An Example Of How Weak The GOP Brand Is: Jack Martin’s Strategy In New York’s 4th Congressional District…

I am back in New York and I noticed a campaign commercial for the local house race here between incumbent Carolyn McCarthy (D) and challenger Jack Martins (R).  Martins ad puts a twist on the “change” theme while also neglecting to mention that he is a Republican.  Take a look:

I thought this was a bit curious, so I perused his website and it also fails to contain a single reference to Martins being a Republican.

There’s not much to say about this other than to note this as an example of the weakness of the Republican brand during this election cycle.  Additionally, the lack of party identification coupled with the “change” theme gives the impression that Martins is in line with Obama’s Changevolution and McCarthy isn’t.  Subtle and tricksy.

Sphere: Related Content

Sir Spamalot: McCain Campaign Using Astroturf To Boost Online Presence

The McCain campaign is offering prizes to supporters that spread official campaign talking points around the blogosphere - in other words, rewards for spammers.  WaPo describes the practice:

Activists and political operatives have used volunteers or paid staff to seed radio call-in shows or letters-to-the-editor pages for years, typically without disclosing the caller or letter writer’s connection to a candidate or cause. Like the fake grass for which the practice is named, such AstroTurf messages look as though they come from the grass roots but are ersatz.

McCain’s campaign has taken the same idea and given it an Internet-era twist. It also has taken the concept one step further. (by offering incentives)

The program has a few problems.  In the article, a professional in the field of marketing political-organizing software discussed two issues: 1) the lack of disclosure from commenters, given that they are simply repeating a campaign talking point and 2) the potential lack of relevance between the comment and the post to which the comment is being placed on.  I think there are additional problems with this.  First, the McCain campaign is spending time and resources managing a program that is largely fruitless and will just be annoying to members of the various communities that will receive this comment spam.  Secondly, this entire program operates under the assumption that people read comments.  On balance, they usually don’t and if someone is reading a comment, they are generally going to skip over the one that looks like spam.

I would also add that targeting sites such as MyDD and DailyKos is just a silly waste of time.  If McCain wants to make any headway within those communities, he needs to engage them directly and not push them further away with shady astroturft techniques.

Sphere: Related Content

Will Bayh Be Announced As VP This Week?

The rumor mongering has hit a fever pitch. I’m not interested in making a prediction on whether that’s true, but I will say that this whole episode sounds somewhat similar to the whole “Ned Yost is Going to be Fired” angle from Badger Blogger earlier this year (that turned out not to be true).

Point being, if you’re not sure, just sit and wait. Reporting breaking news is one thing. Guessing what the breaking news is going to be is another.

If it is indeed Evan Bayh, we’ll have a full recap and analysis of our own vetting later this week. However, just remember when -everyone knew- that it would be Tim Kaine. These things tend to change very quickly. We’ll see.

Sphere: Related Content

Politics is Ludacris!

Ludacris, the rapper also known as Christopher Bridges, has released a song in support of Obama.  What’s his fantasy you ask?… well, it would be Obama in the White House.  I could go on, but read more here. Here are the lyrics:

I’m back on it like I just signed my record deal
yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal
never should have hated
you never should’ve doubted him
with a slot in the president’s iPod Obama shattered ‘em
Said I handled his biz and I’m one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I’m ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that b^$&%* is irrelevant
Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?
if you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!
and all you other politicians trying to hate on my man,
watch us win a majority vote in every state on my man
you can’t stop what’s bout to happen, we bout to make history
the first black president is destined and it’s meant to be
the threats ain’t fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
so get off your ass, black people, it’s time to get out and vote!
paint the White House black and I’m sure that’s got ‘em terrified
McCain don’t belong in ANY chair unless he’s paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped
Ball up all of his speeches and I throw em like candy wrap
cause what you talking I hear nothing even relevant
and you the worst of all 43 presidents
get out and vote or the end will be near
the world is ready for change because Obama is here!
cause Obama is here
The world is ready for change because Obama is here!

The song is good.  But, I am sure that a song by a hardcore rapper who discusses the multiple places to have rough sex is sure to help sway middle America into Obama’s corner.

Sphere: Related Content

A Western Wall Wailing

The Western Wall or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is the holiest site in Judaism.  The wall dates back to the construction of the Second Temple in 19 BCE and remains the only standing remains of the holy site.

During Barack Obama’s trip to Israel on July 24th, he made a surprise stop at the Western Wall and according to Jewish tradition inserted a personal prayer into the wall.

News later broke that some Yeshiva student (who should know better) - removed Obama’s prayer from the wall and passed it off to the press. As the Rabbi in charge of the Western Wall noted; “The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them.”

Regardless of the sin attached to this action, Obama’s prayer read as follows: 

Lord -Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.

Today, it was reported in the Jerusalem Post that the Yeshiva student who removed the prayer apologized.  The article notes: 

I’m sorry. It was a kind of prank,” Aleph said, his hands shaking as he fingered the tightly wadded-up sheet of King David Hotel letterhead. “I hope he wasn’t hurt. We all believe he will take the presidency.”

Channel 2’s religious affairs correspondent said she had passed the note from the yeshiva student to the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which reinserted it - deeply - between the ancient slabs of stone.

As the story gets more complex.  Jpost reports that there is a movement to open a criminal investigation into Ma’ariv, the newspaper that published Obama’s note.  In addition, others have called for a boycott for the paper.  Following up; 

In response, a Ma’ariv spokesman said that “Barack Obama’s note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. In any case, since Obama is not a Jew, publishing the note does not constitute an infringement on his right to privacy.”

The paper added that is was “pleased” with its “journalistic accomplishment.”

So the story gets more complex….

Sphere: Related Content

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words (2)

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what message they are trying to get across.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the minds and messages effecting local voters.

Steve Sack, of The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in Minnesota looks at the Republican ticket and the rumors (which I think are actually pretty legitimate) about Governor Tim Pawlenty being McCain’s VP.

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune, in Rome, Georgia discusses Obama’s trip abroad and the implications of Obama’s celebrity status on American elections:

In The Detroit News in Michigan, Henry Payne also addresses Obama’s trip abroad and his Berlin speech: 

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Obama: ABC Doesn’t Even Know How To Hold a Boom!

Jake Tapper:

At British Parliament today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, met with Tory Leader David Cameron.

Seemingly unaware of an enormous fuzzy boom mike held by ABC News’ Eric Kerchner, the two chatted casually — and privately.

“You should be on the beach,” Cameron told Obama. “You need a break. Well, you need to be able to keep your head together.”

“You’ve got to refresh yourself,” agreed Obama.

“Do you have a break at all?” asked Cameron.

“I have not,” said Obama. “I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who — not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process –  said that, should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you’re doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be — ”

“These guys just chalk your diary up,” said Cameron, referring to a packed schedule.

“Right,” Obama said. “In 15 minute increments …”

“We call it the dentist’s waiting room,” Cameron said. “You have to scrap that because you’ve got to have time.”

“And, well, and you start making mistakes,” Obama said, “or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel– ”

“Your feeling,” interrupted Cameron. “And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.”

“That’s exactly right,” Obama said. “And the truth is that we’ve got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know ten times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you.”

I suppose there’s a chance that someone could use this as an excuse to attack Obama. But it’d be a foolish attack: we clearly do want our leaders to have more time to think. Attacking politicians for taking too much vacation are cute and all, but in reality it’s a high stress job where regular decompression almost certainly produces better decisions.

Sphere: Related Content

Presidential Candidates As Batman Super Villains

With all the silly political talk of comparing the Bush Administration to Batman, I thought I’d take a look on the lighter side and compare various Presidential candidates to different Batman villains. This isn’t serious political analysis, but dammit, I have this site as a forum and I intend to use it. (And frankly, if it’s good enough of a topic for Wall Street Journal editors, It’s good enough for me.) I picked super villains arbitrarily. I don’t want to get into a “who is Batman and who is evil” argument. That’s just boring.

Barack Obama as Harvey “Two Face” Dent: The idea that spawned this post. While others are doing strange things like comparing Dick Cheney to Batman or something like that, given that the arch of the story is the rise and fall of newcomer and beacon of hope DA Harvey Dent, I’m surprised there’s not more comparisons between the two. There’s this article, sure. But that seems more intent on criticizing platitudes than it does at looking at something deeper: are figures of hope like Obama and Dent doomed to failure? Clearly they are doomed to dim. Wile the article criticizes Obama for lack of particular details, it’s ultimately Dent’s drive for only results that dooms him. When pushed towards the edge by his horrific scaring and in TDK the (spoiler!) death of Rachel Dawes, Dent is concerned only with the ends, not with the means, of resolving problems. One gets the feeling that more contemplation on platitudes would have helped him, not hurt him. So I think Obama differs in that respect. On the other hand, that side of Dent always existed; it was just hidden by both his meteoric rise and previous success. After all, anyone can keep their secrets hidden while succeeding.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as Ra’s al Ghul and Talia al Ghul: In the comics, they are father and daughter; here they are husband and wife. Let’s just gloss over that difference. In the comics, Ra’s could not be killed thanks to the Lazarus Pits; where he could rise from the dead. Surely, this reminds everyone of the numerous times that Bill himself rose from what was surely political death. The intrigue between the al Ghuls rivals the reported intrigue between Bill and Hillary. Bill has actively and inadvertently hurt Hillary in the past, as any sane person would admit. In the comics, this antagonism even leads Talia and Batman to sleep together. Similarly, Hillary and Obama used to be close allies, with Hillary even fundraising for Obama at one point during his Senate run, the political equivalent of sex if there is any. Moreover, this also means that the normal Clinton confidantes are known as the League of Shadows. Just as in Batman Begins, they are regarded as formidable by Ra’s, but in the end do absolutely nothing to help him, and only allow the enemy to take him down. One can imagine Obama as Batman goading Bill to please bring on four pawns (Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, James Carville, and Terry McAulliffe) instead of just four. Although in reality, it’s because the four will get in each others ways. Of course in this analogy, Hillary as Talia has her own henchwomen, who are none the more competent (Patti Solis Doyle) for the most part. (You’ll never, ever hear me say anything negative about Maggie Williams, mostly because I think she would have me killed for real.)

Tom Tancredo as the Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka The Scarecrow: A candidate who bases his entire campaign on fear. But more than that: Tancredo never intended go through with his campaign. In Batman Begins, Ra’s al Ghul states that Scarecrow believes the plan was to hold the city to ransom. It seems Tancredo’s entire campaign was based on the premise that he would hold the Republican Party hostage unless they elected someone he agreed with. And then they decided not to anyways.

John McCain as the mob. Yes the mob as a whole. Carmine Falcone, Sal Maroni, the whole bunch. In the comics and in the Dark Knight there are factions of the mob, just like they are factions of McCain supporters. Rick Davis, John Weaver, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt and others all had their time to be in control before circumstances forced them out, and they all do not like each other, and do not work well together (as seen in the mob scene in The Dark Knight before the Joker arrives. Each of them backstabs and steals from the other, ostensibly to protect the rest). Moreover, there is no control over them from the mob as a whole. McCain is said to be a laissez faire manager just as the mob as a whole favors looser rules. Moreover, McCain absolutely seems to abhor Barack Obama, just as the mob abhors Dent for the type of change he wishes to bring. They want things to change to, but jsut to the way things used to be. They are in a way as old as McCain is. In the movies, the mob is somewhat like McCain in that they refuse to go away. Like the Hydra, you can cut off one head, but two more will sprout in its place. McCain similarly seems to never go away no matter how many times he seems out. Like the mob turning to Joker in the Dark Knight, McCain also seems to have no good plan whatsoever, and changes plans on the fly when things turn out to be different than he thought. Does this say anything about what McCain is doomed to be? I don’t think so. The mob keeps on existing, but never in the same format. It’s certainly not predestined in any movie that the mob will lose. Indeed, the only comparison seems to be that McCain’s campaign could turn out to either be the Joker tormenting the mob’s opponents, or the Joker later threatening the entire barge full of mob associates with death. Also like the mob, McCain functions better when backed into a corner. Lastly, McCain lacks a certain shine and appeal that the mob also lacks in comparison to other “freak” type villains.

Mitt Romney as Oswald Cobblepot, AKA the Penguin: Whereas the Penguin used his ownership of the Iceberg Lounge to gain entry into Gotham, Romney uses his leadership at Bain Capital for much the same purpose. There was always a question of taking what Penguin says as truth: he never comes across as sincere. Romney may not have come across as insincere as Penguin did in, say, Batman Returns, but his numerous problems with flip-flopping caused serious problems for him this cycle. Moreover, his sons are everywhere, just like the Penguins were seemingly in Batman Returns. And just as the Penguin in One Year Later seemingly abandons crime for a legal presence, Romney also aborted what was a previous hard line stance against McCain suddenly to endorse him shortly after Super Tuesday. Most superficially, the Penguin is the high society type criminal compared to all the rest; similarly, Mitt Romney seems the most high society of all the candidates, due in large part to his massive wealth. Note: If there is one supervillain Romney is not, it is Deadshot.

John Edwards as Waylon Jones, aka Killer Croc: The easy choice for Edwards is Two Face. Running a completely different campaign than his first time, being an impressive trial lawyer and all. But in reality, the specific flaws and details of Edwards this cycle have nothing to do with the flaws and defining characteristics of Harvey Dent. Killer Croc is the one villain whose entire existence is almost entirely defined by his appearance: his reasons and justifications for doing what he did are inconsequential, if they exist at all. In this campaign, despite the support he got (which, compared to all but Obama and Clinton, was very substantial), Edwards was doomed because of the perceptions he allowed to be created about himself: the expensive haircuts, the video of him combing his air, etc. Essentially that he came to be defined in the market place as someone really, really vain. Killer Croc is the only Supervillain similarly concerned with image. While Edwards allowed himself to be defined by his, Croc hid and acted out because of his image. And yes, there’s also that small matter of Edwards sneaking around in basements of hotels being stalked. Very Croc-ian.

Dennis Kucinich as Jarvis Tetch, aka the Mad Hatter: Like the Mad Hatter was inspired by Lewis Carroll, Kucinich seems torn out of a different era of politics, one where William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs were the constant candidates. The delusion of the Mad Hatter strikes me as exactly the same as the delusion of Kucinich that he can win. His many tricks in the comics are similar to Kucinich’s tricks in politics. Tetch was seemingly run over by a train, only for it to turn out to be a trick; similarly, Kucinich was thought done when he ran the city of Cleveland into bankruptcy, only to emerge years later as a Congressman. Moreover, anyone who is not his supporter wonders why he is still trying. I’ll just end with that there’s something of a physical resemblance as well.

Fred Thompson as Bane: Bane was introduced in the comics as essentially the negative version of Batman: awesome power, awesome intellect. He ended up breaking Bruce Wayne’s back. But I’m not comparing Thompson to that Bane. I’m comparing him to the Bane in Batman and Robin, the horrible fourth batman movie. In that movie, going on the legacy of the comic book Bane, Bane instead becomes an unimportant tool who only serves as muscle; That is regularly noted as one of the worst transitions from comics to movies ever. Thompson similarly entered the race to great fanfare, only to find out he was far too little far too late. Thompson, like Bane, was a supposedly fierce character who when put into a campaign fizzled beyond what anyone expected. The comic Bane is the Fred Thompson that people expected; the awful film version is the one people got. I also have no problem comparing Holly wood to a South American prison. Many suggest that a new interpretation of Bane in the current Batman series could be widely successful; I’m not so sure. Wildly intelligent, strong, and athletic people tend to not sneak around in masks. While the true believers may never admit it, the concept at heart just is not very believable. Note: Just because Thompson and Clayface both were actors does not make them similar in any meaningful way.

Ron Paul as Lennie Adkin, aka Anarky: One sentence in Wikipedia says it all: “Lonnie Machin, a teenage prodigy who, believing in Anarchism, creates improvised gadgets and attempts to subvert government in order to improve society.” Paul himself was not young - the opposite of it - but he certainly attracted youth en masse to his libertarian oriented campaign. And while some would say the dominant Paul story as the racist old newsletters, Paul had no chance to win before or after that story broke. Moreover, Paul’s campaign innovated on the internet in ways few others have ever done, either their notable moneybombs and extensive social networking (and comment bombing). Moreover, the obvious comparison is in the goals of Adkin and Paul: both wanted substantially smaller governments (Adkin clearly went further than Paul). Does Adkin’s failure indicate that Paul’s crusade will never be successful? I don’t think so. There will probably never anytime soon be an extensive, successful libertarian movement, but there can certainly be small steps made in that direction. As a bonus, the character was created in part from Paulite hero and Alan Moore creation V from V for Vendetta.

Rudy Giuliani as Eddie Nashton, aka The Riddler: The Riddler, simply put, is known for leaving riddles after crimes; it’s a dare to be caught, whereas conventional wisdom would normally lead criminals to, you know, try to get away with the crimes they commit. The defining tactical decision of the Giuliani campaign was skipping all the early states that conventional wisdom said he had to at least get a symbolic if not a real victory in for him to be competitive in later states such as Florida. He decided not to. Moreover, the Riddler is covered with question marks all over his suit that give away not only his identity but also his only useful sentence was a Riddle to lead people to him. And while Giuliani’s innumerable references to 9/11 were not at all that pathological, there was clearly something in Joe Biden’s joke that ever Giuliani sentence contained a noun, a a verb, and 9/11. In short, Giuliani was the Riddler in that a lot of his campaign was built on one very simple and repetitive riddle.

Mike Huckabee as Arthur Brown, aka The Cluemaster: The Cluemaster was a failed game show host, and if there’s any four word phrase in Batman history that could define Huckabee, it is ‘failed game show host’ - with the possible exception of ’successful game show host’. The rise of Huckabee’s campaign was in large part due to his charm, and the fall of his campaign was ultimately responsible for his inability to transcend that charm as, say, Ronald Reagan did. The comic plight of Cluemaster is largely not very similar, except that Cluemaster ends up doing surprisingly well and survives a battle even when many thought he was dead from being shot in the chest. Similarly, Huckabee’s campaign refused to die even when it was mathematically impossible for him to win.

Bill Richardson as Catwoman: Get your gender jokes out of the way, I’m not interested in them. Good? Ok. The essence of the history of Catwoman as defined by Wikipedia: “Selina Kyle, starting as a criminal who wore a cat-themed costume and often operated as a burglar, has a love/hate relationship with Batman. For years, she skirted on the edge between villain and antiheroine. However, she has largely reformed in recent years, adopting the role of the guardian of Gotham’s crime-infested East End, though she still comes into conflict with Batman on occasion.” This mirrors Bill Richardson in many ways. First of all, Catwoman is the ultimate resume villain: she’s done it all. For evil, for good, she’s been there. If I had a nickel for every time Richardson said “Look, I’m a governor” this election as to prove what he has done, I would be able to hire someone to write this post. Moreover, Richardson essentially had a love-hate relationship with all his opponents. Clinton supporters liked him when he defended Hillary during debates, and then were outraged when he first appeared to help Obama on Iowa Caucus night and then endorsed Obama after allegedly promising not to. (Obama supporters were the opposite). In the end, Richardson was distrusted by all and left to run hos own state which was shockingly bad in most rankings. Similarly, the most recent Catwoman movie was shockingly bad by even the most generous standards. The Catwoman character, like Richardson, is championed by a small minority who think it is essential to Batman; others think its inclusion in any TDK sequel would be repetitive and boring. I’d be inclined to agree with the latter. The Catwoman character is played out and in the end not very interesting. A jewel thief who is athletic? In the Nolan’s Gotham, that’s about as small and pointless as they come. Meanwhile, just like some predicted Richardson would be a dark horse candidate, once people got a long look at him,  he disappointed; the more the Catwoman character has been exposed in movies, the less popular they have gotten. It’s fair to say that to some extent the character was a failure in Batman Returns and was again surely a disappointment in Catwoman. Also, Catwoman would probably defend cats as innocent ipso facto them being cats, just as Richardson accidentally defended Alberto Gonzalez in the first debate just because he was Hispanic.

Duncan Hunter as Garfield Lynns, aka Firefly: I don’t even have to add comment on this one. Wikipedia on Firefly: “Garfield Lynns, an orphan who became a pyromaniac and has developed a fireproof suit and flamethrower to further pursue his ‘hobby’. He was originally known as a cunning criminal who invented numerous weapons that use light to commit crimes with.” And Eve Fairbanks on Duncan Hunter: “During the trip, we stopped at a gold mine, and Hunter got the idea that the Brobdingnagian ore haulers (whose wheels alone are ten feet tall) would make good troop vehicles in Iraq since they’d resist IEDs. (Possibly true, but they also resist steering.) These kind of pie-in-the-sky, mad-inventor brainstorms earned the nickname “Hunter Specials” among staffers on the committee he chaired, Armed Services. I wondered occasionally if Hunter’s ruthless thrashing in the GOP primaries had dampened some of his unusual style of enthusiasm, but apparently it didn’t. This morning’s Post carried the story of a Hunter Special for the ages: He submitted a request to our embassy in N’Djamena, Chad, to personally hunt and serve wildebeest to needy Darfurian refugees there. ” Wow. Easiest one yet.

Last but never least: The Joker after the jump. ….

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what they’re thinking.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the messages and the minds effecting local voters.

John Traver, of the Albuquerque Journal in New Mexico has one take on Obama and his perceived ego:

John Darkow, of the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri has quite a different take of McCain, Obama and an Iraqi withdrawal:

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune in Rome, Georgia has an interesting take on Obama and the Media:

\

Nate Beeler, of The Washington Examiner, in D.C. also looks at the media and Obama:

Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News in Alabama takes a critical look at Obama’s move to the center: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Just Plain Silly…

This swipe at Obama on the RNC’s website is just plain silly (and, yes, you bet the pun is intended):

Obama Campaign Replaces American Flag With Obama Logo

New Obama Campaign Plane Replaces American Flag With Obama Campaign Logo. “When John McCormick reported Obama replaced his Boeing 737 campaign plane with a Boeing 757, he noted the new aircraft had ‘a giant flag painted on its tail.’ In yet another display of his patriotism, Obama replaced the American flag with the Obama Logo. Lynn Sweet reports that Obama’s 757 has been repainted ‘with the Obama sunrise logo on the tail.’ Oh the audacity of Obama’s ego.” (Dan Spender, “Obama Replaces American Flag With Obama Logo,” The Washington Examiner, 7/23/08)

This is definitely not a legitimate criticism; it doesn’t even make any sense.  First, yes, the flag has been repainted on the tail, but there is still a flag on the side of the plane, whereas McCain’s plane doesn’t even have a flag at all (I apologize for actually delving into this issue as though it was something worth discussing, but I’m a stickler for accuracy).  Second, I don’t even really get the point of posting this.  I understand what the RNC and Dan Spender want people to glean from this (and, in case you don’t, you’re suppose to assume that Obama loves himself more than America and/or isn’t really all that patriotic), but, really?  Unfortunately, I have met voters that are swayed by such things.

As an aside, I’m sure (and I have seen) some really silly attacks on McCain from the DNC, so they are not off the hook.  The RNC’s swipe just happened to catch my eye today.

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Thoughts: Polls and Hillary Clinton

Three things this morning:

1. Nate Silver is probably right about why the election is tightening. (As opposed to the implications of racism being spewed by Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC right now). The extra attention to foreign policy favors McCain, even though Obama is making up ground on that issue.

The upside for Obama though is that after this trip is over, he’s going to spend the rest of the election talking about the economy, while presumably retaining any foreign policy gains he made on this trip. My pointis that the issue focus can change, but the underlying dynamics tend not to, barring major gaffes or major positive moments.

In short, I think this is a short term necessary evil for greater gains for Obama later. (Barring some major other gaffe by him or someone involved in his campaign.)

2. In the counterintuitive thought of the day, does this foreign trip open the door for Hillary Clinton as VP?

The major problem in the past has been that Obama would be overshadowed. But now that he’s had a trip with some (OK, many) talking about presumptive he has seemed, Clinton would no longer overshadow Obama, and indeed it would probably be perceived as a really unselfish move by Obama. Moreover, it would be am implicit shift back to economic issues, while ignoring any questions about whether she was qualified to be President.

There’s still problems, of course: the two are said to not really get along. And that’s a major, major problem. Also, it would undermine Obama’s message of change. But I think the idea makes a lot more sense today than it did a week ago. Obama has enough presidential cache that being overshadowed is probably the least of VP concerns.

That said, supposedly the VP search team is completely separated from the political wing of Obama’s campaign. So this might just end up being hot air.

3. Don’t forget to listen to our interview on Sirius this afternoon. Or if you don’t get Sirius, check out any of our podcasts. We’ll be doing one at some point this weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

ANNOUNCEMENT: 2008Central.net Interviewed On Sirius Radio

On Friday, July 25, at 5:30pm eastern, 2008Central.net’s Angelo S. Carusone and John Whitehouse will be guests on Sirius Radio’s The Blog Bunker on Indie Talk (Channel 110).  If you have access to Sirius tune in and have a listen…

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Watch Obama Speech In Berlin (Germany)

If you’re interested in watching Obama’s speech in Berlin, Germany, you can watch a live video feed after the jump.  It’s scheduled to begin around 12:30pm eastern time.  We’ll have commentary on it afterward… Read more

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED: DNC Convention Gives Itself Gas Tax Holiday, Avoids Paying Federal And State Gas Taxes

We’re all aware that gas prices are very high.  With all the discussion about high gas prices, gas tax holidays, cracking down on wasteful spending and other campaign speak, I was struck by the absurdity (and hypocrisy?) of DNC not paying federal or state taxes on gas for the convention in Denver:

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention is using the city’s gas pumps to fill up on fuel, avoiding state and federal highway taxes, officials said today.

“By doing it this way, by running it through our Fleet Maintenance, that means that that fuel does not pay state or federal highway taxes,” Faatz said.

Christine Downs, a public works spokeswoman, said the host committee is not paying the city’s locked-in fuel rate but one that’s based on the weekly cost of gas. Downs was unable to provide council members an example.

Of note, Denver’s Mayor said that he “knew for a fact” that the RNC had a similar arrangement worked out with Minneapolis, but the RNC Convention’s spokesperson has denied this claim.  I was also unable to verify the Mayor’s statement, so for now, I will assume the RNC does not have the same break.  If they do, then they are equally worthy of criticism. Now, to the DNC…

Are they serious?  Obama has had strong criticism for the idea and efficacy of a gas tax holiday, referring to it as a gimmick.  Further, his campaign questioned whether Minnesota Governor would support a gas tax holiday, citing financial losses to infrastructure funds as a result of it.  Now, I realize that there are major differences between the DNC not paying Federal and State taxes and implementing the plan on a national level.  However, at the core, it is radically inconsistent for the DNC to argue that citizens should not receive a reprieve on gas tax because it would be financially insignificant for them and would yield adverse consequences, while at the same time, receiving such a reprieve for the convention.  Additionally, I’m not entirely clear why they are entitled to such a reprieve.  They are not a governmental entity.  They are a poltical party.  I see no real justification for them not paying gas taxes.

If you talk big, you really should be prepared to walk big as well.  If you argue that a gas tax holiday is negative, then don’t take one yourself.  It’s that simple.

UPDATE: The local host committee is going to reimburse the city for the gas used and pay state and federal taxes on it. Bottom line, this was a stupid move by some mid level staffer who thought he or she was being really clever. To paraphrase my professor, it’s usually better for people like this to think within the box. The proverbial box is there for a reason.

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED: A Note On Obama’s Management Of Press During Trip To Middle East

For the past few weeks, especially in our podcasts, I have been criticizing the Obama Campaign for isolating Obama from press.  I realize the political reasons for doing so.  I understand that it is smart politics.  I understand that this is a campaign, and therefore political considerations are often paramount.  I am also not suggesting that Obama’s handling of the press is or should be a reason not to vote for him.  I am simply pointing out an issue that I believe is worthy of criticism.  That said, on Hardball yesterday, Andrea Mitchell offered an example of and criticized the Obama campaign for its intense management of the press during his trip abroad.  Video here.  Transcript:

MITCHELL: But let me just say something about the message management.

He didn‘t have reporters with him. He didn‘t have a press pool. He didn‘t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you‘re seeing is not reporters brought in. You‘re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they‘re not interviews from a journalist.

So, there‘s a real press issue here. Politically, it‘s smart as can be. But we have not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea.

A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of service people who are African-American, or did all they choose to join somebody they like, apparently? What‘s the story?

MITCHELL: I can‘t really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations…

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: … I just can‘t report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines.

That‘s my—that‘s my issue.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: We don‘t know what we are seeing.

I have great respect for the military, of what they do best, which is to fight war, keep the peace, do all sorts of economic and civil reconstruction here in Iraq. I don‘t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, do you think that the military‘s been too positive towards the Barack trip, Andrea?

MITCHELL: They have so—they have tried so hard to be balanced.

In fact, they keep emphasizing this is not his congressional delegation, not his co-del, to use the slang. It is Jack Reed‘s. Jack Reed is the senior senator on this trip.

Putting politics aside for a moment, for someone that is running for president, as voters we should demand more interaction between Obama and the press.

On a somewhat related note, Michael Grunwald concludes his most recent Time article by observing:

That doesn’t mean that anything’s probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you’ll keep seeing “Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns” headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama’s way, it shouldn’t be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it’s usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

I don’t want to overstate my case here, because there is certainly no question that Obama’s policy positions present significantly broader change from Bush’s than McCain’s do; however, one thing that is certainly business as usual is strong line that Obama is drawing between himself and the press.  As president, I can understand limiting access quite a bit.  But as a candidate?  I’m just not sure a candidate has earned that right or has a legitimate reason to isolate himself the way that Obama has.

Is this a major voting issue? No.  But is it a point worthy of criticism?  You bet.  Demand more.  And once you get that, demand more.  Voters can make our leaders better by doing just that.

*UPDATE* The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman has a piece up, which criticizes the campaign for retribution (or what seems like retribution) against reporters they become furious with and the potential consequences of this.

Sphere: Related Content

An Example Of MoveOn’s Practice Of Intellectual Dishonesty

Slate’s Chris Beam notes an interesting exchange between former Obama advisor Samantha Power and MoveOn.org’s Tod Matzzie on the subject of withdrawal from Iraq.  Matzzie’s approach fires me up for several reasons as I will explain below.  First, the context:

During her presentation, Power had spoken about the need to acknowledge that withdrawal could get ugly. Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, objected to her “framing.” Here’s the whole exchange (cleaned up a bit for readability):

Tom Matzzie: The question is really about framing, and about building the story about what withdrawal means. The human consequences are something you have to consider, but we can’t help the right build the frame that disengagement is going to have negative humanitarian consequences. … The war’s already a tragedy, you know? That’s why you don’t want to get into them, they’re tragedies. So I’d be interested about how you can revise your language to help not build that right-wing frame. …

Samantha Power: I don’t feel inclined to revise my frame out of deference to this manifestly moribund discourse that the administration and its supporters inflicted upon us in the course of the last few years.

By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.

I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that? …

[Then we say], there are always risks, there are always consequences that are unknowable. Here’s what we’re going to do to address the concern. I think that’s a much more effective approach than to say, Oh , just because all the violence followed us into Iraq it’s going to follow us out of Iraq. I think it’s insulting to the American voter, the American people who know that certain things are unknowable. … That kind of belief that it’s all or nothing is in its own way analogous to the old one that was in this administration.

Beam goes on to wonder out loud what the significance is for Obama.  I don’t think that’s the biggest takeaway and I’m really not sure where he was going.  Rather, I think the takeaway is just how off the rails MoveOn can be at times as well as how quick they are willing to resort to tactics used by the Bush Administration (the principle source of their criticism…oh irony).

Matzzie’s suggestion to Power represents nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.  Certainly, I understand the politics involved.  And, I understand MoveOn’s desire not to feed into a narrative that is being used to pursue policy objectives that are completely antithetical to their own.  So, I am sympathetic to Matzzie’s (and presumbaly MoveOn’s) desire to shape the narrative in terms that are more favorable to them.  That said, it’s simply the wrong thing to do…

• First, they may not like to hear this, but the simple reality is that refusing to acknowledge the repercussions of withdrawal (and the corollorary of not even accepting the possibility/liklihood) is nothing short of what MoveOn consistently criticizes the Bush Administration for - misinformation.  The mere fact that MoveOn believes it is doing so to support “good” ends, does not excuse or justify misinformation or presenting incomplete information.
• Secondly, they may think that it is strategically smart to pursue that path and atempt to stifle people like Power, but they are wrong.  Whenever I give a lecture on effective public speaking, one of the first things I talk about is the need to accept the drawbacks of the position that you are advocating.  This is necessary and useful for a few reasons.  1) It helps establish your credibility with the audience.  If people know that you are willing to tell them the drawbacks to your position, then they are more likely to accept the benfits as true.  2) It also allows you to control/shape the discussion surrounding the weaknesses of your position.  Why let the person opposing you have the ability to discuss your drawbacks, when you can do it yourself and frame it in a way that supports your position.  Power’s response seems to acknowledge the necessity of paticipating in this kind of debate.  And, it is troubling to me, that MoveOn somehow thinks that its better to ignore reality or present misinformation in order to support their cause.  I’m unclear why people are supposed to accept their criticism when the Bush Administration does similar things, but people are supposed to support them when they do it.
• Third, it’s just another example of MoveOn simply contributing to the problem with our political discourse.  Yes, I understand that there are awful GOP groups out there and that the left needs the ability to fight back.  On the other hand, there’s no need to fight back with the same silly tactics.  In my opinion, reason will prevail, so long as it is being explained in an effective way.  MoveOn has made it clear that it is not interested in enhancing the political debate, but just serving as a counterbalance to silly right wing groups.  If that’s what they really want, then fine.  But, people need to stop taking them seriously then.  Just like people, including conservatives, should stop respecting/supporting silly right wing groups too.

I respect Power’s response.  Whether or not I agree with her positin is irrelevant.  What I do agree with and applaud is her ability to intellectually honest, even about the disadvantages of the position she supports.  A Democracy such as ours is predicated upon the fact that people vote with useful information in mind, not public relations tricks or misinformation.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s an obligation for any campaign or organization that advocates as position to be as honest as possible.  Afterall, if you’re advocating something, then it is assumed that you really believe that it is for the best.  Instead of trying to constantly trick people into siding with you, why not convince them?

So, in conclusion, shame on MoveOn and hooray for Power.

Sphere: Related Content

Maliki Backs Obama’s Iraq Plan, Then Claims He Doesn’t?

One risk of doing podcasts are that they can become quickly outdated. That happened today. In an interview with Der Speigel magazine, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki all but endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

This was just after Maliki and President Bush had agreed on “time horizons” and Gen. Petraeus had said in an interview that withdrawal depended on facts on the ground, and would not consider a timeline.

Marc Ambinder laid out why this was a big deal:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Malik isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here.

Later in the day, US Central Command (the office of General Petraeus) issued a “correction”:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops.

Matt Yglesias underlines why the correction isn’t much of one:

… [T]he walkback (a) doesn’t involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn’t name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama’s plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That’s hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

The first serious response by McCain was essentially the campaigning scoffing that Obama had not supported the surge that was responsible for withdrawal being palatable:

“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.

The second response of the McCain campaign emphasizing that Obama ignores shifting events on the ground:

“The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

This all comes a day after John McCain had started to use the phrase “succeeded” in regards to Iraq instead of “succeeding.” He crouched his words with caveats, but the shift in emphasis was clear:

“I’m happy to tell you we’ve succeeded in Iraq and we—unless we reverse the strategy that’s succeeding we will win this war. But it’s fragile and it must be dictated—the strategy must be dictated by the situation on the ground. Not some artificially, politically schedule for withdraw as sen Obama wants to do,” McCain told a crowd in Kansas City, MO.

Reporters questioned McCain on his rhetoric of success at a stop in Grand Haven, MI since in the past McCain has phrased the status in Iraq as “succeeding,” as opposed to “succeeded.”

McCain told reporters, “Military, economic, political, and all the benchmarks we said that the Iraqi government had to meet” have allowed for the word “succeeded” to be used.

However McCain admitted, “They haven’t met them all. Do they have a lot more to go– distance to go? Yes and it’s very fragile. And can be reversed. But they’ve succeeded and if we will continue this, we will win this war.”

Moreover, with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq this weekend, this is about the perfect time for this story to break as far as the Obama campaign is concerned. Moreover, as Joe Klein points out, Maliki also rejected a permanent presence in the way that McCain had supported.

Where do things go from here? It seems that things in Iraq will either stay mostly as they are or get slightly better, or alternatively get much worse. If things stay close to how they are, Maliki will keep up local pressure for the Americans to leave. If things get worse, McCain may lose his leverage that the surge was the reason for things getting better.

McCain had for a while a strategic advantage on Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki ended that today.

It’s not that surprising that no one on the Corner has mentioned this yet. Until something else happens, there’s not really much to say. Redstate has two posts: one on the surge being the reason for any withdrawal, another trumpeting the “correction” press release without wondering what exactly the mistranslation was. Powerline has not mentioned it at all. The Weekly Standard hasn’t posted anything at all since the Der Spiegel article came out. Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall takes a stab: she argues that America should determine how long it takes to make Iraq secure and only then leave, no matter what Maliki says. The problem is that McCain has already said that Iraq should have a strong say:

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

There’s no easy argument out of this for McCain. The two responses by his campaign today and the confused reaction from the conservative blogosphere makes this pretty clear.

Sphere: Related Content