The Candidates
With his speech tonight, McCain quite clearly demonstrated that he is the Al Gore of this race relative to Obama’s George W. Bush. Like Gore in 2000, McCain is running to succeed a president of his party whose reputation has been tarnished by his actions in office. Also like Gore, McCain is running a temperamentally conservative campaign that promises change that we really can believe in because we’ve seen it work before. McCain’s vision for the country is highly pragmatic, technocratic, non-ideological, and non-partisan. A McCain presidency would give us the best of the Clinton/Gingrich years when it comes to bean-counting with a touch of a TR/JFK-style call to national service. McCain even utilized Gore’s often-spoofed technique to show that he does indeed feel the pain of the average American, making reference to specific individuals in attendance with specific problems. All that’s missing is the lockbox for the Social Security trust fund.
Obama, by way of contrast, is clearly the left-wing version of Bush 2000, complete with his own Cheney. Bush wanted an ownership society, Obama wants shared responsibility. Bush had six years in the governor’s mansion, Obama has four years in the Senate. Both promised to transform Washington by bringing sensibilities that are foreign to Washington into Washington.
Obama, like Bush in 2000, is a high-risk, high-reward gamble for swing voters. Obama’s change could improve the lives of millions of Americans, or it could destroy everything exceptional about American society. We don’t know for sure because we’ve never elected a modern liberal like Obama to the presidency. A McCain presidency, on the other hand, sounds a lot like a return to the good-government mid ’90s, with a tax credit for health insurance here and cuts in wasteful spending there. There’s nothing fundamentally revolutionary about a McCain presidency. That can’t be said about Obama. But do Americans want a revolution, or simply someone who can make the trains run on time? Team McCain is betting it’s the latter, and that’s where it’s putting all of its chips. Given that Gore actually got more votes than Bush in 2000, this may not be such a bad bet.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Interesting analysis. The problem is, John McCain isn’t Al Gore.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
“Given that Gore actually got more votes than Bush in 2000, this may not be such a bad bet.”
The Bush DUI story had a major effect back in 2000, and we can not tell whether there will be an electoral equivalent this year. Then again, after the last eight years maybe American voters will not be willing to take a big risk.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
S…trrr….ee….ttt..cchh…iiinnngg it are we?
September 5th, 2008 at 12:36 am
#3:
Best remark you’ve made in days Alex
4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!
September 5th, 2008 at 12:39 am
That proves that he’s even more ridiculous. I dislike Bush more than Obama.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:52 am
I think Gov.Palin is fitting the attack dog roll quite well: “We don’t have a ‘present’ button as governor — we are expected to lead, we are expected to take action and not just vote ‘present,’” said Palin, who is in her first term as Alaska’s governor. “So there’s a big difference, of course, between the executive and legislative branches and our experience.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin
Sarah Palin strikes back!
September 5th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Please forgive me, DaveG, but I don’t know how to respond to this non-analysis without suggesting, implying, or explicitly stating that you are a complete idiot.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Sen. McCain riffs on a David Frum line circa 2000 and he’s Al Gore? Oh, that’s brilliant analysis. Just brilliant.
This blog has fallen on really hard times.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:25 am
“Given that Gore actually got more votes than Bush in 2000, this may not be such a bad bet.”
That outcome sure turned out well for Al didnt it? Too bad popular votes dont equal electoral votes.
While I agree with the broad characterization, I still think Obama has a better shot at winning the popular vote and still losing the election due to narrower losses in the deep south thanks to historic rates of black turn-out combined with blow-out victories in IL, CA and NY.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:28 am
“But do Americans want a revolution, or simply someone who can make the trains run on time?”
Oh the irony of that statement describing a candidate that wanted to ax amtrak for years
September 5th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Great analysis.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:20 am
My god are we going to comment on every single word Sarah our Saviour says now? She is more hyped than the Segway and the result will no doubt be the same.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:27 am
11. . . Um, this is a blog about the GOP campaign for president. It’s kinda what we do around here.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:52 am
The whole problem , of course, is that were McCain to win in November, he will have such an overwhelmingly veto proof Democratic Congress that he will get little if any of the change he wants through the Congress. And, that is exactly what the country is fed up with, two parties at loggerheads, with the nation in between, and nothing accomplished.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:00 am
With respect, Craig I for one would rather have nothing accomplished than damage accomplished.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Intriguing teaser from Drudge…..
“RASMUSSEN: Palin More Popular Than Obama or McCain… Developing…”
September 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Craig,
“The whole problem , of course, is that were McCain to win in November, he will have such an overwhelmingly veto proof Democratic Congress”
The Dems will pick up seats, but they aren’t going to get to 2/3 of both chambers. Not even close. They’d have to pick up something like 60 House seats and around 14 Senate seats. Ain’t gonna’ happen.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:59 am
“The whole problem , of course, is that were McCain to win in November, he will have such an overwhelmingly veto proof Democratic Congress”
One of my Pol Sci professors used to say that the best federal government is a deadlocked federal government.
I imagine if McCain wins, the tide will turn again in 2 years, as it usually does, and then some work can get done.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Comparing McCain to Gore fails on so many levels, DaveG. And I would sure hope that McCain-Pelosi would not be anywhere near as effective as Clinton-Gingrich!
Having McCain sign off on the hard partisan left-wing agenda represented by Pelosi would likely demolish the small-government, low-tax brand of Republicanism.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
“But do Americans want a revolution, or simply someone who can make the trains run on time?”
You do know that you just compared McCain to Mussolini don’t you? Not a bright idea to make such a horrid connection.
Dan
September 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I am betting the same way as Team McCain. Competent, conservative management of the government is a major subtext issue of this campaign. The lack of such has been one of the deficiencies of the Bush years. I see what you mean in a sense, but I would be careful of the Gore analogy, David, it might be taken the wrong way. Gore was arrogant and obnoxious beyond the pale, aside from being a bossy liberal. McCain is none of that.