The confirmed emergence of two party front-runners last night and their resulting verbal sparring from afar provide a good time to mention one challenge John McCain will have to juggle.
Peter Wehner summarized it well yesterday. McCain has to run as a truth-telling Republican, emphasizing issues where he aligns with the bulk of the GOP. He cannot run as the eye-poking maverick the media loves. 1992 and 1996 are stark proof of what happens when you don't have a firm party base to build upon in your attraction of independent voters.
As Wehner mentions, however, this will inevitably sour some in the media on McCain. Locally, we can already see this unfolding. David Horsey is openly concerned McCain will no longer be the anti-Republican running on the GOP ticket. Joel Connelly now laments the favorable treatment McCain has been receiving from the 4th Estate. Of course, Connelly didn't always have such compunctions and no small number of conservatives lament that such conclusions are more than a little tardy.
Either way, one can already see the storm clouds brewing for the media to begin having problems with McCain. A) That will be a challenge for McCain, who is accustomed to running with the media as an ally, not an adversary. B) There are already some campaign themes coming that will exacerbate discomfort from journalists who once heaped praise on "the Maverick."
Lest Obama supporters jump to errant conclusions of glee over that news, remember he is about to face his own overdue period of scrutiny that may leave him looking starkly less appealing to non-liberals in America. That can make a once promising nominee look much different to a good portion of the American electorate in a hurry (see Dukakis, Michael).
Posted by Eric Earling at February 20, 2008 07:53 AM | Email ThisThis poll shows Bush approval ratings at NINETEEN PERCENT! Not even you lot can believe we won't tie McCain to Bush. He's toast, and so are you.
Posted by: ivan on February 20, 2008 07:59 AMThe problem you people have, ivan, is you're gonna run and empty suit with a black panther wife who, even as a Harvard and Princeton grad, seems unable to have any pride in her country.
Good luck with that, dooder. You're gonna need it.
Posted by: Hinton on February 20, 2008 08:12 AMHis biggest mistake was thinking they would support him as he ran for the PREZ.
Dumb John, really dumb.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 20, 2008 08:19 AMWhy doesn't Michelle released her thesis from college, ivan? I think she is more socialistic than even you or HRC. And that is hard to do.
And, if we are looking at the prize, McCain has distanced himself from Bush on a lot of things, so the leftist mantra of "Do you want a third term for Bush? If not, vote for Obama." sound a lot less relevant.
Posted by: swatter on February 20, 2008 08:33 AMNow, in her 1985 thesis at Princeton, she wrote this:
In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," Michelle LaVaughn Robinson lamented that white professors and classmates always saw her as "Black first and a student second."
She had surveyed alumni to see whether they sacrificed their commitment to other blacks on the altar of success, and foresaw for herself an uneasy future: "further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."...
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/19/michelle-obamas-thesis-embargoed-until-after-the-election/
So, you need to post your Black Panther cite. You haven't been beer drinking with Eric, have you?
Let's face it. We have someone who is left, or someone who is a leftest!
No-win.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 20, 2008 08:40 AMWell her statement on not being proud of American until just now, didn't help her.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 20, 2008 09:12 AMI agree with you. But, she is where many dems are on the issue. Both of us have had European experience, many liberal Americans echo the same sentiments. Why do you think Gore won the Nobel or Bubba gets really big $$$ on the lecture tour in Europe. He tells them what they want to hear and what they believe is true.
Now, your party can, in my opinion, legitimately discuss the differences between more conservative ideology and more "progressive" ideology because whether the conservatives here want to acknowledge it or not or whether they call Mc Cain a RINO or liberal, there are clear differences on party lines and race has nothing to do with it. From the perspective of an independent, the Obamasnaccurately represent the majority of those in the dem party. Just ask Zell Miller. Like it or not, Mc Cain represents the majority of electable republicans in urban areas and urban counties. I have been reading the public blog and from what I can gather there, the Reagan Wing group will only be electing where to hold the next house party. My reading of President Reagan is that although he was conservative, he was also pragmatic and had a great deal of common sense which is why he could outsmart congress. The current republican party in this state could use a few more of those traits.
At this point in history, you run a racebased campaign and you will lose.
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 09:32 AMI had a close black friend over for a visit and we were talking politics. I believe he is an R. Sometimes the friend surprises me and I am unprepared for his comments. He brought up the excitement of a black and a woman running for office and what I thought of it. Of course, my first thought was "ugh, they are Democrats and I immediately tossed out better examples from the R side." In hindsight, I should have drawn him out a little more on the race issue.
But, it means so little to me, and I am now only realizing that racism still exists in our State in very subtle ways. I am not so proud anymore that our State is colorblind.
WVH, you are a credit to the human race.
Posted by: swatter on February 20, 2008 09:36 AMWhat happen, the laxative didn't work.
Now you said:
"Gee, WVH, you sure are a perceptive person. I never saw the hidden racism against blacks at SP until you pointed some things out. Thanks."
Point out the specific comment or comments you object to so that I can specifically respond to your objections.
Please list my remarks you object to.
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 09:40 AMPeople talk about the Conservative voice in the Republicans, but take a look at the Liberals in the Democratic Party -- they're practically non-existant, or else they are being berry berry quiet, hoping to emerge from the necktie wearing Trojan Horse once elected.
Look at what they were saying about Obama. He wasn't black enough?? What the heck is that.
PS If you've been to Europe like me. Race is a BIG problem there.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 20, 2008 10:04 AMRugged Individualism has been supplanted with Learned helplessness within the American psyche- Everyone's looking for Mommy(Government) to hold their hand through this journey called life. Our forefather's are rolling over in their graves.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2008 10:09 AMMy apologies Swatter, I thought you were just a very young smart alerky poster who was being sarcastic. You mentioned that you should have drawn out the conversation with your friend, please do. A couple of years ago the Church Council in Seattle sponsored a series on conversations on race where people of all backgrounds meet for dinner. It was very effective in opening lines of communication.
Army Medic/Vet
I believe I stated in another post the problems that Europe is and will have regarding race.
For people of all parties, ethnic groups, and beliefs. No matter which candidate you support, this is a remarkable election in the history of the world for a couple of reasons:
In the 1800s this country had Plessy v. Ferguson which enshrined separate but equal. In the 50s we overturned that in a series of cases, most notable Brown v. Board of Education. In less than one hundred years we have a woman running and a Black. You can argue their qualifications or whether you like them, but look what is going on in the rest of the world.
1. The ethnic conflict in the Middle East has been going on a couple of thousand years.
2. In the recent election in Pakistan, women in some areas were not allowed to vote.
3. There is ethnic cleansing all over the world.
This is a remarkable moment in history.
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 10:41 AMMany Democrats and liberals have expressed the position that Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president. Other Democrats and liberals have expressed the view that Barack Obama cannot win the general election.
Leaving aside the accuracy and merits of such opinions, added to the mix is the similar opinion among some conservatives and some Republicans that John McCain is unelectable.
What happens if both parties nominate "unelectable" candidates? Of course, we would then find out that some of the pundits, posters, and prognosticators were wrong. It may be a case of movable object vs. resistable force, but somebody will be the 44th president of the United States.
Something's gotta give! Google phrase search results:
Hillary Clinton is unelectable - 6,210 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22hillary+clinton+is+unelectable%22
Hillary Clinton is not electable - 4,070 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22hillary+clinton+is+not+electable%22&btnG=Search
Barack Obama is unelectable - 5,950 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22barack+obama+is+unelectable%22
Barack Obama is not electable - 3,990 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22barack+obama+is+not+electable%22&btnG=Search
John McCain is unelectable - 5,260 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22john+mccain+is+unelectable%22&btnG=Search
John McCain is not electable - 2,790 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22john+mccain+is+not+electable%22&btnG=Search
A women... for Prez in the US (true). But we had a VP women who ran too.
I never buy it when people tell me I should vote for someone because of race, which there is ONLY ONE or a persons gender.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 20, 2008 10:47 AMI think you summed up the entire GOP sentiment there. You should be focusing on what VP candidate would be conservative enough to rally the base and not make McCain look too old and out of touch.
I'm guessing an southern fiscal conservative would fit the bill nicely. Maybe Gov. Mark Stanford? Brings in youth and experience. McCain & Stanford has a good solid sounding name, like a law firm or something.
When you're not pissing me off, you're cracking me up. lol
Posted by: REBEL on February 20, 2008 10:53 AMMedic,
You should never vote for anyone simply because they are _______ as that is one type of bigotry. Similarly, you should never vote against anyone because they are _________ either. Candidates have to stand or fall on their ideas, issues, and whether they will perform in office with skill and integrity. No matter how you assess either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the fact that they are not excluded from running because they are not of the proper caste or tribe is remarkable.
Rick D.
I don't know if you are familar with Black economists Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams who along with Star Parker write frequently for Townhall.com. Another conservative Black writer is Dr. John Mc Whorter.
Unless one can translate ideas into an electoral victory, your ideas will never see the light of day. One of the huge losses for this country is that Michael Steele did not win the senate race in Maryland.
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 10:56 AMThere is absolutely NOTHING "dead center" about Barry Hussein. By the results of two such groups who measure thses things, he is, hands down, the single most liberal senator today... that is when he actually votes as opposed to being "present".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 20, 2008 11:20 AMYou just like Palin, because she is smart, competant and easy on the eyes. :-)
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 11:43 AMI couldn't agree you more WVH. I have lamented on other threads on this site that Steele does not presently have a more prominent role in the GOP. I see a VP role for him in the very near future , but only if we want to transport the GOP party into the 21st century.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2008 11:45 AMThe problem McCain has on Iraq is he is too close to Bush on it. He did distance himself early in the campaign by criticizing Rumsfeld and calling for the surge, but this isn't enough. A lot of people see Iraq as what it is. It is Bush's folly. We should have never went in and it took our eyes off our main enemy in Afghanistan. Obama is calling for increasing troop levels, providing proper equipment for the soldiers, and taking care of the veterans, who have been neglected by this administration (i.e., state of the VA). Obama has several top foreign policy experts to lean upon in his campaign. If he chooses, say Webb from VA, he would have the former Secretary of the Navy (and a good one) to also lean on. McCain can win the battle if he promotes his own agenda. He won't if he sticks to Bush's failed policies.
Posted by: tc on February 20, 2008 11:47 AMSure, until he brings up the Oreo incedent or his Abramoff connections.
With McCain you want your VP you want someone perceived as clean, well liked, youthful, experienced, and from a battleground state you want to win in November. Steel and Blackwell would be perceived as dirty (due to their financial misdeeds). I'm sure Palin would be a good VP but winning Alaska's 3 electoral votes and loosing the Governor's seat there does not bring much to the table.
You need a more neutral guy like Stanford who perceived as being honest (kept his promise to serve only three terms), a DC outsider, could run for President in 4 - 8 years, and could help you out in the Southern battleground states like Florida, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
You also see the input/resources the Obama Campaign has regarding foriegn policy. Susan Rice and Tony Lake are two of the experts Obama is tapping to flesh out his foriegn policy.
Posted by: tc on February 20, 2008 11:56 AMSeeing as how you missed the news, it's been reliably reported that W won't be running for president this year.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 20, 2008 12:01 PMAll I know about Steele, Blackwell, and Palin is what I read in political magazines. Exactly what are the details of the scandals you allude to and do you have links?
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 12:02 PMBlackwell has ties to Diebold in the form of shares, he sold them off as soon as it was discovered but he had already ordered touch screen machines from Diebold despite the known software flaws and failures and the states request to use the more reliable (though not really) optical scans. Granted this scandal is pretty minor, he could be a great VP choice (and bring in Ohio for the GOP).
Palin is clean, but again why bring in a VP from Alaska? Winning the states three measly delegates doesn't give you much of an advantage in the Electoral College. You need to think nationally and a one term Governor from Alaska really doesn't bring much to the table.
A recent Rasmussen Poll found that Republicans and Independents agree that economic growth is more important than income equality. Democrats would sacrifice growth to equalize income--I guess so we all live in poverty. The poll also found that Republicans and Independents agree that government should generally stay out of the economy while Democrats favor more regulation.
And, you will find that Independents tend to agree with Republicans more on national security.
Once Obama is exposed as the soft European-style welfare-state advocate he is, notwithstanding the centrist image he cultivates in his speeches, you will see his numbers start to drop. They haven't yet because the Clintons are not much different than he is on these issues.
Posted by: besquared on February 20, 2008 12:54 PMDo you have any policies, votes, or statements by Mr. Obama to back this claim up or you just towing the party line?
Maybe you can explain how an "empty suit" can also be a "soft European-style welfare-state advocate"?
I wonder if the unindicted co-conspirator fo the Keating 5 will give us "straight talk" about his role in the savings and loan scandal?
Posted by: pbj on February 20, 2008 03:52 PMThanks for the post. The worst form of argument is to say that everyone else is doing or it looks good by comparison. The standard should be high for all, but the fact of the matter is Steele's indiscretions pale by comparison to the pork shoveled to West Virginia by Senator Byrd and the numbers of family members of Congress on lobbying staffs and in positions paid for by donors is mindboggling. Should there be a higher standard, yes. In the real world is there, no. Would this be used against him, possibly, but I would hate to have Hillary make the accusation when Bubba has ties to a shady oil deal in Uzbekiastan and she is one of the world's top commodity futures traders. Now for Obama, I seem to remember a certain jailed slumlord, called Rizzo, I think.
Whoever Mc Cain picks better put the mud boots on as it will get really deep.
Posted by: WVH on February 20, 2008 09:51 PMHere is the scoop on Rizzo. Compared to the normal stuff we see in politics, this is small potatoes at best.
Posted by: Cato on February 21, 2008 12:03 PM