How John McCain Will Lose the 2008 Election
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | View comments |
Print This Post
5 reasons why John McCain is in big trouble — and none of them have to do with Barack Obama.
A few weeks ago I wrote an article listing ten reasons “Why Obama Lost the 2008 Election”, ranging from the hidden racism of rank and file Democrat voters, to Bill and Hillary’s not-so-hidden desires to see Obama lose in 2008 so Hillary could run again for president in 2012.
In an almost textbook example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, John McCain has managed to transform the political landscape in less than five weeks into one that no longer favors his candidacy, but may actually be preparing the way for an Obama presidency.
Like my previous analysis, to form my conclusions I’m resisting the temptation so often exercised by our friends on the Left to equate emotion with critical thought. No matter how many punctuation marks follow the phrase “Bush Sucks!!!!!”, at the end of the day this is still an emotion, not an analysis. It’s difficult enough to debate competing analyses, but I’ve yet to find a way to effectively answer an emotion. When a person believes what they believe because they believe it, there’s not much room for critical thought to argue against that position. Besides, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, so simply announcing an outcome in a two person race gives either side a statistically even chance at being correct.
So all those who “know” the outcome of an election regardless of the facts on the ground can stop reading here, and let the adults continue with the conversation. Besides, with that level of intuitive insight into the salient matters of the day, they’re much better off getting rich on the stock market than wasting their time learning something to actually know what they’re talking about before they open their mouths.
My judgment about McCain’s difficulties are not the result of polling trends. Even in the best of times polls are an inadequate way to predict the outcome of a presidential race. I’m not only talking about the “Bradley effect”, where Democrat voters lie to pollsters about supporting a black guy so they won’t be called racists, only to pull a different lever on election day, I’m referring to the inability to predict an outcome where young people may indeed be more energized this year than in previous elections, and where massive voter fraud is taking place in Ohio even as we speak that will distort the outcome of that state’s election.
Moreover, anyone who even remotely follows American politics knows that not all polls are alike. Some survey adults, other registered voters, other active voters. [If you don’t understand the difference between these three categories, there’s no point in debating the matter further]. Some involve statistically-significant voting populations, others don’t. All polls have weighted averages that over or under-represent Democrats/Republicans, men/women, minorities, Hispanics, young voters, etc. based on the pollsters assumptions. Not to mention, it makes a difference — as Al Gore found out in 2000 — whether the poll focuses on national averages vs. battleground states.
This polling BS gets sorted out closer to election day when all the pollsters drop the phony categories designed to favor one candidate or group over another to drive the polling results, and begin to produce real results that might better reflect the actual outcome of the election. No one will remember that CNN or MSNBC had the Democrat up by 15 in early October, if their final poll shows him losing by 2 points on November 4.
So, if my analysis of McCain’s prospects are not driven by the polls (favorable or unfavorable), why do I think the McCain candidacy is in serious trouble? Five issues point the way.
1. The Democrats had nothing to do with the collapse of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Democrat contributors were not appointed to head these agencies. Democrat congressmen did not block reforms of their accounting practices. Democrats did not preside over any committees that regulated these institutions. So, it’s all the Republicans’ fault.
Now, the adults looking in on this conversation may beg to differ with this analysis. Both of these quasi-governmental agencies have a sorted history tied directly to the national Democrat party. Their Democrat-appointed CEOs were corrupt. And, their Democrat Congressional protectors were tireless in protecting against any regulations that would kill the golden calf (the unending campaign contributions to Democrat politicians, and the constituent services — i.e. mandated uneconomical loans to lower income, traditionally Democrat voters — that helped re-elect these congressmen).
Republicans were by no means blameless in some of this shameful behavior, but one Republican in particular — He Who Shall Not Be Named — actually championed reform of this institution. But in the spirit of bipartisan love and cosmic good wishes, HWSNBN has refused to tie any of this corruption back to the opposition party. [The opposition party, by contrast, has no such qualms about tying him directly to the unpopular policies of a sitting president.]
So, in the minds of the voters, only Republicans are at fault. And only Republicans will pay in November. If HWSNBN sees no need to educate the voters otherwise, why should I or anyone else differ with that conclusion?
2. Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, and Rezko are just names in the Chicago phone book.
When a man has a long history of public service, he runs on his record. When he doesn’t, we look to his character for guidance in electing him to national office.
In the case of Barack Obama, his record of public service is running for national office, so his character and integrity matter greatly in telling us what kind of president he might be. A large part of this judgment involves looking at the kinds of friends and advisors one has. This linkage isn’t an example of character assassination; it’s a classic example of character revelation. It’s the same reason why convicted criminals trot out friends and relatives to testify why little Johnny is a good kid at heart, despite the fact that he killed 17 people in cold blood. The company you keep tells people a lot about a person, and in some cases can even convert a death sentence to a term of life imprisonment without parole.
That’s the way the real world functions. For John McCain, however, it’s not nice to talk about Barack Obama’s friends and advisors. Barack Obama, however, has no problem tying Senator McCain directly to George Bush, whether the “fit” is accurate or not. Fortunately, Sarah Palin hasn’t gotten the memo yet, and is trying her best to do the job that McCain himself is too queasy to perform. Politics — particularly presidential politics — “ain’t beanbag”, and playing with self-imposed limitations that your opponent doesn’t recognize can only have one outcome. On November 4 instead of raising your hand to take the oath of office, you’re just another person in the crowd watching history take place as the next President of the United States is inaugurated.
3. “I will not tolerate earmarks or wasteful spending, unless of course I need to support these to get elected.”
How can anyone take John McCain’s claim seriously to seek out, identify, and destroy wasteful spending when he signed on to $150 billion in earmarks and pork to pass the financial services bailout bill? This singular act of political cowardice could have at least been mollified if McCain made an impassioned speech against the “sweetners” the Senate added, or the odious elements of the main bill itself, and then held his nose and voted “for the good of the country”. But instead he simply abandoned the rhetoric that identified him as a fiscally responsible Maverick, and became indistinguishable from Obama-Biden.
The one thing that separates Republicans from Democrats, and Conservatives from Liberals, is that we actually care about things like this. We seek political power through our elected representatives to reflect a core philosophy. Democrats and Liberals seek power, and once gaining it, then decide upon which core values they need to support (or must support surreptitiously) to maintain that power.
McCain had an opportunity to both tag the Democrats with the current financial mess, and illustrate the principles he would bring to office if elected president. He did neither, and so his base support has declined.
4. Pick Palin, then throw her to the wolves.
Right now the base is only behind McCain because they see value in supporting Sarah Palin. So what does the McCain campaign do? They keep her away from conservative TV and radio where her message could be reinforced and expanded upon, and feed her to the liberal Left whose only interest is in embarrassing her.
Palin’s political strength is the very thing that the Washington insiders despise. She doesn’t attend their parties, seek their advice, or cite Supreme Court cases from rote. Rather, she’s an intelligent, “average” person who has direct executive experience that none of the other candidates possess. She has a clear understanding of her core values, and a common sense approach to expressing them.
In short, she’s the Devil to the irreligious Left, which makes her the perfect spokesman for our side. McCain’s only true hope to win is to let her take the lead and articulate the reasons why their ticket is best, and why Obama-Biden are fatally flawed. All of which is to say, let her participate in this race as if the Republican ticket actually wanted to win.
5. There is no agenda-driven Liberal Media
Apparently, this is what McCain believes, since he has no problem with the moderator of the Vice Presidential debate writing a book about the upcoming Obama presidency, or spending more time pandering to Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews than Chris Wallace.
McCain’s fatal flaw is that he thinks liberal-land is where the moderates are, and that since he supposedly needs moderates to win, he can ignore his base and broaden his appeal by going Left. What he doesn’t understand is that moving Left pisses off the base and calls his credentials into question (see #3 above), and that undecided voters in a historic election are morons. Anyone who’s still genuinely undecided thirty days out from a presidential election whose campaign began a year ago isn’t capable of rational thought. They’re probably just as confused about paper or plastic as they are about Obama or McCain.
McCain won’t win without an energized base, which he puts at risk with every pander to the Left. True moderates who actually seek the truth (as opposed to moderates-who-are-really-liberals-but-call-themselves-moderates) will look for information on MSNBC and Fox, from Katie Couric and Rush Limbaugh. In doing so the distortions of either side will become apparent, and thus an intelligent decision can be made. But somehow McCain has come to believe that the only way to reach these voters is to let the liberal, agenda-driven media interview him and Sarah Palin, then cut up their remarks and cherry pick sound bites that put their views in an unflattering light.
There’s still a month or so to go before election day, and anything can happen, so I’m not counting McCain completely out. But waiting for the mainstream media to fairly present your view when they have that tingly-pants feeling for Obama is not a winning strategy. Nor is ignoring your principles or your base to pander to the left-leaning electorate.
This essay was written before the second McCain-Obama debate. Unless McCain has dramatically changed his losing ways in that debate, the only real hope he has now is that enough Republicans and Conservatives want Sarah Palin to remain on the national scene so they can carry him over the finish line in November.
It’s a hell of a way to run a campaign.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Well, I didn’t see a lot in the second debate that gives me any great encouragement. McCain just doesn’t have it in him to drive the points home that he has to make. Meanwhile, while McCain is telling the people about how the real world operates, Obama panders to every voter by promising them personal assistance from the government.
Time to start sheltering my income.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 7, 2008
McCain has allowed himself to be assailed by the Obama campaign as well as the media and has sat there like a moron and not defended himself. This is a mistake typical of Republicans ever since George W. Bush got elected, and it cost them Congress. Not responding to an accusation is perceived as a tacit admission of guilt. Instead of responding to Barack Obama's claims that deregulation, capitalism, and George W. Bush collapsed the housing market and destroyed the economy with a refutation and counter-accusation accusing Obama (truthfully) of having ties to Fannie and Freddie execs who left amid accounting scandals and now consult for his campaign, or pointing out that Democratic subprime lending pressure and resistance to regulation of "low income" borrowing had a lot to do with the mortgage crisis we're now experiencing, McCain sat there like an idiot and started babbling about pork barrel spending. Rather than point out that Obama's economic plans will cost trillions of dollars and destroy the ability of businesses to raise capital precisely when they most need it, he played the populist card and went along with Obama in decrying "big business" and Wall Street and capitalism. Instead of talking about Obama's utter lack of training or experience in economics, business, or any form of money management whatsoever, he digs up Bill Ayers from a year ago and talks about Ahmedinejad.
Obama, meanwhile, is playing the same game Democrats have played in every election since FDR. The jr. highschool class president offering all the kids free candy. The chicken in every pot. It got a piece of crap Marxist elected to three terms and consistently works on the increasingly brainless American public, so stick with what works. You'd think the idiot Republicans would have come up with a counter-strategy after 75 years, but damned if they aren't fidding while Rome burns yet again.
This election could have gone pretty handily to McCain if he'd handled this economic situation differently, but now we're going to be looking at another Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry "49.7% to 50.3%" squeaker for one guy or the other.
Fantastic time for a 21 year old guy just graduating from college with a business degree to launch a career…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 8, 2008
Wow, since you wrote this essay before the debate you must have a crystal ball. McCain did all the things you predicted and in doing so will ultimately lose the election. When he failed to hit Obama's tired mantra, "eight failed years of the Bush economic policy" out of the park, I knew he was through. He is incapable of taking the fight to the liars on the left. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Comment by jcscuba | October 8, 2008
JC: I started to think that perhaps I may have been a bit too harsh in my assessment of McCain when he seemed to go on the attack, but other than a general reference to Democrats he wouldn't name names in the Fannie/Freddie mess, and let a lot of Obama's other charges go unchallenged. And when he did attack, he was as platitudinous as Obama.
This is a textbook example of what happens when one side in a presidential campaign decides to be “above the fray”, and the other side has no scruples whatsoever about trying to win. It’s not hard to figure out who will end up on top. McCain had it won, and blew it. Only a miracle will save him now.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
Unfortunately, you are all mostly right. I went to bed and tried to sleep half way through the debate, so furious at the many distortions that McCain allowed to go unanswered. But then some of us warned about this many months ago — that McCain, while a good man, lacked core conservative principles that would mobilize his candidacy. I kept imagining Fred Thompson on that stage — and can't imagine him playing to the liberal wing of the party endlessly. I think I was adamant in saying: when you don't have a conservative come October and November, you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves. Republicans nominated this guy. But, I have one suggestion: stop whining and start working to get the guy elected — he is still better than the alternative. If he loses, there will be plenty of time to lament and whine — right now, write checks to his campaign, fight the Obama machine, turn out the vote — remember Truman in 1948. Let's not let the pessimism become a self fulfilling prophecy. I actually kind of liked Obama, but the more I watch him the more I realize how shallow he really is and how unready he is to lead. He is sara palin, but without the core values and principles that she will — in four years –light up this nation with.
Comment by George Shadroui | October 8, 2008
I don't understand this either/or view at this point. The campaign is more than a debate or four. Plain's palling around comments are out there, so why should McCain bring it up on national TV? Bill Clinton is out there with his “I can see why Sarah is popular” comments, so you were right about the Clinton effect. The main thing is that even if FDR was on the left, he was not a communist, as Ayers and Wright seem to be, and by strong association, Obama is. Never has the left in America, including the unions, gays, Jews, or blacks supported Soviet style politics and the insecurity and doubt about Obama vs. John McCain’s time at the Hanoi Hilton will show up on Nov. 4th in the Bradley effect. The same reluctance to admit a bias against a black man will show up as reluctance to admit that a black man can be a communist. The long pre-season makes it seem like the game is almost over, but it’s only halftime. A fumble or interception in the second quarter does not make the outcome inevitable.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 8, 2008
Ivan: The problem is, while Palin can take the lead in attacking Obama, McCain has to show some backbone too. He's too busy trying to appeal to the mythical moderate undecided voter to define his candidacy in a positive way, or defend himself against Democrat charges that he is responsible for the current economic collapse.
We can't win an election when only one side realizes that it's a political contest, and the other thinks it's an academic exercise.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
I dunno, maybe you are right, but McCain has won many times in his life. He makes me mad with some of his statements like on immigration and house buyouts, but I'm still going to vote for the SOB. I was kind of impressed when I heard the story about young McCain driving around in a Corvette picking up Go-Go girls.:>)
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 8, 2008
Ivan: Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for McCain early and often (I'm from Chicago after all). But objectively, he has a large self-inflicted deficit to overcome. Unlike our liberal friends with self-assigned Ph.D's, I don't base my conclusions on emotions and call them analyses. It is what it is, not what we wish it to be.
McCain can win if Palin brings him across the finish line, and the people in the final analysis can't bring themselves to vote for Obama, but it won't be because of his (McCain's) efforts.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
"Time to start sheltering my income."
Only if you make more than $250,000 a year, Dr. Jackson, and if you do, then take to heart the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | October 8, 2008
I like my taxes, which are considerable, to pay for things that are genuinely in the public interest, not as part of a political strategy to use my money to purchase votes.
I also like to see a prospective president and vice president give more to charity (combined) over the last 5 years than I did in the last 2 years.
Never trust someone who’s only generous with other people’s money.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
McCain's campaign director(s) have missed opportunities continuously. I am shocked that they have not done a better job with National ads, debate rhetoric, and "rally pep talks" to pound the Democrats involved with the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Republicans are not pristine in this conundrum, but the Democrats are getting the pass, and Obama wins by "party in power" association.
It is horrible timing to rehash the Ayers connection and personal attacks with less than a month to go. The "average Joe" is focusing on one thing right now…economy.
Jindal/Palin 2012: This race is probably over…a sad day it is!
Comment by Cajunfit | October 8, 2008
Dr Kilovolt:
“[Time to start sheltering my income.] Only if you make more than $250,000 a year…”
Were you born yesterday or the day before? Bill Clinton used this same line in 1993 (except it was supposedly a tax on the “wealthiest Americans” earning over $300,000 a year), and his press secretary Dee Dee Myers was cornered into admitting at one of her press conferences that it was going to reach down to the $30,000 level. This is always the case because the “wealthiest Americans” are those who earn above the median and who pay essentially all the income taxes.
Phil:
“In an almost textbook example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, John McCain has managed to transform the political landscape …”
Shouldn’t that rather be “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”?
Also, I’m beginning to believe that Obama is correct – that McCain is another Bush, only in his case it is Bush senior whose campaign against Bill Clinton was run as though he didn’t really care to win. I personally know a retired judge who was then chairman of the Ohio Republican committee and who knew Bush senior well and advised him to get out and start campaigning for re-election. It’s pretty bad when you don’t even have a clue when to start.
Comment by sedonaman | October 8, 2008
Sedona — oops. Fortunately, it seems to have come out correctly in context, since you're the first one to catch it.
The Bush 41 analogy is pretty good too.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
"I like my taxes, which are considerable, to pay for things that are genuinely in the public interest"
Does that include ten billion a month to pursue a Quixotic quest for "victory" in Iraq? I ask because I don't recall from your previous comments whether you actually believe in such a fantasy like some of your compatriots here at IC, or are merely willing to overlook McCain's fervent belief in it (ironic that he of all people appears to have not learned the lessons of Vietnam) as one of the warts that all politicians have.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | October 8, 2008
As I said before, I don't debate emotions.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
Ah yes, the fallback.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | October 8, 2008
Bob Stapler wrote a long, and profound response to your emotions about Vietnam which you refused to address. You shoot off your mouth about things you do not understand, then run away when presented with an actual argument with actual facts.
You're not serious, and there's no need to waste time debating an emotion. Like I said above, it’s difficult enough to debate competing analyses, but I’ve yet to find a way to effectively answer an emotion. When a person believes what they believe because they believe it, there’s not much room for critical thought to argue against that position.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
Re: my previous comment. When you actually engage in a real discussion, people might take you seriously. Otherwise, there’s no point in discussing an emotion.
From http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/09/19/those-who-forget-the-past/#comments
***
And please don't get me started on Vietnam. We lost that war in the 40s and 50s when we repeated blew off Ho Chi Minh's pleas for assistance in obtaining independence, in favor of supporting French attempts to retake their former colony after WWII. By the sixties, when we were supporting a cruel Catholic dictator who systematically killed and tortured his citizens, we were on the tragically wrong side. To suggest that the war was "winnable" in light of what we know today is to display breathtaking ignorance.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | September 19, 2008
***
DK,
I suppose you could be forgiven some of this, as you were not alive when some of it happened. You did not witness John Kerry flinging away medals he later claimed he kept, did not watch Kerry accuse every veteran then in Vietnam (including my brother) of crimes and atrocities that mostly never happened, did not see him cavort with radical-vets many of whom turned out fakes, did not see him violate inactive-duty officer restrictions on political activism, and did not see the nationally televised Kerry-O'Neill debate in which O'Neill demolished Kerry and his slanders.
Try to remember (or learn) this, if nothing else. The swift-boat vets who went public against Kerry were not motivated by partisanship. They are Republicans, Democrats and independents who would have gone public just as surely had Kerry been a Republican. They had nothing personal or political to gain from going public and more to lose. The media attacked them, not Kerry, for upsetting their carefully crafted image of the war and of the long hyped anti-war warrior. Kerry was and remains a media creation; and the media is not fond of having its creations challenged. Some of the media left it to Kerry to defend himself, but others exposed their partisanship by hotly defending the Kerry image. These ‘objective’ reporters repeated the Kerry version of his service as fact despite inconsistencies. They refused to report these inconsistencies and objected when others reported them. Few in the media, took the side of the swift-boaters; and then only to the extent the swift-boaters should be allowed an opportunity to make their case. Beyond that, these ‘conservatively biased’ reporters are guilty of reporting the swift-boater’s charges for the record. Rush, Hannity, and the rest of conservative media are, at most, ‘guilty’ of lending them a pulpit, encouragement, confirming their claims to the extent possible, and opining voters should have this information when entering the voting booth. Your charge of conservative bias, then, reduces to: ‘anything smacking of conservative interests (or, conversely, damaging to liberal interests) should be tarred and barred as bias.
The swift-boater objection was (and remains) to Kerry the man, not Kerry the Democrat, stepping into the role of Commander-in-Chief of a military he once trashed for personal political gain. Kerry, by his own account, fully intended getting into politics before he went to Vietnam and, had his military career been more successful (i.e., suspect military honors), he would have returned from Vietnam as a hawk rather than a dove. He admits to joining the Navy in the expectation it would enhance his political resume. However, when he realized public perception of the war was tending negative, his medals tainted by self-promotion, and unlikely his former 'band of brothers' would back his play, he most likely decided the radical path to glory held greater promise. As a radical, he was just as calculating and abandoned his radical buddies the moment things got too 'interesting' (just as he had his swift-boat comrades).
I was a Navy recruit around the time Kerry was tossing away his medals. His testimony not only savaged fellow Vietnam vets, it impugned all four principal branches of the service. It undermined morale at a critical point in the war, and it struck hardest among our officers from whom we expected leadership. While I was in engineman training, the Capital was bombed by radicals, the Pentagon Papers were made public, Lt. Calley was convicted, and a group of active-duty Air Cav vets refused a patrol assignment. Returning from leave and wearing my uniform en-route to my first assignment, a group of casual protesters spat on me and other servicemen passing through San Francisco airport while guards and others stood by. I later heard of servicemen attacked or struck by thrown objects (these brave protesters only attacked or provoked isolated servicemen, those of us who failed to acknowledge the anti-war drumbeat). What happened to us would have been unthinkable a couple of years earlier. Returning from training was like coming home to a strangely altered reality. In January, before I had gone off, Nixon declared the "end in sight" and by July was patching up relations with China and Russia, isolating the North Vietnamese government from its support. Vietnam was essentially over with the communist reeling from Tet and Linebacker.
Overnight, the portrayal of the war was turned on its head, with the media redefining it as a disaster (where before it was a mopping up). It started coming apart just as American troops were pulled out, and it accelerated mainly because radicals were making it too hot for our government to put ground troops back in (a looming election and, then, Watergate clinched it). Generals Giap and Dung counted on American unwillingness to resume a fight we'd already broken off, and they weren’t disappointed. By 1973, we had not completely beaten the communists (as events would soon prove), but we had definitely forced them to the peace table, and had sufficient reason to believe they would honor the peace if only because we’d resume bombing.
The claim we ‘lost’ in Vietnam is just as false as saying we won. It was an unfinished business, but it was not a business we would have lost. It was costly, and that seems to have persuaded some more than it should have as the cost of not winning was higher, for the Vietnamese people if not us. Where we did lose it was in the public square where radicals like Kerry and Hayden deliberately misrepresented events and actors, made things hot for those who questioned their version of things, and made so much noise no other version could be heard. The version that has gone into the history books is mostly the one the left wants you to believe. Actual witnesses to history intrude on that version so, no doubt, they are anxious for our silence. I, for one, plan on sticking around a long time unearthing inconvenient facts.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 21, 2008
***
Bob: Thank you for confirming a long held view I've expressed.
Libs like Dr. K. constantly shoot off their mouth, confusing the expression of an opinion with the analysis of a situation.
When confronted with a factual account of history that differs from their fantasies, they do not respond (or when they respond, ignore the substance of what was said and simply express their opinion again.)
They then reappear in another post to offer their opinion again, and start the process all over again.
Maybe someday some lib somewhere will actually engage in a debate, instead of just telling us how he feels about something.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 23, 2008
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 8, 2008
Dr.K. you are a Dr. of what? Apparently you are unaware that BO has voted twice to raise taxes on people making $42,00 per year. Wake up smell the roses. It may look like it's over but it isn't. As Dennis Miller would say, "to call Barak Hussein Obama an empty suit is an insult to coat hagers around the world". We would not know or have ever heard about about BO if he wasn't a put up politician by the Chicago Machine. Hopefully, the American electorate will wake up to this socialist fraud before Nov 4th. ESODMF
Comment by jcscuba | October 8, 2008
Look, there are three reasons to oppose Obama:
1. He is a leftist whose ties to radical elements of the left, however he has tried to distance himself from, still shape his worldview.
2. He is inexperienced and naive related to foreign policy — and whether he was right or wrong on a given issue is less relevant than whether he will be perceived as weak by the tyrants of the world. (See JFK, Carter and Clinton)
3. He is all talk and little action and therefore he has not demonstrated his capacity even to manage domestic issues.
We have one problem — he is a better campaigner than McCain. Nixon was far superior to JFK on issues, but in the end he couldn't overcome his political deficits in 1960. Bob Dole was a better man in many regards than Clinton, but he was a carbon copy of McCain — an old guard Senator who got the nomination because it was owed him. If McCain doesn't pick up his game, we will have to try and do it for him. And if Obama wins, well, let's just hope we are wrong about his deficits…..
Comment by George Shadroui | October 8, 2008
To press the "tax the rich" point farther, a person who makes $250,000 a year is not rich. However, someone who HAS large sums of money but doesn't necessarily make a lot of income is rich.
Taxing income at any level is appropriating productivity, the fruit of one's own labor. But I have never heard a leftist advocate taxing actual wealth. Like say, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, or Warren Buffet. Do you suppose they'd quickly abandon their class warfare rhetoric if someone suggested that the wealthy pony up a percentage of their tax sheltered assets?
Comment by Mountain Man | October 8, 2008
Seems to me that Phil is right in his essay except for missing the snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The problem is the mindless group of non-taxpayers that vote and will happily vote for anything that gives them more that they did not work for. Thus items like the earned income credit (welfare), tax rebates to those that did not pay taxes (welfare), and now the apostate muslim's plan to give 95% of tax payers a tax break (more welfare). Couple that with a "bailout" that helps all those poor hard working illegals and we have a perfect storm where the future view will be taxing those that work to support those that do not choose to work. Can the "rich" be taxed enough to provide for all the hangers on? Ayn Rand did not think so nor do I. Maybe it is time to move off the grid and create a new capitalist society. In any event as the Omessiah taxes the producers out of their misery he will lament the loss of jobs and decide that government can create jobs which spins the cycle tighter until there is no one left to tax. This is beginning to sound like the meek will inherit the earth, everyone else will migrate.
Anyone know of a safe and sane country to migrate to? This one has been largely destroyed and only lacks the enlightened leadership of the empty suit to complete the process.
Comment by Mickey G | October 8, 2008
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Sounds fantastic - you spend your money on this pile of crap you euphemistically call "civilization" and leave mine alone - I'll be happy to withdraw from "civilization" and take my cash with me. Deal?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 9, 2008
Re: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
"I'm proud to be an American and pay taxes … But I could be just as proud for half the money!" … Arthur Godfrey
Comment by sedonaman | October 9, 2008
Rush talks about the "drive by media". I think we need to apply the same standards to "drive by commentators".
DK made some egregiously stupid observations about Vietnam that he refused to admit were wrong after Bob Stapler bitch slapped him. Like I predicted, he simply popped up again in another comment thread and repeated the same idiocy.
Unless and until DK admits he was wrong, or answers the substance of Stapler's response, I for one will regard him as the same kind of simple-minded hack I see in people of the extreme Right who mouth platitudes but never give us policy examples showing how their philosophy should work.
This is supposed to be a website that encourages intelligent debate. If the only criteria is that we express our feelings, then we might as well all start posting at the Daily Kos.
I refuse to take any future comments DK makes seriously until he shows that he actually has some substance; a challenge I doubt he has the ability to meet.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 9, 2008
McCain was one of the worst choices for the republican party to nominate as president.He's to old and out of touch with the voters of 2008.The republican party will lose ever seat that is up for election this year and the primary reason is the general hate for Bush and his incompetence.Bush will go down in history as the most hated and dumbest president this country has ever elected.
Comment by fcs25 | October 10, 2008
Phillip:
I was predicting a McCain victory earlier, but it is looking blue, although the fat lady has yet to sing.
You are ignoring the 900 pound gorilla in the room, and that is that there has been a fairly dramatic ideological and political shift in this country since 2004 and all Republicans are swimming upstream against it.
In fact it remains that John McCain is running ahead of most of his comparable GOP, it is just that they are all losing.
Look at the open Senate seats i.e. seats with no incumbent: VA, CO, ID, MS, NE, NM, WY. Nebraska, Wyoming, and Idaho are solid GOP in either race, but McCain is doing better than the GOP Senatorial in VA, CO, NM, and MS. MN is the only race I can think where the GOP Coleman was doing better than McCain and that is a weird one in the state of Jesse Ventura.
If you posit the argument that McCain is running too left and that somebody like Fred Thompson would do better, I think you are way off. Thompson would have been KO'd months ago.
Look at Colorodo. You have the GOP Schaeffer who had a 100% American Conservative Union rating vs. 9% for Udall probably the most classic very conservative vs. very liberal contest and Schaeffer is down by about 5% whereas McCain is down more like 2%. I am sure there are individual factors in that contest, but looking over the whole spectrum of house and Senate seats, I expect McCain will still run two to three percentage points ahead of the rest of the party.
Are his tactics off? Perhaps. Could anybody else do better. I don't think so. Is there any election in modern history where the retiring president of one party had a low rating in the 25% range and his party won the next election? No. Not, Stevenson, not Humphrey, Ford et al.
I am surprised by Obama's success. Granted he is a good communicator and has a lot of charm, I just did not expect a man with the odd name and a very liberal resume to get anywhere, but he is riding a Dem wave which is being fueled by changing demographics
I find this little survey from Sabato interesting:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008100902
It shows the shift among different demographic groups from GOP to Dem from 2004 to 2008 and although there has been a general shift which is not listed but looks like about 7.5% to the Dems, the most dramatic shifts are among 18-29 yo at +17 and hispanics at +29. Those are precisely two expanding population groups and two groups with traditional low voter turnout and registration.
The reason Obama is doing so well is that he is mobilizing workers and registering new voters. I think the GOP might have done the same with gathering up the evangelicals and rural cultural conservatives in the 70s and eighties, but they are all solid GOP now, and the GOP will need to mine other quarries if they are to compete.
Comment by yonkel | October 10, 2008
"Bush will go down in history as the most hated and dumbest president this country has ever elected."
Judged against history, Bush will do fairly well. Pretend you're not 5 years old and try looking at history as a whole as opposed to history since you woke up this morning.
Yonkel,
McCain isn't probably going to get his entire base. If you notice, when he selected Palin he initially got a nice boost out of - 4 to 5% over Obama in almost every swing state, and 9% nationally. That was mostly because the base was fired up. Now the base has fizzled again with an "all is lost" attitude after Palin's interview performances (which frankly were nothing short of brilliant stacked up against the Democratic two-man gaffe machine, but not seen with quite the same light), and he's dropping again. This race will be won by probably about the same margin as the last 2 have been. The vote is pretty evenly split these days, and a handful of people in one or two states will tip it one way or the other. This represents more of a historical pattern of "blame the incumbent" than some radical demographic and cultural shift. A different GOP candidate would probably get about the same percentage as McCain, but a GOP candidate who was a decent communicator who didn't outrightly disenfranchise a good portion of the base and had some testicular fortitude would probably come up the slim winner where McCain may come up the slim loser.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 11, 2008
Yonkel:
I’m not sure that Thompson would have been a better candidate. I liked him a lot — until he entered the race. He looked like a walking cadaver and was amazingly ineffective at making his case. Rudy may have been a better candidate despite some of his problems, but that’s another analysis.
My point about McCain is that his selection of Palin energized the base, and I believe has attracted some net new potential voters, precisely because of the values Palin espouses. These do not include bragging about how well she gets along with Ted Kennedy or seeing how much federal taxpayer money she can give away to buy votes. Every time McCain moves left to attract “moderate undecided” voters he buys into the myth that there is a large base of non-ideological, can’t-we-all-just-get-along voters out there waiting to be energized. There may in fact be a lot of people who fit this bill, but they don’t vote in great numbers.
You win an election by presenting a clear vision of what you will do, and energizing people to support it; not by watering down your views to make them “acceptable” to the marginally-informed and marginally-motivated to vote. Like I said in my article, three weeks out from an historic election like this, anyone who isn’t already leaning toward McCain or Obama is a moron, and probably has trouble deciding whether to use paper or plastic.
Obama’s “success” so far is actually a product of three things, some of which are politically incorrect to say (but I’ll say them anyway).
1. Like Biden said, he’s a “clean, articulate black guy”. The guilt-ridden dems and liberal whites have been waiting for the day when they can show the world how “progressive” they are by voting for someone of color. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race mongers, and carried too much baggage to fulfill this dream. By contrast, Obama — who has managed to keep most of what he’s done in life hidden, or to a minimum — has no baggage. And he talks real good. In short, Obama sounds smart and looks good, and that’s all that matters to these shallow-thinking supporters. Obama’s policies are irrelevant in this equation. He could come out tomorrow for a massive tax cut for big oil, and everyone would still applaud. [For example, he’s gone from get entirely out of Iraq in 6 months period, to get about 50% of our troops out 18 months, to “I’ll let conditions on the ground influence that timetable”, with no diminution of support.]
2. By nominating Obama, the dems get rid of the Clinton Cancer. A few brave souls came out during the nominating process and said the Clintons were scum. Most dems who believe this can’t afford to state it publicly, but “voted with their feet”. An Obama nomination knocks Hillary — and by extension Bill — out of the box until 2012. An Obama victory keeps her out until 2016. By then she’s too old to be a real factor, and Obama’s replacement Veep in 2012 will get the 2016 nomination.
3. I believe you said earlier that you don’t read or watch much mainstream news. The news has always leaned left (90% of reporters and managers self-identify as liberals; at a minimum that cannot help but shape their world views). But, when even Hillary Clinton complains that the MSM is completely in the tank for Obama, and the only “fair“ press she got was from Fox news, you know this bias has gone into overdrive. If the press gave Obama a tenth of the harsh press and scrutiny they’ve devoted to McCain and Palin, McCain would be up by 20 points.
Toss in the “Bush sucks” crowd that just hates Republicans for “stealing” the 2000 and 2004 elections, the massive Acorn voter fraud that’s being exposed now, and the normal tendency after 8 years to go with an opposing party, and you can see why Obama is ahead.
McCain can still win, because of the “Bradley effect” I noted in a previous article, and the fact that all this pro-Obama bias is having a mobilizing effect on the people who want Sarah Palin positioned to succeed McCain in 2012, so I’m not counting him out. But it is an up hill battle when it didn’t have to be. McCain had the momentum even before he picked Palin, but by refusing to name names and clearly show the dems’ complicity in the current economic crisis, he’s squandered that momentum. He’s finally starting to react now the way he should. I just hope it isn’t too little too late.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 11, 2008
Patrick:
I agree with you on the "blame the incumbent" phenom. As I noted, I don't think any Republican could win the presidency with Bushes ratings at about 25% anymore than Stevenson could have won after the faltering Truman or Ford after Nixon.
To an extent that might carry over to Congress, but it should not as much as we are seeing. Eight current GOP senate seats are now leaning Dem including five incumbents- Sununu, Stevens, Dole, Smith, and Coleman. Also thirteen house seats.
Several trends are supporting this 1) an ideological shift, where the general public are more favorable to Dems than GOP by about 5-10% 2) Demographic trends- immigrants and youth are trending much more Dem than the rest of the country and they are an expanding population and a population with less registered voters offering fertile ground for recruitment and fueling the rather staggering Dem advantage among recent registration. The group that was least trending Dem (by 1% only vs national around 7%), from that quote on Sabato, was 65+ while 18-29 was trending Dem by 17%. Given life expectancies that does not portend well for the GOP.
I do agree that McCain is a little lackluster, but GWB was no great charismatic either, and if McCain loses 1-2% on poor communication, I think a Romney or Thompson would have easily lost the same percentage on being too conservative for the current mood. As I mentioned look at the Colorodo Senatorial where a very conservative GOP is running several percentage points behind McCain and where liberal Republicans like Coleman in MN and Smith in OR, though slightly behind, are running ahead of McCain.
There are always trends back and forth, and the conservative trend lasted from about 1968 to 2004. I don't see the liberal trend as being as short lived as you might think.
For the Palin/Jindal hopefuls on the blog wishing a conservative revival, I don't see it happening. The GOP will always be the party of smaller government, less public welfare, and strong military, which I think will always appeal to Americans, but I think the moderation of McCain on issues like the environment and immigration (two issues that most account for GOP loss in the youth and hispanic demographics), represent the inevitable response of the parties to public sentiment and the way the GOP will go- more towards McCain and Shwarznegger than Thompson.
People on the blog hold their views based on belief not popularity and should do so. I just disagree that any conservative revival is on the horizon. If the very conservative wing of people who believe that global warming does not need to be addressed and that totally unregulated free markets including health care are the only option, hold to their guns they will emulate the split off of the Henry Wallace progressives from the mainstream Dems in 1948. The left wing Democrats have since been marginalized to the noisy fringes and Naderites, and other than occasionally promoting a candidate that gets clobbered like McGovern have little impact on national politic. Perhaps, Obama has recaptured some of those folks, but then I don't know that Obama would be winning in normal times.
Comment by yonkel | October 11, 2008
Yonkel:
Global warming may in fact exist, though the data of the last 10 years seems to dispute that. The issue on the table, though, is whether man is responsible for it (vs. natural climactic changes). If man is not responsible, man can't fix it. If man can't fix it, there's no research grants or payments to third world governments to "fix" it. That's the issue.
Moreover, the issue isn't "unregulated free markets". It's properly regulated markets. No one, except for the uber-right (maybe 2-3% of conservatives) want no regulation at all. We simply want intelligent regulation, not the quasi-socialist paradise the liberals advocate.
You've been quite fair in your analyses, so this isn't a slam against you, but this is the issue we constantly face. Because of the sloppy way the MSM represents conservative views, many people hold a cartoon version of conservatism. They surmise — correctly — that few people will actually want this cartoon version of reality. I certainly don't. But rejecting these distortions and simplifications doesn't mean I will now embrace the Democrat policy options.
This is why Palin is so energizing and effective. For the most part, she accurately reflects the genuine issues and values most conservatives share.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 11, 2008
As of Oct.11,I look for a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012
Comment by pamelam | October 11, 2008
It's a military dictum that crosses over into the RW: do not allow the enemy the initiative, e.g. the opportunity to formulate and put into effect their own plans and operations via your own inaction.
Comment by Last Angry Man | October 11, 2008
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
What an oxymoron that is! The system of taxation is legalized theft, the initiation of force by government on its own citizens. Your consent is not required.
Any society that resorts to the system of taxation is not, properly speaking, a civilization.
It's time to drop that barbaric practice altogether and discover the true nature and meaning of civilized living.
Comment by AMAI | October 11, 2008
Yonkel,
Considering presidents Nixon (Nixon was about as conservative as Hillary Clinton when he actually got into office; remember "we're all Keynsians now"), Ford (Ford was about as conservative as Nixon), Carter, and Clinton, I'd hardly call 1968-2004 a "conservative trend". Excepting the Reagan 80's, Republicans have been running left to try and get elected for most of the last century. Remember, Bush I wasn't exactly held up as a conservative high priest like his predecessor, and Bush II is the "compassionate conservative" who has expanded domestic social spending more than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Not exactly uber-free-market standouts and crazy right wing nuts, if you ask me.
Bush in both 2000 and 2004 didn't win because he was such a charasmatic standout of the Republican party. He benefited from the same thing Obama is benefitting from today: the other party nominated a guy who's pretty dull, pretty boring, pretty uncharismatic, and didn't get a message out very well. Flip the situation today, and then add in the fact that Obama is sheltered from attack, both politically and personally, by political correctness, the media worship him, and he's running against an incumbent party that's not real popular. And even at that he's only ahead nationally by 5-8%, depending on which polls taken at which times you follow. That's not a radical paradigm shift in political ideology, it's a pretty typical political cycle. It's the same political cycle that brought Reagan to office after Carter, Clinton to office after Bush, and Republicans into congress in '94.
Throwing out the registrations of the pot smoking college dudes who will register at their local campus rally, but won't actually walk across the street to vote when the time comes, this election, like the last two, will probably fall along pretty typical party lines, and one or two states are going to decide it. If Obama gets elected, we'll experience a repeat of the Carter administration, and then the cycle will probably shift back to the Republicans (saying they nominate someone even marginally more charismatic than Ben Stein).
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 11, 2008
[…] Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy 5 reasons why John McCain is in big trouble — and none of them have to do with Barack Obama. […]
Pingback by Tell me again which one is the Republican?…. « Mrcauser’s Weblog | October 12, 2008
Phillip:
Although you might be correct on tactics, it still does not explain why all the other GOP candidates are doing so poorly. If McCain was such a screwup he would be doing worse than the others and he isn't.
And it is not just a "mad at congress" sentiment, as in the senate, no incumbent Dem is in danger. Landrieu at first seemed vulnerable and now she is up by 15%. Lautenberg, now up by 12.5% has the lowest lead of any incumbent Dem. whereas Stevens, Coleman,Sununu, Dole, and Smith are all currently losing and as I pointed out Schaeffer in Colorodo is probably one of the most conservative candidates with a 100% ACU rating and he is losing in an open but formerly GOP seat.
Yes, Thompson was not Mr. Charisma, but I did like his style, and from my centrist perspective Palin is a bit scary.
Patrick:
It is true Republicans have been running Left for the past century,probably even since Lincoln. And it is also true that Democrats have been running right, both with exceptions, because that is the nature of the system. If more than half of the country agrees with you, you are much more likely to win. Probably FDR was to the left of center and Reagan to the right but those were exceptions. Obama might be an exception, yet. Like Regan he is riding an ideological wave.
I also would not underestimate the new registrations. Check out Scott Elliot's analysis from 10/8 about the early voting in Georgia, interesting
http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml
There is more than pot smoking hippies being registered. I think you have a historically low voter turnout in minority and young communities and if Obama succeeds in bringing thiese voters in, he will gain in similar ways as the GOP efforts in the 70-90s in getting the less political evangelicals and social conservative voters into the ranks of the GOP.
Goldwater, McGovern, Kerry, and Dukakis are examples of the more common fate of those that are off the center. Both Clinton and Carter within the context of their party at that time were considered more centrist.
I have heard it said or implied that Nixon was a liberal but that baffles me. Republicans might feel like disowning him as Dems might wish to forget Carter, but Nixon was straight out of the center of the party.
He supported Goldwater in 1964 as opposed to the liberal wing which was for Rockefeller and he ran to the right of Romney and Rockefeller in 1968, though to the left of Reagan.
He was perhaps the inventor of the culture wars, and benefited from the support of the silent majority and had a strong personal disdain for his opponents. In contrast to McCain, who positions himself as working across the aisle and being a maverick, Nixon had his enemie's list and espoused no such bipartisan sentiments.
One may not like McCains bipartisan leanings, but it is a reflection of the times and what the public wants. In fact, in normal times, it might have doomed Obama to be so far left, like it did McGovern or Kerry, but he is riding a wave of anger at the Republicans and Bush in particular.
Comment by yonkel | October 12, 2008
Yonkel: When the national candidate (or party) is tagged with an issue, it affects the entire party. This is the same thing that happened in 1994 when the Democrats lost 40 seats (and control of Congress). Newt successfully "nationalized" the election with the Contract for America, and even safe Democrat seats were lost that otherwise were not in trouble.
Because McCain has let the charge go virtually unanswered that the Republicans, and Republicans alone, are responsible for the current financial mess, the entire party is suffering. This is the single biggest issue that will factor into a McCain defeat, though there are other issues as I noted in my article that aren't serving him well either.
My heart tells me there is enough time for McCain to recover, but my head tells me it's a real longshot that he'll win now. If he does, it will be a combination of the Bradley effect plus the base supporting Palin.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 13, 2008
AMAI:
Re: "Any society that resorts to the system of taxation is not, properly speaking, a civilization. … It's time to drop that barbaric practice altogether and discover the true nature and meaning of civilized living."
And what, pray tell, is your idea for an alternate system?
Comment by sedonaman | October 13, 2008
AMAI & sedonaman
That was all settled in 1791 during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 13, 2008
Ivan Ivanovich:
If I recall correctly, the Whiskey Rebels lost and taxes won, so I don't see how your response answers my question to AMAI for an alternate system.
Comment by sedonaman | October 14, 2008
Yes! That's the point. There have been taxes since the beginning of civilization. Even the Old Testament tells about tax collectors. So it's settled. We will have taxes and that does not make us barbarians. Now let's get on to how taxes are levied. The so called Fair Tax is not a solution. It ignores FICA & Medicare, State taxes (both income & sales), taxes added to every bill we get (water, gas, home heating, electric), city taxes, county taxes, tolls. I'm sure we could add some, but that's enough for now. Can we agree that taxes are NOT barbaric?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 14, 2008
Ivan Ivanovich:
Re: “There have been taxes since the beginning of civilization. Even the Old Testament tells about tax collectors. So it's settled. We will have taxes and that does not make us barbarians.”
This is the “We-do-it-because-we’ve-always-done-it” argument that doesn’t fly in some quarters. Taxes per se are not what make us “barbarian”; they are necessary to provide services that individuals cannot provide on their own, like roads, police and fire protection, and national defense, to name a few. The concept of subsidiarity applies here:
“Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time, a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help (subsidium) to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”
This is saying that legitimate needs should be provided by the lowest possible level of society, and not elevated above that level.
What makes us uncivilized is the abuse of the taxing authority. Taxes for the sake of taxing is an abuse, as are taxing to “get even” with “the rich”, to provide subsidies for wooden arrow makers, counting dogs in Oxnard, and funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish.
Comment by sedonaman | October 14, 2008