Sunday, August 31, 2008

McCain VP: Attack Dog with Nothing to Lose?

Conventional wisdom holds that Joe Biden's job as Obama's VP pick will be twofold: to appeal to voters in the base who have not signed on to Obama's candidacy, and to attack John McCain as only another senior member of the Senate can.

In my last post, I looked at the pitfalls of the GOP's choice for McCain. One of the observations I made was that if they are willing to throw out the "too young and inexperienced" line of attack, they must have something else in store. Perhaps they have given up on that angle, and will revert to the dirty character attacks of Republican campaigns past.

That's where Sarah Palin comes in.

Clearly, the GOP still has some fight left in them after Bush destroyed their party. The advantages of having Sarah Palin on the campaign trail are obvious: she's a champion for big oil, and radical right wing base will love her (Gov. Palin opposes choice, even in instances of rape or incest).

By selecting Governor Palin as McCain's VP, the Republican Party is able to suck up to their two most important constituents: Oil companies, and right wing culture warriors.

Looking at Sarah Palin, signs of a dirty general election are ominously clear: The 2 year governor of Alaska, whose only other leadership experience was as mayor of a small town of 8,000, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

If the campaign is going to get personal and dirty, then it makes complete sense for the GOP to select a VP candidate who shamelessly sued the Bush Administration for putting the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List because it might hinder oil drilling. (BTW, this is an area the Obama campaign should expand upon: Sarah Palin is so far to the right, she thought the Bush/Cheney administration too soft on the environment).

Sarah Palin, a relatively young and obscure political figure literally from out of nowhere, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

Perhaps that is why the GOP did not select an older more experienced candidate for the job: no one is willing to risk their political career playing dirty against the inspiring candidate that Obama is.


Not so with Palin. She has a long political career ahead of her if this works out, and nothing to lose if it doesn't. She appears willing to take the risk to further her personal political fortunes. If she loses, people will just forget about her for a few years, and she will fade in to the background again.

If this politician has no shame in putting oil companies before endangered polar bears, I have a feeling she'll have no reservations about hitting Obama below the belt on character and patriotism.

Watch out. The far-right cabal that has taken over our country knows they will lose it all if we elect Barack Obama president. There is no low they won't stoop to. We've already seen a Swift Boat attack book and commercial, and the general election has not even begun.

If you thought Bush / Kerry in 2004 was ugly, this election is going to make it look like a honeymoon.


Saturday, August 30, 2008

McCain Campaign: the Greedy Dog of Aesop's Fables

Like the fable of old, the GOP decision to select Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate reminds me of The Dog and his Reflection:
A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, was hurrying home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a narrow footbridge, he happened to look down and saw himself reflected in the quiet water as if in a mirror. But the greedy Dog thought he saw a real Dog carrying a bone much bigger than his own.

If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore. At last he managed to scramble out, and as he stood sadly thinking about the good bone he had lost, he realized what a stupid Dog he had been.

The GOP sees disaffected female Hillary supporters, and practically drools at the prospect of poaching them from the Democratic party. At the same time the GOP needs to steal as much thunder as possible from Obama's nomination, so naturally, they stage the VP announcement for the day after Obamas historic acceptance speech to 75,000 people, an event which got higher ratings than the Oscars and the Olympics.

The GOP had to do something spectacular, right? But will it hurt them in the end?

The problem for the GOP is they are focusing on short term gains, and losing track of the long view. Though they play a good game at appearing confident (remember, Karl Rove predicted the GOP would win by a landslide in 2004), the decision to select Palin as McCains running mate shows some mortal weaknesses:

In their dash to outshine Obama, they thought they had a win-win: a controversial candidate, and one who could court disillusioned female Clinton supporters at the the same time. In their haste, they didn't stop to think how Palin might play out for their strategy of attacking Obama's level of experience.

McCain campaign believes Sarah Palin is ready to be commander in chief.

The GOP's primary argument against Obama is that he is not old enough, nor has he spent enough time in Washington to be "ready to lead." That argument looks quite silly now.

One has to wonder: is the GOP is plagued by division and ineptitude, since their smartest have been arrested or left the party? Don't they realize what they are doing to their central argument?

Or, are they trying to divert our attention? Maybe they have given up on the "too young and inexperienced" argument, and plan to revert to the character attacks and whisper campaigns accusing Barack of being a secret radical.

Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: the gloves are about to come off, and if we thought the primary was exciting, wait until the next act begins. The General election is about to start, and I think its going to get rowdy.

Monday, August 25, 2008

McCain Airs Second Ad Targeting Angry Clinton Voters

Trying to capitalize on the anger of some Hillary Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign released its second ad in two days targeting Hillary voters for conversion to the Republican Party.

The ad is filled with images if Hillary Clinton herself, and features Debra Bartoshevich, a former Clinton Delegate who is now actively campaigning for the Republican Party:

"I'm a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat," says Bartoshevich, a nurse,
in the 30-second spot. "She had the experience and judgment to be
president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John
McCain.

"A lot of Democrats will vote McCain. It's okay, really!"

What Bartoshevich doesn't explain is why it will be "okay." Why would it be "okay" for someone who supports the life and cause of Hillary Clinton, to back a party that has attacked her more unfairly than even the worst democrats? Would it be "okay" to go from opposing the Iraq War to supporting it? Would it be "okay" to fight for choice, then give up and support the candidate who promises he will have a "pro life" administration? Why would it be "okay" to go from standing up for the struggles of working people, to supporting the richest and most corrupt few? How can a person be a nurse, and support the party that doesn't want to reform health care?

A Moral Quandary

No, Ms. Bartoshovich does not give any of these explanations because she has become nothing more than a sad pawn in the republican game; one has to wonder if she realizes they would sacrifice her well-being and values the minute they had a chance. Now the Republican vultures are circling over our convention, looking for easy prey:
...the campaign's "Citizens for McCain" outreach initiative to former
Clinton supporters, are being joined this week by efforts on the
ground, as senior advisor Carly Fiorina and other top McCain officials
head to Denver to recruit these disaffected Democrats.
The GOP does not stand for anything Hillary Clinton stands for. How any Democrat could be enticed to go on TV and support McCain is beyond me.

One also has to wonder at the ethics involved in being a party delegate to the Convention, who then deserts the party when the election doesn't turn out the way they wanted it. Clearly there is an ethical problem with this kind of conditional democracy, because Ms. Bartoshevich was stripped of her delegate status for supporting the opposing party.

Democracy is about cooperation toward a common cause, such that if you don't end up on the winning side you accept that fact because more people voted the other way. No such morality seems to be defining former delegates like Ms. Bartoshevich, not to mention the conflict in values a person like this must feel as they shift their support from a liberal, pro-choice Hillary Clinton to a Republican who opposes the Fair Pay Act, and claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Swift Boat ad against Obama could spell disaster for McCain

John McCain has said time and time again that he wants to run a respectable campaign, which is why he should denounce the new - and possibly illegal - Swift Boat attack ad against Obama,
Obama's campaign responded to the ad by sending a letter to the Justice Department charging that the backers are violating criminal law and urging an investigation.... "We urge and expect the Department of Justice to fulfill its commitment to take prompt, vigorous action to enforce against criminal violations of the campaign finance laws," [Obama attorney] Bauer wrote in his letter.

Separately, Obama's attorneys are demanding that television stations spike the spot. They say the ad is "demonstrably false" and labeled it a "crude, disreputable and malicious attempt to link Sen. Obama to domestic terrorist activities."
By now we should realize that John McCain didn't mean it when he said he wants to run a respectable campaign: if that was truly the case, he wouldn't be allowing surrogates like Texas billionaire Harold Simmons (yes, the same guy who helped pay for the Swift Boat ads that attacked Kerry's military record), to pour millions of dollars into a smear campaign like this.

But John McCain has already run ads trying to portray Obama as the anti-christ, and hired second Swift-boater to his campaign team, so why stop there?

Attack ad commits typical fallacies

Typical of such attacks, the ad focuses more on Ayers than Obama, as if by tearing down the straw man of Ayers, they could do the same with Obama.

But truth in advertising - or lack thereof - never stopped ads like this from being effective, and clearly that's what his group is counting on.

Furthermore, if Simmons has such a beef against Ayers, one has to wonder why he bothers including Obama in the message at all; Obama was a mere 6 years old when these crimes were committed by Ayers. Desperate for an attack? They must be if this is all they can find.

The ad tries to claim that because Ayers committed crimes, and Obama knows Ayers, that Obama is somehow tied to these crimes. This is a type of formal fallacy : Ayers is guilty of x. Obama knows Ayers. Therefore Obama is guilty of x.

But being illogical never stopped a smear campaign from running. It never stopped the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry's record.

One could just as easily make an ad attacking McCain for being friends with Ralph Reed, who was caught scamming money from evangelical Christians with Jack Abramhoff. Should McCain be considered guilty because of his association with Reed? Actually if McCain continues to allow ads like this to run, he may find himself having to answer uncomfortable questions like this.

How it could come back to bite McCain


Barack Obama has shown he is not afraid to hit back hard if he is attacked. He won't be the one starting the fight, but he's certainly will not be afraid to finish it.

This is dangerous area for John McCain, because he's got real skeletons in his closet. McCain benefits at least as much as Obama from a smear-free campaign, but apparently McCain's republican masters don't know how to run any other kind of campaign: they only know how to run a dirty one.

Its too bad for John McCain, because when Obama hits back he might hit back hard. That means all John McCain's past sins are fair game, and John should be really worried about that because unlike Barack Obama, McCain's sins are well documented and real, not the kind of innuendo being used in the Ayers spot.

Does McCain's campaign team really want to see TV ads recounting episodes like his cheating on his wife, or being investigated by the Senate ethics committee for corruption as one of the Keating Five? American taxpayers lost billions, while the millionaire John McCain reaped the rewards. Does McCain really want America to be reminded of this shameful past?

McCain's shady past makes it all the more bizarre they would "go there" with Swift boat style attacks: do they think Obama won't hit back? If there is one thing Democrats learned since Kerry lost and Howard Dean took over the DNC, its that we won't back down from a fight.

The alternative is that McCain's campaign truly didn't know about the Simmons swift boat attack against Obama - in which case, if John McCain wants to avoid a can of whoop-ass being opened on him by Obama, he should be the gentleman he portrays himself as and condemn both Simmons and the vile ad he created.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Can McCain's performance at Saddleback Church hurt him?

The mainstream media seem to agree the major difference between Barack Obama and John McCain at Rick Warren's Leadership and Compassion Forum was a difference of style, Obama cast as the more meditative and nuanced candidate, and John McCain ans the blunt, "straight-talking" candidate.

At first you might think the event was a "no-brainer" for John McCain: he needs to motivate a lackluster Republican base if he wants to win in November. But the problem with that, has has to do with the fact the GOP base today does not look the same as it did 4 years ago.

A Friendly Crowd for McCain

In general, its true: this was John McCain's audience before he even walked into the room. Most in this group already support his candidacy by virtue of the fact he is a Republican; however, there are many evangelicals who have cast doubt McCain, Dr. James Doson being one of them.

John McCain did what he thought he must: provide the prerequisite answers to issues of social conservatism that he has been wishy-washy about in the past.

McCain treated it like an easy pop-quiz, but is it really that simple?

John McCain has often tried to cast himself as a moderate - and I don't doubt he'll continue to do that as the election draws near - but at this forum, John McCain chose to cast himself emphatically as a social conservative. How long will it take for the press to remember that in 2001, he thought about switching to the Democratic Party, and in 2004 even considered running with John Kerry as VP?

Fluffing his conservative credentials isn't the only problem for John McCain.

John McCain is not the 100% social conservative he is trying to make himself out to be. His quasi-liberal tendencies is one reason that the Republican base is still not enthusiastic about him as a candidate. But McCain needs this base demographic, so its not surprising that he did his best to pander to the crowd as much as possible, going so far as to say he would support a constitutional amendment to keep same sex couples from wedding.

Sound like the "Maverick" "Bi-Partisan" or "Moderate" John McCain that people like Joe Lieberman like to praise? Hardly.

And that leads to the other problem John McCain created for himself by embracing his answers too enthusiastically: all those moderate voters and swing voters who could go either way hear "I will be just like Bush on your Social Conservative issues." In other words, this socially conservative audience is the only one that matters to McCain... the rest of the country can take a hike?

The problems don't end there for McCain


The GOP base has veered off course since Bush's second term, and is disenchanted after republican cronies like Ralph Reed and Jack Ambramhoff were caught scamming them. At the same time, global climate change was fast becoming an important issue for the younger evangelicals. The result for the the GOP: evangelical voters either dropped out of the political process all together or - worse - they converted to the Democrat side.

So when John McCain walked into that room of evangelical values voters thinking "I've got this in the bag, the script is practically written for me," is ignoring the fact this crowd is not the same as 4 years ago: they are no longer as loyal to the GOP and a great many of them are even backing a Democrat.

Who listened closely to Jeff Warren's introduction?

Pastor Rick affirmed a shift in political evangelicalism by saying "We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics." He continued,
"We've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility in our civil discourse and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum."
And here is where we get to one of McCain's biggest problems: he didn't listen to Rick Warren's introduction. People are tired of "my way or the highway" one sided politics. Don't be mistaken by the enthusiasm of the audience, Obama's inroads into this demographic is a good reason for the GOP to worry.

If the objective of the forum was to restore a sense of civility to politics, and a sense of collaboration and compromise toward solving our biggest problems together, then Barack Obama succeeded in doing just that: he showed the audience that he will bring them to the table and include them in the debate.

And judging by the cheers Barack got from the crowd, a great many liked his message. In an election cycle where even top republicans won't be attending their party convention , it behooves McCain not to be overly confident about getting the party base support the same way Bush did.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Mr. Rove's dirty little fingerprints

Where is Rove? Is he secretly pulling the strings behind McCain's campaign?

Close observers of John McCain's behavior might have noticed some changes in his demeanor recently: his outpouring of humor and his self-deprecating so what if I like Abba, I don't like all that popular music like Mr. Celebrity over there, manner.

Recall what Mr. Rove is good at: personality molding. Remember that he took a wealthy, Connecticut-born son of a former president and turned him into a "texas cowboy." Recall the debates in which we all thought John Kerry kicked George Bush's butt, and recall how georgie boy just shrugged and smirked his way thought the entire thing: almost belittling the process. The funny alpha male.

And now John McCain answers questions about the Iraq surplus, by changing the subject to his bad taste in music. Sound familiar?

They say Rove is "out the the country," - hiding from his subpoena? Why isn't that front-page news, BTW?

We know that Karl Rove admits he works "informally" for the McCain campaign. We are beginning to see the telltale signs of his hand at work: questioning Barack's patriotism, blind accusations about how "far left" liberals are out to destroy your way of life.

Yep, it seems like Karl Rove is back behind the scenes, coaching McCain on his demeanor, giving him some jokes... and telling him to indulge the vicious whisper campaigns by people like Jerome Corsi, and his new book, which CNN says "included several documented falshoods":
Asked by the Associated Press earlier Friday what he though of author Jerome Corsi's new book, "The Obama Nation," McCain said, "gotta keep your sense of humor."
Later on, McCain's campaign claimed the old man "didn't hear" the question, which makes me think "Then why did he answer, and what did he think he was talking about?"

Now, the McCain campaign says they have "no comment" on the book.
The symmetry to the Bush campaign is all too familiar, but I will give all that I am able to help Democrats open up a can of whoop-ass on Karle Rove, the RNC and John McCain.

Where oh where, are you Karl - come out, come out, wherever you are!

:D

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Firefighters Back Obama, Criticize McCain

In case you missed it this morning, the Firefighters Union endorsement of Barack Obama for president is great news, and a significant challenge to John McCain.

CNN reports today that the Union endorsed Obama because of his support of collective bargaining:
The union chose to back Obama over John McCain because of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s support of collective bargaining, which gives workers the right to jointly work with their employers to negotiate hours, salaries, benefits and overall working conditions, IAFF spokesman Scott Treibitz said.
In the coming days, I believe it won't only be firefighters who come out endorsing Obama, but other first responders as well. Our nation's first responders like EMT's, Firemen, and Police Officers are our nation's most significant protection: In an emergency they arrive first to help, and as we saw in 9/11 they sacrifice life and limb to do so. And yet, with all their fear-mongering about Sept 11th what who really stands up for our first responders?
"On every issue important to fire fighters Senator Obama is and has been in our corner," [IAFF president] Schaitberger said. "We can't overlook Senator McCain's service to our country, but we also can't overlook his poor record on issues critical to the financial security of our 290,000 members."
It is unconscionable the way the Republican Party has treated our first responders, standing in the way of bargaining rights, better health benefits, and other basic necessities. While GOP candidate John McCain likes to talk tough about war and sacrifice, his actions and those of his party have shown us they are hollow words, unsupported by reality.

Friday, August 8, 2008

A New Tea Party

"No Taxation Without Representation!" patriots yelled, as they dumped valuable imported tea into the harbor to protest paying taxes to an elitist government that ceased to represent them.

In my mind, the idea of a New Tea Party has resonance today: we are once again at a point in our history where the divide between rich and poor has grown, and our government no longer represents us.

Our taxes are supposed to earn us a seat at the table. Our taxes are also the lifeblood of our economy, in that they sustain the infrastructure we use to make money. Our roads, our schools, our military, our colleges, our communities themselves are the means we use to earn wealth and achieve the American Dream.

The justification for Fair Taxes for rich and poor alike is simple: the more you use the resources of our country to earn your wealth, the more you pay to use those resources: things like roads, staff, buildings, ports, etc...

Republican talking heads say Fair Taxes somehow hurt our economy and run against free markets, but isn't it a simple law of economics that you can't get something for nothing? Would you buy a membership to a country club, and not expect to have some of it go toward maintaining the pool you use?

At this period in time, The American Dream is an impossibility for most of us. A small cabal of the wealthiest people in this country have effectively purchased our government right out from under us. The economic foundation of our unique American Promise is eroding. We are rapidly becoming colonists in a land we no longer own, and under a government that no longer represents us.

So when someone tells you Democrats are going to raise your taxes, you can always tell them this: It's time for the rest to pay their Fair Share.

If they don't, we have a proud tradition in this country of throwing off tyranny. We've done it before and we'll do it again. This time, it will be a Tea Party for the new Millennium, as we re-evaluate our citizen status and our role in a global community: not as colonists, but as full participants.

Best,
D. Tree