One thing that everyone on this site would probably agree on is that John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. But that statement may mean something different coming from me than it does coming from thee. McCain had a Reaganesque opportunity to remake the Republican Party earlier this year when large numbers of non-Republicans and anti-Bush Republicans cast ballots for the Arizona senator in Republican primaries across the country. McCain generally won moderate and center-right Republicans while losing hard-right voters. He won Independents and Democrats who crossed over to vote in these primaries while often losing Republicans themselves. He won non-traditional Republican voting blocs like seniors, Hispanics, and Catholics. And he won those voters who disapproved of Bush and of the war in Iraq. Moreover, a divisive Democratic primary left millions of Democrats hesitant to support eventual nominee Barack Obama after the dust had settled. Yep, John McCain could’ve definitely taken a page from Ronald Reagan and used all of this as an opportunity to expand the Republican universe at a time when Republicans seem to be gasping for air in every region of the country save the South. If only John McCain understood that there’s a time to be a maverick and a time to be a movement guy.
McCain’s problem is that he doesn’t know how to be anything other than the rebel who plays by his own rules. When Reagan found himself in a similar situation in 1980, he managed to win a massive victory over an incumbent president by uniting the traditional Republican voters of the time — Gerald Ford Republicans — with the new conservative converts to the Republican Party that Reagan had brought in. Reagan stuck with his base from the primaries, made up largely of brand new Republican voters who had previously been Independents or Democrats, on the issues. He promised them tax cuts and judicial restraint and confrontation with Communism, things that the Ford base of the GOP may have found unnerving. But the last thing that the Ford base wanted to do was re-elect the hapless Jimmy Carter. That allowed Reagan to promise a Republican Party of the future that spoke to his base in the primaries while keeping the old GOP base in line by pointing to Carter and saying: “Are you really gonna elect this guy to the presidency?”
Once McCain basically wrapped this year’s race up on Super Tuesday, he should have immediately turned his rebellion against the Bush Establishment that characterized his primary victories into a political movement. He should have turned to the moderate Republicans, the center-right conservatives, the Republicans who don’t listen to talk radio, the Democrats and Independents who crossed voted in the GOP primaries, and the anti-Bush Republicans and laid out a new direction for the Republican Party that would mark the end of the Bush era.
Would the Bush base have revolted? Of course. But to what end? Ultimately, McCain could’ve said to them what Reagan said to the Ford Republicans in 1980. He could’ve pointed to Barack Obama and said to them: “Are you really gonna elect this guy to the presidency?” They wouldn’t have. And they wouldn’t have had anywhere else to go.
Instead, McCain seemed to forget about his base from the 2008 primaries as quickly as he forgot about his base from the primaries eight years ago. That’s because McCain is not the leader of a movement. He’s a maverick. He’s the guy who rides into town in the old Western and saves it from the bad guys, only to ride out alone and to probably forget the names and faces of all the folks he saved by the time the next episode airs. That makes for a romantic story, but it doesn’t work well in politics. When that strategy is tried in politics, it creates a vacuum that ends up being filled by the candidate’s handlers, which means that McCain’s policies become whatever Phil Gramm or Carly Fiorina want them to be on any given day.
It may not be too late for McCain, but that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t squandered an opportunity to make his party anew. If McCain wins, it will be because Obama loses. McCain has lost the chance to define this election, and he’s now simply the anti-Obama candidate, much as Kerry was the anti-Bush candidate in 2004. Earlier this year, McCain was in striking distance of Obama in tons of Northeastern states, such as New York and Massachusetts, not to mention Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. McCain had a shot at blowing up the red/blue divide and making the GOP a national party again. That’s over now. McCain has lost his chance to redefine the Republican Party. He’s lost his chance to scoop up the majority of Hillary voters, most of whom have settled on the new, centrist Barack. All McCain has left is grit. And something tells me that he actually prefers it that way. Even if his supporters do not.
You can listen to today’s McCain blogger conference call with Rep. Marsha Blackburn here.
Hubris abounding! Would you take a look at this?
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated…
…
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
Gateway Pundit has pictures…
I’ll be eagerly awaiting the impending Obama press release noting that he was wrong and that McCain was right about the surge.
Washington Post-ABC News Iraq/Afghanistan Survey
Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle the war in Iraq - Barack Obama or John McCain?
- John McCain 47%
- Barack Obama 45%
Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Obama/McCain, or not?
He would be a good commander-in-chief of the military. (Yes/No)
- John McCain 72% / 25%
- Barack Obama 48% / 48%
Do you think Obama/McCain has been clear or unclear in his position on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq? (Clear/Unclear)
- John McCain 60% / 34%
- Barack Obama 56% / 38%
Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer - a timetable or no timetable?
- Timetable 50%
- No timetable 49%
The famously abysmal leader of the House shows us her wisdom that is beyond her years again…
“Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil.
“The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas.
“If the President wants to bring down prices in the next two weeks, not the next two decades, he should free our oil by releasing a small portion of the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
“It’s time to tell the oil industry: ‘You already have millions of acres to drill. Use it or lose it.’”
With congress’s approval ratings at all-time lows, it should be readily appearant that they need to offer new direction - but that will not be the case.
As the market demands, new solutions abound - in spite of Nancy Pelosi.
And McCain getting in a nice jab to his opponent while stating his support of the move by President Bush:
“I know that Senator Obama is opposed to lifting the ban on offshore drilling. I believe the states should continue to decide,” McCain said, according to a pool report. “I hope that, as he has on several other issues, that Senator Obama will change his position and now support offshore oil drilling,” adding that an increase in the nation’s oil supply would reduce costs as the country made the transition to alternative energy sources.
“If we can show that we have significant oil reserves off our coasts, that will clearly affect the futures market and affect the price of oil. I urge Sen. Obama to change his position on this issue,” he said.
You know, we just might win this thing afterall.
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cockstradamus, who predicted the accelerated pull-out, now crows: Victory in Iraq will help McCain and the GOP
Imagine that? Winning a war is a political plus to those that won it!
Victory in Iraq is ours (see July 13 below), and, as predicted by Cockstradamus weeks ago, the victory will be declared before the November election.
Rooster crowing from from June 22
Accelerated troop level reductions will be announced based on success. For many moons now, this announcer of dawns has been nagged by an idea that dawned on me after Iraq’s security forces started winning battles on their own against Sunni-backed al Qaeda, Shia militias and even Iranian backed militias. We may be able to declare victory in Iraq very soon and announce accelerated withdrawals of victorious troops whose services are no longer required due to their success. I have always maintained that, while I want to maintain a major presence in Iraq, much like we did in Europe and the Pacific after WWII and Korea, it is vitally important that at some point there be an acknowledgement that we have won the Battle of Iraq and that any withdrawals be due to and seen as a result of our victory over the al Qaeda, radical terrorists, and Iran. In discussions with people that didn’t favor the war but who now want the USA to win, I found myself thinking to myself that my mantra of opposing troop reductions could and should soon yield to the most important mantra: victory.
The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago. Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007… Even as the two candidates argue over the wisdom of the war and keeping American troops there, security in Iraq has improved vastly, as has the confidence of Iraq’s government and military and police, raising the prospect of additional reductions that were barely conceivable a year ago. While officials caution that the relative calm is fragile, violence and attacks on American-led forces have dropped to the lowest levels since early 2004. “As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in Fort Lewis, Washington State, on Tuesday. “And I think that this transition of control and of responsibility, primary responsibility for security is a process that’s already well under way and based on everything that I’m hearing will be able to continue.” General David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, has already begun the review of security and troop levels. He and Bush promised in April that such a review would take place. Petraeus is expected to be more cautious than some policy makers in the administration and at the Pentagon might like. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing military planning, said he was more likely to recommend a smaller reduction, but still a withdrawal. One senior administration official cautioned that the president, who will have the final say, would be reluctant to endorse deep or rapid reductions if they jeopardized his goal of establishing a stable and democratic government in Baghdad.
When I wrote my June 22 forecast, questions were raised as to who, in the Presidential and congressional campaigns, would be helped. On June 22, I wrote:
the long list of accomplishments that lead inevitably to my pre-Election Day 2008 expectations: 1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias. 2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki’s direction confronted them and prevailed in every town — Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah — from Basra to Baghdad. 3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold. 4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces. 5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation. 6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks — a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget. 7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth cabinet position.)
My June 22 article also cites a Frank Rich column that evidences fears on the left that America will be seen as having won the Iraq War before November, yet many conservative nervous nellies still ponder that victory could hurt John McCain.
Poppycock.
When I say that “we” have won the war, I mean the United States of America, but it is the left and most of the Democratic Party that has called this Bushlied’s War. They opposed funding when they were in the minority during the stay the course years that won the trust of the Iraqis as well as the surge McCain had long called for that tipped the balance.
Obama brags that he opposed the war while in Kindergarten, I mean the Iliinois State Legislature and has opposed troop funding. The words “win” or “success” in Iraq never cross his lips.
Take heart my friends, not only will America benefit from victory, but so will those that worked to acheive it, and that is Joe Lieberman, President Bush, John McCain and most all Republicans sans Chuck Hagel.
Cockstradamus has not yet determined whn Iran will be bombed or McCain’s margin of victory. Stay tuned.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - The Chief Justice
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
_______________________________________________________________________________________
[See updates at the bottom that include Gramm's clarification. h/t to my Race42008.com colleague, Aron Goldman]
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
I refer to McCain economics advisor and former Sen. Phil Gramm’s “whiny Americans about a mental recession” flap.
The leftist MSM lives for taking conservatives’ words out of context and fitting it into their template of Republicans’ as racist, bigot, heartless warmongers.
What is so sad is that the Hannitys and Gingrich’s on TV and even Hugh Hewitt on the radio don’t see what is being done, and end up accepting the liberal template and gotcha games.
This is serious business folks, and its all well and good for us to chastise Gramm for not ever and at all times being aware of the different rules of the MSM game and so cannot live and breathe as a normal human being like liberal guests on TV and interviewees by newspapers.
We don’t play the gotcha games to mischaracterize liberals. We have integrity that way, but what we don’t do and ought to, is to point out their dishonorable actions in this way, not to mention their immoral policies that do hurt lower income people and create real recessions.
Phil Gramm is a conservative icon of the Reagan Revolution. He was a boll weevil democrat that resigned his seat and re-won it as Republican. No Jeffords he. He was an architect of supply-side economics that produced the recovery in the 1980’s that we still technically live in. He is an economics professor by trade and so knows that the technical definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which has not occurred since 2001.
Gramm is also a very avuncular, upbeat fellow that likes to turn a phrase to translate arcane econ and was being interviewed by friends at The Washington Times, when he said:
In an interview with the Washington Times, Phil Gramm, a former Texas senator who is now vice chairman of UBS, the giant Swiss bank, said he expects Mr. McCain to inherit a sluggish economy if he wins the presidency, weighed down above all by the conviction of many Americans that economic conditions are the worst in two or three decades and that America is in decline.
“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence.
Gramm made two errors (maybe three). His most egregious mistake was to conflate We the People with the American press, when he referred to a “nation of whiners.” Lots of people do this, and it is one of my pet peeves (and Rush Limbaugh’s). That the press decides to run a story doesn’t make it so and that they run a poll, doesn’t make it so.
Reality is. The press produces a product they call news. We too often confuse the two, and Phil’s mistake was easily used by the MSM to make it seem like he is callous towards low and middle income families and small and large businesses that are crying out for relief from high gasoline and food prices.
Gramm was speaking of the whiny press that wants people to think that America is in a decline that only an Obamessiah can save us from.
Secondly, he forgot the logic behind Reagan’s great lines: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours” and, “Are you better off than you were four years ago”?
I give him a pass on the latter, with his “mental recession” given that he was having an economics discussion and it was a good line – as applied to the press.
So, I give McCain a pass for going ballistic. He can’t risk alienating the inattentive to politics and economics sufferers at the pumps and the produce aisles.
What is so sad is that Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity failed to understand that Gramm was NOT referring to Americans complaining about gas and food prices and the lib Dems that have caused same by limiting oil drilling, oil refining and nuclear plant construction as whining. He was not chastising Americans that are suffering from same as imagining a mental recession.
No, Gramm was chastising the press for their false recession stories of the past SIX years!! He was speaking of the whining media and liberals that claim America is and has been in decline for the past 6 years, despite the economic numbers to the contrary that are the envy of the world, lest the GOP and Dubya get any credit.
There is no excuse for this. Sean seemed to get it and tried to challenge Newt, but Hannity lacked the intellect to frame the issue. Newt alternates between kissing lib butt and not. But for Hugh Hewitt not to get it, is unacceptable.
I didn’t know rooster’s could hear and see so much better than TV and Radio stars. Maybe my 18 years as a Lib-Dem co-conspirator frontman for the kooks helps. Now I’m in the stupid party.
[UPDATES: One is my response to Flagstaff re elites and two, re info provided by Aron Goldman at R408 that affirms my interpretation re elitist "leaders" that take their cues from fellow elites in the MSM]
First, gamecock:
I have noticed that elites and regular folks make this mistake in differing ways, i.e. they speak of “the American People” when they are really referring to what they hear on TV from media elites:
Elites like Gramm do it subconsciously as they exaggerate the power of the media elites (key word elites). Reagan never made this mistake and always made the distinction. But yes, regular folks don’t whine about competitiveness.
We “whine’ about high gas and food prices and what policies cause them. Gramm was not speaking of that.
Regular folks too often assume the MSM is reflecting popular opinion. Rush fights this everyday.
Second, Gramm’s clarification:
“When I said we’ve become a nation of whiners, I’m talking about our leaders. I’m not talking about our people. We’ve got every kind of excuse in the world about oil prices — we’ve got speculators, the oil companies to blame — but too many people don’t have a program to get on with a job of producing.”
“If you listen to our leaders, we can’t compete against Mexico, for God’s sake. If they don’t think we can compete against Mexico who can we compete against?”
I think the above updates fit my original interpretation given that the media are elites, as are leaders as per Gramm, all of whom echo the defeatist whining of the MSM/Dem Party lib template.
One thing is certain. Gramm was not referring to Americans that are suffering from high gas and food prices and complaining about the policies of the leaders in Washington that caused them. Those suffering from mental depression that have seen mental recessions are the press and the Kerry and the Democrats, including number one liberal Obama, all of whom declared the American economy in 2004 as the “worst since the Great Depression.” Those “leaders” are who Gramm was referring to.
[A portion of this post originally appeared in my Silly (MSM) Love Songs blog.]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Turn away now if you cannot stand another post concerning potential running-mates.
Like many others, I have found myself torn between Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. My loyalties have wavered day to day, as I read the arguments and rebuttals of so many across the political spectrum. I think now, for the first time, I have (probably maybe somewhat) settled on a choice.
This piece posted earlier reinforced my sentiment by highlighting McCain’s current struggle: Can the Senator establish a clear campaign message in a poisonous political environment, all while reminding the American public that he is an effective and trustworthy reformer?
One passage in particular caught my eye:
McCain has to decide why he wants to be president and then stick with his message. Right now, he’s seemingly a man with a split personality. On one day, he’s the candidate of the Bush base, wooing Grover Norquist with upper income tax cuts and planning to meet with James Dobson. The next day, he’s Dole ‘88/Perot ‘92, planning to take the nation’s fiscal crisis by the horns and balance the budget and reform entitlements. The problem is that no one knows who the real McCain is anymore. How can his Northern Republican base from 2000 be re-activated by a candidate who seems to only care about their issues on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Similarly, how can the Bush base really believe McCain’s one of them if he only speaks their language on Mondays and Wednesdays? McCain can’t be all things to all people. His appeal is in his straight-talking manner. By losing that, McCain loses everything.
If I were running Team McCain, I’d advise the senator to go for broke and resume Campaign 2000…
I will give that statement a 100% endorsement. While I am not here to critique George W. Bush or his presidency, I do urge the McCain campaign to steer the GOP away from some of the unpopular policies of recent years. Though he should be applauded for his efforts in weakening the threat of transnational terrorism, President Bush has overseen a growing federal bureaucracy, runaway deficits, persistent energy dependence, and the embarrassing decline of our party’s fiscal restraint.
We must let John McCain be John McCain. No, that doesn’t mean he should rejuvenate cap-and-trade or campaign finance reform. He must pound away, however, at the ideas of individual responsibility, fiscal restraint, government accountability, and balanced budgets. In other words: campaign message=reform, reform, and more reform. John McCain the crusader for reform all day, every day.
How, then, do we adapt his theme for McCain’s bread-and-butter issue, foreign policy/security? Highlight the Senator’s calls for abandoning the Rumsfeld Doctrine and applying the surge following the invasion. Make McCain’s willingness to reevaluate foreign aid to suspect countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a centerpiece of the foreign policy debate.
Look, when only 9% of the American people approve of Congressional performance, you know that touting efficiency and reform with a spoonful of sober realism is a good idea.
Coming full-circle to the issue of his running-mate, John McCain needs three things: Executive experience to balance his inside-the-beltway career, gravitas and credibility on a leading campaign issue, and charisma to boost the ticket. Apart from these considerations, I am highly skeptical of selections that supposedly bring states or geographic regions. Hmm…Who could possibly have all of these characteristics? Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, of course. Both have experience as governors, both would add credibility to major issues where McCain is lacking (Palin on energy and Romney on the economy), and both would excite the base.
In the end, though, Sarah Palin stands out. I cannot help but thinking that her history of standing up to her own party in Alaska will sit well with independent and moderate-minded voters. Palin has engaged in an endless fight to reform and restore government on all levels throughout her career of public service. Once the public becomes aware of her impeccable integrity and efficient manner, her addition to the ticket will fit nicely alongside McCain’s reformist campaign.
No matter the running-mate, I just cannot envision even the most conservative Republicans fleeing from McCain come November. He will secure 90%+ of Republican voters and, like each election in recent memory, the candidate who secures the swing voters will win the White House. And while I admit that Romney may be the better choice for the base, he is not the best selection to secure independents and Republican-leaning moderates. To many working-class voters in crucial states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mitt may look and sound too perfect, too corporate CEO, too Generic Republican to win them over. Like it or not, Romney strikes many people as a guy who may too often echo Phil Gramm’s comments that the American people exaggerate their economic suffering and do not understand the true condition of the market.
Make no mistake, Mitt Romney is a gifted politician and holds an impressive private-sector resume. He has displayed loyalty as a McCain surrogate and remains someone who the GOP should look to on economic matters. Yet, I just do not believe he is right for the VP slot. For all those who say that McCain sorely needs Mitt’s fundraising abilities, it seems that the campaign is beginning to do just fine on its own, thank you. For all the talk about his economic and organizational prowess, I’d rather see Mitt Romney heading the RNC or taking the reigns at the Treasury Department in a McCain Administration. It seems that Romney could serve his country in better ways than if he were to be vice-president.
To put it frankly, Sarah Palin is right for the message in these tough political times. I will not deny that her being a young, pro-life, feminist woman helps her case. Nevertheless, politics, like life, is all about identity. Palin could stand on her resume alone, not even counting her gender. However, if McCain adds an accomplished and dedicated woman to the ticket, he has the ability to attract some former Hillary Clinton supporters that did not vote for the New York Senator because they liked her stance on abortion, rather, they felt a unique sense of pride that an assertive woman could assume the Presidency. We must not underestimate this sentiment among some suburban and working-class women.
Finally, Palin’s selection would allow John McCain to bolster his argument that he, not Obama, could bring about real progress on the energy front. Governor Palin has been an outspoken critic of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil moguls and her eloquence on energy matters would connect with a public increasingly frustrated with rising prices and feuding politicians. The debate over domestic oil and alternative energy could swing the election and McCain must make these key issues throughout the fall. Despite their disagreement over drilling in ANWR, the selection of Sarah Palin could heighten public awareness on energy solutions and boost McCain’s reputation as the man with a plan and past results to back it up.
I have barely graced the tip of the iceberg, but that is enough for now.
McCain-Palin ‘08!
Republican modernizer Ross Douthat sees a dash — just a dash — of Jimmy Carter in Team McCain and in the current GOP:
When economic times are tough, Democratic politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard exaggerating how dire things are, while Republican politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard insisting that everything’s fine and the public needs to stop whining, stop listening to the media, and start enjoying the good times. In 1979, the tendency to play to type produced Jimmy Carter’s famous malaise speech, in which the American people were informed that the solution to their economic problems was to accept a wartime mentality in which the government would massively regulate the energy sector and everyone would have to make do with much, much less. In the 2000s, it’s produced too many Republicans who think and talk like Phil Gramm, whether they’re insisting that a sluggish economic recovery with weak wage growth for most middle-income Americans actually represents “the greatest story never told,” or claiming that we can just “drill our way out” of the current energy crunch.
Of course there’s some truth to Gramm’s remarks about America’s fundamentals remaining strong (though the claim that “we’ve never been more dominant” seems like something of a stretch - the post-World War II era says hello), just as there was truth to the late-’70s anxieties about what America’s dependence on foreign oil portended for the future. But there are other relevant truths as well, the art of politics involves striking a balance, and a political party that lurches too far toward either Panglossianism or pessimism isn’t long for power. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
Today’s Republican Party seems to have a lot in common with the Democratic Party of the 1970s. Republicans pride themselves on being “pro-growth,” and yet they are perfectly happy bashing the American people for not recognizing that the country that they’ve given us is the best of all possible worlds. Apparently these supposedly “pro-growth” Republicans aren’t particularly good at growing anything anymore. They don’t know how to grow the economy, so they tell us to sit down and shut up. They’re terrified to grow their party, as that might lead to apostasy on their pet issues. They can’t grow their numbers in the House, or the Senate, or the state legislatures. They can’t grow their fundraising coffers. All they seem capable of growing is fat and happy.
The problem is that the current base on which the GOP is built is well past its freshness date, as was the New Deal coalition in the 1970s and as were the Thatcherite Tories when Tony Blair came to power. Solutions like tax cuts and lots of military spending were perfect for the world of 30 years ago but don’t really address the problems that our country faces now. And the GOP isn’t capable of coming up with any new or imaginative solutions to our current problems because its core leadership and membership was built specifically to address very different problems in a very different world.
Try as he might to escape the problems of a party that he is often at odds with anyway, John McCain is having more trouble than I thought he would running as the American Sarkozy. Part of the problem is a lack of a coherent theme in the McCain campaign, which sort of reminds me of Team Rudy near the end of his campaign. By late 2007, it was apparent that Rudy was only running for president because it would be stupid for the hero of 9/11 not to do so. Similarly, McCain seems to be running on a “I wuz robbed” theme from 2000. The problem for McCain is that Americans don’t elect politicians who have a sense of entitlement about them. Many of us may intuit that the world would be a lot better off today if McCain had been president for the past eight years instead of George Bush. But what Americans are concerned about now is the next four years, not the last four years.
McCain has to decide why he wants to be president and then stick with his message. Right now, he’s seemingly a man with a split personality. On one day, he’s the candidate of the Bush base, wooing Grover Norquist with upper income tax cuts and planning to meet with James Dobson. The next day, he’s Dole ‘88/Perot ‘92, planning to take the nation’s fiscal crisis by the horns and balance the budget and reform entitlements. The problem is that no one knows who the real McCain is anymore. How can his Northern Republican base from 2000 be re-activated by a candidate who seems to only care about their issues on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Similarly, how can the Bush base really believe McCain’s one of them if he only speaks their language on Mondays and Wednesdays? McCain can’t be all things to all people. His appeal is in his straight-talking manner. By losing that, McCain loses everything.
If I were running Team McCain, I’d advise the senator to go for broke and resume Campaign 2000. I’d have him channel Ross Perot and respond to the nation’s fiscal health with righteous indignation, putting forth plans to reorganize entitlements and balance the budget and forcing Obama to take a stand on those issues. I’d have the senator turn to Barack Obama and accuse him of cynically using religion to win votes, followed by a promise by McCain to never blame his policy choices on the Almighty. I’d have McCain Sister Souljah a few of the folks from his own party, but only if they truly deserve it, and some most certainly do. But in order to do all of this, McCain has to actually pick a political identity and stick with it. He can’t beat Obama on grit and an I-told-you-so mentality.
If McCain and his advisers continue to harrumph along as if they deserve the White House just for being Team McCain, they’ll seem no different than the rest of the current Republican Party — an entity with a sense of entitlement bankrupt of imagination and original ideas. And that will make McCain exactly what he has never wanted to become: a generic Republican.
Mark Halperin is reporting that the McCain Campain and the RNC ended the month of June with a combined $95 million CoH, which is being touted as double the amount of the Obama Campaign and the DNC.
Team McCain also reported that the campaign raised more than the $22 million they totaled in May.
Where’s Obama’s figures? I eagerly await their release.
Read Halperin’s full report here.
H/T- Iowa
You can argue over whether Phil Gramm is right in his assessment that we’re in a mental recession and that Americans are whiners. You can’t argue over the idiocy of saying something like that to a newspaper.
John McCain’s presidential campaign distanced itself Thursday from a comment by economic adviser Phil Gramm, who said the U.S. has become a “nation of whiners” suffering from a “mental recession.”
“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”
“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
Mr. Gramm has hurt McCain here in an area where McCain is already weak. Quibbling over whether we’re in a recession or not, is irrelevant to voter’s economic problems. It makes McCain appear out of touch like George Bush in 1992 who also claimed the recession had ended (it had but voters didn’t want to hear that when they were still struggling).
Zogby did an interesting poll of all 50 states. It was of likely voters between June 11-30. I was amazed at how well Barr and Nader did in many states, but here are the results from the Granite State:
Zogby New Hampshire General Election Poll, conducted June 11th-30th, 2008.
- Obama - 40%
- McCain - 37%
- Barr - 10%
- Nader - 2%
- Someone else - 7%
- Undecided - 4%
Methodology: Zogby International conducted an online survey of 436 likely voters. The poll ran from June 11-30. It carries a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percentage points.
McCain, Obama nearly even with Independents. In a tight race, will 9% stay with Barr and help Obama win the state? Are the participants in the Free State Project finally having an impact?
Larry Kudlow breaks it over at NRO:
After writing favorably about Sen. McCain’s recent economics speeches, where he clearly shifted toward the supply-side both on tax cuts and producing more energy, I went back last evening and carefully read his 15-page policy pamphlet called “Jobs for America.” Here’s what I found: There is no mention of cap-and-trade. None. Nada. There is a section about “Cheap, Clean, Secure Energy for America: The Lexington Project.” But that talks about expanded domestic production of oil and gas, as well as the need for more nuclear power and coal along with alternative sources. Then it has the $300 million battery and flex-fuel cars. But nope, no cap-and-trade.
So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn’t missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac’s two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely — even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.
Those sounds you are hearing are screams of joy from MetroRepublican and Alex Knepper…
Update: According to McCain Spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker, the celebration is a tad premature… H/T-Aron
Update #2: Marc Ambinder has more.
I cannot believe that I wrote that headline…
There is a good chance Barack Obama’s fundraising total from June will be less than the $22 million he raised in May. No word on whether McCain’s fundraising total was up from then, but if you recall, Sen. McCain only came in $1 million behind Obama for the month.
Nothing is certain, but there is at least the possibility (remember-I said possibility) that John McCain outraised Barack Obama in June.
The silence on this front, as they say, is deafening.
Update: One of the most insightful observers of the 2008 race emailed me with these two tidbits:
First off, traffic has decreased on Obama’s official site. Secondly, Obama is back on the rubber chicken circuit, which may suggest that he needs to find new methods of raising money.
Once again, this is purely speculation at this point. The numbers should be leaked to someone soon.
Update 2: As someone alluded to in the comments, there is a good possibility that the problems experienced by Sen. McCain last summer (building a gargantuan national campaign apparatus which needs to be torn down when the money is not there) will happen to Sen. Obama if this speculation bears fruit. How much money is needed to fund a campaign that has 150 paid staffers in Missouri anyhow?!
Sen. McCain made the the following statement regarding Iran’s testing of medium and long-range missiles in the Persian Gulf earlier today:
ARLINGTON, VA –Iran ’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel . Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran ’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran ’s dangerous ambitions. Iran ’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland . Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran , not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.
Confederacy defender Webb embraces Sherman over Illinois Senator
Not born to fight for Obama by attacking McCain’s heroic service
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
The moderate junior senator from the Old Dominion, and author of “Born Fighting”, James Webb (D-VA), less than seven days after joining Wes Clark in Barack Obama’s scurrilous attack McCain’s military record chorus, today echoed War between the States, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman with the following statement ( h/t to Redstate’s Bill Dupray :
“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Webb said in an issued statement. “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.”
Are there any moderate white male Democrats with executive experience left that haven’t issued Shermanesque statements eschewing the thought of running for Vice-President against Republican John McCain with Barack Obama, the presumptive first black nominee for President on a major party ticket in U.S. history?
For the record, while we have seen the racism of the Democratic Party in the raw during their nomination battle this year, I have no doubt that Webb’s decision is not part of that pathology. Rather, I agree with Dupray when he cites part of Webb’s statement:
Then again, maybe Obama ain’t Webb’s kind of guy after all.
WEBB: “I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America’s national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability,” Webb also said. “I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.”
Obama has never heard of two out of three of those goals.
Why did Virginia’s combative first term Senator, Vietnam war hero, and former Republican chief executive officer for Ronald Reagan’s Cold War winning Navy, choose the Seventh of July to echo a man reviled in the South for burning the Peach and Palmetto States to the ground?
I think Webb’s epiphany came from an inability to further sully his honor like he did last week in assisting fellow Obama surrogate, former NATO General Wes Clark in a scurrilous attack on McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam, including his many years as a POW, most of which was served after refusing to accept release by the Communists as part of a propaganda ploy, unless all of his prison mates were also released.
Last week, I documented the latest vile Barack Obama/Democratic Party attack as follows:
Vietnam vet, junior Old Dominion Senator James Webb recently broke protocol as Obama’s limp-wristed security resume wafts:
WEBB: John McCain’s been a longtime friend. If that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that. Don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them, because they don’t, any more than when the Democrats had political issues during the Vietnam War. Let’s get politics out of the military, take care of the military people, and have our political arguments in other areas.
RUSH: Get politics out of the military? John McCain needs to calm down? This from a rookie Senator Jim Webb. Needs to calm down, don’t be standing up and offering your political views and implying that all people in the military support them. This is again more smoke and mirrors. None of this McCain is done. But Webb gets up and says it, the Drive-Bys report what he says, and that becomes the official record of what McCain says, i.e., what Webb says that McCain is doing. Who infused politics into this? Who infused the military into politics? It was Clark who claims, by the way — grab audio sound bite number four. Here’s Wesley Clark last night on MSNBC, asked for his response to being criticized for his remarks.
CLARK: I wasn’t representing the Obama campaign in anything I said yesterday about John McCain. I want to assure you, I would never, never diss someone’s service. When people choose to serve in uniform, I honor it. I came home from Vietnam on a stretcher. I was shot, I took a burst of AK, I got four rounds, so I think I know a little bit about what it’s like to honor men and women who serve in uniform. And I do, and I would never dismiss somebody.
RUSH: Twilight Zone time. This is after he did diss somebody. This is after he did diss somebody specifically on the basis of their military service. Claire McCaskill on MSNBC Live today, the infobabe asked her, “General Clark is not backing down from those comments that were critical of Senator McCain. What’s the campaign’s response to hearing that he’s not stepping away from those comments?”
RUSH: What does this remind you of? Here we have two Obama supporters, Claire McCaskill from Missouri, a senator, and Jim Webb, both recasting reality. Obama, (paraphrasing) “Our campaign never said anything, why, we would never do this. We’re not going to put up with this. We would never, ever do it.” Webb said, “McCain’s gotta calm down.” I wish McCain would act in a way just one day that somebody could legitimately say “calm down” and have it mean something. The Official Obama Criticizer nailed this in his critique in the first hour of this program. Barack Obama and his campaign, he is the first black Clinton. He will not be the first black president because that’s Clinton’s. But he is the first black Clinton. That is exactly what’s happening here. Living in an alternative reality, and knowing full well that the Drive-Bys are going to cover for you and make reality whatever it is you say in response to things. So Clark gets a total pass. Obama gets a total pass. Obama gets treated as though he has rebuked what Clark has said, when he hasn’t, and then Webb goes out and says that McCain’s the one that needs to calm down. Meanwhile, the only official response from some elected Republican has been Bob Dole’s.
An astute conservative Democrat [political observer] in Alabama advised gamecock that Obama spoke to Bill Clinton this week, just as flip-flop moves to the center multiplied and just before Webb came to [Wes] Clark’s defense for off the high-dive denigrations of McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam.
It had to be painful for the man that masterfully and proudly chronicled the fighting spirit of his Scots-Irish kinsman in Born Fighting to go to bat for a kook Bill Clinton had to fire before he started WWIII by bombing Russian troops in Bosnia. It had to turn the stomach of a man that ran for public office in large measure based on his own military experience to lie and say McCain suggested that all vets agreed with him because he served and to add insult to injury by using the term “calm down” in the process, against the man that was held for many years as a POW, but who has served for decades since in Congress. Shame on you Jim! Your penance will be to shut up for a few weeks. And while you are at it, call Bill Clinton and tell him to do so as well, as he seems to be down in that gutter as well.
Webb obviously cares about his proposed legislation to increase benefits for war veterans, obviously wants to strengthen America’s defenses overall and is much more conservative than Obama on a host of issues including second amendment rights.
I would suggest that Webb, like the unprecedented number of sitting Democrat Governors and other white male moderate Democrats with executive and/or national security credentials that Obama desperately needs to legitimize the ticket, can’t stomach the leftism of Obama.
For a defender of the Confederacy to echo this man, who served the former Illinois senator that defeated the CSA, he must really loathe the idea of running with a current Illinois senator that wishes to lead the USA :
“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.” William Tecumseh Sherman refusing to run for President in 1884.
I don’t blame you Jim, and take some Mylanta for that stomach ache.
[Rumors of the imminent retirement of CockStradamus were greatly exaggerated. While technically wrong about the Dem’s VP nominee, we think we were right before Webb’s stomach ache, and we think we are right about a declaration of victory in Iraq before November.]
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
It appears that the McCain I fell in love with during the New Hampshire primary back in 2000 has finally been reawakened:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.
McCain is making the pledge at the beginning of a week when both presidential candidates plan to devote their events to the economy, the top issue in poll after polls after voters struggle to keep their jobs and fill their gas tanks.
“In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,” the McCain campaign says in a policy paper to be released Monday.
“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”
McCain advisers admit that the document is a repackaging of previous policies, without dramatic new initiatives. Some Democratic officials, for instance, thought McCain might try to make a splash by proposing a bold middle-class tax cut.
McCain’s tour of swing states is designed to relaunch his candidacy after a shakeup last week in his campaign organization, which has been widely criticized as soft and slow compared to the Obama machine.
Well it’s about time. For the past few months, it seems as if no one has been allowing McCain to be McCain. The decision was probably made early on that McCain could not and should not morph into George W. Bush and become the candidate of tax cuts and traditional marriage, but seemingly accompanying that decision was a muting of what made McCain special eight years ago — his embodiment of an older form of Republicanism that once allowed the GOP to dominate states like Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio and which led New England Republicans to select the maverick over the GWB machine back in the Granite State in 2000.
But now, Mac is indeed back. McCain should forcefully call out both sides on their unwillingness to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the fact that our nation’s most popular entitlements are structurally unsustainable and are about to explode, requiring draconian tax increases, benefit cuts, or both. Ross Perot demonstrated in 1992 that voters want a candidate who asks them to make the tough choices that will lead to a better tomorrow. Even in bad economic times. No, especially in bad economic times. These are issues that Obama won’t touch, lest he destroy his Potemkin center-left coalition, based on nothing more than flagrant double-speak and a charismatic personality. But McCain can tackle these issues, and he will.
Given the liberal left domination of the MSM, leftist democrats Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry led by much larger margins over Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in past June-Sept leap years than Obama currently leads McCain in most of the between election polls this year.
But, the un-Dukakis-like “lead” has provoked desperate Obama via surrogates Clark and Webb (and others months earlier), Clinton-like projection writ large attacks against McCain’s heroic military deeds via MSM attempted “swift-boat” covers.
The Clinton war room tactic of attacking one’s opponent’s greatest strength that mirror’s their greatest weakness is axiomatic. But the problems here are legion:
1-Obama had no Sistah Soulja moment in the primaries;
2-Kerry didn’t respond because the Swiftboat vets’ attacks were factually true;
3-McCain turned down freedom and stayed in the commie pow torture Hanoi Hilton for many years;
4-Let #3 sink in;
5-Unlike Kerry, McCain didn’t come back to America and toss medals over a fence or equate US armed forces with Khan’s Genghis; and
6-McCain’s recently read lips favor tax cuts.
Vietnam vet, junior Old Dominion Senator James