Not only does Johnny Mac want to suspend Fridays debate, but he wants to call off the VP debate next week? This sounds to me like someone got a whiff of the current polls and is trying to pander to voters. When this campaign gets down to the actual issues, and not bullshit like lipstick, McCain can't win. Not after 8 years of Bush. A debate on these issues Friday would, in my humble opinion, effectively end McCain's presidential run. Not only does McCain dodge this debate, but he is trying to get a pass for his VP. I for one was looking forward to "Sarah Barracuda" meeting "Joey the Shark". I guess she needs more time for her crash course on foreign policy, or maybe for more interviews....
Obama should stand firm on his position that a President should be someone who can multi-task. There is no reason to suspend the debate. I am curious to hear the opinions of the conservative voices on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Here's the way I see it:
Neither party will move forward on the bailout without getting the signoff of the candidates. McCain wanted a suspension from both sides; Obama said no, and McCain decided to go for it on his own.
It's pretty political and it might play well. Doesn't look like it so far; it just looks like another McCain gamble. It's been said that Obama is a very conservative poker player, while McCain favors craps with long-odds bets. I think this is another example of this behavior.
I also find it difficult to understand why the opinions of the "conservative voices" matters on this issue. This is clearly not a matter of policy, it's a matter of PR and McCain's pseudo-non-ideological "Country First" stand.
Jim,
While Vince may heckle, I have a somewhat serious point to make. While likely through no fault of you own, the party you used to identify with did nominate someone you did not support in the primaries (HUCKSTER for pres in 2012!, really!) I myself rarley understand the Republican position or point of view, but you and I have consistently been able to explain the larger ideaology to each other without insult (gasp!)
I have to say that in 2004, Kerry was nominated and much to the chagrin of many progressive voices in the caucas and the DNC. But, as a matter of principle, they rallied and supported him as the alternative to Bush (think cold oatmeal to hot dog water). We saw how well that went.
I agree with all of your points. This stunt was just that, not a conservative position on an issue. It's the third by my count. This in no way should make you responsible to explain it away as his canpaign surrogates do. Again, you don't drink the Kool-aid. I think that Vince just may be looking for independent confirmation that this whole thing is a little obvious from the start.
The progressives are fired up this season and rightfully so. We feel that we have a real candidate who resonates for the first time since Clinton '92. (96 was a gimmie and '00, well Gore back then... pfft). So from this fanboy, who admittedly drinks the Obama Kool-aid by the gallon, bring on the debates!!!
Jim,
I just wanted to make sure that everyone agreed that this is a political stunt. Like you said, this is putting $1000 in chips on red 25.
I'm not sure what it is, but why did he want town hall meeting... then decide to cancel the debate.
It's so strange, I'm not sure what it is.
Town Hall meetings every week were a tactic way of controlling Obama's travel schedule. Obama's strategy has been to campaign in as many states as possible, put them in play and bankrupt McCain's campaign defending states Bush won easily.
As of 11pm, the bailout has become partisan potentially due to McCain's arrival in DC and the vast majority of the country does not think the debate should be delayed. Coupled with Palin's embarrassing interviews with CBSNews, and you realize that the delay tactic was a stunt to delay both the first debate as well as the VP debate next week.
I hate thinking this but if Obama was not an AA, we would be talking about a landslide right now.
I think Mike was asking why McCain asked for a change in format.
Nevertheless, Rich attributes malice to McCain's town-hall debate proposal, where it can be attributed to McCain's innate impulsiveness and desire to appear statesman-like. I think it's quite clear that the McCain camp doesn't have the capacity for such impressive strategic thinking.
Rich also drops the R card while failing to consider Obama's very timid campaign. The Obama campaign, for all its impressive fundraising and stunning graphics, is essentially the 2004 Colts. Build a big lead, sit on it.
Obama ran out the clock on Hillary in the primaries and has basically been coasting since Berlin. Was the Invesco Field speech good? Maybe. Can anyone quote a major new policy theme from it? Didn't think so. Since Palin, his campaign's been weirdly dancing to the McCain tune.
Two things will save Obama's (lately) rather boring and moribund campaign: 1) He will doubtless kill McCain during the debates. 2) The Democrats' ground game in 2008 will be unreal. Doubtless, there will be hordes of new registered voters (and some dead ones) to put their vote in for such a history-making candidate.
Rest assured, Rich, Obama's electoral college blowout is coming.
The McCain campaigns plan to control Obama's travel was exactly their plan. Obama countered McCain's 10 town hall meetings with 3 debates and 2 town hall meetings, more than any other recent presidential campaign, McCain declined!
The expectations of the Invesco Field speech was enormous and he did exactly what he needed to do; 1) attack McCain (contrary to your timid remark which I disagree with, for comparison see Kerry 2004), "We all put Country First" 2) lower the flowery rhetoric, and 3) provide some plans on what he will do for people. To me it was a state-of-the-union like address with a little bite at the beginning.
You certainly would not use timid for John McCain but his RNC speech left most people sleeping and not because it was filled with specifics.
Since February, there have been several hours per day of negative ads running against Obama. Its called Fox News. Infanticide, Muslim, Terrorist, Rev Wright, Weather Underground...add the misunderstood comment about bitter people and now you know why it last til June.
I do not see the coast you see.
Rich, since you seem to know the inner motivations of the McCain campaign senior staff, could you tell them to tell him to get rid of that creepy grin?
To me it was a state-of-the-union like address with a little bite at the beginning.
Boy, that's a ringing endorsement.
Obama's campaign theme seems to be "Not Bush, just a generic Democrat platform"; granted, I've literally bet that it's a winning plan. But I find it weak sauce for governing and not very inspiring campaign rhetoric. It's not even very progressive. Snore.
McCain's speech wasn't a typical speech -- he was basically repudiating the performance of the fellow who'd stood in his spot the last two times. Had to be done, doesn't make for great lines.
As for Fox, it's one voice in a cacophony of cable news garbage. It hardly cancels out for the extraordinarily positive coverage Obama has received since he's entered the race. It's made him reasonable and likeable, as much as others have tried (and failed)to make him foreign and scary.
I'd like to hear from Bruce (as our resident progressive) describe what he likes about Obama's platform. Is Bruce pleased with what he's hearing or is he happy with what I'd describe as half-a-liberal-loaf?
I am a little confused...I was supposed to provide a "ringing endorsement" of Obama's DNC acceptance speech? All we heard from the other side was that was all he was, was a speech giver. He gave one that was different, more typical of a sitting president, to counter those comments. I think it worked. It didnt last because the "beauty queen" got announced the next day.
As for McCain's "repudiation of the previous eight years" it was hollow, didnt mention a single specific failed policy, and "came to change Washington but Washington changed us." What garbage! Since McCain decided to run in 2008 (more than five years ago) he has backed Bush and all of those failed policies.
Look at the debate last night...McCain talked about what he did in the eighties, ethics reform (which he did to fix his tarnished image in the wake of the Keating Five, and then skips years up to "the surge". Obama countered nicely with "the war didnt start in 2007."
From the debate...Obama: "this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made -- and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill."
McCain is a return to the past, a Cold War mentality.
I do not meant to imply that Obama won the debate. I would say they both got across the points. McCain target Obama's inexperience and Obama targeted his support of failed policies. However, Obama probably gained some vote in the end since he did handle himself well on foreign policy and unlike McCain he knows who the president of pakistan is and that it was not a failed state.
I was supposed to provide a "ringing endorsement" of Obama's DNC acceptance speech?
No, but your rather tepid enthusiasm for it ("did exactly what he needed to do") might be an indication why his numbers since then haven't been as high as you'd like (referencing your comment of 1134P.)
I strongly doubt that late deciders and the like will break for McCain, especially after Palin's doubtless poor performance on Thursday, continued negative economic news and an inability to debate well or adapt from McCain. Nevertheless, the Obama campaign needs to do something to convince those late deciders to go out to the polls and vote rather than stay home.
Part of this will be the Obama GOTV effort, but part will have to come from the candidate himself. Obama has to convince undecideds that 1) he's not inexperienced, 2) he's not going to get snookered by Washington and 3) he'll actually deliver on his material promises.
I suspect (and perhaps I'm biased) that it is the second and the third that are contributors to why Obama's numbers haven't gone higher. With the second, I suspect that because he hasn't either led or broken with congressional Democrats (pushed them to be more aggressive, that is) and with FISA and oil drilling, Obama's viewed as just going along.
In addition, I suspect that people sense that the Wall Street business will swamp whatever plans that Obama had. Then again, I could be crazy.
Get out the vote is the number one issue for all presidential campaigns. Thats why issues like same-sex marriage propositions and gun control issues are added to ballots.
I don't disagree with anything you said. When asked how will the bailout affect your plans, Obama basically said, there are a lot of problems and we should not ignore any of them, but, the time frame for their implementation would be affected. In my opinion it was a strong "political" response.
While Hannity can scream about Obama's flip-flop on FISA and oil drilling, I do not think he was just going along. Obama's decision to allow some oil drilling was to get other parts of a bill passed including increased funding for alternative energy. McCain's current position, although contrary to his ads, are to maintain current incentives for alternative energy. No new increases, only for oil.
FISA is more complicated. I believe that both McCain and Obama are bothered by the tactics of the Bush Administration by circumventing FISA and "spying" with the phone companies. However, Obama realizes that if he votes against that bill and an attack occurs between that vote and election day, he will be blamed. Yes, he could have pushed for separation of FISA from the prosecution issue but instead he took the hit and moved on.
Sigh. Let's not have the same-sex marriage debate of 2004 again; suffice it to say that, once again, I disagree with your assessment of GOP intent.
On a completely different note, it's pretty clear that Obama's performance on Friday is affecting voters in a positive way. I suggest that this may be the start of an overall breaking for Obama. I like the meme that Obama's performance was presidential, reasonable and just fine, which is what voters were interested in finding out: "Is this dude reasonable and not too rookie-like?"
If I may insert my "progressive voice" into this argument, there is a very simple reason why polls show the race as stupifyingly close. The pollsters are working from old, dated lists.
Pollsters use three main sources of phone numbers for polling. Newspaper subscriptions, old landline phones subscribers and the yellow pages. Obama's voters are not part of any of those lists. Cell only users in this country correspond the young college/internet/John Stewart vote that Obama has locked up. These folks simply are not counted or polled. Hence, Jim's predicted electoral rout comes through. The ground game Obama's campaign has organized is based on them.
As for what I like about Obama's platform, I'd first say that Jim is correct. Obama's and the DNC 2008 platform are standard fare. I think the main reason why Obama resonates is that he does not appear to think that the words "liberal" and "Democrat" are dirty. He supports things like Medicaid, more money for public education systems(no vouchers) and Social Security, and other similar GOP boogeymen for the Big Bad Socialism coming to America. He is not afraid of saying the word abortion (see Invesco speech) in the context of a woman's right to choose, something many progressives point to as a indicator of this idea. Populist rhetoric aside, most Democrats and progreesives believe him when he speaks about bottom-up economics and "helping the least of us." And finally, as the last quote may tell, he's not going to allow the right to claim Christianity as their mantle for this election. Of course, all this was prior to the bailout plan which will likely pass Congress. Up until last week, Obama had to educate the American people on these positions. And thanks to the economy he can now switch to the best part of his argument for his candidacy.
FISA: Obama's not stupid. Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. He knows this. But the larger "he supports the terrorists" meme that the GOP will engage in if he opposed the bill is too established in the traditional media to combat at this point. Look for an Obama presidency to issue signing statements a la GWB for corrections on these types of issues. It gets around the line-item veto problem. When Congress is more Democratic come 2009, there may be laws enacted on issues like this.
Bailout: Any Democrat that votes for this bill will see a hard fought primary battle in 2010. Justin Wilson, famed Louisiana Chef, had a saying, "Cayenne makes everytin' more betta." And that's what the progressive blogosphere will do, get More Better Democrats elected to Congress. Obama's support for the bipartisan plan is a smart play for a claim to leadership on the issue. Yes, the plan is corporate welfare. The American people know it. They don't like it. See my "I don't get a bailout when I invest" post. But they won't fault Obama for making a samrt choice to keep the economy afloat, if that is waht the bill will do. I'm not convinced. Someone please explain to me the reason why $700 bn was chosen. I want to see the math, not Rove's math. And how does it help, exactly? Can we expect another bailout when JP Morgan Chase goes under? As I told Jim, ultimately, the finanical markets are a confidence game. Show me confidence that the budget won't be in the red next year.
Man, I forgot to put the most important piece in the last comment. Correcting the record on McCain's tax plan.
I hope everyone has about $7000 stuffed in a matress somewhere. That's the difference between the avg cost for healthcare per year ($12,000) and the tax credit for healthcare McCain is proposing ($5000). You know why he's proposing that credit? Because he's going to tax health benefits provided by businesses. SBO's will need cover the cost of healthcare and pay taxes on it? yeah right. they'll all drop coverage and say to the worker, take the tax credit and good luck. So much for affordable healthcare.
Considering you also disagree with the fact that Bush's political appointments have altered scientific reports despite the evidence, I return you "Gore-like" sigh.
Edited "GOAT" for "GOTV"
Triple-sigh. I think between then (mid-2006?)and now, the assumption of non-malicious intent to Bush appointees can no longer be extended. Goodling was my personal tipping point.
While neither you or I can directly assess the intent of top-level Bush appointees, I can directly assess evangelical/fundamentalist irritation at bench-granted legalization of gay marriage. I'd go so far as to say that GOTV on gay marriage would bring out as many anti-Bush voters as pro-Bush ones. (Call me crazy.)
"I think between then (mid-2006?)and now, the assumption of non-malicious intent to Bush appointees can no longer be extended. Goodling was my personal tipping point."
Welcome to the darkside! Are you interested in an ACLU card?
a snapshot of today, but bad art nonetheless...
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?
January 19, 2001: 10,587.59
September 29, 2008: 10,365.45
NASDAQ Jan 19, 2001 = 2770.38
NASDAQ September 29, 2008 = 1983.73
CPI, January 19, 2001: 175
CPI, September 29, 2008: 219
Dollar exchange with Euro, January 19, 2001: 1.068
Dollar exchange with Euro, September 29, 2008: .695
Bruce, what does "but bad art nonetheless" mean?
snapshot=photo=art
cut me some slack. Jim, i live with an art historian :)
Bruce, I'm pleased to learn that soon-to-be President Obama will take responsibility for the economy on January 20, 2009.
Post a Comment