If there's one thing that worries Republican strategists more than the polls today, even more than the listlessness of the Republican Party, it is that Sen. McCain seems flustered, angry, inconsistent-in-tone, and his campaign seems angry and off-kilter. His refusal to look at Obama during last week's debate was evident in just about every clip.
The press is starting to pick up the theme, and the stock response to this is: he has every right to be angry when the media is cheering for Obama and the Bush Administration messed everything up.
That's true -- and inadequate. It's not working for the campaign.
They had a basic strategy: make the race about Obama. Well, the race is now about the economy. And, as predicted, there's more curiosity about Sarah Palin than about Obama.
Compare this to Democratic strategists who worried that Obama wasn't
fighting back hard enough. Turns out that Obama didn't need to --
events took care of the problem.
If the race shifts back to national security... or if spending suddenly metastasizes into something more than an irritant, will McCain's numbers improve?
Is it too late?
« Twelve Tribes Turn Against Government | Main | Palin Dates To Watch » Metathought Of The Day02 Oct 2008 07:30 am TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Metathought Of The Day:
» Quote of The Day: John McCains Anger As Political Liability from The Moderate Voice Comments (34)
The problem for McCain is the media. Yes, the media. When I see Obama surrogates on television calling McCain or his campaign "sleazy" or "loathsome" for a particular stand McCain has or a particular ad he's run, and the moderator of the show does not say to the surrogate, "Hey! That is heavy duty language. Can you back up the use of such words?" Yesterday, I saw this. A McCain surrogate was also on the show and did NOT object to these words being used, and neither did the host of the show. This, I have noticed, is common. Meanwhile, McCain does not hit back hard enough to counter. Meanwhile, the media ignores Obama's links to ACORN and ACORN's problems with voter fraud, and Democrat proposals that ACORN be funded by profits from the bailout bill, a proposal that had to be removed before the bill could even pass muster of committee. And that ACORN was instrumental in securing loans for the "underprivileged" and this is a big part of why we're in this financial mess. Go research for yourself. Meanwhile, the media ignores the many links Obama has to shady characters. Meanwhile, the media gives Joe Biden a pass when he gaffes but follows Palin around for every utterance to destroy her. We are doomed if we let this happen. 
I worry that Obama is peaking too soon....
Think you have to keep in mind the massive headwinds for McCain - slowing economy, challenges in keeping white house in same party 3 terms in a row, unpopular incumbent. A big theme here has been with all this, why isn't Obama doing better? While the speed of the recent polling is surprising it is somewhat hard to look at these circumstances and argue why McCain should be doing alot better. Second thing seems to be in the polls alot of this has been firming up of soft support (see Nate Silvers post at fivethirtyeight). In that regard alot of this has to be the Palin factor. While it appears true this pick did firm up the Republican base it appears to have backfired in terms of getting the Clinton Democrats - some of these may have been looking for a reason to go to McCain and Sarah Palin was a good reason to support Obama for these voters. I guess a great what-if would have been scenario 2 where McCain had picked a Lieberman - would have helped with Clinton Democrats but at cost of base. My gut is the numbers would still be similar and we'd be speculating that he could have kept his maverick credentials and not alienated the base with a non traditional pick, such as Sarah Palin. I am concerned as an Obama supporter about the 'peak early' view and I think that while Palin will be story for next couple days after the debate I think it will fade from importance as we refocus on the top of the ticket. In that regard since the media does want a race I think you will see a natural tendency to take the front runner down a peg and the narrative will move away from the recent erratic nature of the McCain campaign to the soft issues around Obama on experience, some questionable connections, etc etc. I still think Obama has a higher ceiling and floor than McCain does but hard to see how Obama's ceiling can rise much above this level. My bottom line is that I've disagreed with those who have used the 1980 election as the frame of reference for this election, but rather 1976 is the better analogy for this race. I still see a 2% vote margin/+50 electoral vote margin for Obama, which is what Carter won in 1976, as more plausible than a 9% vote margin and electoral college landslide like Reagan 1980.
Heather,
I'd say it's definitely too late. Obama is further ahead of McCain than Bush was ahead of either Gore or Kerry at this point in the race. Neither Gore nor Kerry were able to close that gap, and it's highly unlikely that anything will happen in October to change the fundamental dynamics of the race. McCain will no doubt try to generate his own October surprise through another crazy stunt, and the race will probably tighten a bit. But McCain's chances of winning are no better than 20%, and that's being generous.
The Obama campaign has done a very good in delivering a series of devastating character and personal attacks against McCain, while seeming "too nice" and above-the-fray. They don't get called on it; meanwhile McCain misleading ads are too obvious and get a lot bad press. Think about it: for weeks now the Obama camp has painted McCain as reckless, confused, out-of-touch, dishonorable and angry. In a word: dangerous. Nothing to do with the issues at all (whatever they say), but the surest way to win an election.
To hear the McCain campaign complain about the media is hysterical. The media has basically been in the tank for McCain and the GOP for eight long years now. Now it is true that since the Palin selection, the print media has moved toward Obama, but you'd never know it if you got your news from day-time TV. Likewise reality, in the form of the stock market and the economy have also moved toward Obama, but of course reality has a professed liberal bias. At the end of the day I'd love to see either Palin or McCain survive the media scrutiny of "bitter-gate" or "Wright". That was 24/7 non-stop, destroy Obama coverage for weeks on end. Obama survived. McCain or Palin would have a nervous breakdown under that type of media pressure.
I just read in Newsweek that McCain was advised not to look at Obama because his advisers were afraid that it might cause McCain to get angry. It was an interesting damned if you do, damned if you don't Catch 22 for McCain. I read this in the dead tree version of Newsweek, which I don't have with me and I can't find it right now in online Newsweek.
The idea that the media is "cheering for Obama" is ludicrous. McCain has become angry because there are signs he might lose. Don't dress this up, Marc. McCain--who may still win--is just giving us a taste of what a sore loser he is, and it ain't pretty. Every time he indulges his petulance and anger, he shows the voters he does not have the temperament to lead this country during such challenging times. Most voters, he should understand, are not trying to bring on the End Days. We don't need an erratic man with a short fuse at the head of our government.
Here's the quote from the Newsweek article and the URL "The candidates were encouraged to address each other directly, but only Obama did, and the effect was to make McCain look like the standoffish one. (McCain's advisers say they had warned him against looking at his opponent, fearing Obama might rile him.)" http://www.newsweek.com/id/161325
Keith Hood, Regarding McCain's unwillingness to make eye contact with Obama during the first debate (and now on the Senate floor, apparently), you write: "It was an interesting damned if you do, damned if you don't Catch 22 for McCain." This isn't a dilemma for a person with normal, let alone "Presidential-level" social skills. McCain has an abnormal problem that makes him less able to deal with other people constructively. His "Mavericky-ness" is less a quality than an adaptation to some very real limitations. For normal people, the healthy response is to get some therapy or adjust your ambitions downward to reflect reality.
I agree. McCain has been "painted" a certain way and it's working for Obama. No one can really say how McCain is "out of touch." All of his interviews are perfectly lucid, relevant, and topical. No can really say how McCain is "sleazy." None of his ads are outright false, and FactCheck will verify this. On the other hand, Obama has run TWO ads which are blatantly false (Social Security, Spanish-Language immigration). No can really say how McCain is "like Bush." He is one of the most "unlike-Bush" Republicans there are. His voting record speaks for itself. The 90% rule is ludicrous, as it includes concordance votes which Obama also votes YES. No one can really say how McCain is "angry." He's done a TERRIFIC job of keeping his cool under pressure, smiling (even to the point of looking bad), etc. No one can really say how McCain is "erratic." The few moves which look odd are a strategy, to be sure, which we are not privy to. At best, he is "secretive." Less so than Obama, I might add.
TommyF, A. The media has already looked into Ayers, Rezko and Wright. It's basically old news at this point. and. B. The ACORN thing is completely overblown. Obama has no real ties to ACORN. And when you try to suggest that ACORN is responsible for the financial crisis you sound hysterical. Yes, the media has been easier on Obama all year - except in brief moments. But McCain has done himself no favors by alienating the media the way he has. John McCain had two choices with this campaign: run as the media darling maverick, or run as a typical Republican against the media. The media darling maverick approach would have worked in the end for him because lots of columnists felt genuine affection for the guy over the years. As for the GOP bash-the-media strategy, it fails with McCain because he is so undisciplined. To beat the hostile media you must be on-message and consistent at all times. 2004 was a perfect example of this: on any given day 20 major GOP figures would come out with the same talking points and it would get repeated over and over. This year, 20 people will try to say the same thing but then will be told to say something different by day's end. The result is paralysis for McCain.
Elrod: I disagree with you on the your premise that Obama and ACORN are not linked. Of course they are. He was a grass-roots organizer for them, and was a lawyer for their cause also. This is documented. ACORN threatened legal action against banks which refused to give out "affordable housing" loans, and they sued Citi on this. ACORN is DIRECTLY connected with Barney Frank and the Banking Commission on their "mission" to put low-income in housing. Good cause, bad effort. Corruption, special interests, lobbying. All the things Obama says he's against he is involved with. ACORN had a DIRECT effect on this crisis. Not the root cause, but a strong link in the chain without which the problem would not be as great. Obama was a community organizer. ACORN - the CO means community organizer. ACORN was to receive a 20% share of the profits from the bailout bill in a "slush fund" before the Republicans mixed that part of the fine print. ACORN is under investigation in several states for voter fraud. I didn't say ACORN didn't do some good works. I said that ACORN has a sleazy side and that Obama has been involved that sleazy side.
Sure it does, since you can't count on someone like, you don't know what they'll do, or how reckless they'll be. I'd say there's merit to every one of those too, looking at how McCains handled himself in public the past few weeks. Dishonorable is stretching it a bit, but the "i'm not even trying to hide i'm lying anymore" didn't help there. Soldiers are supposed to tell the truth, always. If McCain hadn't acted this way publicly, Obama's attacks wouldn't have resonated. He has and still is playing into them, making the argument stronger.
I am a firm believer that after the conventions the only people that can hurt any of the candidates are the candidates themselves. Nothing that Obama has done has had anywhere near the damaging effect the McCain has inflicted on himself. Palin has made herself look like and idiot, and McCain by reflection. Him sitting down next to her for a light-weight interview was sad. But his antics of 'suspending' his campaign, but not really suspending his campaign, trying to postpone the debate, and then failing to actually get something done, has made the case against McCain, not the Obama campaign. So yeah, McCain can try an October surprise, and it might work to tighten the polls...again...but it could just as well have the opposite effect, and seal the deal that McCain knows only tactics, and 'doesn't understand' strategy. Either way... it's too late. John, 'Ya should have listened to Murphy!
One month ago, or thereabouts, Sarah Palin was chosen to be VP. That seems a lifetime ago. Two weeks ago, McCain led in the polls. A month from now, who knows how much of Obama's ties to Fannie/Freddie (ACORN, Jim Johnson, et al) will cause America to be angry. Already, on CNN last night, Anderson Cooper asked a sputtering Barney Frank if he had any responsibility for the housing crisis. "Of course not!" Almost every person on AC's blog said Barney either looked or was guilty. And he is. It's only a matter of time before Obama is connected to ACORN, through the Banking Committee, and everyone will see that Obama is the poster child for what's wrong in politics today. McCain may look like a fool. Palin may be ignorant. McCain may have stooped below his level a bit on campaigning. Palin may have strong-armed a rotten appointee to get rid of a rotten cop. BUT... Obams is knee-deep in pork, graft, corruption, political bullying, sidestepping, and blaming people. McCain is NOT. You people are blinded by McCain and Palin's lack of style. They are plain people who do not do well in interview situations. But they ACT. Say what you will about their political foibles. I want to see Obama investigated under the SAME LIGHT and see if he can withstand. PLEASE.. no more about how the press 'vetted' Obama already. It matters NOW, a month before Election Day, to get the scoop on Obama's past, ESPECIALLY since he's ahead in the polls. I say this... ASSUME Obama will win. NOW.. who is he REALLY?
McCain on the floor of the Senate last night could barely look at Obama. This after aides had surely told him (right?) that his refusal to look at Obama in the debates cost him. That's either frighteningly out of touch or a real lack of control. Added to McCain's mysterious visit to Iowa, I really wonder what the heck they're doing inside that campaign. TommyF: We must investigate Obama's Chicago connections. On the internet, it's easy to create smoke with no fire.
TommyF: Barack Obama ran against a Clinton, and won. Do you honestly think that - if there were any "scoop" from Obama's past - it would not have already been brought up? He has been vetted, by the both the media and the American people. And he is winning this election. Game. Set. Match? Almost.
TommyF (at 8:13) -- You ask why the media and McCain's own surrogates do not challenge more forcefully statements such as calling his campaign "sleazy" or "loathsome", why they don't ask them to back up such words with supporting facts. There is a simple answer. Asking for the supporting facts to be discussed would be even worse for McCain! The media would then be accused as 'fishing' for bad information on the McCain campaign, or setting him up, and the surrogates would not be allowed to speak for him again. MANY of the ads McCain has put out and many of his and Palin's statements, even some made in the debate, are provable lies and in a couple of cases slander. So the truth is McCain doesn't WANT the very solid basis for accusations of sleaze and loathsomeness to be brought out, because those accusations are accurate. Anyone who pays attention to the facts and checks out statements that they don't know about is fully aware how dishonest and unethical the McCain campaign has been ..... McCain and the Republicans are just banking on there being enough people who DON'T think for themselves or care about the facts. Maybe they are right and maybe he will win .... but that doesn't change the FACT that he has been running a sleazy, loathesome campaign and that it can be proven beyond doubt by many of the specific things the campaign has done and said. So, trust me, the media is doing a favor not to ask for particulars. Nor does McCain want to get into the area of "questionable affiliations" -- all the digging in the world has come up with only 3 or 4 for Obama, some quite tangential. Obama has done the courtesy of not bringing up the Keating 5 and many, many other questionable affiliations and actions by McCain. He (Obama) has this peculiar notion that one can win on the issues and demonstrated character without having to indulge in personal smear tactics. He may be wrong and he may lose --- but I will still be a very proud supporter.
No one can really say how McCain is "out of touch." All of his interviews are perfectly lucid, relevant, and topical. The man doesn't know how many houses he owns, admits that he hasn't driven himself in years, and thinks that an annual income just under $5 million makes you middle class. No can really say how McCain is "sleazy." None of his ads are outright false, and FactCheck will verify this. On the other hand, Obama has run TWO ads which are blatantly false (Social Security, Spanish-Language immigration). The "sex ed for kindergarteners" ad. Explicitly accusing Obama of trying to "lose" the Iraq war. No can really say how McCain is "like Bush." He is one of the most "unlike-Bush" Republicans there are. McCain was a huge supporter of the Iraq war, which has been Bush's central policy fixation for most of his presidency. No one can really say how McCain is "angry." He's done a TERRIFIC job of keeping his cool under pressure, smiling (even to the point of looking bad), etc. See his Des Moines Register interview on YouTube from his week. See also numerous accounts from his own Senate colleagues regarding his abusive language towards them. No one can really say how McCain is "erratic." The few moves which look odd are a strategy, to be sure, which we are not privy to. Running out of an interview announcing that you're suspending your campaign is erratic. Picking a half-term Alaska governor whom you've only met twice as your VP is erratic. Announcing that you would vote against a bill that you yourself drafted and submitted to Congress just last year when there's been no change in the underlying facts since that time is erratic. Google can provide you with several dozen more examples.
Compare this to Democratic strategists who worried that Obama wasn't fighting back hard enough. Turns out that Obama didn't need to -- events took care of the problem. There's an important strategic point here that I think a lot of the critics miss. It was extremely likely that "events" would cause a situation much like this: McCain trapped in a difficult position within the Republican party (between the hardline conservatives and moderates), with contradictory past statements and behavior, with some disconcerting ties. The structural dynamics (of the Republican party and the US economy) and McCain's history meant that things are frequently going to point in this direction. Once a crisis happens, as long as the press took an active role, McCain's personality and the structural dynamics of the campaign (hint: run by lobbyists and Steve Schmidt) made it likely that McCain would react in ... well, a McCain-esque fashion. Facing more and more difficult questioning under a spotlight, his "kids get off my lawn -- and how dare you question me?" side is likely to come out, revealing the patronizing, elitist, and hot-tempered aspects of his personality. Obama's (and Biden's) respectfulness towards McCain further highlights McCain's disdain for and discomfort with Obama. There's no way to know how much of it is race-based and age-based, but given the ads the McCain campaign has been running it certainly doesn't paint a pretty picture. Note that if the Obama campaign had been nastily attacking to try to force events (or worse yet stooped to McCain's level the way some people in the progressive blogosphere have been advocating), the effect almost certainly wouldn't have been as powerful. What they did instead was keep general pressure up on McCain (issues across the board, judgment questions, 50-state strategy) and focus on defining the terms of engagement with the press -- in particular, the responsibility for taking an active role. Of course there's a long way to go until November 4, but right now Obama's position looks pretty good. It'll be very hard for McCain to ratchet back his personality to avoid reinforcing this bad impression -- and if he does, he's likely to come off as unnatural. jon
He's pissed because everybody hates him: his Republican congressional colleagues, the White House, the Democrats and now the media. His charming maverick persona has been laid waste by his dishonesty and incompetence.
Why, oh why (8:45 am): you complain that the Obama camp has "painted McCain as reckless, confused, out-of-touch, dishonorable and angry. In a word: dangerous." and that this is "personal attack" (I assume you mean unfair) and "nothing to do with the issues at all". The ISSUE of a president's judgment, honestly, connection with reality, temper and honor is probably THE most important issue of any campaign. Think about that -- you could have someone who agreed with you 100% on the issues but if they talked to lampposts, never told the truth about anything, or slugged in the nose ever reporter who asked them a question, they wouldn't do you much good as a president, would they? No, of course, McCain's temperament and judgment problems don't go to that extreme --- but they are there and they are very, very relevant to the decision voters have to make. No apologies for stressing those things. And it's quite different to personally attack someone for having a too-quick temper (with real-life examples) and attacking them as wanting to teach kindergarteners about fornication or being a traitor to this country because they know someone who was involved in bombings 40 years ago. A person's judgment and character is ALWAYS a relevant issue, perhaps the most relevant one there is. McCain agrees with that by the way, because he has been trying to paint Obama as unwise, questionable and dangerous. The difference is that one uses actual facts and examples and the other, for the most part, makes up things or completely mischaracterizes actions and statements. I'm not saying Obama is entirely guiltless in this area: making a big to-do about McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement when he clearly meant "if there was no danger" was not a fair attack. But there aren't many you would label unfair or misleading coming from the Obama camp. The number and nature of the deliberate distortions about Obama coming from McCain and supporters about Obama are stomach-turning! No one forced McCain to run that sort of campaign -- it was his choice, but he has to live with the consequences.
Elizabeth, The "issues" I was refering to are: health care, the economy, energy policy... What the Obama camp says they want to talk about. They can't keep on attacking McCain's character and at the same time complain that his campaign tries to paint Obama as elitist, a celebrity, flip-floper, far-left liberal, inexperienced... instead of adressing the "issues".
Fatcs please? Posted by Tommyf at 08:13 : Firstly, Can you explain why you placed underprivileged in quotes? Does that mean you don't really believe they were? Secondly, Can you supply any facts that show that the underprivileged loans were the majority of the ones that defaulted? One could also suggest that the "middle-class" or "privileged" people were the ones who over-reached when buying houses they couldn't afford, or who gambled on balloon mortgages and ever-ending growth in home values. I would suppose that it would be in ACORN's best interest to broker loans that survive, rather than default, for the good of their own organization, not to mention the people they helped, but I'll listen to anything you have that shows they were more reckless than other lending institutions. I'd be happy to read any data you could point to that correlates Acorn mortgages with failed loans at numbers higher than any other group, or should we assume that "underprivileged" translates to "untrustworthy" to you?
A lot of people are talking about how much has changed in the last 34 days so it is likely that things will change in the next 34 days also. But the last 34 days essentially had DNC convention, Biden rollout, Palin announcement, RNC convention, the first debate, and the economic crisis. There aren't that many game-changing moments left. Unless tonight is one of them if Palin hits it out of the park. The other 2 debates are unlikely to change things in Obama's favor. McCain cannot even bear to LOOK at Obama in the eye. It is just weird and creepy. The only thing that may happen would be a terrorist threat of some kind. But I feel the country is immune to that after 7 yrs of warnings so unless something really happens, unlikely anything will change. So what McCain needs right now is a terrorist attack (that's scary). Wright/Ayers/Rezco ain't gonna do a thing.
You asked: "Firstly, Can you explain why you placed underprivileged in quotes? Does that mean you don't really believe they were?" I placed "underprivileged" in quotes to set the word off from the rest of my sentence. I would have used italics. Now, do I believe they are underprivileged? Who is "they?" There were numerous groups of people who benefited by ACORN's involvement, but basically, (1) those who could pay their mortgages according to accepted standards, (2) those who POSSIBLY could have, and (3) those who DEFINITELY could NOT have paid their mortgages. It's one thing to claim "underprivileged" for decent folk who have a chance, but it's NOT correct to say that lazy people, those with abhorrent credit, or horrible financial histories are "underprivileged" which connotes that someone other than themselves are holding them back. In reference to this definition only: who is "underprivileged?" - I think it's common sense that you lend to category 1, bend the rules sometimes for category 2, and never for category 3. The problem is category 3 received these loans, banks pressured by Washington and helped by ACORN and other groups. Category 3 is the problem. They are deadbeats, by all actuarial standards. When government pokes in its nose, and creates laws like CRA, giving ACORN the "authority" to pressure banks, you have a situation waiting to happen. It happened. You said: "Secondly, Can you supply any facts that show that the underprivileged loans were the majority of the ones that defaulted? One could also suggest that the "middle-class" or "privileged" people were the ones who over-reached when buying houses they couldn't afford, or who gambled on balloon mortgages and ever-ending growth in home values." Ah... here is the nexus of your argument: can I prove that it was Category 3, and not Category 2 or even Category 1, who were to blame? Good question, wrong logic. Your question here assumes that I place only poor, minority, or traditionally down-cast groups in Category 1. I do not. Category 1 includes also middle-class people and even rich people who over-extended themselves, using the faulty system. However... I would ask this... which people have so far been publicized to have suffered the most? Two groups - the poorer folks, and the "flippers." These are also the two groups I would expect to feel the pain first. Flippers have short-term loans which must be paid. When they're not, default. The poor have limited resources - they default before the middle-class and the rich, who actually can handle a downturn a little better. The "facts" will be seen in the foreclosure and bankruptcy statistics. The inner cities are hit the hardest, as are the "hot" flipping areas like Arizona, Florida, California, etc. Places like North Carolina are not hit as hard. You said: "I would suppose that it would be in ACORN's best interest to broker loans that survive, rather than default, for the good of their own organization, not to mention the people they helped, but I'll listen to anything you have that shows they were more reckless than other lending institutions." Your request is reasonable. In fact, there can be no more blame put upon ACORN than the banks, nor have I tried to. I merely focused closely on the ACORN link, which I have described as "strong" which it is. In my view, the lending institutions which were pressured should have resisted ACORN and other such groups. I respect that you acknowledge that ACORN has a burden of responsibility in making sure that those folks who receive loans due to their pressure are truly deserving of it. In total, I fault four links in the chain. The folks who either knowingly took the teaser rates, believing they could profit from greed, or who were so ignorant of finance that they placed their future in mortal danger. The banks who loaned this money, either from greed or from pressure by outside groups. The pressure groups, including the House Banking Committee (Barney Frank & co) and their "strongarms" (ACORN, et al). Wall Street for buying such risky derivatives and cooking the books, and this includes the quasi-government Fannie and Freddie. You said: "I'd be happy to read any data you could point to that correlates Acorn mortgages with failed loans at numbers higher than any other group, or should we assume that "underprivileged" translates to "untrustworthy" to you?" At this point, the "bundles" of mortgages are such a mess that no one even knows what's in them. This is part of the DC plan: buy the junk, take it home, sort it out, and sell the good stuff. THEN, we'll have some inkling of who was involved and why. But... if you're asking me for percentages, we have none. There is, however, ample anecdotal evidence at the banking level, and via interviews with Senators and Congressmen. Now, is "underprivileged" equal to "untrustworthy?" Only in so far as this group may have less creditworthiness or financial knowledge. But, no, I'm not saying that we should distrust poor people or minorities. However, neither should we give them undue help simply for being underprivileged. Due diligence.
TommyF, Please see below: Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN. • Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer. In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. (For more about Barack’s career, check out our Obama bio.) Ken Blackwell is best known today for disenfranchising Democratic voters in his dual role as Ohio Secretary of State and chair of George Bush’s Ohio campaign in 2004. To see him shed crocodile tears for the integrity of the vote while making accusations about Barack and ACORN with absolutely no basis in fact is disturbing. Blackwell’s attacks against ACORN and community organizers continue a vile Republican pattern of mockery and viciousness against this noble profession. Community organizers are the very individuals Republicans should be celebrating for helping people to help themselves rather than depending on the government.
TommyF: NO ONE CARES ABOUT ACORN. You are crazy if you think that's a winning issue. ACORN is a well-meaning but powerless and often inept group. Your effort, and the effort of the right-wing generally, to turning them into a boogie-man is doomed to fail.
"Meanwhile, the media ignores the many links Obama has to shady characters" The media has not gone after McCain's (deceased) father-in-law, a pillar of society who built up his beer fortune with links to crime lords, and who did time (6 months) for falsifying documents related to sales of liquor. McCain still publicly speaks of Cindy's father Joe Hensley with reverence. In fact, McCain's political success was founded on the Hensley fortune; McCain is not a self-made man like Obama is. My own view is that the GOP smear machine has been hampered by the fact that it knows that prompt retaliation in kind will follow.
The problem for McCain is that his campaign strategy is fundamentally flawed. He seeks to make the election a referendum on who's got what it takes to be President by emphasizing personal qualities and gut-level appeals -- experience, character, values -- rather than issues. He asks voters to examine his record of service and at the same time contrast that to Obama's comparative absence from the National stage. Its fatal flaw is that it is a backward-looking strategy. The majority in America is concerned that we are on the wrong track and want answers for the future, not a review of the past. Worse, when voters look back the first thing they see is the Bush administration, and whether McCain was part of that or not, voters are getting conditioned to connect the two like a Pavlovian dog.
Tommy F, Why on earth would you support a candidate that has spent his entire life pulling rank and connections to get to where he's at? How much do you really know about the man? For God's sake, McCain was born with a silver spoon in his mouth the size of which most of us can only dream. Mostly, he's used that spoon to hit others over the head when he doesn't get his way. Why do you think he has very few real friends and even fellow Republicans scatter when he comes sniffing around? He's the sole cause of everything that's wrong with him. Not the press. Not the Democrats. Not Martians. McCain is McCain's problem.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The problem for McCain is that he spent weeks describing himself as a "maverick." Now, with some framing from the events and the Obama campaign, "maverick" equals "gambler." Who wants an impulsive, reckless "maverick/gambler" during a financial crisis? Who wants a maverick/gambler with seemingly no plan for the future other than rambling on about earmarks?
And also, after watching Bill Clinton stump for Obama in FL, who are the compelling surrogates for McCain? Bush? Cheney? He can't even rely on his own Veep. He needs to supervise her. If she's still trying to convince the Hannity/Hewitt audience they are in a lot of trouble.
Posted by GL | October 2, 2008 7:58 AM