Not a Big Truck

Over the years, and particularly during the 2000 and 2004 election seasons that featured Karl Rove at the helm of the GOP nuclear campaign submarine, I have had many discussions with friends about the nastiness of political campaigning.  Often, these conversations have concluded with some variation on the theme, “Sure, the Republicans are experts at mudslinging and dirty tricks, but the Democrats do their share of that stuff too.”

I guess that is probably true, especially if you take a step back and look at the broader sweep of history, not just a few elections.  But in recent years, and in this election, I think the Republicans really are worse.  Dishonest.  Shameless.  Relentless.

The McCain camp has made a big deal of Michelle Obama’s “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” comment, and in recent weeks of Barack Obama’s remark that for the McCain-Palin ticket to claim the mantle of change is like putting “lipstick on a pig.”  Any reasonable observer will acknowledge that Obama was not calling Sarah Palin a pig, but rather saying that the policies of McCain (and by extension Palin) are the pig that cannot be dressed up to masquerade as change.  But the Republicans will not shut up about it.

On the other hand, Meghan McCain went on the Today Show and said, “No one knows what war is like other than my family, period!”

I don’t need to harp about how awful that is.  But what has the Obama campaign’s response been, as far as I know?  To their immense credit: nothing.  They are not trying to make an issue out of what a member of McCain’s family said.  Meghan McCain isn’t on the ticket.  The Obama campaign wants to have a discussion about the issues and not about the silly, thoughtless, ultimately insignificant remarks that are inevitably made by people on both sides.  Maybe that’s “soft,” but it makes me proud to be affiliated with the Democrats and not with the GOP of Rove, Atwater, and their disciples.

Interesting article from the hometown newspaper. 

Sarah Kugler, Anchorage Daily News, writes:

Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

Even The Wall Street Journal (a part of that elitist liberal media?) has an articlechallenging Palin’s claims about the bridge.  It reads:

But Gov. Palin’s claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

I don’t blame Palin for trying to do everything she could to represent her constituents by battling for federal aid. That is a reasonable role for a mayor or governor.  But lying about her record to fit some fictional narrative that more easily applies to a national campaign is a different matter.  Hopefully the media and the Obama campaign will expose the facts.

For a candidate who cares about honor and who once took on the religious right, this is a pretty nasty ad.

The Obama campaign responded with this:

“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”

McCain accused Obama of being willing to lose a war to win a political campaign.  Not sure about that. What does seem to be clear, with the Palin pick, ads like this, and McCain’s role in restarting the culture war, is that McCain is willing to sell out his once held values for winning a political campaign.

I hope the Obama campaign can convince the public that McCain and Palin are not mavericks.  McCain was, perhaps, a maverick, but has since shown himself to be a conventional Republican (except perhaps more Hawkish than many).  As for Palin, there seems to be little evidence that she stood up against Republicans in her own state until it became politically necessary to do so. 

But, Republicans are skilled at repeating an untruth enough that the public believes it. Sarah Palin is a reformer who stands up against entrenched interests. Oh yeah? When? How?  Doesn’t matter. Republicans repeat the line and people will buy it, unless the media or Obama can expose it as a fantasy.  With the media having been fairly intimidated by the sexism and elitism charges, that leaves the Obama campaign to push back. I am starting to worry that it is not enough.

I’ve been watching the Republican convention over the last few days and it came as no surprise to me that Ronald Reagan has been invoked multiple times. This is no different than the primary battle when most of those Republican debates could be simplified into who could be most persuasive in convincing the audience that he is most like Reagan.

Republicans view Reagan, I think correctly, as a transformative president. They view him as their FDR. There is a constant effort by party activists to find the Gipper’s replacement and among candidates to preserve that legacy.

One needs to only observe the modern Republican party to recognize that no major player in that party today can claim to be heir to Reagan.  They claim to be for lower taxes, less government, strong national defense, pragmatic foreign policy, and the defense of traditional values–although it is entirely unclear that the party actually still stands for these things. 

Is simply adhering to–or trying to adhere to–these policy positions what Reaganism was about?  Reagan’s greatest success, I think, was not any policy proposal, but rather the restoration of hope and optimism in America. The change in attitude within the nation from the Carter years to the Reagan years could not have happened as a result of mere policy proposals.  Americans needed to be led and to have revived a vision of America that had waned from the late 60s through the Carter years.  It was morning again in America.  

Reagan spoke of American exceptionalism and of America as a city on the hill. America as an example for the rest of the world is a hopeful message far removed from the nastiness and vitriol of the present Republican party.

While it is not my intention to contend that Barack Obama is the heir to Reagan–there are serious and deep policy differences that would render this impossible–it does seem that he is the clearest heir to Reagan’s persona. Obama understands that America needs to be revitalized. Such a revival requires more than a change in policies. It requires leadership and rhetoric from the president. 

Additionally, Obama seems to share Reagan’s temperament. Obama is measured, calm, and seemingly always in control of himself.  Reagan had similar self-control and balance, an emotional intelligence that Nixon, for example, lacked. 

Few honest observers could argue that this Republican party, based on the Bush legacy and the tenor of the speeches at the convention, is pragmatic, measured, and disciplined. Indeed, John McCain seems to be less disciplined, more emotional, more erratic, and more prone to disproportionate responses than even Bush, let alone Reagan. 

Let’s be clear: there is no heir to Reagan’s policies on the national political stage this election season. There are those that advocate those policies–all speakers at the Republican convention–but none that have demonstrated over the last eight years the dedication required to turn rhetoric into results.  The ideals of limited government and of American economic individualism really have no party in today’s America.

But, in light of the Republicans’ descent into the politics of derision and hatred, the candidate in this election that seems most Reaganesque in terms of leadership, optimism, and self-control is certainly Barack Obama. 

So, does the legacy of Reagan belong to the man who leads and inspires like Reagan or to the man and party that provides mere lip service to the policies of Reagan?

The McCain campaign has been on the defensive over the last few days.  The Palin story has shifted the focus of the campaign from being a referendum on Obama to being a referendum on the Republican ticket and the judgment of John McCain. 

I’m surprised that they are struggling so much to defend the pick. It doesn’t seem like it should be so difficult. I mean, Palin must be a fantastic candidate for VP because, after all, John McCain was a POW. And just how that fact defends him from charges of economic elitism or of cheating those cones of silence, so too should McCain’s war experience defend Palin’s limited governing experience, seeming lack of interest in foreign affairs, religious fundamentalism, cronyism in Alaska, and any potential ties to secessionist movements.

I’ve been interested to observe in recent weeks a shift in how Matt Drudge presents Obama-related material on his news-aggregation website, the Drudge Report.  During primary season, several commentators noted that Drudge adopted a favorable attitude towards Obama; many times he emphasized stories that made Obama look good while ignoring or giving low placement to stories unfavorable to Obama.  This was surprising because Drudge is an acknowledged libertarian with a conservative bent, and he is famous for breaking and driving stories such as the Lewinsky scandal and the Swift Boat campaign tactics that were detrimental to Democrats.

Well, I am now convinced that the only reason Drudge was nice to Obama is because he couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton and despaired at the prospect of having to produce the Drudge Report under four years of a Clinton administration.  He wanted new blood, so he did what he could to help Obama emerge from the Democratic primaries, but now, Drudge has swung hard in the other direction, in favor of McCain.

The last few days are a case study in this.  Drudge has covered the emerging disaster that is the Sarah Palin pick with almost no attention to the skeletons that are coming out of her closet.  He did, however, put a quote from Joe Biden at the top of the page: “Biden: She’s good looking…”  That quote makes Biden look bad, but he actually said that as an example of the difference between Palin and himself — in other words, he was making fun of himself.  But Drudge put up his misleading headline anyway.  What’s worse, he is now blaring a headline “I’ve Got More Experience Than Her!” under pictures of Obama and Palin — as if Obama said those words when in fact he did not.

I’m just disappointed to see Drudge so blatantly in the tank for McCain, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.  Hopefully Drudge won’t be as influential this time around compared to ‘04.

Anyway, the good news is that Obama has finally cracked 50% in the polls for the first time.

What a bold pick by McCain.  I like his gutsiness but don’t think picking Palin was the right decision for him.  It seems to severely undercut what have thus far been his two most effective arguments against Obama: that Obama is a narcissistic celebrity, and, especially, that Obama is inexperienced and not ready to lead.

Isn’t this analogous to Barack Obama posing in a muscle shirt on the cover of GQ or something?  We all know how that would go over with the media.

Palin is a former beauty queen whose education consists of a BA in journalism from the University of Idaho.  She has been governor for two years and was the mayor of a small town for a few years before that.  She has zero foreign policy experience.  Her resume is paper-thin and she doesn’t seem to have much intellectual heft to balance that out.  At this juncture it seems like Biden should be able to shred her in the VP debate if he can figure out a way not to seem like a bully while doing it.

McCain’s main reason for making this pick is obvious: he thinks he can win a lot of female voters, especially disaffected Hillary supporters, by having Palin on the ticket.  I don’t buy it.  He may be able to get female Republicans to turn out in greater numbers for him (though Democrats are also expecting record turnout in their ranks this year thanks to Obamamania).  But Hillary voters crossing over for Palin the beauty queen?  Palin is pro-life and apparently a solid conservative on most issues.  After the speeches by the Clintons at the convention, I don’t think the Democrats are very fractured after all.  I can’t imagine defections in any significant numbers because of Palin.  But, as a previous poster also wrote, I can’t claim to truly understand the die-hard Hillaryites.

McCain is making a play for Hillary voters, but I think that will cost him among independents — the crucial voting bloc — when he has to dial down his most effective attacks against Obama because of whom he has chosen as his running mate.  Moreover, McCain is undercutting himself on his supposed strength, national security: by picking someone who so obviously does not pass the commander-in-chief test, he appears to be placing electoral politics ahead of national security.

Clinton nailed it tonight.  Positioned himself as passing the torch, as the father figure who has faced what Obama now faces and who will help guide him through it.  The speech benefits him but also benefits Obama and the Democrats.  It had some necessary political shots, but intelligently spelled out what is at stake and why Obama must be elected and is ready to lead.

The money line: “People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

Bill brought it.

P.S.  John Kerry is speaking now and is hammering McCain.  Built the theme of how Candidate McCain hates the maverick, Senator McCain.  It was well-done and even joked about the “was for it before I was against it” thing.  Also made the important point that McCain was against Rovian tactics when they were used against him in 2000, but now that he is the candidate he is more than comfortable to use Rovian attacks on Obama.

Putting forward one hell of a personal, biographical defense of Obama, fighting against the idea that Obama is an elitist. He is going through the family history, the abandonment by his father, and Obama’s desire to give back to his community. Loving this speech too.

It is increasingly becoming clear that the McCain campaign, knowing that if this election is going to be about the issues or John McCain, then Republicans are in trouble, has decided to throw out any and every charge possible at Obama no matter how false or how negative.  Some of the charges may stick (Obama is an elitist) others may not (Obama is a Muslim). 

The constant attacks seem to keep the attention on Obama.  McCain, even when shown to be outright lying, manages to get the “oh, he is war hero and is honorable” treatment and would never intentionally lie, but is being forced into going negative because of his underdog status.

I think Obama will win this election, but it may be closer than it should be, simply because McCain gets a free pass on his tactics.  The POW shield and his underdog status provide him with a lot of flexibility in his campaigning.