Debating Ed Rollins Advice to McCain

Mike Huckabee's former campaign chairman Ed Rollins published this piece giving advice to John McCain on CNN today (Commentary: Time for John McCain to turn up the heat).

Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins.  He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).

Though I'm not complaining...  ;-)

BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.

#1, the 90's argument:

Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.

Claiming the Democratic Congress & President in the 90's was a disaster needs backing up: most people remember the '90s as a period of American success!  Also, remember, Republicans took over Congress in the mid-'90's,

#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:

According to the latest Gallup polling, 87 percent of the country thinks the economic picture is getting worse -- another record. The Republican brand is as damaged as at any time since the Watergate scandal 35 years ago. The country is facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago.

Rollins continues to argue,

What [Obama's] campaign has done is create a "brand" that represents change. But voters don't know what that means.

Rollins criticizes the Change theme of the Democrats as merely a "brand," but at the same time laments the GOP's damaged "brand."   The two arguments cancel each other out. 

Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."

#3, the "We don't know him" argument:

...we have seen thousands of pictures and heard hundreds of speeches and watched in amazement as his team has put together a brilliant campaign that beat back the Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. But we still don't know him.

Really?  Isn't it a bit late to make that argument?

After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is?  He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now.  If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....

.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.  

And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election.  The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are.  One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8.  Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind?  And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.

If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:

From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.

I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.

Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain

Best,
D. Tree

McCain Needs a Permission Slip to Protect America?

Do I have this right?  On the question of striking Bin Laden across national borders, McCain says he wants to call a meeting before taking action?

Sure, its been 3 days since the first Presidential Debate of the General Election, and much hay has been made about the candidate's different responses to this question, but I have yet to see anyone compare their answers to a similar question posed to Bush & Kerry back in 2004.

You might remember a different variation of the same question came up, and how Bush and Cheney ripped John Kerry on his answer of passing a "global test" for your military actions. 

Bush said Kerry will allow foreign powers to veto military action:

Kerry "said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine," Bush said at a convention of home builders here. "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. . . . Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."

Dick Cheney repeated the charges continuously, making it one of his favorite lines:

Vice President Cheney has long accused Kerry of proposing to seek a "permission slip" from foreign countries before taking military action

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears we find ourselves in an interesting situation here: the Republican candidate is saying he would consult with Pakistan before launching a strike against Bin Laden or his top lieutenants?

Indeed, we find ourselves in strange times if it is the Democrat who is asserting that we have a right to strike Bin Laden across national borders, and it is the Republican who is seeking a "permission slip."

My question is, when will the rest of the media - and even the Obama campaign - pick up on this ironic twist of events?

Suggestion to Dems: Drop the Palin "Experience" Angle

My dear fellow Dems (and Obama strategists if you are listening).

I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.

A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!

Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.

Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.

I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.

In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!

The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.

So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.

Are you following me so far?

Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.

It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.

On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.

In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.

- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.

- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.

- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.

...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:

- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?

Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.

This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.

We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.

Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.

The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.

So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:

We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.

Ask McCain about Social Security... NOW!

The time is now: as Wall Street implodes, thanks in part to the deregulation and lack of oversight of our Republican administration, John McCain is desperately moving to the left in an effort to show he can handle our volatile economy.

McCain said in an interview that he didn't want the government to bail
out AIG. "But there are literally millions of people whose retirement,
whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," he said in an
interview with "Good Morning America" on ABC. "They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption."

Now all of a sudden, John McCain favors regulation. (Much - I'm sure - to the chagrin of free-market fundamentalists in the Republican party).

Now all of a sudden, John McCain is worried about average Americans affected by this lack of oversight and deregulation.

Yes, it boggles the mind. He was never worried about it before he had an election to lose! And as he tried to tack to the right during the Republican primaries, he often boasted about how against regulation he is.

Well, not John McCain is singing a different tune and its our opportunity to press the advantage: I'm calling on the Obama team (if you are out there and listening), to immediately question John McCain's commitment to protecting social security.

The GOP has been trying to privatize Social Security for years, despite widespread opposition. Will John McCain join the rest of the American people opposed to gambling our future on Wall Street?

We see what is happening now on Wall Street. The American people need to know this is a preview of what could happen with Social Security: one misstep, and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings.

Social Security was set up as a trust fund. It is not supposed to be touched. It is not supposed to be gambled, and we are experiencing the reason for that right now: Wall Street is collapsing, and we cannot afford to risk retirement savings byt throwing them into the very same volatile environment.

John McCain is caught between a rock and a hard place. Will he continue to deliver his prepared talking points? Will he continue to tell the American people all we need to do is continue the Bush/Cheney tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

There is only one way to find out, and that is to press the advantage and force him into making statements on Social Security. Let him tell us where he stands now, as the financial markets crumble - and then let's call him out on it when he is forced to share the liberal position of "hands off social security."

Barbara Walters Grills McSame on "Reform"

This is great.

This morning on The View, host Barbara Walters grilled John "the Same" McCain about his claim to reform Washington, and his choice of far-right Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin as VP.

She also pressed him about his increasingly negative campaign ads.

After a predictably jokey reply (McCain's normal way of getting out of trouble, BTW), Walters wouldn't take his joke as an answer:

Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "who's she going to reform, you?"

McCain began to answer by saying Democrats have held control of Congress for two years, before Walters quickly interrupted: “But tell me who she is going to reform — we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing, she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"

"The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent," McCain said, appearing somewhat frustrated, "She'll reform all of Washington."

"How? What will she do," Walters appearing somewhat exasperated said. "What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"

Indeed, Senator McCain who is Palin going to reform? You are talking about the Republican Party, right? That's the only thing I see that urgently needs to be reformed!

And that line about Dems being in control of Congress for the last 2 years is total bull. We need to do away with that tripe: Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. Dems don't even control congress, since we only have a majority of 1 and that person is Joe Lieberman (a Democrat in Name Only)

This appearance on The View was a preview of the debates to come. The GOP is oh-so-good at distracting and dividing America, but when it comes to policy guess what? That's right, they are just MORE OF THE SAME.

Why all the Tough Talk on Russia? Easy.

Ever wonder why John "The Same" McCain, Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin, and the rest of the far-right politicos on their team keep talking so tough about Russia?

For me, there are two rather simple answers. Why haven't we seen anyone talking about this?

#1. Iraq is old news, the GOP knows that over 70% of America wants out. Therefore they cannot use the fear of Iraq to win this election, so they need a new bogeyman and Russia's problems with Georgia present the perfect opportunity!

Once again, the GOP is playing politics with world events in the hope of scaring people into voting for them.

#2. A conflict with Russia would not only distract us from Iraq, it would also serve the purpose of making use forget about it. Make no mistake, John McCain and George Bush want a PERMANENT OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That talk about 50 years? John McCain means it! So let's not allow the media to buy into this farce that he will change course in Iraq. John McCain will continue the Bush policy in Iraq, because he wants us to STAY PERMANENTLY.

This is the message we need to repeat: We need to focus on John McCain, not so much on the mass distraction of Sarah Palin - she is only on the ticket in an attempt to divide our country and to buy John McCain time.

John McCain knows he can't win on the issues, so his Rovian campaign managers want to distract you and divide you until election day. We cannot allow this to happen!

Its time to focus on the issues, because if we do the Republican Party is doomed: the American People know very well that the GOP has failed to secure our country both militarily and economically. We just need to remind them about it every chance we get.

And we also need to call John McCain out on this Iraq policy: HOW is it different from president Bush? John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq permanently. He wants to stoke fears about Russia so we will forget about Iraq!

My Ritual on 9-11

As I walk through the streets of New york today, an air of melancholy hangs overhead like gray clouds, diminishing the sunlight and dimming one's vision.

Here, at the epicenter of the attacks the mood is somber. Faces are drawn. No one is smiling.

No doubt, people are in mourning - not just in New York - but throughout the country; for - as George Lakoff so eloquently put it in his groundbreaking work Don't Think of An Elephant - when those planes hit the Towers, it was experienced collectively as a bullet going through our heads.

We are in mourning. But politics still permeate this day.

Hand written signs at my local bagel shop proclaim the now common adage: "We will never forget."

I wonder at this phrase sometimes: we will never forget what? Those who were killed? Or those who committed this crime?

7 years later, it seems painfully clear someone in our government has forgotten both.

What they remember instead is their self-appointed heroism. Their self-aggrandizing and self-proclaimed status as our "Fiercest protectors."

Yes, while we mourn Sept 11, there are those who have reason to celebrate it: Rudy Giuliani, for example who was perhaps days from losing his job as mayor due to an adultery & corruption scandal. 9-11 saved his career, and allowed him to reinvent himself in a new image. And all his flaws faded away into the distant memory of what life used to be like before 9-11.

Yes, while we collectively mourn, some in the halls of government privately give thanks. For example, those in the Bush administration who allowed the attacks to happen on their watch despite the warnings. They are thankful for being allowed to keep their jobs despite their failures to protect us.

Bush himself must be grateful he kept his job, despite the fact he was so involved in his own vacation that he turned away federal agents who came to him with the dire warning "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US." He must be grateful the American People have not decided to hold him accountable for his delinquency.

How did those responsible for allowing this to happen, escape responsibility for their failure to protect us?

It could only happen one way: point the finger the other way, capitalize on people's fears, and distract, distract, distract. Act aggressively. Be macho. Obscure your own faults with bold pronouncements of "Wanted, dead or alive."

Today I ride the subway to my office like any other day.

I could be afraid to leave the house on a day like this. I make my own hours, so I could stay home. I ask myself why not? And the answer always comes back: because I refuse to let Fear win.

And yet, as Rudy Giuliani stood on stage at the GOP convention, in front of an image of the NY skyline - minus the Twin Towers - I can't help but think how easily the party in power has given in to that Fear. They wave a big stick and talk aggressively about how they are the only ones you can trust to keep us safe, but they failed once already and they have let Fear win the day....

... but then I realize something else: they have not given in to Fear, they have embraced it as a political weapon.

If there ever was a time as dangerous as the day of the attack itself, it is on the anniversary day itself, when fear clouds our vision, when depression casts out hope, and when anger overshadows our dreams of a better future.

It is in this psychically dangerous moment that we are the most vulnerable, that we risk losing our common vision, and instead retreat into the confines of depression and fear.

Fear is Retreat. "We will never forget"

Let me share with you my ritual, my means of "never forgetting." Every year at this time, I choose to remember Sept 12th. I go to this link and look at the pictures of people around the world standing with us; mourning with us; and being willing to fight with us.

As the GOP hammered over and over again "Never Forget," THIS is what they forgot: our moral imperatives and our our shared responsibility.

Instead of leading us through the wilderness of despair and depression, they retreated into the darkness of Fear.

Some reading this will undoubtedly say "How can you be so political on a day like today?" I would ask in return "How can you hide from it?"

We cannot allow fear to stifle our American spirit. For the last 7 years we have allowed a single political party to beat us into submission with the fear and sadness of the 9-11 attacks.

We have allowed these politicians to wrap themselves in the flag, and to divide and scare us into voting for them.

These same people allowed the attacks to happen.

Remember: Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." Therefore the Republican manipulation of 9-11 is actually a recognition of the basic truth that terrorism is at its root a political tool.

Thus the pattern of politicizing 9-11 in order to profit from it in elections, is one example where the GOP does understand terrorism somewhat better than anyone else; however, it also reveals a weakness in that by definition terrorism can only be defeated politically, not militarily.

You do not fight politics with conventional weapons, you fight it with ideas. That is why liberals, while not the best at manipulating terror for political ends, are nevertheless better suited to fight terrorism: because we understand that not every conflict can be solved with military force. We must use diplomacy, persuasion, and - yes - market economics.

In order to defeat the threat of terrorism, we must win hearts and minds, not stop them from beating and thinking.

Picture this: you are under attack from an unseen enemy. To swing blindly at everything around you - as if aggression alone can defeat your enemy - shows weakness.

It is an act of fear.

To fear is to surrender.

To surrender is to retreat.

Thus, invading Iraq was an act of retreat; and fighting them "over there" so we don't have to face them "over here" is an act of fear.

This is how we must redefine the debate.

Peace,
D. Tree