Governing v. Pontificating

From NBC News:
"John McCain, GOP point person on Afghanistan? For those of us who followed nearly every minute of the 2008 presidential campaign, it's fascinating to watch how John McCain has become the GOP point person in arguing that July 2011 is a date certain that will embolden the enemy. For starters, McCain never called for more troops to Afghanistan until July 15, 2008 -- nearly a year after Obama; for McCain, Iraq was the center on the war on terrorism, not Afghanistan. Second, he never put up much a fight when the Iraqi government and Bush White House established a "time horizon" to withdraw from Iraq. And third, he himself talked about timetables during the campaign, saying that Maliki’s 16-month timeframe was “a pretty good timetable” and also saying that all U.S. forces would be home from Iraq by 2013. McCain would argue -- rightly -- that his talk about timetables was always tied to conditions on the ground. But that's also true for Obama's July 2011 date. Here’s what the president said on Tuesday: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”
TW: Inevitably the Republicans will support Obama in AfPak in a most back-handed way, neither surprising nor particularly perplexing. The specific point they are foisting as the worst part of the plan is the timeline. Questions: 1) would you prefer an entirely open-ended plan? 2) is it possible Obama/Gates/Jones et al. believe the timeline provides value in creating incentives for the Afghans to assume responsibility for their own security? This is a complex chess game, pondering implications beyond the immediate horizon is imperative.

McCain IV and Barack Obama

TW: John McCain made some deals with the devil to attain the Republican nomination but on torture he is not confused unlike many of his lesser colleagues. And congrats to his son who graduated Annapolis.

From Jeff Goldberg at Atlantic:

"I asked him about Dick Cheney and his defense of Bush Administration torture policies. He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: "When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn't torture, then I'm not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position," he said.

"But look, he's free to talk. He's a former Vice President of the United States. I just don't see where it helps." And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition."

The Difference Between Pros and Wannabes

TW: One of the memes making the rounds late last week was John McCain getting back to his mavericky ways by poking the Republicans and standing up for Obama. But really this is merely McCain knowing how to play the game. By tacking to "help" Obama now, when McCain really wants to get something done that Obama opposes he will be well-positioned. Expect the following headline at some point during the coming year: "McCain who had been regarded as a strong across the aisle enabler for Obama, today came out in strong opposition to Obama regarding XXX. McCain's opposition creates real challenges impeding Obama's drive to pass XXX".

Contrast McCain to the John Cornyn (TX Senator) futzing around with the Hillary Clinton nomination which got him a couple of days of minor coverage but achieved little else.

From NBC:
"Mac is back: The Washington Post front-pages how Washington’s maverick -- John McCain -- is back in business. Here's the paper's fun lead: “A joke made its way around the Capitol yesterday: How do you know the 2008 election is really over? Because John McCain is causing trouble for Republicans again. Two and a half months removed from his defeat in the race for the presidency, colleagues say, McCain bears more resemblance to the unpredictable and frequently bipartisan lawmaker they have served with for decades than the man who ran an often scathing campaign against Barack Obama. In some instances, he's even carrying water for his former rival.”

Obama and McCain

TW: There has been a fair amount of play about Obama seeking McCain's counsel recently. I have no idea how extensive and genuine the interaction has been but if it is real that is a great thing. McCain before he tacked hard right during the primaries was an interesting senator especially on national security issues. If Obama can work effectively with McCain especially the vintage 2000 McCain then the country will benefit. The fact that Obama is able to pull off these events so smoothly speaks volumes of his approach and skills. The fact that they both had the sense to not invite Palin to the event should encourage those concerned about Obama losing his mind amidst the bi-partisan karma.

"We Are All Georgians Now": Not So Much

TW: John McCain came out breathing fire when Russia engaged Georgia in a brief war last August. His remark that "we are all Georgians" was regarded as strident at the time and has not aged well. While Putin led Russia has been a source of irritation and has not supported world stability, it appears the Georgians under Shakashvilli at a minimum acted irrationally to prod the Russians.

What is most disturbing was the lockstep march of a certain group of mainly but solely Republican pundits and politicians to jump on the August war as a casus belli to re-ignite old Cold War tensions. No responsible person suggests cowing to the Russians but bellicosity has never been a particularly effective form of policy. We would do well to pick our fights more carefully where one we are right on the facts and two we are able to actually achieve our desired outcome. Supporting a weak government in the Bear's backyard means we better have very compelling facts and strategy. Otherwise we are risking much more when we are already risking too much.

From the Dallas Blog:
"The Republican leaning punditocracy in Washington D.C. backed McCain to a fault. Frank Gaffney, President of the hawkish Center for Security Policy, called for Americans to boycott Russian products, and to dump companies like Russia’s Gazprom from their stock portfolios. Max Boot, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, compared the Russian incursion into Georgia to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Boot called for America to supply advanced weapons to Georgia so the Georgians could kill more Russians...

In recent weeks, Saakashvili’s case for NATO membership and U.S. support has been devastated. The International Herald Tribune reported the findings of a leaked Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) independent observer report which claimed that Georgian forces attacked South Ossetian towns with infantry and artillery before the Russian army entered the Roki Tunnel between Russia and South Ossetia on the night of August 7, 2008. This confirms what Orange County California-based Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who has access to House Intelligence Committee reports, told the UK Telegraph newspaper in September, that “Georgia started the war and Russia finished it.” Rohrabacher’s statement was basically ignored by the right-leaning media...

With all of these revelations, which have led even the previously pro-Georgian Washington Post and New York Times to distance themselves from Saakashvili’s government, will any so-called conservatives in Washington admit that they made a mistake in backing Georgia unconditionally? Will there be any reconsideration of their blind support for installing a missile defense system on Russia’s border in Poland, or bringing Ukraine into NATO over the objections of a majority of Ukrainians? Will there be any apology to the people of South Ossetia for feeding Saakashvili’s delusions of grandeur? Don’t hold your breath. The Cold War Lobby continues to exert its dead hand over the Republican Party, pointlessly antagonizing Russia and continuing to write checks the American people are unwilling to cash."
http://www.dallasblog.com/200812201004135/guest-viewpoint/georgia-war-exposed-gop-cold-war-lobby.html

The Presidential Campaign In Five Minutes

TW: TPM does a nice re-cap of the general election campaign in five minutes.

A Barometer For the Republican Party

TW: John McCain is up for re-election in '10. His largest hurdle may not be winning the general election that year but winning his own primary. It is possible, despite McCain's assertion to the contrary last week, that McCain at age 78 will retire but if he does not, whether he faces serious primary may be an interesting barometer on the state of the Republican party. If McCain ultimately must overcome a right-wing challenge, one can assume the Republican party rather than moving to the center in order to re-gain electoral strength is rather preferring ideological purity including the adoption of harsher immigration policy.

The true maverick McCain was an interesting Senator, the right-wing toady McCain was uninspired and uncompelling. The Republicans must ask themselves whether the two concepts can co-exist.

From Economist:
" 'I’ll do anything I can to support his Republican opponent, whoever that might be,' Rob Haney — who until last week was chairman of the Republican party in Arizona’s District 11 — told me recently. Haney has been a loud and vocal critic of McCain for years, arguing that McCain is “not a conservative in any way, shape, or form.'

Mr Haney is one of a number of Republicans trying to draft an anti-McCain primary challenger. The great white hope is J.D. Hayworth, a congressman who lost in the 2006 wipe-out despite taking a hard right turn on immigration and losing a whole Lindsay Graham's worth of body mass after gastric bypass surgery...

In 2007, when Mr McCain was taking the lead on immigration reform, his favourability numbers among Republicans plunged...In 2004, conservative groups like the Club for Growth thought about challenging Mr McCain, then famous for his heterodoxy on taxes, global warming and immigration. But Mr McCain swung right and campaigned for President Bush, calming the waters, and conservatives made Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania their target. If he is successfully courted by President Obama and becomes a swing vote for Democratic bills, expect the Hayworthians to roil again. Expect that to happen at double-speed if an immigration bill comes up in 2009 or 2010."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/mccain_post.cfm

My Take On Potential McCain Comeback Themes

TW: This article by Joe Klein (Time) was written 10/2, I answered the same day but am setting the post for 10/13 to give myself a chance to look foolish should any of them materialize between then and now. Klein outlines possible themes which would turn the election momentum back toward McCain (recall on 10/2 Obama was up roughly 6-7%)

From Klein (and TW)
"Several Republicans--Reagan Administration sorts--have said to me in the past few days, "It's over. McCain blew it." I dunno. We have a month left--and all sorts of things can happen. Here's a list of some of them, in order of likelihood: TW: first of all I think it is unfair to ever say this election was ever McCain's to "blow", he was swimming upstream all year against currents that have only gotten more and more extreme.

1. McCain finds a gut-bucket issue that works--my personal suspicion is that it will be immigration demagoguery, even though he wrote the comprehensive bill. Obama's position in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants is an area of legitimate disagreement between the candidates and an obvious target. TW: Cannot see it, McCain is not positioned to be a populist on immigration even if he were I believe he would lose more Latino votes than gain fearful "native" votes.

2.Osama Bin Laden weighs in: He did it last time, releasing a tape hammering Bush on the last weekend of the campaign. The CIA assessment was that bin Laden wanted Bush--whose policies had brought many new recruits--reelected. This time, you could see Osama "endorsing" Obama...TW: Osama is always a wild card, certainly what is good for the US (e.g. getting rid of Bush or putting in Obama) is what he will try to prevent. A significant attack changes everything in terms of mood and focus. If the US somehow gets Osama in the next month that would immediately even with the economic crisis change the narrative.

3. McCain does better in the next two debates--one of them is a town meeting, his favorite format. Another possible opportunity for McCain is that the first debate was watched by a mere 50 million, probably because it was held on Friday night. The town hall debate audience will be much larger, I suspect, giving McCain a second chance to make first impressions. TW: Doubt it, I think the impact of the debates recedes geometrically from the first to the last, people pay less not more atttention, minds are made up, Obama can just play it very cool.

4. Obama screws up somehow--yeah, yeah, highly unlikely. But not impossible. After all, he did make the
"cling to religion and guns" comment. More likely, will be a revisitation of a past screwup--Jeremiah Wright inserts his humble presence into the campaign. Some youthful political indiscretion is unearthed. TW: Always possible although after two years I would be quite surprised if something new came up (the Clintons were not timid vetters). As I have posted previously I think Wright will re-appear but his impact will be muted (assuming they do not find a tape of Obama in a direct inflammatory interaction with him).

5. The economic issue recedes and national security comes to the fore. Iraq blows up again (the Shi'ites diss the Sunni Awakening), Pakistan disintegrates and the disposition of the nukes is unclear--and then there's always the not-so-unthinkable...another terrorist strike. (Although given McCain's erratic behavior in the past month, I'm not so sure this would be an advantage for him.) TW: This is very similiar to point 2 above. But Iraq or even Pakistan "blowing up" probably hurts McCain more than Obama. Iran would be a more likely tricky situation if say Israel attacked the nuclear facilities. If Russia decides to invade Ukraine, then yes McCain gains but I do not think that will happen.

TW: What I think this piece demonstrates is the challenge McCain faces a month before the election. True gamechanges become more difficult with every passing day
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/game_changers.html

The Man Inspires Confidence In This Time Of Turmoil...um not so much

538 Silver's Take On the Wall Street Turmoil

"People...seem to think that this will be some sort of linchpin event in the campaign. I don't necessarily buy that, because I think that most voters grasp intuitively that markets are markets, and that policymakers have less to do with their direction than they might with something like job creation.

To the extent there are opportunities, however, you'd think they'd favor Obama. He should have the much easier time of things, because people naturally associate Wall Street with the Republicans, and because he can simply link the troubles to the failures of the status quo under George W. Bush.

McCain, by contrast, is under more pressure to actually propose solutions, which is difficult because there aren't a lot of good ones here. He certainly needs to improve his messaging over where it was in his morning appearance in Jacksonville today, where he was borderline incoherent on the subject of the financial crisis."

Politico: McCain Has It Figured Out, Lie Because It Works

Politico has a must read on why McCain in addition to adopting vast swaths of the Bush policy agenda has now adopted the Rovian campaign style which has lowered the standards of American politics over the past 10 years. This approach is a proven winner it is up to Obama and ultimately the American people to make it a has-been approach.

The money quotes:
"McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical...The furor presents a breathtaking contrast to McCain’s image as a kind of anti-politician who plays fair, disdains politics as usual and has never forgotten how his 2000 presidential campaign was incinerated by a series of loathsome dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary.

McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation...We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it...a campaign that is now unapologetically aggressive and aimed almost entirely at keeping Obama off-message, even if it means hitting him below the belt in the process

Every day not talking about the economy, the war and how to fix a broken system is a victory for McCain...They’re going to ride it as long as they can and as long as the mainstream media puts up every ridiculous charge.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html

Debunking Mythology

As mentioned previously, the Obama campaign is now releasing detailed memos rebutting point by point (footnoted) the myths being propagated by McCain

Key myths addressed in this memo include amongst others:
1) McCain Myth: Palin Visited Troops In Iraq
2) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Fiscal Conservative
3) McCain Myth: Palin Has Succeeded in Signing a Deal to Build Alaska’s Long-Stalled Gas Pipeline
4) McCain Myth: Palin’s Energy Experience Will Lower Gas Prices and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
5) McCain Palin Myth: Sarah Palin Told Congress “Thanks But No Thanks” On That Bridge to Nowhere
6) McCain Myth: Sarah Palin NEVER Sought Earmarks As Governor
7) McCain Myth: Palin Cut Taxes
8) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Reformer Who Brought Ethics Back to Alaskan Politics

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-the-straight-talk-express/

Quote of the Day:

“I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,”

Matthew Dowd (former Bush advisor)

Time Klein: McCain Wags the Dog on Taxes

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor, is an honest man--which means he's something of a liability on the Straight Talk Express. ...he admitted...that Barack Obama's economic plan would reduce taxes for most people. And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.

"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf. "It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.

Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)

Miller concludes: So why does tax-cutting mania persist among Republicans....'It's the brand,' {Holtz-Eakin} said, 'and you don't dilute the brand.' "

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html

Focusing On Issues: McCain's Would Vastly Increase Our Already Ballooning Deficits

Fiscal deficits raise interests and require us to borrow internationally (primarily from China and the oil states).

Alan Greenspan commented Saturday that McCain's tax cut and spending plans likely would lead to even greater fiscal deficits than W. Bush. The Obama campaign has adopted a novel approach, they are issuing fact-filled memo's (footnoted) actually addressing specific issues, making our lives easier relative to burning through the McCain campaign's propaganda.

The gist of the memo- McCain proposes $3.3 trillion in tax cuts (continuing the Bush lower rates for the wealthy, eliminating AMT, lower corporate taxes, cutting more businiess taxes), while proposing roughly $17 billion annual reduction of earmarks (the same earmarks that Palin in practice in Alaska loved but in theory since her nomination rails against). Assuming every earmark as eliminated (totally unrealistic) McCain could finance about 6% of his proposed tax cuts. McCain's advisors have alluded to other misc. reductions none nearly large enough to cover the tax policy of McCain/Bush but McCain on the campaign trail has indicated he would not implement the reductions mentioned by his advisors.
http://obama.3cdn.net/af1925f1032ea575fd_2hm6b995d.pdf

Focusing On Issues: McCain And Stem Cells

TW: Some contradictory signals from McCain on stem cells but ultimately you have a choice relative to stem cells

Trust the Republicans with their artfully nuanced and contradictory positions or trust the Democrats with their very straight-forward support for legitimate stem cell related research

And do not forget what the US does is one thing, the rest of the world is charging ahead regardless.

Some points re the Republicans:
1) THE ECONOMIST this week ran with a cover article on cancer and stem cells..."research into stem cells may prove pivotal to developing therapies that can actually cure cancer"...
2) The Republican platform from Minneapolis calls for a ban on all embryonic stem-cell research, public or private.
3) Palin's few statements on the topic would seem to be consistent with the Republican platform. This quote from her 2006 gubernatorial debate: "stem-cell research would ultimately end in destruction of life. I couldn’t support (it)"
4) McCain says that he doesn't necessarily agree with every part of the Republican platform.
5) McCain released an ad Friday with very nuanced language touting his support for some stem cell research
6) But if the platform (e.g. the majority position of his party) supports a complete ban how likely is it that McCain will expand federal funding for research as opposed to be under pressure to reduce funding?

A Video Sent by a Friend: Obama Rebuts the Sludge

kinda hard to keep up since the McCain campaign has turned into a sewage factory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

The Faux Maverick Chronicles: McCain Staffers Suckle the Lobbying Teat

From Politco:
"John McCain has pledged that, if elected president, he would end the revolving-door practice of administration officials leaving office for lucrative lobbying jobs...

At least 16 of McCain’s former Senate staffers have gone on to careers in the influence trade, according to an analysis of federal lobbying records. In many cases, they went to work for clients whose issues the staffers dealt with in the Senate.

'Actions speak louder than words,' Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said, explaining that the senator has opened himself up to charges of hypocrisy by putting himself out front on ethics issues. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13365.html

Newsweek Quindlan: A Man With Character Is Running For President

Quindlan:
"'As good as the best of them' might well have been Barack Obama's slogan as he rose to be editor of the Harvard Law Review, faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School, state representative and U.S. senator. It is easy to see all the ways in which his race could have played a part in his rapid rise, but not necessarily in the way his opponents might suggest. Being an outsider probably taught him how to work well in two worlds, the world of those who take their place of primacy for granted and the world of those who have no such place, or who have to fight for it twice as hard.

Much has been made by Senator McCain's supporters of his history as a survivor of a Viet Cong prison camp, of the broken bones and psychological onslaughts that he withstood for five long years. They argue that such an experience builds character. They should also take note of the challenges faced by a black man in America, challenges that have built Senator Obama's character. These may be harder to quantify than imprisonment and torture, but they are onerous in a different and inescapable way."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151725