"There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.
John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.
ASPEN -- I'm not really sure what "advanced evolutionary optimization technology" is or how it relates to the cerebral jiggles of John McCain and Barack Obama as they contemplate their vice presidential choice, but I'm a sucker for new age company names, and Affinnova of Massachusetts caught my attention. (Affinity + Nova (new) = Affinnova? New Affinity?)
The company claims that its technology has figured out the "ideal" vice presidential candidate for each party using the same techniques that big companies like Microsoft use to target consumers. The reasons seem conventional; he apparently scores the highest in certain category polls that Affinnova asked voters to fill in.
Among likely Democratic voters, Powell took first place, followed by former Vice President Al Gore and former Majority Leader Dick Gephardt who tied for second place. New York Senator Hillary Clinton came in fourth and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards finished fifth. Among likely Republican voters, Powell came in first with a slight lead. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney were tied for second (though within the margin of error for the Top Ticket). Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani came in fifth.
As a public opinion survey, Affinnova is on to something; I had first suspected that its numbers-crunching turned up a Colin Powell type as vice president, but there is plenty of evidence that voters who know they are thinking about Colin Powell would like to see him as their vice president; that is, both blindly and with information, voters seem to like Powell.
I have a few thoughts.
One is that the vice presidency is not and has never been a position that is responsive to, or even created to service, the public in the same way that the president services the public; (this is part of David Addington's argument, I know, but bear with me). It's kind of a post-facto-elected office; the identity of the candidate is chosen for them and voters don't have the opportunity to affirmatively choose... so it's hard to equate the decision to vote for a vice president with the decision to shop at Wal-Mart. (In general, folks tend to vote their ideologies, and swing voters tend to vote for attributes so you could easily argue that almost no one votes in the abstract for a vice president; that is, the choice between Wal-Mart and Target is already made. If they're instinctively Target-ous, they'll go to Target.)
The best way to explain how Affinnova works is to try out a survey -- click here.
Barack Obama's second general election ad is called "dignity."
The music alternates A/A sharp as the deep-voiced male narrator lets go of a series of action verbs -- "fought," "passed," "turned down," "worked," "slashed." The visuals alternate between pictures of somber Obama and smiling Obama. One includes the archetypal image of the candidate, shirtsleeves rolled up, his elbows at his sides, and his arms extended outward, palms up.
OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message. Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss. Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.
Notice how the careful omission of a pronoun makes it sound like Obama himself "slashed" welfare -- a nice and defensible trick of the trade. Actually, the word "passed" here is a bit out of context. As other news organizations have noted, Obama co-sponsored the bill, which brought Illinois into compliance with the '96 federal law; legislators don't pass anything. And it passed overwhelmingly -- Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois Senate supported it; there was only one no vote And Obama glosses over his opposition to the '96 federal welfare reform law.
On the drive from Kansas City this morning, Barack Obama's telephone call to Bill Clinton finally went through. (I word this sentence very carefully.)
“Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign. He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation’s great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
And Clinton's spokesman, Matt McKenna, released this statement:
President Clinton had a very good conversation with Senator Obama today. He renewed his offer to do whatever he can to ensure Senator Obama is our next President. President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come. The President believes that Senator Obama has been a great inspiration for millions of people around the country, and he knows that he will bring the change America needs as our next President.
ASPEN -- It could be the thin air up here; maybe that gives me the perspective equivalent to the astronomer who is looking into a black hole and sees the Democrats and Republicans slowly revolving around the event horizon, beneath which is total absurdity and oblivion. Ret. Gen. Wes Clark’s remark -- in response to a question from Bob Scheiffer -- was a provocation; an insult. Critics of McCain have used the same verbiage before, and used it as an insult. Historians and journalists who study the events will first notice that McCain spent five years as a POW; surely, that is the relevant fact, not the way he became a POW. One focuses on the means of his condition only to degrade the subsequent five years, as if to say, yeah, five years of torture was bad, but it was kinda dumb of him to get shot down. Referring to the shoot down strips away the relevant context: McCain was shot down on a daring combat mission whose target, as I recall, was strategically relevant. It wasn’t as if he wandered into Viet Cong airspace and was hit by a stray piece of metal. (By the way – and this is important – McCain admits in both the books he wrote about his Vietnam experience that he wasn’t a great aviator. So why even make the point?)
In partial fairness to Clark, Scheiffer was the one who brought up the "shot down" evocation but did so with the intention of recounting the story -- see here:
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has hem ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...
Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification
to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
Two: the statement is both patently obvious and patently false. Wait, you say. How could it be both? Well, being “shot down” (or being imprisoned) is obviously not a qualification in the sense that the fact that Barack Obama turned down lucrative corporate law work to join a public interest law firm has any bearing, in the abstract, on his claim to be president. Aside from military command service (which was sort of Clark’s point) or being a strong governor of a large and complex state, there really aren’t any other bright line qualifications for being president. Elections are as much about what the presidency is, and to that end, all of these qualifications service a particular view of what the presidency ought to be about. In that way, John McCain’s military service, and especially his decision, as a POW, not to jump the line and walk out of prison when offered, is a piece of who the man is and tells us about the decisions he has made. Same with Obama and his post-law school career choice.
Three: John McCain has the right to be insulted, but he has heard the dig enough not to be outraged. When he heard what Clark said, he probably laughed. Maybe he chalked it up to an
intra-service rivalry; Clark has a reputation for saying weird things. Most of the outrage on both sides is contrived for political effect. Republicans know Clark was being provocative and dumb; Democrats know that Clark was being provocative and dumb. As unsympathetic as I am to these associational semantics, I can’t blame the Republicans for sezing on this one. Clark said what he said as a surrogate for Barack Obama; the Obama campaign trusted Clark’s judgment enough as a surrogate to send him out there. The "new politics" that both Obama and McCain claim to represent is not supposed to traffic in these type of Jack-In-The-Box debates; there’s no need for conference calls and surrogate television appearances and research -- the effort by Republicans to paint the Democrats (read Obama) as unpatriotic is as absurd in this case as it is when professional Republicans noticed that Obama didn't wear a flag pin.
I don't think Obama is really "moving to the center" on FISA, NAFTA, guns, or even taxes" He is, to the contrary, being the authentic Obama: cautious, fairly risk-averse, willing to change his mind as facts (and sometimes political currents) warrant. The broad expanse of his policies remain center-left -- or left-center.
I'm headed to Colorado this morning for the Aspen Ideas Festival powered by the Atlantic. For the uninitiated, the Ideas Fest is one of those political-corporate-journalistic hybrids that convenes once a summer where intermingling is encouraged and higher-order intellectual pleasures are to be had.
This isn't my usual crowd, and I'm not used to the close cooperation of journalist and subject and advertiser, so my blogging will focus on both the festival and the sociology of the festival. (Why, for example, do cabinet secretaries attend? Which corporate sponsors seem interesting in burnishing their credentials? Is their swag? What's the default ideology here? Which ideologies don't we see represented?)
Among the notable invitees this year are Bill Clinton; given that Terry McAuliffe told CNN that the former president and Barack Obama will finally connect with the next few days, perhaps we will witness that conversation. (Perhaps not.)
Look for the McCain camp this week to start predicting that Obama will change his position on Iraq and to press the case that Obama has flip-flopped on a half dozen issues within the space of a month. (McCain, in his remarks yesterday, previewed this line of attack).
One McCain adviser says: "He is in a bad place. Caught between his promise to his base and the reality on the ground. Immediate withdrawal isn't a good place to be."
So far, there's no evidence -- aside from some vocal online critics -- that Obama's base is beginning get anxious -- he routinely gets support from more than 90% of liberal Democrats.
Join The Atlantic Exchange, and help improve the editorial and commercial vitality of our enterprise. Give advice and feedback on our print, online and live products. Talk to Atlantic editors directly. Help us make us more interesting.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is reintroduced with David Vitter and Larry Craig as cosponsors.
Yes, David Plouffe's office in Chicago is really spare:
Obama, to Ed Gordon: "“At the beginning I wasn’t black enough, now folks were saying I was too black at one point. I can’t spend my time worrying about that.”
David Brooks urges Republicans to heed the message of "Grand New Party," the new tome by colleagues Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam.
There have been other outstanding books on how the G.O.P. can rediscover its soul (like “Comeback” by David Frum), but if I could put one book on the desk of every Republican officeholder, “Grand New Party” would be it. You can discount my praise because of my friendship with the authors, but this is the best single roadmap of where the party should and is likely to head.
Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans.
Thomas Riehle of RT strategies passes along a hierarchical vote analysis he completed for the Cook Report; he first breaks down the vote for each candidate into seven categories measuring enthusiasm, and then he evaluates how that "hiearchy of intensity" holds up across 50 different subgroups of voters.
Since March, Obama has picked up 15 percentage points worth of support from "strong Democrats," 31 points among women aged 18 to 39, and 14 points among those without college education. McCain has picked up support among voters aged 50-64, women aged 40 to 56 (17 points -- he leads Obama overall by four points now), and independents who aren't leaners. But he's lost support among conservative Republicans -- down to 81% in this poll and Republican women -- 75% support him.
The demographic contours of Obama's base are clear: African Americans, 18 to 34 years olds, younger women, less educated (a shift since the primaries), and among voters on the Pacific Coast, the Midwest and the Great Lakes regions.
McCain has an edge in the South -- and really nowhere else. He and Obama are running (roughly) equal in the West, the farm-mountain region and even the Northeast. McCain has a 16 point edge among evangelical voters; Obama has a 19 point edge among voters who aren't born again. He's getting about one in four former Clinton voters and ties Obama among women with college degrees.
Unity Watch: Democrats For McCain In New Hampshire
Two prominent New Hampshire Democratic activists, including a political appointee of President Clinton's, have endorsed Sen. John McCain and are forming "New Hampshire Democrats for McCain."
Barack Obama drew his biggest cheers of the night when he vowed to help Hillary Clinton pay off her campaign debt. The pooler was ushered out of the meeting room where about 200 of Clinton's top donors -- those who had raised a combined $230m -- had gathered to watch the Democratic nominee try to build a bridge.
But a few minutes later, a few, less happy donors asked pointed questions. According to someone in the room, one Clinton donor asked Obama directly whether he was going to add her to the ticket as his vice presidential nominee. Even Sen. Clinton looked uncomfortable, gesturing to Obama to move on, which he did.
A second question was edgy: would Obama accept a roll call vote at the convention? Obama responded judiciously, according to the participant, saying, "Hillary and I are going to negotiate this thing and talk about it, and obviously we're going to do what is right for the party. We're all going to make sure we agree."
Several donors took the occasion to speak to Obama. Lanny Davis, a vociferous Clinton defender on television, introduced himself to Obama, who responded, "I know who you are." Davis fidgeted. But he thanked Obama because he son felt for the first time invested in politics. But Obama had to understand: he's known Hillary before she was a Clinton. "I don't want you to take out of context what I said during the campaign," he told Obama.
The mood? "Guarded optimism," according to an attendee.
Quick summary: The 30-minute event was emotional and upbeat. Both candidates warmly received, generous to each other, and very focused on winning. About 200 people attended. Partial guest list below.
Also, before the event, your pooler witnessed Obama finance committee chair Penny Pritzker writing a $4,600 check from her and her husband to help retire Clinton’s debt. “We’re helping. It’s important,” Pritzker said, on her way into the ballroom.
The M.C. for the night was Terry McAuliffe. As Clinton walked on stage, followed by Obama, Clinton’s money man pointed out that the group had collectively raised $230 million for Clinton’s campaign. Congratulating Obama, McAuliffe rallied the troops one last time, “This, folks, was a magnificent race…This party is on fire.”
Turning back to Clinton, McAuliffe said she has great future, “no matter what she does. If she wants to become pope, it doesn’t matter.”
Obama and McAuliffe embraced and joked as Clinton moved up to the podium. She started by knocking down the pope idea: “First, I’d have to become Catholic, and second, we don’t want to go there.”
Clinton profusely thanked her supporters for “what you each have done over so many years. I look out and I see faces of people who have been friends and colleagues and warriors at arms on so many different occasions.”
She lamented that the party had only won three of the last 10 elections. “That is a sobering thought,” she said, adapting her electability argument from the primary campaign. “For me this is intensely personal, because I want to see our country once again not just solving problems, which sounds very pragmatic, but lifting up our sights and finding the promise of our
country by once again producing the progress that is truly the American birthright. It has slipped away from us.”
She recalled her many months on the campaign trail – the countless people she had met, and all of their struggles. Obama stood next to her, looking on as Clinton spoke. “We have to make it a priority in our lives to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States,” Clinton said, to sustained applause.
“This was a hard-fought campaign,” she continued. “That’s what made it so exciting and intense and why people’s passions ran so high on both sides. I know my supporters have extremely strong feelings, and I know Barack’s do as well. But we are a family, and we have an opportunity now to really demonstrate clearly we do know what’s at stake, and we will do whatever it takes to win back this White House.”
“Here here!” a man shouted, to more robust applause.
Clinton acknowledged Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones, two of her most prominent and devoted African American supporters. Someone pointed out that Rep. Anthony Weiner was in the room as well.
And then she wrapped up with this: “Let me, to my friends, and you are all my friends, I am just so intensely grateful to each and every one of you. We have a lot of work to do, going forward, not only the election, but once the election is over, to making sure we realize all the benefits that this election can and should bring to our country. So let me introduce my friend
Sen. Barack Obama to my friends, all of these wonderful people who have met
so much to me in my life.”
Next it was Obama’s turn, and he told two stories about his family to “illustrate the extraordinary nature of (Clinton’s) public service, and extraordinary nature of her campaign.”
One was the familiar tale of Obama’s maternal grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line during World War II, but who never went to college because she didn’t qualify for the G.I. bill -- yet rose from bank secretary to bank vice president.
He talked to her frequently during the primary season, and obviously “she was rooting for her grandson,” Obama said. But she also complained that Clinton wasn’t getting a fair shake. “When I see that instinct of hers to fight on behalf of those who need a champion, she reminds me a little of me,” Obama’s grandmother told him. He said the story illustrated “the ability of Hillary Clinton to inspire passion on behalf of those who have been left out in the past.”
Then he told of being surprised that his 9-year-old daughter Malia had been well aware of the historic nature of the Clinton-Obama duel. Her father, she knew, could be the first African American president. But she also observed that Clinton could be the first woman. “Then she said, it’s about time, and rolled over and went to bed,” Obama said.
As the laughter died down, he continued, “between my grandmother’s generation and my young daughter, there’s a testimony to the challenges that are hard won and hard fought. To the point that my 9-year-old takes for granted that of course we can have a woman president. Of course we can have an African-American president. But that doesn’t come just by the passage of time. It comes because people are consistently working and fighting.”
Like Clinton, he recalled the many struggling people he has met on the campaign trail. He said of his former rival, “It was an extraordinary honor to be alongside her during the course of this campaign. It was an extraordinary test.” Her recognized “her tenacity, her fighting spirit. I
am a better candidate as a consequence of having run against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Obama continued, “I recognize that this room shared the same passion that a roomful of my supporters would show. I do not expect that passion to be transferred. Sen. Cinton is unique, and your relationships with her are unique.” But he added, “Sen. Clinton and I at our core agree deeply that this country needs to change.”
Finally, at the end of his remarks, Obama made a direct appeal for support. “I’m going to need Hillary by my side campaigning during his election, and I’m going to need all of you.” He recounted how he had told his top fundraisers this week “to get out their checkbooks and start working to make sure Sen. Clinton -- the debt that’s out there needs to be taken care
of.” And that, folks, was the night’s big applause line. In vowing to help pay off Clinton’s debt, Obama won a standing ovation.
The case for Barack Obama's consistency about the DC gun law rests on the following argument. (a) A spokesman gave an incorrect statement on whether Obama supported the DC law. (b) several questionnaires got it wrong -- including one with Obama's handwriting on it. (c) When Obama responded to CNN's Leon Harris, who had just asked him, " You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional?...How can you reconcile those two different positions?" and Obama said: "Right, right." -- he was simply acknowledging the question, and for some reason, did not correct Harris in his answer, and (d) has always favored the right of locales to regulate handguns and (e) had never publicly opposed the DC law.
It's true that Obama regularly says and has said that he interprets the 2nd amendment to hold secure an individual's right to bear arms while being constrained by the rights of the community to "maintain public safety," as he put it today.
It's just that, with regard to the DC law, it seems clear that Obama was OK with how DC government balanced those rights and is now OK with the see-saw swinging in the other direction.
The Obama campaign disputes the description of Obama's record of bipartisan achievement as broadly liberal ( -- "Obama's bipartisanship is more rhetorical and has never really extended outside a broadly liberal comfort zone" -- ), and points to his work with Dick Lugar on loose nukes, his pressuring Democrats on ethics reform (which led to anonymous holds on the bill), his work with Republicans to reform the death penality in Illinois, his work with Sen. Coburn to put all spending bills online.
I think the characterization holds. Working with Dick Lugar on loose nukes was a good thing, and an example of Obama's willingness to write legislation Republicans, but it didn't piss off liberals. (Who's in favor of looser nukes?) Same thing with health care in Illinois, or the death penalty. Obama rightly claims as an accomplishment the pressure he put on Democrats to accept more aggressive ethics provisions -- brave, in an institutional sense, but exactly what liberals would have expected a reformer to do. Obama's record is solid, but he simply hasn't risked as much as McCain has. That may well be a consequence of their relative lenghts of services, but it's true.
Now -- an Obama campaign spokesperson did not mention one area in Obama HAS gone outside of his comfort zone, and that's with his support for the FISA compromise. Liberals are pissed off; Democrats in Congress are angry, and Obama went ahead and did what he thouht was right. So FISA's a good talking point for him. I'm surprised the Obama campaign isn't using it.
The Quinnipiac surveys have new numbers for the competitive Senate races in Minnesota and Colorado. No big surprises in the results: Sen. Norm Coleman has been resilient, Al Franken has an image problem, and Minnesotans are independent enough to separate Franken from the Democratic wave: Coleman leads by 10 points, 51% to 41%. In Colorado, Rep. Mark Udall (D) has a comfortable lead over Republican Bob Schaffer, 48% to 38%.
suggest that the make-up and mood of the 2008 presidential electorate is right now perfectly trimmed to embrace Barack Obama. As Quinnipiac puts it, "[a]n emerging Democratic coalition of women, minorities and younger voters is propelling Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to leads." As with every statewide poll, we must wave the caution flag: these numbers can and probably will change over time.
At least the McCain campaign knows who they can target: white conservative independents, especially men. But even as McCain performs solidly with that group, the composition of the electorate is changing so much that they can't help him. (Obama, for example, is doing well with Hispanics but is doing extremely well with younger Hispanics.) Obama wins independents; he does weakest among them in Michigan, but Republicans in that state are demoralized. Some of the more interesting nuggets: In Colorado, Obama and McCain split the white vote and almost split the vote of those 55 and older; same with Michigan. The gender gap in Minnesota is huge: Obama leads by 26 points among women and seven points among men and double digits among white voters. In Wisconsin, Obama even leads among white men -- 51 to 40%. The polls have margins of error of no more than +/- 2.5%.
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
The Court today struck down the "millionaire's amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, with Justice Alito writing that it's unconstitutional to set different limits for candidates competing against one another, even when one of them has the resources to self-fund. Election law expert Rick Hasen believes that the "5-4 decision has much broader implications, laying the groundwork for striking down limits on spending by corporations and unions" and may signal the beginning of the end for public financing because "the opinion repeatedly (see maj opn 10-18) rejects the idea that Congress has any ability to try to level the playing field, stating that doing so would take the question away from voters."
Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg e-mails to say that "[t]he case itself means that wealthy individuals will once again be able to write checks to their congressional campaigns without being penalized by the Millionaires Amendment. On a broader scale, it's the latest as applied challenge chipping away of BCRA since it was upheld in a facial challenge in 2003. It does provide encouragement -- as did Wisconsin Right to Life -- for additional challenges to BCRA. All the decisions, including today's, have been 5-4, showing the impact of Justices Roberts and Alito replacing Justice O'Connor on the Court. Another thought -- the Millionaires Amendment was added to BCRA as an incumbent protection measure to get the votes needed to pass BCRA. Many said at the time the Millionaires Amendment was unconstitutional. If BCRA's sponsors had been honest about that at the time, would McCain-Feingold ever gotten the votes to become law?"
Here's a hint as to what Barack Obama might say about today's Heller ruling, courtesy of Third Way's Jim Kessler, who is, on balance, pleased:
“
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case is fair and appropriate. It affirms that the Second Amendment right to own firearms is an individual right of self-defense but one that is subject to reasonable restrictions. By overturning the DC gun ban, the Supreme Court said that while Second Amendment rights are not absolute, neither are gun restrictions. The DC gun ban simply went too far.
“This decision gives constitutional support to nearly all existing federal, state, and local gun safety laws. It closes the door on any potential challenges to the federal Brady law or such proposed federal laws as the assault weapons ban and gun show loophole bill.
“As for the political ramifications, there will be no cheering at NRA headquarters today. For forty years, the NRA has opposed nearly all proposed gun laws on constitutional grounds (“what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”). The Supreme Court just told them to get a new argument.
A memo this morning from McCain adviser Steve Schmidt reads as a lecture to journalists covering the race who unhesitatingly refer to Barack Obama as the candidate of change. The memo makes some not bad points: over the arc of John McCain's career, he has risked his life, certainly, and his political fortunes, too, for the sake of principle; at key junctures, he bucked his party when doing so would damage his standing. Obama's bipartisanship is more rhetorical and has never really extended outside a broadly liberal comfort zone. As NBC News's First Read team notes this morning, the electorally vulnerable parts of McCain's own party doesn't think the argument will stick, with Gordon Smith throwing McCain under the bus, with Republican strategists backing down from their efforts to demonize Obama.
Subject: COUNTRY FIRST vs. SELF-SERVING PARTISANSHIP
To: Interested Parties
From: Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior Advisor
Date: June 26, 2008
Re: Country First Vs. Self-Serving Partisanship
Today, our country faces great challenges. But the problem is not a Republican Administration that has disappointed many or a Democratic Congress that cannot take action on the challenges facing our nation. The problem is that politicians in Washington are working for their own self-interest or that of their party.
Too many in Washington are putting politics first and country second. Too few are setting aside their own interests to work together on solutions for America.
For John McCain, country first is how he has lived his life and how he has worked in Washington. When John McCain was offered early release as a prisoner of war, he refused, subjecting himself to torture rather than give a propaganda victory to his captors. Is it any wonder that during the Republican primary, John McCain was working with Democrats and
talking about the need for comprehensive immigration reform? Is it any wonder that at the nadir of the Iraq war, John McCain was arguing for the successful surge strategy rather than timetables for withdrawal?
Does anyone think that John McCain would have broken his word on a bipartisan agreement for public financing in the general, even if it accrued to his benefit?
Senator Obama's rapid ascent to the Democratic nomination is an historic achievement of which he should be proud. But while Senator Obama is certainly a fresh face, his campaign offers more of the same old typical politics that have broken Washington. In his time on the national stage, he has consistently put his party and his self-interest first.
On campaign finance, Barack Obama had to choose between keeping his word or enjoying a financial advantage. He chose the money. On town hall debates, Barack Obama called for an elevated, civil debate, but has worked to undermine the possibility of joint town halls where he would have to answer questions from real voters. On Iraq, Barack Obama has refused to acknowledge success on the ground because he would risk losing his base of support. Likewise on energy he has refused any supply solution to our energy crisis because of left-wing opposition.
There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance. He has never been a part of a bipartisan group that came together to solve a controversial issue. He has never put his career on the line for a cause greater than himself. Even as a state Senator, Obama voted 'present' on controversial bills. We have seen Barack Obama forced to choose between principle and the interests of himself and his party. He has always chosen the latter.
We don't need to trade Republican partisanship for Democratic partisanship. We need to put our country first and put our politics second.
That is what John McCain has done his whole life, and that is what he will do as President.
I was just thinking that McCain's reaction to the Heller -- not the substance but the style -- has all the hallmarks of the campaign's passive acceptance of Karl Rove's hectoring -- that they have to be extremely aggressive and confrontational with Obama; they have to hit traditional conservative/Reagan Democrat trigger points, etc. There's a debate to be had here: it's in the DNA of younger Republican consultants and strategists to seize on every opportunity to draw contrasts in the most extreme manner; it served them well in congressional races in the 1990s against liberals who had no idea how to respond and against a Democratic Party in the early aughts which was too internally conflicted to figure out how to respond. Will it work today?
Judging by the rapidity of the RNC's reaction to DC v. Heller, the craftmanship of McCain's statement and the sudden appearance of McCain surrogates on the cable networks, the answer is: he thinks do. McCain adviser Steve Schmidt likes to say that elections are about contrasts, the campaign has been looking for issues to draw clean, unsubtle distinctions between the two candidates. There is a particular demographic group in the balance here: white, working class men. It's another example of two different approaches to the electorate. McCain has different things to say to different groups of people -- not inconsistent things, but just different things -- while Obama's message is holistic.
Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The RNC's first memo is titled: "OBAMA'S SUPREME MISTAKE ON GUNS The Supreme Court Rules Against Obama's Anti-Gun Views On D.C. Gun Ban, Further Demonstrating Obama Is Most Anti-Gun Presidential Candidate In History."
In part this aggressiveness serves as a prophylactic against what the McCain campaign thinks Obama will do, which is to say that he never opposed the DC gun ban in the first place. You can read the two RNC research memos after the jump.
On yesterday's longish post about Republicans scaling back their voter fraud efforts, Trevor Potter, McCain's lawyer, sends along a statement: "Any impression that we’re not committed to stopping voter fraud is 100 percent false. Make no mistake: both the McCain campaign and the RNC will ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to vote and that ONLY eligible voters have their vote counted in November."
(Note: nowhere does the article suggest that the campaign suddenly favors voter fraud).
Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said that the campaign is "committed to working with Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan groups to ensure a fair election this November."
And Carlo LoParo, who experienced the 2004 election as Ken Blackwell's press chief, sends along a dissent:
Regarding Ken Blackwell and your anti-voter fraud post, I'm afraid your source doesn't have all the facts when it comes to the 2004 Ohio presidential election. As a former director of media and voter services for the Ohio Secretary of State, please allow me to set the record straight.
Blackwell did not tighten provisional ballot rules ahead of the 2004 election. Ohio's provisional ballot laws had been in place since 1992. Democrats did petition the court to loosen the law but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their argument. It was an interesting lawsuit
because 27 other states had the same provisional ballot rules as Ohio. Even so, according to Electionline.org, only three states did a better job of counting provisional ballots in 2004.
Never will a campaign predict a landslide, but if only, say, half of the assumptions that guide Obama's general election strategy are true, his campaign is, in essence, preparing for a landslide in the popular vote. There's no way that 10,000 Obama volunteers in Texas won't influence his vote totals there even if he doesn't win.
The most interesting moment of David Plouffe's 90 minute briefing and press conference was a casual assertion that he didn't think McCain "used the period from March 3rd [until the end of the Democratic primaries] very effectively, and for that, we're grateful." What he means is that the McCain campaign did nothing during those months to build the type of political organization that could match what Obama's primary campaign forced him to build.
Over and over in the briefing, Plouffe emphasized the volunteer capacity the campaign has; even in a state like Texas, where McCain is likely to beat Obama fairly soundly, there are thousands of Democrats and independents who want to help. And so the campaign will build an organization for them and send them out. In other red states, Plouffe said that Obama presidential volunteers would focus on helping Democrats win House and Senate races.
Plouffe: Obama Will Pick VP On Qualifications, Not Geographical Help
In a briefing with reporters here in Washington, Obama manager David Plouffe offered the campaign's first public comments on what criteria Obama would use to choose his vice presidential ticket-mate.
Responding to a reporter's question, Plouffe said that Obama would choose someone "qualified to be president and someone who'll be a partner in governing."
"We certainly don't want to pick someone who will hurt," he said.
He then referred to President Bush's choice of Dick Cheney as any example of a pick that didn't help Bush politically but didn't hurt him either.
And he noted that the pick of Al Gore didn't help Bill Clinton win Tennessee in 1992; without Gore, Clinton would have won anyway.
GOP Prepares To Scale Back Aggressive Anti-Voter Fraud Campaigns
John McCain's election strategists plan to tone down the Republicans' traditionally aggressive and public campaign against potential voter fraud, several Republicans familiar with the situation say.
The strategists and consultants all would speak only on the condition that their names and affiliations not be used because they were not permitted to divulge the information, they did not want to disclose internal deliberations, and because the issue is still being discussed within the party.
Sources with direct knowledge of the coordinated Republican effort this year say that high-ranking Republicans, including some within McCain's campaign, are convinced that GOP efforts in 2004 were damaging.
"Spreading 10,000 lawyers around the country and announcing a challenge to 40,000 new registrants in Ohio was counterproductive," a Republican familiar with the situation said. The Republican said that many within the party believed that then-Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's efforts to tighten provisional ballot rules ahead of the 2004 may have increased Democratic turnout because it convinced Democrats that Republicans were trying to disenfranchise voters.
Because the RNC is prohibited by court order from directly participating in these types of efforts, the charge is generally taken up by groups with fewer political sensitivities. Democrats tend to oppose stricter voter identification provisions and Republicans support them; Republicans think that Democrats want to encourage non-voters to vote; Democrats think that Republicans want to intimidate black, Hispanic and poorer voters into not voting.
The emerging McCain-Republican view today is that with provisional ballots in wide use, the traditional Republican legal position can change to careful monitoring, rather than aggressive challenging. If there's evidence that the provisional ballots were somehow illegally cast, then those ballots can be challenged post-election.
"We would, of course, welcome an end to traditional Republican vote suppression activity, but we will believe it when we see it," said Robert Bauer, the Obama campaign's general counsel. "We will have a strong, comprehensive program to promote and protect the vote and need really no more from the McCain campaign and their allies than actions fully consistent with true respect for the voter and the voting process."
Another reason for the shift, Republicans say,is that McCain has not generally identified himself with the issue, and they say that McCain's campaign counsel, Trevor Potter, has expressed the view that previous Republican efforts have created a backlash.
Other high-ranking Republicans believe that is politically precarious to be so aggressive in the context of a presidential race against an African American.
"The Democrats will unfortunately try to bring race into play when this discussion happens, as they do every cycle,” another top Republican who is advising the McCain campaign said. “It's unfortunate because illegally cast votes disenfranchise real voters by potentially canceling out their votes, and it's in everyone's best interest to have elections conducted fairly with no suspicion of foul play hanging over the winners.”
.
But perception will force Republicans to modify their footprint. They imagine the hullabaloo if Republicans in 2008 were caught caging -- using the controversial method of matching names to address from the voter lists in preparation to challenge illegal voting (or to suppress legitimate voters) on Election Day.
Someone who attended last week's National Association of Attorneys General meeting in Providence, Rhode Island said that Potter suggested to state solicitors general that Republicans and Democrats work together to identify and avoid Election Day problems. Potter, according to the attendee, endorsed election law expert Ned Foley's suggestion that bipartisan vehicles be used for conflict.
Bauer joined Potter on a panel and seemed skeptical of whether common ground could be reached, according to one attendee. Potter noted that the two might work together on poll closing extensions; Potter implied that Republicans would readily agree to extend poll closing times under certain conditions, to which Bauer responded, according to an attendee: "Well, that's an example of the limits of bipartisan cooperation." Figuring out whether individual voters were legitimately in line when polls closed, he said, is practically impossible. Mr. Potter declined to comment on the meeting and Bauer referred a reporter to a draft of his prepared remarks. Democrats will be skeptical of Potter's proffer, and with reason: Republicans tend to make the offer every cycle and agreements are never reached.
The McCain campaign is pushing back against the new LA Times / Bloomberg survey showing Barack Obama with a 15 point lead over John McCain among registered voters. The essence of the argument is that the poll overstates the Democrats' party identification advantage.
TO: McCAIN CAMPAIGN
FROM: BILL McINTURFF / LIZ HARRINGTON / DAVID KANEVSKY RE: RECENT LOS ANGELES TIMES SURVEY
DATE: JUNE 25, 2008
1. Party identification on the most recent Los Angeles Times survey is out of line with what most other public polls are showing.
The L.A. Times survey has party identification at 22% Republican, 39% Democrat, and 27% Independent.
The first major concern is that leaves 12% of the survey’s sample unaccounted for. Having double digits don’t know or refused on party ID is a quite unusual finding. Furthermore, since the LA Times does not release other demographics like age and ethnicity, it becomes very difficult for an independent observer to verify whether a survey is methodologically flawed or simply an outlier in public opinion trends.
Second, party identification is greatly out of line with what most other surveys are reporting. Most surveys have a party ID gap in the high single digits / low double digits.
In addition, the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification.
2. If the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to a more normalized range for party identification, McCain would be down in the mid-single digits, which is what we are seeing in most other polls.
McCain’s double digit deficit is not a reflection of reality, simply a result of an unusual party identification result in this survey. The L.A. Times own survey shows that in a head-to-head match-up, McCain is winning the Independents, the crucial swing vote, by eight points (44% McCain – 36% Obama). Given what we are seeing in other surveys, it is almost impossible to believe that McCain is ahead among independents by eight points, yet losing by double digits.
If party identification on the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to just down by ten (29% GOP / 39% Dem / 27% Ind / 5% Don’t Know/Refused), the ballot would be 40% McCain – 47% Obama.
3. Party identification is out of line with historical trends.
While most pollsters will acknowledge that party identification does shift over time, and that Republican identification has declined since 2004, the party identification gap on the recent L.A. Times poll is neither born out by other recent public polls or historical trends.
Even in 2006, when Democrats made big gains in the Congressional elections, Democrats had just a two point advantage on party ID (36% GOP / 38% Dem / 26% Ind).
The Bottom Line
It is important that both the campaign, as well as reporters covering the campaign, not over-react to every single survey that is released.
The key for the campaign is to make sure that when the media is reporting on survey results, that they look beyond the horse race but also look at the survey’s methodology and demographics. We are now seeing polls, like the L.A. Times and Newsweek surveys, which are getting heavy coverage in the press, even though they clearly showed unusual results on party identification, as well as other demographics like age, in the case of the Newsweek survey.
Our hope would be that on all public surveys that important variables like party, race, age, education and gender be shared with the public. By releasing these demographics, it will help all those who cover the campaign make better and more informed decisions about methodological differences that can account for these types of results.
In a column about the Republican fetish for pseudo-populism, Maureen Dowd betrays a certain infelicity with stereotypes. She writes:
The cheap populism is really rich coming from Karl Rove. When was the last time he kicked back with a corncob pipe to watch professional wrestling?
Actually, the average WWE viewer is middle class, and if you happened to watch, as I did, Monday Night Raw this week, you'd see that every commercial hawked expensive consumer goods to the show's younger male devotees with money to spend. So there.
Ralph Nader tells Barack Obama what a black guy should really say and really think.
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."
