’s traditional response to dissenters (fire them) is not an option this time either.

Did McCain Ever Intend to Cancel the Debate?

o rly?

Signs point to no.

Early this week John McCain (“Slick Jimmy”) first made headlines by attempting to reschedule the first presidential debate and promising to suspend his campaign (rallies, ads, and everything), and then raised eyebrows by proceeding with scheduled events. By all accounts, the ads continued to run in swing states, McCain kept to his interview with Katie Couric, and other key engagements went largely as planned. Noting was suspended. All in all, McCain’s promise to “drop politics” in light of the national financial crisis has proved to be a rather dramatic metonym for the entire McCain campaign: a promise for change, followed by more of the same.

If McCain never suspended his campaign, he nevertheless kept the press and his opponent wondering, until this morning, whether he would keep his appointment in in Oxford, Mississippi, for their first presidential debate. But did McCain ever actually intend to cancel the debate? This morning (10:16 AM), a real puzzler emerged: vigilant readers of the Washington Post’s website were greeted with a Google ad proclaiming McCain’s victory… in a debate that the Senator had not yet announced that he would attend.

Although this minor failure raises… many questions, the first ought to be, when did the McCain campaign staff create & approve this ad for web display? At latest, it was reported at 10:16 AM – a full hour and a half before McCain announced that he would deign to attend the debate. At earliest, though, since web ads tend to take time to trickle through the approval process, the ad’s presence suggests that McCain had decided to attend, and prepared the requisite web announcements, at least the day before. Coupled with the doubtful effect McCain had on the actual bailout negotations – he left this morning, claiming that a compromise was in the works (further report here) but a compromise had always been in the works – the obvious conclusion is this: McCain, for at least a significant portion of the time, expected to keep the debate appointment.

If you ever had any doubt that this stunt was just that, please set them aside. It just goes to show: the only place McCain puts “country first” is in his advertisements.

P.S. – please feel free to play another round of “McCain Buzzword Bingo” tonight!

Why America Needs a Constitution (but England Doesn’t)

Or, in praise of the Countermajoritarian Constitution, the week after Constitution Day.

Democracy – “the worst form of government, except all the others that’ve been tried” – does not lack for its faults.

First, it is prone to disintegration: Algeria starkly presents the possibility that a duly elected legislative body might vote to implement a monarchy. And, second, it is prone to abuse: to a powerless minority, unjustly stigmatized & frozen out of the democratic process, the rule of the elected majority can be a kind of oppression, no less absolutist and vicious than the basest tyranny (think the Jim Crow South). Ask John Stuart Mill: the “tyranny of the majority” is a real issue with which any majoritarian government must grapple. Unless checked by a watchful people or otherwise, government tends towards tyranny, oppressing first the powerless, then the rest.

To guard against these failures and ensure “the blessings of liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity,” the world’s democracies have come up with two wholly contradictory solutions:

1. The Westminster Model: a strong national political culture, combined with a tradition of fair-dealing & legalism and a vigilant public, can ensure informal brakes on the political process, for against such a backdrop, no sensible politician would risk anti-democratic action.
2. The Constitutional Model: only a formal document, setting out the precise limits of government action vis-a-vis its people, and enforced by an apolitical branch of government, can guard against the most extreme events in a nation’s political existence.

In America, recognizing that democracy need only fail once to fail utterly – think Caesar – we (surprise!) adopted the  Constitutional model. That the Constitution works is no shock: by requiring the government to play by its own rules, we force our government to view crises through a lens of normalcy & react with familiar tools. The real surprise, at least to participants in the American experience, is that the Westminster Model works at all. In the remainder of this post, I address why the Westminster Model works, and why America so desperately needs its own Constitution, when England seems to get along fine without it. Continue reading »

Revisiting McCain’s Debate Gimmick: Have We Been Had?

I wrote yesterday that a presidential debate, more than any other political event, is a game of expectations. While no-one can legitimately doubt that McCain’s “hold everything! Washington needs me!” moment was a gimmick, perhaps it was more a way of lowering expectations than anything. Should the debate go forward, he’s crunched his prep time and given the impression that he’s been very busy. Tricky…?

Tacky

Apparently several liberal PACs have collaborated on – and will soon release – attack ads calling into question John McCain’s health. This is neither necessary (Obama is still ahead) nor well-advised. With a price tag of $50,000 I can’t help but think that the money could’ve been better spent on legitimate attacks on McCain’s many fairly questioned and alarming failures. We must dissent.

The First Debate: Playing the Expectations (and, Saddleback’s Legacy)

Although McCain is trying his darnedest to repeat Bush’s feat of 2004 – hailing Kerry as “the best debater since Cicero” in an attempt to make what would no doubt be a predictably medicore performance against him seem positively triumphant – the victory, which is to say the “defeat” of low expectations, goes to Obama. The New York Times has been consistently lowballing Obama’s debate performance, and his reputation for eloquence appears to have been confined, of late, to respect for his great orations, not his debate talent.  As much as McCain may want to win this race to the bottom, the widespread perception (which, again, I dispute) that Obama “lost” the Saddleback Forum means that the public won’t be looking for Obama to blow McCain away.

So, I’ll contribute: Obama is going down. Hard. McCain will debate him into next week. It’ll be a miracle if Obama can even go outside before the second debate: that’s how embarassed he’ll be. Poor Obama.

But seriously folks, as great as it is to watch the pre-debate narrative going against Obama (and, thus, for Obama), I expect him to do well. While Obama’s adversarial style was indeed somewhat disappointing in the primaries, he’s changed and improved. His performance against O’Reilly in their “interview” series is a better predictor for the debates, and on that ground, Obama succeeded wildly -

- with even O’Reilly admitting “new respect” for Obama, who he declared “is no wimp.” In part 3 of their interview set (which I’ve neglected until now to cover – transcript here), Obama defended his associations with certain unsavory characters in pithy one-liners (“I joined to worship God, not a pastor”; “I know a lot of people”) and demonstrated that he’s learned to avoid the “academic” discussion style. I expect him to make good use of the time to call McCain out on his dishonest, deceitful, and disrespectful campaign. It may be an appropriate time to drop one of the more memorable lines of modern politics (look for Reagan’s first reply):

Look for Obama to make a game-changing, but moderately phrased, rhetorical assault. I have high hopes. But don’t tell the undecided voters.