The set up looked great, but follow-through fell short.
If Senator John McCain is kicking himself this morning, it should not be for choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. I will say the same thing about Palin that I wrote about Mike Huckabee in January ("Iowa Caucus Ruckus"): my plumber has more foreign policy experience (a statement that is perhaps even more appropriate now than it was ten months ago given Joe the Plumber's recent rise to fame).
But I also stand behind my earlier statement that Palin was a smart VP pick. Politically, she was a great counter to McCain’s socially liberal policies and she energized the republican base. The ticket was well-balanced. The campaign fell apart in the strategy.
Rather than focusing on Palin’s real assets the campaign spent most of its time defending strengths she doesn’t actually posses, ridiculously clinging to their claim that Alaska’s proximity to Russia makes her a foreign policy buff.
Palin is no political lightweight. She has battled corruption in Alaska, been an advocate for families with special needs children, and her experience on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is particularly relevant as our nation vies for fuel independence. These are all strengths that would have helped create a well-rounded administration. Twenty years in the senate have given McCain enough experience in foreign and economic policy for the both of them. We should look for vice presidential candidates to posses skills or experience that the presidential candidate lacks.
I could blame the liberal media for unfairly attacking and haranguing Palin, but ultimately that just feels like a cop out. The campaign failed to refocus attention on Palin’s strengths, and that’s really too bad.
McCain will be 76 by the next election, and it’s unlikely he’ll run again. As for Palin, I wouldn’t support a bid for the presidency in 2012, but as Vice President she’d have done alright. If not, Mac could always send her on a peacekeeping mission to Africa.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
McCain needs a major upset
My normally perky cup of coffee this morning turned into a big downer as I glanced over a red and blue map of the country. The numbers are not exactly in McCain’s favor.
McCain should easily secure 118 electoral votes from 14 states, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. Another 14 electoral votes are leaning his way. Assuming McCain wins those 132 votes and the 128 toss ups, that’s 260 electoral votes. Candidates need 270 to win. Ouch. Even in this best case scenario (Obama may steal some of those toss up votes), McCain’s campaign will fall short by ten votes. Obama, on the other hand, could win with the 278 votes that are either solid or leaning democrat. No toss ups needed.
If the polls are correct, McCain’s best hope is for an upset in Minnesota, which has ten electoral votes leaning toward Obama.
McCain should easily secure 118 electoral votes from 14 states, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. Another 14 electoral votes are leaning his way. Assuming McCain wins those 132 votes and the 128 toss ups, that’s 260 electoral votes. Candidates need 270 to win. Ouch. Even in this best case scenario (Obama may steal some of those toss up votes), McCain’s campaign will fall short by ten votes. Obama, on the other hand, could win with the 278 votes that are either solid or leaning democrat. No toss ups needed.
If the polls are correct, McCain’s best hope is for an upset in Minnesota, which has ten electoral votes leaning toward Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Why John McCain was screwed before he even got out of bed this morning
The presidential race between O-Bom and Mac was all but decided before either announced his candidacy. And it has little to do with the economy or the war on terror.
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Senator John McCain and would like to see the election swing his way, but if history is any indication (and she usually is) I won’t be breaking out the cigars and champagne on Wednesday. The incumbent party has little chance of retaining control over the White House. President George W. Bush’s term has seen some of the lowest approval ratings since the 1940s, and low approval ratings often forecast a shift in political power.
Harry Truman frittered away political capital like it grew on trees and in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower dominated the electorate over democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. (Truman began his term following FDR’s death with approval ratings in the 80s; by 1951 his ratings were at 22 points, according to Wall Street Journal reports).
Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings were just starting to recover from the disastrous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 when the economy took a downturn, sliding his approval ratings back into the 30s. Ronald Regan’s victory in 1980 was nothing short of a landslide.
Bush’s approval ratings are currently hovering in the 30s, just a few points lower than his father’s were when Bill Clinton unseated him during the 1992 election. At the time, unemployment and poverty had climbed to their highest in nearly ten years.
I’m not suggesting that approval ratings alone will make or break an election. Each of these examples had other contributing factors. Eisenhower’s victory came in the midst of the Cold War, and Bush’s 1990 tax hike left room for Clinton to secure a victory. Regardless of the issues, when the president’s approval ratings sink below 50 percent the party is in trouble. As a candidate, even if you do everything right (which no candidate has in this, or probably any, election) you’ll still face an uphill battle through a blizzard.
Of course Republicans should not be deterred from voting tomorrow, our votes still count. We also need to be realistic about our expectations for the election’s outcome: a McCain victory is unlikely.
So for now, tuck those Cubans back in their box and leave your Tattinger on ice. The political climate could look much more favorable for conservatives once Obama’s had four years in the White House.
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Senator John McCain and would like to see the election swing his way, but if history is any indication (and she usually is) I won’t be breaking out the cigars and champagne on Wednesday. The incumbent party has little chance of retaining control over the White House. President George W. Bush’s term has seen some of the lowest approval ratings since the 1940s, and low approval ratings often forecast a shift in political power.
Harry Truman frittered away political capital like it grew on trees and in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower dominated the electorate over democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. (Truman began his term following FDR’s death with approval ratings in the 80s; by 1951 his ratings were at 22 points, according to Wall Street Journal reports).
Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings were just starting to recover from the disastrous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 when the economy took a downturn, sliding his approval ratings back into the 30s. Ronald Regan’s victory in 1980 was nothing short of a landslide.
Bush’s approval ratings are currently hovering in the 30s, just a few points lower than his father’s were when Bill Clinton unseated him during the 1992 election. At the time, unemployment and poverty had climbed to their highest in nearly ten years.
I’m not suggesting that approval ratings alone will make or break an election. Each of these examples had other contributing factors. Eisenhower’s victory came in the midst of the Cold War, and Bush’s 1990 tax hike left room for Clinton to secure a victory. Regardless of the issues, when the president’s approval ratings sink below 50 percent the party is in trouble. As a candidate, even if you do everything right (which no candidate has in this, or probably any, election) you’ll still face an uphill battle through a blizzard.
Of course Republicans should not be deterred from voting tomorrow, our votes still count. We also need to be realistic about our expectations for the election’s outcome: a McCain victory is unlikely.
So for now, tuck those Cubans back in their box and leave your Tattinger on ice. The political climate could look much more favorable for conservatives once Obama’s had four years in the White House.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain's resurgence policy beats Obamanomics
Economic policy will make or break this election…and the next presidency.
It’s clear that our next president will have to do some heavy lifting to pull the U.S. economy back on its feet, and the steps to recovery have been hotly contested. During last night’s presidential debate, the candidates addressed our struggling economy and their plans for remedy.
Obama spewed more standard democratic slogans, insisting that tax breaks for middle-class Americans will help us avoid economic ruin.
Really? How will a tax cut help someone who is already upside down on their mortgage and in immediate danger of losing their home? Are we talking like tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts for every person? Can we get that money like next month? That’s how fast Americans are foreclosing. For some, it has already happened. How will a tax cut help those who have already lost their homes?
One of the problems snowballing this crisis is that many homeowners are upside-down on their mortgages (sometimes called “negative equity”). Even if they could sell their house at fair market value they’d still owe more money than they’d receive on the sale.
McCain highlighted a plan to help families restructure mortgages. His plan isn’t perfect (and I’m still not a fan of his vote on the $700 billion “rescue” plan). I don’t think forgiving debts, which this plan would in some cases, is the best solution. It’s giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Struggling homeowners would be better served by a plan that allows them to opt for interest-only payments for a few years, at least until they have some positive equity in their homes again. That would provide much needed relief without giving the false impression that we can continue to dig ourselves into financial holes and expect the federal government to pull us out.
I would also alter McCain’s plan to include homeowners with zero down payment mortgages, which his current plan expressly excludes. Was it stupid to buy a house without any down payment at all? Yes. If you can’t afford a down payment you should be renting. But this stipulation would exclude from McCain’s resurgence plan a significant number of families who urgently need help restructuring their mortgages. Without help they will surely lose their homes, regardless of how swiftly Wall Street is recovering.
P.S. So good to see Rach writing again. I missed your acerbic wit and pointed observations.
It’s clear that our next president will have to do some heavy lifting to pull the U.S. economy back on its feet, and the steps to recovery have been hotly contested. During last night’s presidential debate, the candidates addressed our struggling economy and their plans for remedy.
Obama spewed more standard democratic slogans, insisting that tax breaks for middle-class Americans will help us avoid economic ruin.
Really? How will a tax cut help someone who is already upside down on their mortgage and in immediate danger of losing their home? Are we talking like tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts for every person? Can we get that money like next month? That’s how fast Americans are foreclosing. For some, it has already happened. How will a tax cut help those who have already lost their homes?
One of the problems snowballing this crisis is that many homeowners are upside-down on their mortgages (sometimes called “negative equity”). Even if they could sell their house at fair market value they’d still owe more money than they’d receive on the sale.
McCain highlighted a plan to help families restructure mortgages. His plan isn’t perfect (and I’m still not a fan of his vote on the $700 billion “rescue” plan). I don’t think forgiving debts, which this plan would in some cases, is the best solution. It’s giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Struggling homeowners would be better served by a plan that allows them to opt for interest-only payments for a few years, at least until they have some positive equity in their homes again. That would provide much needed relief without giving the false impression that we can continue to dig ourselves into financial holes and expect the federal government to pull us out.
I would also alter McCain’s plan to include homeowners with zero down payment mortgages, which his current plan expressly excludes. Was it stupid to buy a house without any down payment at all? Yes. If you can’t afford a down payment you should be renting. But this stipulation would exclude from McCain’s resurgence plan a significant number of families who urgently need help restructuring their mortgages. Without help they will surely lose their homes, regardless of how swiftly Wall Street is recovering.
P.S. So good to see Rach writing again. I missed your acerbic wit and pointed observations.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin's debate debacle
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate last night concerned me. I have always believed she was a smart choice for VP (see “McCain-Palin is a Winning Ticket”), but last night the “pit-bull with lipstick” I had grown to love during the RNC had too much bark and not enough bite.
I don’t want to criticize without offering some possible solutions, so Governor Palin, here are a few ways you can win back my confidence:
1. Get the facts straight. Fast-talking rhetoric and charm are impressive during a debate, but in this technology-driven world the facts will catch up with you in the morning (probably even sooner). That doesn’t mean you should change your style of speaking, just make sure you have rock-solid facts to back you up. Here’s an example from the debate last night when you could have used a fact-checker:
Palin: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
In August 2007 Obama did say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians (“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”). Unfortunately, that’s because it was true. At the time, 286 civilians had been killed by US troops, according to the Associated Press; Afghan insurgents had killed 231.
I hate that he said it too, but the facts are pretty damning.
2. Keep up on current events. When Sen. Joe Biden claimed that our commanding officer in Afghanistan said the surge principles we applied in Iraq will not work there, you admirably tried to call him on it. Unfortunately, Biden’s information was more current. Tuesday’s Washington Post reported that Gen. David McKiernan “stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict [in Afghanistan].”
Here’s the link.
Along those same lines, our commanding general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan. I hate to nit-pick, but this is the kind of blunder that made our current president an international laughing stock. Let’s not give Tina Fey any more fodder for SNL.
3. Learn phonics. It’s pronounced NUCLEAR, not “nu-cu-ler.” Way to sound exactly like Bush.
Since you’ve been governor for less than two years, I’m inclined to give you a second chance. My confidence is wavering but not lost. A few simple changes could bring it back in full force.
A Note to Sen. Joe Biden: McCain didn’t vote against funding alternative energy 20 times, it was 11. Stop exaggerating. Also, McCain didn’t refuse to meet with the government of Spain, his simply declined to commit to any meetings during an interview.
I don’t want to criticize without offering some possible solutions, so Governor Palin, here are a few ways you can win back my confidence:
1. Get the facts straight. Fast-talking rhetoric and charm are impressive during a debate, but in this technology-driven world the facts will catch up with you in the morning (probably even sooner). That doesn’t mean you should change your style of speaking, just make sure you have rock-solid facts to back you up. Here’s an example from the debate last night when you could have used a fact-checker:
Palin: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
In August 2007 Obama did say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians (“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”). Unfortunately, that’s because it was true. At the time, 286 civilians had been killed by US troops, according to the Associated Press; Afghan insurgents had killed 231.
I hate that he said it too, but the facts are pretty damning.
2. Keep up on current events. When Sen. Joe Biden claimed that our commanding officer in Afghanistan said the surge principles we applied in Iraq will not work there, you admirably tried to call him on it. Unfortunately, Biden’s information was more current. Tuesday’s Washington Post reported that Gen. David McKiernan “stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict [in Afghanistan].”
Here’s the link.
Along those same lines, our commanding general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan. I hate to nit-pick, but this is the kind of blunder that made our current president an international laughing stock. Let’s not give Tina Fey any more fodder for SNL.
3. Learn phonics. It’s pronounced NUCLEAR, not “nu-cu-ler.” Way to sound exactly like Bush.
Since you’ve been governor for less than two years, I’m inclined to give you a second chance. My confidence is wavering but not lost. A few simple changes could bring it back in full force.
A Note to Sen. Joe Biden: McCain didn’t vote against funding alternative energy 20 times, it was 11. Stop exaggerating. Also, McCain didn’t refuse to meet with the government of Spain, his simply declined to commit to any meetings during an interview.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain-Palin is a winning ticket
John McCain is brilliant. Some have called the GOP presidential candidate crazy in the wake of his VP selection, but Alaska Governor Sarah Palin fills a void in the Republican ticket that only a socially conservative, small town hockey mom could.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Monday, June 30, 2008
McCain Scandalmongers Should Have Their Mouths Washed Out With Soap
Whoa, you guys went too far.
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)