Official Election Day “Until There’s a Winner” Liveblog

And here is the liveblog, if you are having trouble viewing email us (mail)…

Sphere: Related Content

Robin Hayes: In Another Time, This Would Be HUGE

The following happened in the 1884 election: (ht the Plank)

The idiot to whom we owe the tortured, modern, non-stop Presidential campaign was one of the smartest politicians to live and practice his craft in America, the Plumed Knight, the most beloved of late nineteenth century Republican leaders: James Gillespie Blaine, the Man from Maine. His arduous 1884 vote-seeking trek was the first extended modern campaign and, as it came to an end, the enervated Blaine allowed himself to be talked into two events that would cost him the Presidency.

Drugged by fatigue, he sat drowsing through a meeting at which a cretinous Protestant clergyman denominated the Democrats as the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” Blaine was as adept a politician as America has seen; if he had been awake he would have repudiated the minister’s words on the spot. But it was a wire service reporter who heard them, and Blaine, with less than a week before election day, couldn’t undo the damage.

Robin Hayes, today:

On Saturday, Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., warned the crowd at a McCain rally that he and others in attendance had to “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean.” After all, the liberal media might distort such a thing. And then Hayes went on to disregard his own advice, saying “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.”

That quote was first reported by the New York Observer’s Jason Horowitz. Horowitz’s report was repeatedly and strenuously denied by Amanda Little, a spokeswoman for Hayes. But on Tuesday, Politico obtained audio of the remark.

There’s literally no difference between the two. (Add in the benediction in Iowa a few weeks ago and we’re even more over the top.

McCain is in so deep that while certain events are being ignored that would otherwise benefit him (see: Biden remarks of any given day), the converse is also true. People are genuinely solely concerned about the big picture this year. If that’s a good thing or bad thing, I’m not sure. But in another year, Robin Hayes conceivably could have just cost McCain the election. Is McCain lucky or unlucky that the election is already lost?

At the end of the day, it’s asking if a tree that falls in the forest makes a sound if nothing is there to hear it. Yes, but so what?

Sphere: Related Content

Vice Presidential Debate Liveblog: Sarah Palin v. Joe Biden from Washington University in St. Louis

5:34: Let’s start off with the ridiculous Gwen Ifill controversy. Gwen Ifill, I would argue, is the second best moderator possible behind Lehrer. She’s the best choice to get the Meet the Press Chair. And Tim Russert, let’s not forget, was a Democratic operative before moving to the news side; few people would argue that his past work disqualified him from being a netural moderator. And yet, we have actual Republicans saying Ifill is in the tank. It’s mortifying. If Ifill looks biased, we’ll say so and a bunch of other people will say so. But just publishing a book about race relations after the rise of Obama’s campaign hardly is evidence that she’s going to do something untoward. 

By the way, the strangest part of that press release is where Orrin Hatch complains that Biden is … getting advice from Hillary Clinton. As if this is some sort of shocking or horrifying fact, that Senators get advice from each other.

5:45: Former Clinton operative Phil SInger previews the debate on his blog here and here. Essentially, the two previews sort of have it both ways: one good Palin performance could help save her, but also if any of the Couric-interview Palin shows up, there’s nothing but trouble on the horizon. I think both are true - for different people. As for undecided, I’m betting that if they are still undecided now, they’re unlikely to be persuaded by an uneven performance from either candidate.

5:51: The baseball playoffs are far more compelling than this debate. The Phillies-Brewers game is incredible - and only in the second inning. Shane Victorino grand slam!

5:55: In case you had wanted to know what the British Ambassador’s private thoughts on Obama, well, here you go.

6:00: Here’s Howard Wolfson on the stakes for the debate tonight:

The short answers: Gov. Palin needs to demonstrate a real understanding of complex issues. Simple talking points won’t cut it. She needs to make clear she grasps the difficult policy challenges that the next administration will confront.  if she doesn’t the debate will quickly turn into her own version of Thursday Night Live.

Sen. Biden’s burden is the opposite. We all know he understands the issues. Instead he has to connect with Americans, making the case against John
McCain without condescending to Gov. Palin and angering female voters.  (He will not, for instance, be calling her “Sarah”)

6:03: Good thing Obama and McCain will not be in the buiilding. We wouldn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable.

6:06: Mary Katherine Ham says Palin will be “free” tonight. She continues:

Conventional wisdom says low expectations will behoove Palin, just as a similar soft bigotry worked for Bush, but after several very shaky interviews, it may be that expectations are so low for Palin as to require resuscitation by way of a knowledgeable, confident performance. Passable alone probably won’t do for a slipping ticket, especially with media primed to highlight every mistake.

Expectations would seem to set the bar high for Biden, but everyone knows there’s only one thing Joe Biden does more than ride the Amtrak, and that’s say spectacularly stupid things. Given the slant of the media and his reputation for political pratfalls, I wouldn’t be surprised to see post-debate coverage congratulate him for getting through 90 minutes without referring to his running mate as “clean and articulate.”

I’m not sure a lack of freedom was her problem with Couric. It was more a lack of ability to command any sort of details. She’s a wonderful attack dog (or pitbull, as she referred to herself), but she hasn’t shown anything beyond that so far. Any time she spends being on the attack will just take away from time for her to make her case.

6:39: Sabathia doesn’t make it through 4 in Philly.

6:41: Lafayette at the fellow o8 Bloggers Network blog 2008 Presidential Election Blog previews the debate:

The expectations are super low for SP.  This favors her, big-time.  If she makes a barely passable showing, the story’ll be her come-from-behind triumph.  Or at least her supporters will think so; the media is another story.  Will they gang up on her?  I think so, but I also think they have to be sensitive to their clientele, and they don’t want to be seen picking on her.  So they’ll gladly make fun of whatever is awkward and unbecoming.  I really don’t see how SP can avoid the mockery she is about to get dumped on her.  However, if she’s poised, they vipers can’t unleash their venom, because they’d be picking on her.

And of course Biden does not want to be seen this way either!  But he won’t.  He’s too good of a politician to flub it up.  Democrats don’t have to worry–this one’s all on SP.  Biden will be fine, he’s done this numerous times.  He won’t mess it up.  But he can be fought to a draw by the ordinary gal Pal(in) if she’s passably articulate.

We see this as the opposite: nothing will happen tonight. That hasn’t stopped me from liveblogging, though.

6:45: Dyre Portents, another 08 Bloggers Network Blog, says the expectations will be hard for Biden to overcome:

I don’t think Biden can beat Palin in a popularity contest. He’s somehow going to have to either force Palin to stick to the issues or find a way to repeatedly politely point out that Palin isn’t actually answering the questions. Given his gaffe prone nature and his temperment he may not be up to that particular task.

Biden has a tough job in front of him, no matter how you see the debate.

6:48: Famous alumni of Washington University include Harold Ramis, better known as Egon from the Ghostbusters.

6:49: Washington University soda trivia: The founder of 7-up, Frank Gladney, graduated from Washington University.

6:54: Election Geek is another 08 Network blog.  They’re not convinced that Ifill is a fair moderator. 

7:21: Jennifer Granholm, Democrat governor of Michigan, discussed what it was like to portray Sarah Palin in practice debates with Biden, and what it is like to be a female politician.

7:24: Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman are in the house tonight. They’re talking with two other old white guys I cannot identify.

7:30: The parade of semi-important dignitaries has begun. We’re listening so you don’t have to.

7:35: The two old white guys aforementioned are former Republican senators Jack Danforth and Al Simpson.

7:39: Missouri soda trivia part II: Dr. Pepper was introduced at the World’s Fair in St. Louis in 1904.

7:42: The parade of self-important dignities is still talking about sponsors. Meanwhile, I just found out that a Frenchman fur trader named Auguste Chouteau claimed to found St. Louis, but there are doubts to the authenticity of the claim.

7:45: St. Louis is the location of the first debate in 1992 between Clinton, Bush, and Perot. It was also the site of the last debate between Gore and Bush in 2000. And also the second debate between Bush and Kerry in 2004. In other words, this is increasingly a popular site.

7:48: Gwen Ifill uses crutches to take her seat. “In case you were wondering, I fell, I wasn’t pushed.” The crowd is too stunned to react to that line, but it’s basically all she says. Jim Lehrer, comparatively gave a lecture the last time.

7:52: Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone for reading. I’ll try to add a bit more flavor than I did the last time.

7:57: Republicans are dreaming about how Palin can attack both Ifill and Obama in one swing.

7:59: Still 5-2 Phillies over the Brewers in the 8th. I’m guessing a lot of people in Milwaukee will be too upset after tonight’s game to watch any of this debate.

8:00: And away we go. Biden on the left, Palin on the right, which is certainly appropo.

8:03: Bailout bill question to Biden. Biden pivots immediately to criticizing the economic policies of the last 8 years, and then segues into Obama’s criteria for any bailout plan, and then into showing the importance of focus on the middle class. Good answer, if a bit rushed given that the answer is 90 seconds. Palin says the test of the economy should be asking parents at kids soccer games on Saturdays. She’s talking directly into the camera; Biden was looking at Ifill. Hits the same notes as Biden, before seguing into reform. She blames Biden and the Senate for not listening to McCain’s warning on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

8:06: How would you end the polarization in Washington? Biden talks about his experience and bipartisanship. Biden then goes back into criticizing Mccain for being out of touch. Palin says he was talking about the American work force. That’s just not persuasive. She talks about joining a team of mavericks, whereas Obama only votes along party lines. They awkwardly smile at each other while she criticized Biden.

8:09: Palin blames the deception of the predatory lenders for the housing meltdown. She’s going full-blown with the accent, now mentioning Joe Sixpack and Hockey moms banding together. This is going to be something the mainstream media can’t really talk about, but will be either be really persuasive or not persuasive. Biden criticizes McCain for not being on the vanguard of subprime problems, and for his focus on deregulation. Biden is showing a better command of facts, but it’s distracting that he’s only looking at Ifill. He finally ends that with a good story about a guy at a gas station not knowing how much it takes to fill a gas tank. Palin talks at length about Biden and Obama voting for higher taxes. She says “government will have to learn how to be more efficient.” Is there any more meaningless boilerplate possible? Biden goes directly at Palin, criticizing her answer and standard on raising taxes, and saying she did not talk about regulation. Palin answers, and gives an indirect swipe at Ifill, and talks about her record. She mentions the drug industry and tobacco industry when Ifill cuts her off.

8:15: Taxes question. Biden says their tax plan is about fairness. Biden says no one making under 250 k will have a tax raise, and everyone making under 150k will have a tax decrease. Criticizes McCain for tax breaks for corporations, and saying corporations will be taxed at the level they were under Reagan. Palin says that philosophy is a redistribution of wealth, and criticizes Biden for saying taxes are patriotic. Palin says it’s patriotic to say government is not always the answer. Ifill asks about the health care plan, and talks about a tax break for families, and criticizes Obama for wanting the federal government to “take over” health care. Interesting that Obama took so much heat for not including a mandate in the primary, and now is still having his plan called a mandate. Biden says it’s not redistribution, but just fairness. Biden says McCain’s plan will tax health care benefits as income, and calls it “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.” First one liner of the night, from Biden.

8:21: What promises can yo not keep? Biden says you have to slow down foreign assistance. Segues into a discussion of what you cannot slow down: energy jobs, education (which he calls the engine of the economy - he also called the middle class the engine), and a few others. Palin says that McCain is not duplicitous. Palin criticizes Obama for voting for the 05 Energy Bill, and talks about taking on the oil companies in Alaska. Palin makes a joke about not promising much in the five weeks she’s been VP. Biden is stuttering a bit tonight - hopefully not a relapse. Biden says that Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska, but McCain will not. Interesting strategy by Biden.

8:26:Palin talks about “the corruption and greed” on Wall Street, which is a “toxic mess” requiring us to be “ever vigilant.” Is this a Presidential election or a preview of the next Batman movie? Biden dodges questions of a vote, and talks about Obama again being on the vanguard. He talks about bankruptcy courts being able to adjust terms of a mortgage. Biden is now almost always looking at the camera. Palin goes back to the 05 Energy Bill, and talks about energy indepedence, and blames “east coast politicians” for not allowing Alaska to drill; easy retort: even McCain is against drilling in ANWR. The level of irony here is off the charts.

8:30: Climate change question. Palin says she blames man and cyclical forces, but she does not want to argue about causes. Underlines the “all of the above” approach. She’s saying a lot of words, but not either attacking or building a good case. Biden says it’s man made, and if you don’t understand the cause, you can’t find a solution, but says the “cause is man-made; that’s the cause.” Biden talks about renewable energy, clean coal, and nuclear energy, and attacks McCain for not voting for renewable energy, while criticizing McCain for not exporting clean coal technology. Palin corrects Biden on the chant being “drill baby drill” and not “drill, drill, drill.” The rest of her answer is OK, but it drowns in the triteness of that. Biden eventually talks about the problem being carbon emissions.

8:36: Biden supports extending same-sex benefits to couples, and says there will be no distinction. Talks about visitation rights in hospital, joint ownership of property, etc. The property rights are not really that big a problem. Palin says she does not want to redefine marriage, but wants to be tolerant of choices of relationships. Do you support gay marriage? Biden says no, it’s a question of faith. and says that they agree on these civil rights. Palin sort of half-heartedly agrees that they agree.

8:39: Iraq time. Palin talks about the surge, and criticizes Obama for voting to cut off the troops. Mentions Biden criticizing Obama on that vote. Says we are down to pre-surge levels and should put more troops in Afghanistan. This format is going to save her. Biden talks about Obama’s plan being what Bush and Maliki are negotiating. Biden shifts to discussing a timeline, and says McCain also voted to cut off funds. Biden promises to end the war. Palin has a moment of silence, and then “your plan is a white flag of surrender.” Palin says we will know when victory is in sight. Petraeus has said there will not be victory in any conventional sense. Palin mentions Biden’s son, and then hits Biden for saying he’d be honored to run with McCain, and that Biden criticized Obama for not being ready to be C-in-C. Biden says that McCain voted against funding of MRAPS “that protect the governor’s son” and others in Iraq. This is getting a bit personal. Biden then gives a long list of issues on which McCain has been wrong on Iraq.

8:45: Biden talks about the work he’s done in Pakistan, and that any attack in America will come from the hills in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that competing for the hearts and minds in that region is necessary. Palin says that both Iran and Afghanistan are dangerous, and that Petraeus says Iraq is the central front. She talks at length about how bad it would be if Iran got a nuclear weapon. This would be interesting if all four candidates didn’t agree on it. She then segues into criticizing Obama for willingness to meet with Castro, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il, who is apparently alive for the purposes of this debate.

8:49: Palin talks about needing to engage in diplomacy, but not at a presidential level, and says diplomacy is doing hard work with allies ready to back up. Biden says the theocracy controls nuclear weapons and security in Iran. Biden says the friends and allies have been the ones saying talk. Biden criticizes McCain for not being willing to talk with the government of Spain, even though they are fighting in Afghanistan.

8:51: Israel! Palin says the two state solution is the solution, and thanks Secy. Rice for working to bring the peace. Says we can never allow a second Holocaust. She then just repeats the talking points. She’s really excited to talk about Israel as a peaceful nation. Biden says that he’s been a friend to Israel and that he would not join the ticket if he thought Obama thought otherwise. He then criticizes the Bush administration policies re: Israel, mentioning Hamas in the west bank and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Biden says the only thing on the march is Iran. Palin is excited to agree that they both love Israel. Who was the last candidate on a major ticket who didn’t? This is ridiculous. Palin says that fingerpointing to the past means you cannot be change. Good lord. There’s no substance. This is purely a rhetorical answer. If you criticize Bush, you can’t be change? Biden is stunned: he wonders how McCain’s policy would be different from that of Bush.

8:56: Palin: Nuclear policy is the “be all end all.” She says using nuclear weapons as a deterrant is a safe usage. For anyone? Good lord. She goes back to Afghanistan, and says that she wants to bring the surge philosophy there, and that is what is different from Bush. Biden says the commanding general in Afghanistan says the surge principles in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Well, that settles that. Biden says we spend every three weeks in Iraq what we spend in Afghanistan. His style is undermining him a bit, but he’s way out-fact-checking Palin tonight. He complements Obama for working nuclear proliferation, and says McCain has been opposed. Palin says there are differences, but counter-insurgency principles could work, cites Gen. McClellan, specifically clearing, holding, rebuilding. Uhm, half the country is “clear” already. Biden is thrown off by Palin’s short answer. The General is apparently McKiernan.

9:01: Biden as an interventionist. He says his plan worked in Bosnia. Biden talks about being in camps in Chad, and that rallying the world to act in Darfur. Talks about it being a genocide. She criticizes Biden for being a Washington insider, who was for it before he was against it in Iraq, and that Biden supported McCain and opposed Obama. Palin talks about the importance of divestment in Darfur, but also notes that the legislation she proposed in Alaska has not passed yet. Biden says he never supported McCain’s strategy, and talks about his foresight on being locked down in Iraq. And we’re back into the same discussion. Palin insinuates that Biden is lying, and even refers to the factcheckers, who McCain embraces and ignores depending on their favorability to him. She says McCain will know how to win a war.

9:07: What if you had to become President? Would you follow your wishes or your running mates? Biden says it would be a national tragedy, but he would follow Obama’s wishes. Goes over a laundry list of Obama’s preferences. I’m interested in what Palin will say. Palin says that they are mavericks and will not disagree. Her cheerfulness is odd after Biden’s sobriety. She then tries to be solemn and says she will continue his good work, and talks about bringing reality from Wasilla main street. It’s just a hodge podge of talking points. At least Biden answered the question before he did the same. I still don’t know what her priorities would be if McCain died on issues they disagree on. Biden jumps in to respons and talks about a street in Wilmington, and that Bush and McCain don’t disagree enough. He gives a shout out to other places he used to live. Palin: “Say it ain’t so Joe.” Palin lists Biden’s wife accomplishments (seriously) and then talks about the importance of education. Says her brother is the best teacher, and that kids at his school get extra credit. A flurry of pluck, but nothing else. She says either one of them is top of the line in terms of education. She wants more attention on education. I wonder what she means by that.

9:13: Palin jokes about not knowing what a VP does. She’s happy the Constitution allows a powerful VP. I’m stunned with that line. In reality, though, the history of the Constitution has left a hodge podge of inconsistencies with the VP position. Biden immediately goes back and hits McCain on education. He says he’s going to be giving constant advice on decisions.

9:15: If the VP a member of which branch? Palin says the founding fathers allowed flexibility. Holy crap this is a terrible answer historically. The founding fathers made the LOSING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE the VP. It was only changed with the amendments, much later. Wow. Terrible, terrible answer. Biden says that Cheney was a terrible VP, and the VP is in the executive branch. He says the only time the VP has authority is a tie in the Senate, and it was a bizarre notion invented by Cheney.

9:18: What good is your experience? Palin says it’s not just her experience, but her connection to the heartland, with a son in the war and a special needs child. This is trite overload. No one that watches a debate for an hour and a half will be convinced by lines like this unless they want to be convinced by it. Talks about Reagan’s city on a hill analogy. Biden talks about writing the crime bill and the violence against women act, and then segues into talking about how his wife died, and other personal problems. He chokes up a bit when mentioning his children maybe not being able to make it. Palin talks about McCain being a maverick, and McCain being in a position of being a maverick, and then lists supporters, like Lieberman, Guiliani, and Romney. Really? Listing supporters, all but one are Republicans? That’s being a maverick? I vet Plouffe smiled at that one. Biden says that McCain is only a maverick on some issues, not the key ones, talking about voting for Bush’s budgets, and opposing health care and education and the war.

9:23: Did you have to change a position based on circumstances? Biden talks about the judicial nomination process. He touts his fight against Bork as showing that ideology matters. Palin says that she “quasi caved” in not vetoing budgets but did not do it because she did not have support. She says they work together up there in Alaska. She looks nervous to finish.

9:26: How do you change the tone in Washington? Biden says he’s worked across the aisle because he never questions the motives of those in the Senate he disagrees with, he just questions the judgment. Palin says that you appoint people regardless of their party affiliation. (Or whether the position is already filled? OK, no more troopergate references…) She talks about reigning in spending and creating jobs.

9:29: Final statement. Palin says that she likes the ability to speak to people without the filter of the mainstream media, as if it’s the filter that’s caused people to be astounded. Making excuses for bungling two interviews in your only debate appearance. She talks about fighting for freedoms, and quotes Reagan as that freedom is always at risk. Biden says this election is the most important election, and the past 8 years have been spent digging a hole. Biden talks about a couple of policy preferences, including protecting the troops.

Grades and thoughts on a podcast to come later tonight. No gaffes for Biden, and only minimally bad for Palin.

Chuck Todd: “You’re may not see this debate have a lot of effect It may just disappear, despite the hype.”

Who said that before hand? That’s right, us. Podcast to come.

Sphere: Related Content

First Presidential Election Debate Liveblog: From The University of Mississippi in Oxford

5:15: All times are Central. Deal with it, you coastal elites!

More on the University of Mississippi here. Fun fact: It was used as a hospital during the Civil War for both Union and Confederate soldiers. So there’s some bipartisanship. There’s no truth to the rumor that John McCain was there at that time, however. A must read about the civil rights history of the college is here. There’s no truth to the rumor that Barack Obama was the … uhm, named person in the headline there. Seriously, John McCain’s grandfather is one of the famous alumni of the college.

The moderator tonight is PBS’ Jim Lehrer. This is Lehrer’s record 11th time moderating a presidential debate, and his wiki page describes him as a bus enthusiast. So he’s got that going for him.

The format: two podiums. Sections of the debate will include introductory statements of two minutes, followed by five minutes of debate between the candidates. It’s a really nice format.

5:36: Mississippi is the state where Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a captured bear, enraging Stephen Colbert but capturing the heart of a nation. Nowadays, killing a moose is a qualification for national office. How times change!

5:53: Mississippi soda/pop fact: Mississippi is the birthplace of the Barq’s Root Beer. And also apparently the home of some very, very crazy ad wizards.

6:04: Ole Miss is in Oxford, in Lafayette County. In the county, Obama beat Clinton 2,849 to 2,171. John McCain won a virtually uncontested primary in the county with 1,953 votes (Huckabee received about 300 votes and Ron Paul less than 100 votes).

6:48: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is so concerned about the financial crisis that she’s talking on the House floor about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his denunciations of Israel. I understand that Presidents have to have multiple things in their crossfire, but you would think that wouldn’t apply to the House. Especially in the middle of a crisis.

7:04: In the audience: a lot of students and the Washington elite.

7:11: Nate Silver has a good debate preview up.

7:14: Matt Yglesias asks if the debate itself will be in HD. It’s a good question. Angelo believes it will be. Confirmation: here.

7:17: A C-Span history of debates.

7:18: C-Span’s debate hub is awesome.

7:19: The largest airport in Mississippi, in Jackson, was renamed the Jackson-Evers International Airport to honor assassinated NAACP leader Medgar Evers.

7:23: Marc Ambinder’s preview is also worth reading.

7:27:This week in 1963: JFK becomes the first president to sleep overnight in Duluth. Thanks, PBS.

7:29: Listening to C-Span calls before a debate is excruciating. Supporters of either side are just grating.

7:31: Janet Brown, Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, starts off the speeches that are very unimportant, and meant only to stoke the egos of those who give them.

7:37: Frank Fahrenkopf chastises the crowd to not applaud or make any noise.

7:42: Should I be concerned that there’s been multiple listings of corporate sponsors? Or is that too 3rd party-sh of me?

7:43: THe University lost power because of an accident with an immigration line earlier today.

7:50: Michelle Obama is in the house.

7:51: Jim Lehrer is on the stage. He talks down to people who “volunteered or participated” in the primary debates. Let’s hope Hillary isn’t watching. He talks about needing “absolute concentration” and asks Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama to take names of whoever makes sound.

8:00: And away we go! Tom Brokaw says the “Reagan Democrat” is the voter both are courting. Jim Lehrer says he has not cleared his questions with anyone. Both candidates arive to the only applause of the night.

8:03: First question: Eisenhower talks about economic strength being the basis for military strength. Where do you stand on the economic recovery plan? Obama goes first. Talks about Main Street, and how his proposals protect the taxpayer. His four point plan: oversight, the possibility of getting the money back (equity), executive pay, and help to homeowners. Segues into a criticism of Republican financial policy, including deregulation, and including the phrase “trickle down.” McCain references Kennedy (who has since been released from the hospital, per Politico). McCain is talking to Lehrer, while Obama was addressing the American people. Odd distinction. He talks at length about the bipartisanship in Congress, and mentions accountability, options for loans, and “a number of other essential elements.” He then seems to try to side with House Republicans, who want something wholly different. He ends up with a reference to foreign oil. Obama mentions that “we haven’t seen the language yet” which is head scratching. Of course, Lehrer is referring to a plan that is being negotiated as we speak. I think he’s pressing a bit in the wrong direction. The key is what they think should be done, not really what they think about some abstract plan that no longer exists. Obama addressed that answer to Lehrer. McCain tells a story about Eisenhower and Normandy, and his willingness to resign if D-Day failed. He implies that Chris Cox should resign because he failed - but doesn’t say why. Obama says there must responsibility not just when there is a crisis, and talks about the problems before the crisis erupted last week. Funny moment: Obama refers to McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and Lehrer makes him say it directly to McCain, who jokes that he could hear Obama the first time. McCain’s response: “We have fundamental problems in the system.” It’s pretty ridiculous, given his comments about the fundamentals of the economy. He finishes with an ode to the American worker that Lenin could have written. Time spent talking on this: directly even. To the second.

8:14: Second question: what differences to you have on the economy: McCain wants spending under control. Talks about earmarking as a gateway drug. The joke about bear DNA doesn’t get any laugh. He holds up a pen to veto and says “this one is kinda old.” He’s making the old person jokes himself. Yeesh. McCain criticizes Obama for making earmarks. Obama agrees that earmarks are abused, and often by lobbyists. Obama says earmarks cost 18 billion, but McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars worth of tax cuts to the rich. Obama is working overload to relate to the common man. McCain goes on again about the earmarks and the 18 billion dollars, and criticizes them for corrupting people. He mentions Obama’s 800 billion of new spending. Obama talks about his plans: closing corporate “loopholes,” health care spending, etc. Obama again says earmarks alone will not get the middle class “back on track.” McCain talks about the business tax being the second highest in the world, to get more businesses in America. He goes back to earmarks AGAIN, and he’s getting a little silly on the point. He talks about the tax cuts he wants to give everyone. Fact check: earmarks are only 0.63% of the federal budget. Obama talks about his tax cuts, and criticizes McCain for making health care benefits taxable. McCain jumps in, and criticizes Obama for … his vote on the Energy Bill. McCain only wants to talk about earmarks. I’m at a bit of a loss. Obama mentions the tax breaks, and criticizes mcCain for opposing the Energy Bill right now for the position on eliminating tax breaks for oil company.

8:26: Third question: what would you give up to pay for this recovery plan: Obama says it’s hard to say, but some things will have to be delayed. Talks about needing to get energy indepdence in ten years. That’s very, very optimistic. Also mentions health care, and deductibles going up 30%. Also mentions competing globally, specifically in education. Also mentions infrastructure, including roads and the energy grid. A certain viewer near Albany, NY likes the road shout out. McCain talks about needing to cut spending, criticizing Obama for having the most liberal record. McCain wants to end ethanol spending, and better bids for contracts for the military. McCain talks about knowing how to get defense spending under control. Lehrer wants to know what will delayed specifically. Obama talks about postponing parts of his energy plan, and 15 billion lost through Medicare. Mentions working with Tom Coburn setting up “Google for Government.” McCain wants a spending freeze on everything but Defense, Veterans, and “other important” areas. Obama says you need a scalpel, not a hatchet, mentioning the 79 billion dollar surplus of the Iraqi government. McCain wants 45 nuclear power plants, and gives an awkward climate change shout out to Sen. Clinton. Lehrer doesn’t like these answers, and tries again. Obama segues into a discussion about values, and talks about corporate tax cuts versus health care. McCain does not want health care handed to the federal government, and gives a variation on the Harry and Louise schtick. McCain goes back to spending, and talks about owing China $500 billion. That’s true, but not really the root of the problem as he implies. Obama refers to the “orgy of spending” under Bush and criticizes McCain for voting for Bush’s budgets.

8:38: What are the lessons of Iraq? McCain: You caannot have a failed strategy that causes you to lose. A little broad to me. Bad strategy is as old as warfare itself. McCain hugs the surge as much as he possibly could. Talks about “winning” in Iraq and “coming home with victory and honor.” This is about 100 degrees difference away from what Petraeus describes. HD update: Apparently they both look weird in HD. Obama talks about opposing the war from the start, and tells the same story about taking an unpopular position as McCain. Obama talks about being distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda being resurgent. McCain talks about Obama saying that the surge failed, not going to Iraq, and not holding hearings on his subcommittee. Obama looks amused, and restates Biden saying that those things are held at full committee. Obama gives his own McCain quotes, including greeted as liberators and history between Shia and Sunni, leading it into a question of judgment. McCain says Obama does not understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. McCain says Obama refuses to believe we are winning. He describes a strategy that sounds a whole lot like a tactic. It’s a strange distinction. McCain talks about Obama not funding the troops. Obama knocks it down quite easily, actually, saying that McCain and him both voted against bills for other reasons, and talks about at length about Afghanistan. McCain talks more about the surge and Petraeus, and says he knew the surge would succeed this much.

8:50: Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan? Obama: Send more troops ASAP, as per the commanders in the ground. Obama goes back to Afghanistan and says it cannot be separated. No mention of Pakistan thus far, except implicitly mentioning Al Qaeda “crossing the border.” Finally mentions Pakistan. Three points: More troops, deal with the poppy trade, and dealing with Pakistan. McCain talks about the Russians leaving and the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. McCain says he is not prepared to cut off aid to Pakistan, and criticizes Obama for launching strikes, or rather, for saying it out loud - effectively admitting he would do the same thing but not say it out loud. He talks about Waziristan. McCain wants the Iraq strategy. But Iraq is urban warfare; Waziristan is remotte tribes. Building walls is pointless when there’s already mountains in between people. a WSJ article a long while ago made this point. (A GOP one I linked to before). Obama says it’s about having intelligence regarding Al Qaeda, and taking them out, and that McCain has made comments regarding extinghuishing AL Qaeda and singing songs about bombing Iran. Obama says that Musharraf was coddled and the policy was anti-democratic. McCain says there was a failed state when Musharraf came to power. McCain tries to defend his temperament, and defends himself by voting against troops going to Lebanon; supporting the Gulf War and going into Bosnia and Kosovo; he wanted the troops in Somalia to apparently do more “peace making force.” But the criticism was regarding his words, both originally from McCain and rebuttal from Obama. This is just a tangent regarding his record. He says if Iraq does not succeed, then lives are wasted; the logical implication is that the deaths in Vietnam and Somalia were in vain. Obama says no soldiers die in vain, and all service should be honored, but the question is regarding how to keep America safe. He criticizes McCain for saying America could “muddle through” Afghanistan. McCain criticizes Obama for not going to Afghanistan and not holding hearings again.

Discipline: McCain has oddly times smiles, as usual, but is otherwise OK. Obama seems pretty OK. No sighs so far. Lehrer says time is even.

8:50: What is the threat from Iran? McCain says there they propose an existential threat to Israel, and that there can never again be a Holocaust. McCain says a League of Democracies could take effective sanctions, mentioning the Germans, French, and British. He also mentions Iran infiltrating Iraq. Obama says the Republican Guard is a terrorist organization (and says he always said that) and said that the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran’s hand. Agrees that a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, both for Israel and to prevent an arms race in the Middle East. Obama says cooperation from states like Russia and China will be needed for sanctions to be effective. He talks about diplomacy. He says that efforts at isolation only accelerate efforts to get nuclear weapons. McCain talks about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel out, and not wanting to give him a propaganda platform. McCain talks about needing preconditions being necessary, citing Reagan and Nixon. Obama says even Kissinger wants America to meet with Iran. He cites Bush sending Bill Burns to talks with Iran, and admitting it may not work. Obama says that after cutting off talks with North Korea, nuclear work was quadrupled, and nuclear secrets were sent to Syria, and through talks progress was made, even if it is on shaky ground. He even mentions McCain not wanting to meet with the President of Spain. McCain says he will not set a visitor’s schedule. McCain says that without precondition, meeting with Ahmadinejad legitimizes comments about Israel. Obama pushes back on Israel, but McCain interrupts, and makes a joke about Obama not denying the words of Ahmadinejad.

9:16: Russia! What do you do, what -DO- you do? Obama says the relationship needs to be reevaluated, but that the actions in Georgia were unwarrented, and that the six point peace plan needs to be implemented. Talks abot needing to be supportive of fledging democracies, and expanding NATO to countries like Georgia. Also talks about expanding cooperation, specifically with loose nukes. McCain tries to hammer home that Obama doesn’t understand foreign relations, saying Obama’s first statement only called for restraint on both sides. McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. Not sure about that one. Talks about concern over resurgence of the Russian Empire. Says that Russia is in violation of the cease fire agreement. Obama tries to give a better framing of his position on Georgia, but widely agrees with McCain. Mentions the Georgian economy. He talks about how he warned about Russian peacekeepers in Georgia in April, but nothing was done. Obama says that an energy strategy is necessary to deal with not only Russia but also Venezuela and Iran. Mentions energy, including nuclear, wind, and clean coal. Talks about McCain voting against renewable energy. McCain also talks about Nunn-Lugar. Obama says that he’s just for storing nuclear waste carefully. He wants to make another point, but McCain talks over him and I can’t tell what either said.

9:25: What is the likelihood of another 9/11? McCain says it is much less than it was on 9/12. He mentions that he and Lieberman wanted to start the 9/11 Commission. He seems to be making the Richardson approach: that he personally knows a lot of things and can get things done because he knows how to do it. It’s not what he did in the primary. Obama says America is safer in some ways. He talks about chemical sites, ports, and transit. He circle back to nuclear proliferation and says it is the biggest threat to the United States. Says missile defense is necessary, but it is not more important than nuclear waste. Says Al Qaeda is operating in 60 countries, and the root cause is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Says America’s standing in the world has been damaged, and work is needed to restore the standing as a city on a hill. McCain cites Reagan and missile defense, for some reason. He goes back to Obama “not understanding” and says if there is failure in Iraq, Al Qaeda will have a base there. Obama goes back to McCain and Bush focusing on Iraq, while Bin Laden is still out there, while seguing to Chin being involved around the world everywhere where America is not, and the ability to project power of America is hurt. Segues into a discussion of veterans, and that a broader strategic vision is necessary. McCain says that Obama does not have the experience of knowledge necessary to be president. He compares Obama’s stubbornness to that of Bush, and says Obama not admitting the surge succeeded is really bad. Obama mentions his father coming from Kenya, and wanting to come to America because of the standing of America in the world, and that this idea is important, and investing ni how ordinary people live out their dreams is important. McCain one ups that by talking about coming home from prison and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

That ends the debate. I’m going to ponder grades, but Lehrer gets an easy A. Well done.

Sphere: Related Content

Carville: Half-Right on Democrats

James Carville wants more red meat:

Speaking on CNN, Carville said the party was too soft in its attacks on John McCain Monday night — the same mistake, Carville says, Democrats made at the 2004 convention.

“The way they planned it tonight was supposed to be sort of the personal — Michelle Obama will talk about Barack Obama personally, Ted Kennedy was a very personal, emotional speech,” Carville said. “But I guarantee on the first night of the Republican Convention, you’re going to hear talk about Barack Obama, commander-in-chief, tax cuts, et cetera, et cetera.”

“You haven’t heard about Iraq or John McCain or George W. Bush — I haven’t heard any of this. We are a country that is in a borderline recession, we are an 80 percent wrong-track country. Health care, energy — I haven’t heard anything about gas prices,” Carville also says. “Maybe we are going to look better Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. But right now, we’re playing hide the message.”

Carville’s predictably getting attacked by Obama pseudo-surrogate Andrew Sullivan, but Carville does have a point: this is the Democrats best and only chance to unite. And like Matt Yglesias says, uniting a party does not come from hugging it out (sorry Ari), but rather by blasting the hell out of the political opponent. That’s what got the party behind Kerry in 2004 (although that was done before the convention).

That said, Carville is missing one very obvious point: that many Americans had questions regarding the family and patriotism of the Obamas. They had to spend a day making people comfortable with them as people. The next two days need to be incredibly vicious against McCain: they really need to be on a Zell Miller type of level. They have the headliners (Clinton and Biden) to do that. The convention would then wrap up with Obama framing his choices against what McCain is offering.

That said, I’m not sure the Mark Warner message will be is needed. The only overarching message about McCain so far is that he’s Bush’s third term. That alone will not be enough to win.

Sphere: Related Content

Is There a Singular Reason For McCain’s Problems Campaigning?

Liberal blogger Josh Marshall looks for a “Grand Unified Theory of McCain Crappiness.” I found some of his reader comments somewhat insightful and some others not insightful whatsoever (they were more along the lines of liberal wishful thinking). Matt Yglesias adds that McCain has been coasting his entire political career. I think there’s something to that.

If I were to make a theory on John McCain, it’d be that he only considers issues on the basis of national honor. Complicated issues that blur the lines of honor seem to interest him much less. Take his positions on economics. Aside from previously stating that he knew little about economics, McCain’s generic statements gave a lot distaste to conservatives in the primary. Instead of looking at the economy, McCain focuses on spending. He may not be able to explain the market in terms of honor, but he can explain that spending money irrationally is a breach of honor. It’s also why he does well where he does. His wheelhouse is talking about matters of honor. That’s why he is so compelling talking about the war; most other Republicans would have been doing far worse on the issue, even with recent developments in Iraq, had they been nominated instead of McCain. By contrast, McCain doesn’t consider building or running a campaign as a matter of honor; it’s just an annoying prerequisite to running for office. That’s why he can be so laissez-faire in how he runs things. On Climate Change, by contrast, McCain sees honor in taking the issue on, but doesn’t know enough about the issue to even understand, apparently, if his cap and trade even includes a cap. You can even see this matter of honor is McCain’s campaign logo.

That’s why you see so many high profile issue Republicans as surrogates for McCain. Phil Gramm has to be involved, since McCain himself does not know a lot about the economy.

Obama’s faults seem to be as present, but far more nuanced than John McCain’s large flaw. I’ll discuss Obama’s faults, such as his duplicity, at a later time.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday Senate Roundup

New Hampshire: John Sununu and Jeanne Shaheen both had successful second quarters fundraising; Sununu has a cash on hand advantage, but Shaheen has a big advantage in the polls. Sununu is also making a push to increase spending to minimize increased heating costs this coming winter in New Hampshire. A third party group is going to start advertising against Sununu for supporting conservative judges. Sununu talked up health insurance for small businesses, while Democrats criticized him for his vote on Medicare yesterday, which received extended discussion in New Hampshire as a result of Ted Kennedy’s last second appearance. Raffle watch: Jeanne Shaheen does what Barack Obama cannot.

Minnesota: Al Franken is proposing a permanent lobbying ban for members of Congressfrom ever becoming lobbyists. Coleman and Franken both had another successful month fundraising, raking in 2.26 million despite having serious problems with his campaign. The Minnesota race between Coleman and Franken is by far the most expensive Senate race this cycle. Franken and Coleman sparred over energy and the effectiveness of drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. The AP took a look at the liabilities of being an entertainer that Franken brings with him. They have some good insight, but I think the bigger problem for Franken has been the sloppiness in which he’s run his campaign. A veteran politician, or someone that was already vetted with a lower tough race would have been able to pivot more to his ideas instead of getting stuck in traction at a lot of petty type of scandals like workers comp or paying taxes or what not. Franken will complain when he loses that it was an unfair fight on trivial issues, but he’ll have no one to blame but himself. I’m remindedof armies i nthe Crusades; when they lost a battle, it was common to think that the other side had played devillish tricks or that your side was insufficiently faithful. Sometimes, though, it’s just poor tactics: like leading your entire army onto a hot dry plateau with no water nearby in the middle of summer.

Alaska: Reid Wilson of RCP takes a long look at the campaign, explaining why it will be so close of an election in almost every race. Ted Stevens is addressing a joint session of the Alaska legislature tomorrow. A primary opponent of probable Democratic nominee Mark Begich is planning a road show about alleged corruption involving real estate deals and Begich. If it gets any traction, it could eliminate the perceived corruption gap between Begich and Stevens, who has been fighting his own charges which included federal agents raiding his home at one point. Stevens staffed up with an Alaskan political veteran to lead his reelection campaign. Begich praised a plan by Republican Gov. and possible VP Sarah Palin to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. Is Begich getting too favorable of coverage? Did Ted Stevens go too far with his statements on race?

Colorado: Mark Udall is getting hit for making a political decision in intervening in Colorado Springs water dispute. Republican Bob Schaffer’s connections to Jack Abramoff (Schaffer took a Marianas Islands trip arranged by Abramoff) are once again mentioned. Moreover, an oil deal that Schaffer himself negotiated with the Kurds has been flagged as holding up national reconciliation in Iraq by the State Department. In positive news in Colorado, Udall is dramatically winning the facebook battle. Schaffer is committed to being on the vanguard of conservative principles. In a year like 2008, is that a curse or a blessing?

New Mexico: Republican Steve Pearce and Democrat Tom Udall voted on opposite sides of a House Bill that would have forced oil companies to drill on already allotted ocean land or lose drilling rights. Pearce proposed a bill to sell off some public land in New Mexico and eliminate a large part of wilderness protection; Pearce was chided for supporting the narrow interests of “extreme ranchers,” whoever that may be.

North Carolina: The Raleigh News and Observer finds Kay Hagan’s energy ad against Elizabeth Dole to be “a stretch.” Dole voted for the Medicare bill that passed the Senate yesterday, voting with most Democrats and against Republican NC Senator Richard Burr. Kay Hagan raised 1.6 million in the second quarter, a decent but unremarkable number given the dynamics of the race and that she is far behind in both name recognition and cash on hand, not to mention polling numbers. Dole and others scramble to find money to fix a bridge badly in need of repairs.

New Jersey: New numbers show Frank Lautenberg is pulling away from Dick Zimmer. He felt confident enough to take shots at Joe Lieberman for supporting McCain. The NY Post criticized Lautenberg for not supporting off shore drilling. Zimmer disclosed his mortgage and urged Lautenberg to do the same.

Kentucky: Mitch McConnell set a Kentucky fundraising record in the second quarter and has a massive cash on hand advantage over Bruce Lunsford. Lunsford plans to spend a day with the SEIU. Meanwhile, yet another Predator actor is making a run for office.

Oregon: Gordon Smith has good relations with Indian tribes in his state, as nine have endorsed him despite normally being Democratic. Jeff Merkeley is getting slammed for suggesting the Democratic Ads which include footage of him were not intended to support his candidacy. Steve Forrester wonders if Gordon Smith is losing his motivation and his edge recently, citing recent sloppy campaign work that could come back to haunt him.

Louisiana: John N. Kennedy must constantly answer why he is running as a Republican for Senate this cycle after running for the Senate as a Democrat four years ago. He criticized his own decision to endorse John Kerry in 2004, and said he would continue to take PAC money. Mary Landrieu raised 1.5 million in the second quarter, a Louisiana record.

Oklahoma: Andrew Rice continues his low-key campaign in Oklahoma, meeting people at every restaurant he can. That pales in comparison to the effectiveness of the sort of name recognition and cash advantage that James Inhofe will have. The Huffington Post tries to hit Inhofe and praise Rice on telecom immunity; Rice better hope the blurb is worth in fundraising what it will hurt him popularly; I’m willing to wager that Rice won’t exactly put that sort of endorsement on the front of his website.

Idaho: Kevin Richert, like me, wonders how Larry LaRocco can claim victory when a poll shows him 15 points behind. Richert digs deeper into the data and finds that economic issues will probably decide the election, not Iraq, terrorism, or immigration.

Texas: The Texas Medical Association praised Cornyn for changing positions and supporting the Medicare bill yesterday (after previously denouncing him); opponent Rick Noriega tried to hit him for flip-flopping on the issue. Also, the San Antonio Current takes a look at the uphill battle that Noriega has to climb to win in Texas. Speaking to 35 people at a time in a state as big as Texas strikes me as being an inefficient use of time.

Kansas: When you have good name recognition, big lead, and your opponent has spent years as a lobbyist in Washington away from your state, you can afford to go negative in advertising earlier than others would do so, like Pat Roberts just did to Jim Slattery.

Mississippi: Candidates Ronnie Musgrove and Roger Wicker used to be roommates, but now they’re sniping over Medicare. It is very rare for Senate elections to be this competitive in Mississippi.

Maine: An editorial predicts that Susan Collins will beat Tom Allen by 20 points. Some had predicted this race could have a Sheldon Whitehouse - Lincoln Chafee vibe, but that hasn’t materialized at all. Allen might be better off staying in the House.

Sphere: Related Content

Impeachment Hearings in the House?

Nancy Pelosi has softened / changed her position on impeachment hearings:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Kucinich is expected to offer a “privileged resolution” this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Pelosi has said previously that impeachment “was off the table,” so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush, although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has only six months left in this term.

“This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi told reporters. “Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject.”

This could have substantial political impact. High profile hearings involving the Bush Administration would come at a time that John McCain is trying to hide Bush as much as possible. Moreover, hearings involving the decision to go to war would tie Bush and McCain even closer, as it is a decision they agree on.

On the other hand, this could highlight liberal, unpopular Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich and the Moveon crowd. I also suspect that Nancy Pelosi is not the most popular politician. Also, the proceedings could come across as overly popular.

We’ll keep an eye on this situation, but do not expect any substantial endgame. Neither Bush nor Cheney will be convicted or even impeached before their term is up in January….

Sphere: Related Content

The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant

One of the rationales brought up by people this election season for voting for John McCain is that with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, this would create a problematic scenario. I think this idea is mostly ridiculous.

Michael Merritt lays out what he considers unified government:

What is unified government? I define this as the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the same party. In Congress, it means that both the House and Senate have comfortable enough margins of power to get their agenda passed swiftly without too much work.

I disagree with this characterization. One party has total control only if they have 60 members of the Senate, one reasons liberals are going crazy over that number this year. This is exceptionally unlikely to happen this year. Nate Silver projects that there is only about a 17% chance of that happening given the electorate.

Republicans did also not have 60 members in the Senate. So what happened? All of the partisan elements of Bush’s domestic agenda the past six years were either thwarted (Social Security) or co-opted by Democrats for various reasons (Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, FISA). The less partisan bills (No Child Left Behind, post-Katrina Bills) were in many cases co-authored by Democrats. There are other bills, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Medicare Bill that fit into both categories to a certain extent. None of these depended on who held a majority in Congress; if Democrats had a slim lead on Republicans, much of the same would happen. The FISA Compromise in the Senate right now is indicatibe of that. The immediate effect of a new President in domestic policy is regulatory power; ability to set new standards, to appoint partisans to regulatory commissions, and whatnot. That is usually unhindered by Congress, except in extreme cases. This was similar for the Clinton administration: the partisan health care attempt failed, even with a majority of Democrats.

Moreover, in terms of foriegn policy, the development the past 50 years has strongly favored the President over Congress. Indeed, Bush has been able to do almost whatever he wanted in foreign policy, even after the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. Bill Clinton initiated the Kosovo campaign in the middle of being impeached.

The ultimate point is that in domestic policy, divided government is overrated. If one party has a supermajority, than they can accomplish very partisan things, such as what Democrats did in the early 60s. But there is little evidence that slight majorities change things dramatically either.

Merritt lays out other reasons.

1) Corruption

So why is having unified government so bad? Well, for starters, it leads to all sorts of corruption. You only need to look at the Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and Mark Foley scandals to see what can happen when politicians get too comfortable with their own power. … As well as scandals in Congress, scandals in the executive branch can also go unchecked with unified government. Just look at the U.S. Attorney scandal, treatment of enemy combatants, and others.

Corruption is a worry not for divided government, but for parties that have any power whatsoever. As appealing as it would be if no party had power, that seems unrealistic. Moreover, it’s not just Republicans that have a monopoly on corruption; Democrats like William Jefferson are not squeaky clean, either.

As for Merritt’s second argument, Democrats have done absolutely nothing constructive regarding those scandals that they could not have done in the minority. Issuing unanswered subpoenas for instance. At best, you could argue that Democratic pressure made Alberto Gonzalez resign. But not even Republicans were not happy with him at the hearings.

2) Breakdown of Checks and Balances:

Merritt states:

Next, and arguably the worst, unified government creates a system where checks and balances break down, and the legislative and executive branches begin to take the country in too far of the wrong direction. Whether it’s more toward socialism or more toward laisse-faire capitalism doesn’t matter. When government is unified, the debate necessary to quash bad legislation just isn’t there, and the executive and party in control of the legislature can enact whatever they want without too much effort. Keep in mind that I speak of the kind of unified government that some commenters here are afraid of. That which has a large majority in the House (which the Democrats don’t quite have now but come close) and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don’t have now and probably won’t have even after this November).

As I noted above, the facts do not back this up; not at all. This type of strong push one way or another only occurs when one party has a supermajority, implicitly meaning that the people want the country to move in that direction. The reason is simple; the founding fathers created a system in the Senate that would check undivided government itself. Merritt completely glosses over this; he admits it exists, but does not want to trust it.

Less Partisanship:

At least with divided government, both sides are forced to compromise, at least in theory. This is in theory because it depends on how partisan minded your two parties are. If you get even one party that is unwilling to concede anything, then nothing gets done, as has often been the case with the current make-up of Congress. Yet, the partisanship we’ve seen isn’t so bad that we see no legislation come out of it. The Farm bill is just one example of where both parties got together to pass legislation.

This is also true when the same party is in control of Congress and the White House. I’ll take the Farm Bill and raise him every other bill I’ve mentioned: Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, Katrina Bills, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, etc. Even the poorly organized Democrats were able to negotiate somewhat with those. Moreover, even with undivided government, when negotiation failed, bills did not pass (Social Security).

Furthermore, I think the Farm Bill is a terrible example. Farm issues and immigration are two specific issues that naturally cut across both party lines. Support and Dissent on the bills is never aligned specifically by party. You find liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agreeing to hate the Farm Bill, for instance. Somehow, I don’t think that what Merritt had in mind was that bipartisanship would emerge as a cabal of bipartisan representatives agreed to take money for their states.

There surely is some impact of divided government at the very margins. But that difference is dwarfed by the foreign policy differences between the candidates, even as their Iraq policies converge. It’s for that reason that I’ve defined myself as a foreign policy voter; if you want to effect a domestic policy, work and donate to Congress. For this Presidential election, too much is on the line in foreign policy to base a vote on marginal impacts of a divided government.

Sphere: Related Content

Review: Barack Obama Biography (Election Update)

The kind people at the Biography Channel were nice enough to provide us with advance copies of the Barack Obama biography that goes on sale at Wal-mart tomorrow.

The forty seven minute DVD covers mainly Obama’s rise to be Senator; a last segment that is added on covers briefly his chase for the nomination (not including his ultimate winning of that nomination). Obama’s biography draws a lot of attraction. At a local Barnes and Noble store yesterday, I found multiple books on Obama’s biography; conversely, there was only one on McCain’s biography, and it was written by the candidate himself (and is really more about his family than simply McCain himself, as evidenced by the name).

A challenge for me in reviewing this is to figure out what the DVD was trying to accomplish. This is not any fault of the Biography Channel, but rather a challenge for me, as I have essentially read everything I could on Obama; thus, I already knew a lot of this information. For people who already know Obama’s life story and have followed the campaign closely, there is not really much to be gained from this. Conversely, someone who wants to look at the DVD to get deep insight into Obama’s character (for instance, figure out why he joined Trinity Church), there is also little to be gained, which frustrated me. Jeremiah Wright is mentioned only in a footnote towards the end, without even mentioning why he was so controversial in the first place. The DVD is very good, though, at telling the story of the rise of Obama while glossing over political questions that really do not belong on a DVD.

The main narrative of the biography is the rise of Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Featuring interviews from his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and brother in law Craig Robinson, the parts of a young Obama growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii are really well done. It also heavily emphasizes the outsider status of Obama in terms of racial identity, having grown up in a white family but being perceived as an African American.

I’d highly recommend the DVD for the parts of Obama’s life outside of politics. Whenever the DVD veered into politics at all, it made me cringe, as it made a lot of broad statements that weren’t always necessarily true. The nonpolitical parts, by contrast, are good at highlighting Obama’s background and general worldview. Like Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, the narrative focuses on his father significantly even though his mother seems to have more directly influenced him. The biography also details the rise of Obama at Harvard Law, focusing on the importance of it, and not as much on the specific details.

It’s important to be honest: This is an introduction to the character of Barack Obama, not a critical study of it. As an introduction, it’s a success, and encourages further research into his positions. For instance,

If you know a lot about Obama, and have read his books, insights on his character from family members and friends such as Marty Nesbitt and political advisor David Axelrod will be interesting. But it’s unlikely to be drastically different from what you have heard, and as the narrative gets further along, David Axelrod seemingly pops up more and more, and it feels like an extended campaign ad. But that’s not to complain. That’s just the nature of this sort of biography. Consider this the cliffnotes version of Obama’s own book. If you want a deeper and more critical look, I’d recommend for starters David Mendell’s book.

The much touted “Election Update” is already outdated - and will be even more outdated come the middle of November, win or lose. I’m a little perplexed at releasing this DVD now instead of then; but as I mentioned above, there’s a strong demand for biographical information on Obama.

However, it may be worth getting just for the footage of Obama walking around a cow at a local state fair, and for the look on David Axelrod’s face when talking about Jack Ryan.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog of Clinton-Obama Campaign Event

11:25 EDT: We’ll be blogging the Clinton-Obama event today. MSNBC has been nice to point out the following critically important facts: 1) Obama’s tie matches Clinton’s pantsuit (both robust Democratic blue); 2) Obama and Clinton greeted each other warmly on the plane; and 3) Obama’s campaign plane used to be Clinton’s campaign plane. Is Obama just rubbing salt into the wound?

Last night Obama and Clinton met with Clinton donors. Reviews are mixed. Some Clinton supporters called the event a “dud”; others were more optimistic.

12:05: The New York Times has this picture:

This whole thing feels just ridiculous to me, like something out of a bad sitcom.

12:43: Former NH Gov. and current Sen. candidate Jeanne Shaheen is addressing the crowd. Streaming video with terrible, terrible audio quality available at cnn.com. Democrats are committed to health carem lower costs, a better economiy, independence from foreign oil, and ending the war in Iraq. Shocking, I know. Whatever would the world do without someone liveblogging this.

12:54: Brooks and Dunn’s Only in America is playing now. Apparently “Only in America” can a close election winner reconcile with a close election winner.

12:56: Oh my. Shades of Ghostbusters Two, as Jackie Wilson’s Higher and Higher is booming out. If they arrive at the rally in a walking Statue of Liberty, I’m going to have to abruptly cut off this live blog. On the bright side, that’s probably the only way that absolutely everyone is going to get on the same page. I can see it now - both Obamas and both Clintons riding high.

1:05: They’re fashionably late, like any star couple to any big party.

1:08: I’ve just spotted Huma Abedin on MSNBC, so clearly the candidates have arrived. The “honorary” Mayor of Unity, Ken Hall is introducing the candidates. Imagine Tom Carvel if he lived in rural New Hampshire. In introducing Clinton and Obama, Hall manages to not even say the word Obama, saying just “the next President of the United States, Senator Barack [mumbles].” Clinton and Obama work the rope line together.

1:20: Anne Kornblut points out that “the only person” who worked the crowd with Hillary like Obama just did was Bill Clinton. The whole point of working a crowd as a candidate is that no one but your spouse ever also does it unless someone is endorsing you. It seems that Kornblut is pointing out just a truism. Someone on MSNBC just tried to work the word pusillanimous into the discussion. Uhm, mute.

1:21: I can hear their microphone talk before the speech starts. Obama says he is not talking that long. Clinton speaks first. She starts by thanking the NH Dem pols, saying Obama will need Democratic Senators “when he is President.” She twice refers to the primary being “hard fought” but says that they now stand shoulder to shoulder, even though he’s sitting on a stool. (Cheap line, I know). Everyone’s goal is the same: to elected Obama. She comically refers to the primary as a “spirited dialogue” and admits its the nicest way she could think to put it. Calls the Democratic party “an unstoppable force.” I’m waiting for her to say “we’re the juggernaut, bitch!” She complements Obama’s life and campaign and goals. Talks at a lower tone about “old fashioned” values and listening to even the quiet Americans. Chants for both Obama and Clinton break out. Clinton says that it’s problematic that Democrats rarely have won the White House recently. Clinton leads up to the vote totals of the town, and talks about those votes signifying Democratic values. Key line “Sen. McCain and President Bush are like two side of the same coin that oesn’t add up to a whole lot of change.” Finishes with call to vote for Obama. Except she’s not finished - she talks about a number of people she spoke to on the trail, and that Obama will fight for those people in the White House. This is like Return of the King - it’s felt like it’s about to end about 5 times. She talks about a Medal of Honor recipient who gave her a medal encouraging her to keep fighting. She could really have made history by fighting if she turned around and punched Obama in the face. June surprise! She talks about how important this election is. She quotes Churchill on America doing the right thing after it tries everything else. He also regularly insulted women he thought were ugly. And she - I think - finally finishes by again praising Obama. And there it is.

1:43: Obama thanks the NH pols as well, including the local Kiwanis Club (’the hot dog truck is right behind the massive sign that symbolizes america’s hopes and dreams’), then thanking Clinton at length for her commitment. He praises Clinton’s devotion to causes even in the face of attacks. (from whom remains nameless). Obama says that the country and the party need Bill and Hillary, and praises their long record. Obama uses the Jay-Z dust off the shoulder motion to describe Clinton’s “grace and aplomb.” He concludes an uplifting series about women being able to do anything with jokes about women doing it “in heels.” I’m not sure what to make of that - as someone describes it to me “an awkward throwback to the Ginger Rogers line about Fred Astaire” that’s actually a putdown to him. Obama segues into a juxtaposition of policies with McCain - essentially a staple stump speech. All of his rhetorical flourishes end up with Obama hunched over the podium. Obama pledges a unilateral invasion of school rooms with an army of new teachers. Not in such words, of course. But he is very angry today when talking about the issues. He’s much lighter talking about Clinton. It’s just a weird effect. Obama attacks cable news for “point scoring”- clearly learning some Republican tricks in attacking the press. Wraps up with a call for change.

And that’s it. In brief: He’s fired up, she’s ready to go offstage.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain and Obama Statements on DC v. Heller

McCain:
Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Obama:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Sphere: Related Content

McCain and Obama Statements on North Korea Agreement

McCain:

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s North Korea announcement:

“The announcement today that North Korea has provided information concerning elements of its nuclear program is a modest step forward, as will be the destruction of the disabled cooling tower of Yongbyon. But it is only a step covering one part of North Korea’s nuclear activities. It is important to remember our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That must remain our goal. The Six Party agreement called for North Korea to make a full declaration of all its nuclear weapons and nuclear programs. Many questions remain about North Korea’s programs, including the disposition of plutonium at Yongbyon, the number and status of nuclear weapons, the nature of the highly-enriched uranium program, and the extent of proliferation activities in countries like Syria. I also want to make sure we fully account for the legitimate concerns of our South Korean and Japanes e allies as we move forward. I understand certain sanctions were lifted today, some may be lifted in 45 days, and others remain in place.

“As we review this declaration and attempt to verify North Korean claims, we must keep diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to meet all of its obligations under the Six Party agreement, including denuclearization. If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea.”

Obama:
“This is a step forward, and there will be many more steps to take in the days ahead. Critical questions remain unanswered. We still have not verified the accuracy of the North Korean declaration. We must confirm the full extent of North Korea’s past plutonium production. We must also confirm its uranium enrichment activities, and get answers to disturbing questions about its proliferation activities with other countries, including Syria.

“The declaration has not yet been made available, so Congress has not had a chance to review it. Before weighing in on North Korea’s removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Congress must take the next 45 days to examine the adequacy of the North Korean declaration and verification procedures. Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure North Korea to act. They should only be lifted based on North Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move quickly to re-impose sanctions that have been waived, and consider new restrictions going forward.

“We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, which only expanded while we refused to talk. As we move forward, we must not cede our leverage in these negotiations unless it is clear that North Korea is living up to its obligations.

“As President, I will work from the very beginning of my term in office to secure the American people and our interests in this vital region. We must work with diligence and determination with our friends and allies to end this dangerous threat, and to secure a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.”

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/25/08)

Today, we discuss (1) McCain’s energy policy proposal to provide 30 billion for clean coal technologies over 15 years and its political implications; and, (2) Barack Obama’s moderating stance on FISA and the Supreme Court’s decision banning capital punishment for child rapists.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Ralph Nader Is Your Crazy Uncle Who Says Bizarre Things

I don’t even need to comment on this. But I will anyways:

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

Frankly, if Karl Rove had said this, it would set off a far bigger firestorm than just the country club comments that he recently made.

The strangest thing about Ralph Nader is that apparently no one ever told him that in order to be elected president in America, you have to build a broad coalition. At this point, he’s just an old man ranting about big bad corporations and playing the race card with all the subtlety of Al Sharpton.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Mayor on McCain Conference Call Touts Visit to Castro

Going off message, former Tampa Mayor Dick Greco discussed his 2002 visit to Cuba and his meeting with Fidel Castro, saying it was “something he always wanted to do.”

He also said that Castro had drilled offshore. He tried to be making the point that “even Castro drills for oil offshore” but on a conference call mainly filled with Florida reporters, comparing the McCain policy to Castro (and distinguishing it from that of Senator Obama) seems to have been a rather brazen move.

It was indicated at the time that Greco spoke personally with Castro:

The meeting lasted five hours and 40 minutes. As the group sat in silence, Greco and Castro talked about life in their two countries as if they were old friends.

“There was a connection between Dick and Castro,” said the mayor’s wife, Dr. Linda McClintock-Greco, who also went on the trip.

Castro has a legendary ability to talk for hours. But the groups said he listened to Greco for nearly 40 minutes.

Castro, who spoke through an interpreter even though he is fluent in English, peppered the mayor with questions:

What is the size of Tampa? How many garbage collectors do you have? How are City Council members elected? What is the water supply? What are the housing costs? Why do so many tourists visit Orlando?

After about 21/2 hours, the conversation continued over a lunch of shrimp cocktail, chicken and yellow rice and vanilla and chocolate ice cream.

Castro spoke in a soft voice about obscure topics like Chilean wine and the yellow onions he prefers, which are grown in Tampa.

He also spoke about art, and urged the group to visit the Centro Asturiano that his government is renovating in Cuba. The building was the inspiration for the Centro Asturiano in Ybor City.

The meeting was cordial. Greco addressed the leader as “sir.”

He did not ask Castro about human rights violations or political prisoners.

This is especially true given that the McCain campaign has made it a point to criticize Obama for being willing to meet with Castro without any preconditions. Greco himself was widely criticized for his visit as well, including from one former Gov. Jeb Bush.

The trip is also notable for Tampa priest Laurence Higgins blessing Castro (pictured).

[We will have the audio up as soon as possible. There were some recording difficulties that have made the copy of the audio almost unlistenable.  My apologies.]

Sphere: Related Content

More On McCain and Offshore Drilling: Once Called His New Position “Incredibly Arrogant”

I referred to this in an earlier post, but the particular problem is most pithily summarized by blogger Hilzoy (my emphasis):

John McCain:

“Tomorrow, I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.”

The radical environmentalist Wall Street Journal:

“As politicians debate whether to open federal offshore waters to oil and natural-gas drilling, there is agreement on at least one point: It isn’t a short-term fix.

If the bans were lifted tomorrow, it would be at least seven years — and likely as long as a decade — before the first oil began to flow off the coasts of Florida, California and the eastern seaboard.”

Hilzoy also notes that the most optimistic projection is that this could lower gsa prices by eight cents a gallon a decade from now, and that projection is far from universal.

There’s another level of deception, though. Take this exchange from last week’s Fox News Sunday: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »