McCain – Page 5 – Hank Kalet

Speeches telegraph GOP strategy

Some additional thoughts on last night’s RNC speeches:
They plan to play the elitism card to what can only be described as its illogical conclusion. First, there was Mike Huckabee with his cracks about “the elite media” and “Barack Obama’s excellent adventure to Europe,” which he said

took his campaign for change to hundreds of thousands of people who don’t even vote or pay taxes here. But let me hasten to say that it’s not what he took there that concerns me. It’s what he brought back: European ideas that give the government the chance to grab even more of our liberty and destroy our hard-earned livelihood.

European ideas? What is he talking about?

Mitt Romney followed with his own attack on a Washington that he said was beholden to the liberal elite.

You know, for decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east. You see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the — from the coast. Yes.

His big target, however, were the liberals running the federal government. You know, the liberal president who has run the executive branch for the last eight years and the liberal Supreme Court that has been chipping away at civil rights protections.

OK. Maybe there is now a liberal Congress, but it has been in charge for just under two years and with the barest of majorities — not enough to override vetoes leaving that liberal George Bush with the ability to stymie its ability to do much of anything. From 1995 to 2207, however, liberals like Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were in charge, so I can see where Romney might want to take them on.

(This whole anti-Washington thing — which both sides have made into general themes of their campaign — is getting tiresome. It is not Washington that is the problem, but a culture of corruption that has come to define Washington. The corruption — both legal and illegal — needs to be rooted out, so that government — Washington — can operate more effectively. Targeting a more generic Washington plays into the drown-the-puppy crowd (you know, Grover Norquist’s famous line about shrinking government until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub) and makes it that much more difficult for reformers who think that government has a real role to play in the lives of Americans to effect the kind of change that is needed. But I digress.)

Rudy Giuliani took the anti-elite theme a step farther, attacking Obama’s work as a community organizer (a job that put him in contact with people in poor neighborhoods, helping them to improve their lives):

The American people realize this election represents a turning point. It’s the decision to follow one path or the other. We, the people, the citizens of the United States, get to decide our next president, not the left-wing media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else but the people of America.

Obama, he says, is a “celebrity senator” who denigrates small towns:

I’m sorry — I’m sorry that Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn’t cosmopolitan enough. I’m sorry, Barack, that it’s not flashy enough. Maybe they cling to religion there.

Of course, I don’t remember him ever saying that. but Giuliani has never been one to concern himself with the truth.

Palin closed things out with a rather harsh attack speech — unusual given that it was the first impression most people will have of her. That said, she hit on many of the same anti-elite themes raised by Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani (does anyone else find it humorous that the former mayor of New York City and a former Massachusetts governor — and scion of a famous political family — are decrying Eastern elites?), tagging the press for writing off McCain (a well-deserved rebuke, by the way), but then ratcheting up the criticism. Consider these excerpts:

On Obama as community organizer:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

On small towns and “bitterness”:

I might add that, in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they’re listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

No, we tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

She bemoaned the “permanent political establishment,” adding that she has

learned quickly these last few days that, if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

And Obama, of course, because of his eloquence, is just another part of the establishment. One thing Palin is good at, based on the speech, is damning with faint praise and then turning the praise into derision:

And now, I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory,” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot, when that happens, what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

What exactly do these speakers offer, however, except for more of the same? More tax cuts to bankrupt the federal budget, more war and bellicosity and more faux concern for the economic plight of working Americans.

That said, the contours of the campaign are set: Run against the media and the so-called elites, paint Obama as an elitist, and call for more oil drilling.

Yglesias: The same man

I was thinking this, so I am glad that Matt Yglesias blogged it:

Sarah Palin: “Wherever he goes and whoever is listening John McCain is always the same man.”

Do we really need to recite the issues on which John McCain has flip-flopped? Estate tax. Top bracket income tax cuts. Torture. Immigration. Climate change. Add more in comments if you like.

How about his POW experience, which he says he never brings up but which has been the sum and subtstance of his campaign?

McCain raises questions about his qualifications

Some interesting thoughts on Sarah Palin and John McCain from the newspapers, as she gets ready to give her vice-presidential acceptance speech.

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

The more we learn about Sarah Palin, the Alaskan governor John McCain has tapped as his running mate, the more we wonder about the presumptive GOP nominee’s judgment.

The revelations of the past few days suggest that McCain’s campaign did not sufficiently scrutinize her background before making the surprising pick. Otherwise, it’s hard to imagine that the campaign would allow her to trumpet her opposition to the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” public-works boondoggle as evidence of her reformer credentials – when she supported the project when she was running for governor.

After just the first few days of vetting from the press, here’s what we’ve learned about the 44-year-old Palin: That while it is hard to find solid statements from her on foreign policy, economics or national security, it is easy to find her yet-to-be-explained connection with the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party. She obtained her first passport just last year. She claims to be an energy expert, but she started her campaign by denying the existence of human-caused global warming. Her views on abortion, sex education and gay rights are to the right of the mainstream – which has, apparently, had its intended effect of exciting social conservatives who were heretofore ambivalent about McCain.

Palin is under investigation for ethics violations in connection with allegations that she may tried to get her former brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper.

Was McCain so keen to reclaim his “maverick” image that he decided it would be worth the risk of bringing on an unknown who he had only met once? And in a race where McCain’s age has been an issue – he once said he would be sure to pick a vice president who would be ready to lead from the moment he steps into office – does he really expect Americans to be comforted by Palin’s readiness?

Does he even care? Eugene Robinson, in The Washington Post, offers an answer:

We learned last week that John McCain is not who he is — not, at least, who he claims to be. The steady, straight-talking, country-first statesman his campaign has been selling is a fictional character. The real McCain is either alarmingly cynical or dangerously reckless.

You will recall that McCain gave the same prime criterion for choosing a running mate that every presidential candidate gives: someone who is ready to step in as president if, heaven forbid, the need arises. Barack Obama echoed those words before picking Joe Biden, who is about as prepared as a vice presidential candidate could ever be.

You will also recall that McCain and his supporters have been lecturing us about the grave and urgent dangers our country faces — Islamic fundamentalism, the resurgence of Russia and other geopolitical threats. In a menacing world, McCain says, he will keep America safe.

So, at 72 and with a history of cancer, how could McCain choose a vice presidential nominee who has, let’s face it, zero experience in foreign affairs? Being the nominal commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard doesn’t count, unless you think Vladimir Putin is about to order an invasion across the Bering Strait.

At a time when the nation also confronts enormous challenges at home, Palin has, um, slightly more than zero experience in domestic affairs. The reason most people move to Alaska is that it’s different from the rest of the country. Salmon fishing and snowmobile racing are not front-page news in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida.

McCain’s political calculation in choosing Palin is obvious. Social conservatives, who had been unexcited by his candidacy, are ecstatic that he has picked a running mate who staunchly opposes abortion, favors the teaching of “intelligent design” in the public schools and generally embraces the agenda of the religious right.

I have my doubts about the other objective of McCain’s gambit: to win the votes of blue-collar women who supported Hillary Clinton. For one thing, these voters disagree sharply with Palin on most of the issues. For another, initial indications are that many women were insulted at the notion that they would automatically swoon over any candidate who happened to have two “X” chromosomes. Republicans tend to have a comically simplistic view of how “identity politics” works. They should recall how African Americans reacted when Clarence Thomas was named to the Supreme Court.

Whatever the political impact, so much for the John McCain we thought we knew. In choosing Palin, he cynically did the kind of thing that his party is always accusing Democrats of doing: He selected a running mate based on her potential ability to appeal to targeted segments of the electorate rather than for her honestly assessed ability to lead the nation should the occasion arise.

The other thing we learned about McCain is that he is willing to take an enormous gamble based on limited information. He only met Palin once before summoning her for a final interview. He realized he needed to shake up the presidential race, and that’s what he did. But we are reminded, if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation’s interests above his own.

From E.J. Dionne Jr., in The Washington Post:

Conservatives have complained that we barely know Obama. This is nonsense.
Obama has been put through the journalistic wringer since he entered the public
spotlight four years ago. We have been given fewer than 70 days to get to know
Palin.

The New York Times offers this:

Mr. McCain’s supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who — we can believe — will change Washington. (Mr. Obama’s call for change — now “the change we need” — has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain’s snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted — Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

And, the paper added,

For Mr. McCain to go on claiming that Mr. Obama has too little experience to be president after almost four years in the United States Senate is laughable now that he has announced that someone with no national or foreign policy experience is qualified to replace him, if necessary.

But it is this closing statement that really sums it up:

To address those many problems, this country needs a leader with sound judgment and strong leadership skills. Choosing Ms. Palin raises serious questions about Mr. McCain’s qualifications.

GOP says nothing to apologize for

If you listen closely to the speeches being offered at the Republican National Convention, it becomes clear that the GOP plans to continue with the Bush administration’s go-it-alone approach on foreign affairs. The line of attack is simple: Barack Obama cares too much about international opinion; John McCain will defend American interests without worrying whether the international community approves.

Here is President George Bush:

My fellow citizens, we live in a dangerous world. And we need a president who understands the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen and not wait to be hit again. The man we need is John McCain.

The president, essentially, is endorsing a shoot-first approach, one that militarizes intelligence gathering and paints a picture of a world in which American military power will be the only solution to international crises.

Then again, this should be no surprise, given that Bush is only endorsing an approach he has used for the last seven-plus years — with disastrous consequences.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson followed the president, taking Bush’s argument and adding a pinch of American exceptionalism to the stew:

The respect he is given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship.

The “teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad,” as if being concerned that our actions have consequences and create reactions around the globe is a bad thing. I mean, that’s what we teach out children, right? That they need to be conscious of others?

But then

America needs a president who understands the nature of the world we live in. A president who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

No apologies. That is the McCain foreign policy in a nutshell.

The Palin question

John McCain is targeting disaffected Clinton supporters. That was obvious before today’s announcement that he was choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running-mate.

The reviews of the pick have been mixed. Conservatives — who agree with her views on abortion — like her, as do the inside-the-Beltway media types, who view everything through a narrow political lens and, more to the point, are giving McCain points for surprising them.

Matt Yglesias notes this phenomenon here, focusing primarily on conservative response, but even Dahlia Lithwick at Slate buys into the political narrative:

Absolutely agree that this was an inspired, brave and buzz-y choice for veep. Everything the Joe Biden pick was not. I think Team McCain has gamed this age we live in better than the Obama camp, for which they deserve serious credit. Now this is gonna be an election. And here I was getting ready to retire my girl-cleats for the rest of the fall. I couldn’t be more excited.

Buzzy and edgy? Is that the best we can say about her?

I think Steve Brenen at Washington Monthly has a more logical response, calling it the “strangest running-mate decision since Dan Quayle.”

Sarah Palin spent a year working as a commissioner for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and has been governor for a year and a half. Now, she’ll be the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate, and if things go well for McCain, one heartbeat from the presidency. When it comes to being untested and unknown, Palin is in a league of her own.

Just yesterday, advisers to the McCain campaign conceded to the New York Times that McCain “thinks highly” of Palin, but “her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama — that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.” So much for the McCain campaign’s message.

Stepping back, we have the man who would be the oldest president in American history, who happens to have a record of health problems, picking a virtual unknown who’s been a governor for less than two years. Amazing.

There are dangers in making this argument, as Nomi Prins on Alternet — a lefty blog/online magazine — points out. She calls the pick a shrewd one that raises the stakes, because it keeps female Clinton supporters angry over the primary results in play and because the Democrats will have to dance a bit in their criticism of her.

They can’t attack Palin’s experience level since she has more technical executive experience as the number two woman (yes woman) on the GOP ticket, than Obama does. And if they complain too loudly about her being selected just because she’s a woman, they will alienate millions of female voters in swing states who are still annoyed about Hillary’s smacking her head on the glass ceiling after cracking it 18 million times.

Palin, after paying homage to Hillary’s feat, deftly said now they can crack that ceiling once and for all. The ticket puts a whole new gender spin on the election. To millions of Americans, particularly women, who don’t spend every minute of their days watching and analyzing political news — because they are working for a hard-to-achieve living — the GOP just stole their own piece of history, rendering Obama’s safe pick of Biden, not so safe after all.

Obama took a risk in not choosing a woman who captured 18 million votes as his VP, and not explaining why. McCain seized upon that omission by choosing the relatively unknown Palin as a result. Obama must now walk a fine line. He can criticize what Palin has done or believes. But he must recognize her for the historic choice (to take a page out of the GOP’s playbook) that she is (and that he avoided). That could be the only way to capture the millions of female voters across the country, many of which voted for Hillary and haven’t yet decided on Obama.

I think she sums up McCain’s thinking here, though I have to wonder if he undercut his chief argument against Obama, removing the experience issue from the table.

Another thing to keep in mind: Unlike the other three candidates, she has not been vetted publicly, so we have no idea how she will respond under the harsh glare of a presidential campaign. She could turn out to be a strong runningmate or she could turn out to be Dan Quayle (Quayle likely would have torpedoed the candidacy of the first George Bush, had the Democrats not run Michael Dukakis at the top of their ticket).

In the end, I think Hillary Clinton summed it up best earlier this week, reminding her supporters of what her candidacy was about and asking them whether they shared her goals:

I ran for president to renew the promise of America. To rebuild the middle class and sustain the American dream, to provide the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford the gas and groceries and still have a little left over each month.

To promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green-collar jobs.

To create a health care system that is universal, high quality, and affordable so that parents no longer have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance.

To create a world-class education system and make college affordable again.

To fight for an America defined by deep and meaningful equality — from civil rights to labor rights, from women’s rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families. To help every child live up to his or her God-given potential.

To make America once again a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

To bring fiscal sanity back to Washington and make our government an instrument of the public good, not of private plunder.

To restore America’s standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and honor their service by caring for our veterans.And to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.

Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years.

Those are the reasons I ran for president. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should, too.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

I would add this question: What is more important? Putting a woman in the vice-president’s office, or achieving equal pay, protecting a woman’s right to choose and ending the war? Are disaffected Clinton supporters — especially the women — prepared to vote for a ticket featuring two pro-life candidates — especially with at least one of the liberal, pro-choice Supreme Court justices likely to retire in the near future?

Palin may offer an opportunity to break through the glass ceiling, but a McCain/Palin administration is not likely to be any friendlier to women than the Bush/Cheney team has been.

That’s ultimately what should matter to Clinton supporters.