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

I’d Discuss This Article If I Were Allowed To

Powerful AP story on campaign finance and both candidates breaking promises they had made. Unfortunately, the AP policy on excerpting prevents me from discussing this. WTG, AP. Thanks a bunch.

In the meantime, I’d highly recommend listening to the conference calls Angelo has posted the last two days, specifically on the offshore drilling re: McCain and campaign finance re: Obama. Both candidates have pretty boldly manufactured issues for pure political gain. McCain’s trying to make an issue out of drilling and insinuating it will do something about energy prices (it won’t). And Obama’s numerous “justifications” for opting out of the public finance system were all squarely in front of him over the past year when he had no problem making promises. The decision today made sense; his promises over the past year did not then and look even more ridiculous now.

Sphere: Related Content

It’s Official: Barack Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing System; Did He Break His Own Pledge?

[Updated July 19, 2008 at 12:35pm]

This morning, in an email to supporters, Barack Obama announced that he will be opting out of the public financing system for the general election (video).  The announcement has been widely expected for a few months now, so it wasn’t very much of a surprise.

Obama explained his decision, saying:

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

It’s completely fair for a candidate to contend that the problems with campaign finance system are so significant that it would be better not to participate in it.  However, there’s a bit more to this situation that raises some questions. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Massive Bounce for Obama in Ohio

March 19, PPP Ohio Poll: McCain 49, Obama 41

June 16, PPP Ohio Poll: Obama 50, McCain 39.

The crosstabs seem about the same in both. This is just a massive bounce, in three short months. I have a feeling it might be Obama’s high water mark in Ohio though.

Sphere: Related Content

Not-So-Shocking Development: Obama-McCain Demographics Differ From Obama-Clinton Ones

First Read today (my emphasis):

There was a growing consensus during the Democratic primary season that Obama was going to struggle with Latino voters — due to the exit polls, his race, and McCain’s immigration stance. In fact, in that now-famous conference call in which Hillary Clinton indicated that she would be open to serving as Obama’s running mate, that response was spurred by concern by New York Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D) that Obama was going to have trouble with Latinos. But it looks like that CW — at least right now — was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does.

This should not be a surprise. We’ve talked about this in our podcast before, and I alluded to it a few months ago. The key point is that the Obama and Clinton race revealed sharp preferences within the party, but not necessarilly sharp problems.

For instance, Hillary Clinton did not have a general election problem with black voters. (Bill on the other hand…). Obama did not have a general election problem with Hispanics.

On the other hand, Clinton did have a problem in the northwest. It’s almost certain the Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Iowa would be hurt comparably to Obama if Clinton was the nominee. On ther other hand, Obama has real problems in Appalachia. Arkansas would have been at least a swing state if Clinton was nominated; now it is a long shot at best.

That said, there’s an infinite number of ways to divide the electorate, and many show preferences. Women understandably favored Clinton generally in the primary; Now, they’re favoring Obama, because the alternative is McCain. This is not rocket science.

If you can’t decide between a red truck and a blue truck, you don’t arbitrarily decide to buy a white station wagon. It’s only the people who feel strongly about the color red and the color blue that matter. And despite a lengthy, lengthy, lengthy primary, the research into that was somehow so scarce that the best analyst in the news is shocked that Obama is doing well with Hispanics?

Come on now.

Sphere: Related Content

Warner and Strickland Withdraw from VP Consideration

Over the past week, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and former Virginia Gov. and current Senate candidate Mark Warner have both withdrawn their names from consideration from consideration to be Sen. Obama’s VP in no uncertain terms.

There words are reminiscent of the words of Civil War Gen. William T. Sherman, who has set the standard for denying anything with his statement of “If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve” regarding the Republican presidential nomination in 1884.

Right now, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has to be considered the front runner for Obama’s VP, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty the favorite for McCain’s VP. We’re going to lay low with the speculation for now though. We’re of the opinion that guessing the VP before hand is largely a waste of time. But rest assured, we’ll cover it thoroughly when it is announced.

Sphere: Related Content