2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (11/02/08)

In this podcast, we discuss projections for election day and reflect on the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in order to glean insight into how they would serve as president.

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

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Dick Cheney Endorses John McCain

Sphere: Related Content

Inside Sarah Palin’s Mind

Do you want to know how Sarah Palin thinks on her feet? Then read how she read her speech as opposed to how it was written. It sounds a bit awkward as I write it, but click through and read the first paragraph. it’s riveting.

Sphere: Related Content

On Redistribution and the Courts

Marc Ambinder explores the Drudgeism of the day:

 ”Socialist” … “redistributive” … These are 20th century words with 20th century connotations; indeed, the point of Obama’s relfection was that the most progressive — most liberal — court of the era could not bring itself to violate a core American principle and could not extend the sphere of justice to the economy.  Obama wasn’t simply making a technical point about jurisprudence and history; he was expressing a liberal positivist’s lament about the court’s reluctance in one specific case – San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez – which dealt with education funding.

And here’s the redistributionist part:

“One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that.”

“..so court focused…” is the tragedy, not the court’s refusal to redistribute wealth.

Conservatives find it absurd that Americans are about to elect the most liberal president of the modern era and aren’t terribly upset by it; but in capitalizing on this particular argument of Obama’s, the Republicans are rearguing whether some form of economic redistributions from white people to black people was necessary — even though Obama never really made the point.

I think that says everything to say on Obama, but I can add value by contextualizing Rodriguez a bit more. 

The case was essentially a challenge to unequal education funding across Texas. More money was spent per pupil in some areas, less than others. We see that reflected today with some public schools being really, really good, and others that barely deserve the name “school.” 

If you look this up on Wikipedia, you’ll find that the relative benign finding that “[Justice] Powell led the 5-4 majority in deciding that education was “neither ‘explicitly or implicitly’ protected in the Constitution.” He also found that Texas had not created a suspected class related to poverty. ”

Obama was specifically referring to mostly the inability of the Courts to solve problems like that, and needing social movements and social power to fix those sorts of problem. You need millions of people trying to fix funding problems for inner city schools, not a dozen people in a courtroom. He’s also conceding that the poor should not be a protected class of people, like has been done with race, age, disability, gender, and a number of other classifications, to different extents, of course.

Justice Powell’s argument against redistribution was based on the fact that poor people live everywhere, and redistribution imposed by courts would just move the problem around (citations removed):

The complexity of these problems is demonstrated by the lack of consensus with respect to whether it may be said with any assurance that the poor, the racial minorities, or the children in overburdened core-city school districts would be benefited by abrogation of traditional modes of financing education. Unless there is to be a substantial increase in state expenditures on education across the board - an event the likelihood of which is open to considerable question - these groups stand to realize gains in terms of increased per-pupil expenditures only if they reside in districts that presently spend at relatively low levels, i. e., in those districts that would benefit from the redistribution of existing resources. Yet, recent studies have indicated that the poorest families are not invariably clustered in the most impecunious school districts.

Interestingly, the one person of interest Obama is disagreeing with is Thurgood Marshall, who wrote a very spirited defense in Rodriguez. Marshall argued that the discrimination because of disparities in funding was so vast that that action was required:

The Court seeks solace for its action today in the possibility of legislative reform. The Court’s suggestions of legislative redress and experimentation will doubtless be of great comfort to the schoolchildren of Texas’ disadvantaged districts, but considering the vested interests of wealthy school districts in the preservation of the status quo, they are worth little more. The possibility of legislative action is, in all events, no answer to this Court’s duty under the Constitution to eliminate unjustified state discrimination. In this case we have been presented with an instance of such discrimination, in a particularly invidious form, against an individual interest of large constitutional and practical importance. To support the demonstrated discrimination in the provision of educational opportunity the State has offered a justification which, on analysis, takes on at best an ephemeral character. Thus, I believe that the wide disparities in taxable district property wealth inherent in the local property tax element of the Texas financing scheme render that scheme violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can see here how Marshall waves away the possibility of legislative reform as irrelevant. Obama’s point is that there obviously is a problem in the pay, but judges are unwilling to push that far to make changes, as evidenced by Marshall’s argument not attracting a majority vote. 

The reality that people seem to understand is that a broadly-based redistributionist scheme like Drudge et. al are trying to conjure up has zero chance at ever passing. It’s completely unrealistic. 

Also, this blog was totally the only election blog to mention Rodriguez before today. Suck on that, Ambinder!

Cass Sunstein has a great post up on this on TNR.

Also, see more here and here, including some dissenting views from Sunstein.

Sphere: Related Content

The Final Countdown: 8 Days Until Election Day

With 8 days left until election day, here’s a quick roundup of what’s going on…

• Obama will campaign in Canton, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania today.  Biden will campaign in Greeneville, North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina and New Port Richey, Florida today.

• McCain will campaign in Dayton, Ohio and Pottsville, Pennsylvania today.  Palin will campaign in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, Virginia today.

• Desperation continues to spread in conservative circles.  Rove recognizes the bleak situation McCain is in, but doesn’t really have any good ideas on how he could bounce back.  Hewitt’s blog has a sad post that tries to flip all the election coverage for real: “If MSM Isn’t Trustworthy, Why Are Conservatives Trusting The MSM 8 Days Out?” Because failing to recognize reality is the best way to win this election, right?  Kristol offers some advice for McCain, but not before invoking Foch.  Foch!

• Josh Lyman says that it is your “duty to get Obama elected”.  Oh celebrity endorsements.

• As the election draws near, there is a deafening silence in the liberal blogosphere on Obama’s plans for Afghanistan.  Has that ship already sailed?  Does everyone just blindly accept the need to substantially increase troops there?

• Palin and The View co-host Elizabeth Hasselback sit down with Sean Hannity for an interview scheduled to air tonight.  Hasselback? Really?  Why does the campaign insist on Palin doing this awkward joint interviews?

• Bloomberg’s Al Hunt scolds both candidates for sugar coating reality a bit.

• If Obama wins, is there a role for Axelrod in the administration?  Ben Smith explores this.

• Morning Show summary here.

Sphere: Related Content

October Surprise: US Raids Syria

I don’t see this news pushing the economy off the minds of voters.

What’s come out so far makes this sound like a very limited targeted strike. We will update with candidate statements when available.

Sphere: Related Content

More on Divided Government: The Judicial Question

There’s been a lot said about divided government, including by me. But one aspect horribly overlooked is the judicial question. Jeffrey Rosen looked at it, and if you’re a fan of moderate policies, beware:

In each of the past three elections, of course, these hyperbolic predictions have turned out to be wrong. Since 1996, Roe has been supported by a comfortable 6-3 majority, and the Court, controlled by two relatively moderate swing justices, Sandra Day O’Connor and now Anthony Kennedy, has remained fairly centrist. All of this had led some Court-watchers, including me, to conclude that the stakes for the Court in most presidential elections are less dire than many liberals fear.

Not this time. This year, for the first time since the New Deal era, a single election really does have the power to transform the Court–at the very moment that voters, rightly concerned about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq, are looking the other way. Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative–and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88–it’s hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.

What’s at stake is not only Roe v. Wade, but issues directly tied to the current concerns of the public: among them, Congress’s power to regulate the economy as well as limits on the president’s power to act unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Although McCain claims to favor justices who will defer to the political branches, the most likely Republican nominees are hardly consistent advocates of judicial deference. Voters who are hoping McCain will nominate relatively moderate judicial mavericks should think again.

I’ve said before that I don’t think Roe is an issue, so I’ll take it off the table here. The reality is that the court is on the brink of swinging to a near-Lochner court. There’s been strong pushback against federal government related to interstate commerce, and that trickle could become a deluge with the right Court appointees. Given the relative ages of liberals and conservatives on the Court, a Democratic president would be more likely to retain balance on the Court. Where before narrow majorities upheld issues like basic judicial access for detainees, this would change that. There’s far, far more at stake with the Supreme Court than with the actual Presidential election. Campaign finance is another issue that could be gutted.

A simplistic look at divided government always only looks at President and Congress. In all likelihood, the economy will continue to have problems in the next few years, and at some point, Republicans will be able to take advantage of that, at least in the House and possibly Senate elections. But what can’t be undone are Supreme Court appointments.

Divided government reminds me of speed limits on a highway. Yes, it’s safer to have speed limits on the highway, but what really matters is which way you are driving.

Postscript: I think a more interesting case for divided government is made by the NRSC Dole commercial which assumes an Obama victory. If there’s a run off in the Georgia Senate race, you can expect much of the same.

Sphere: Related Content

Schweitzer Steers Pro-Gun Voters From McCain To Libertarian Barr

Libertarian Bob Barr play a role in this campaign yet - helping Obama win Montana.  Well aware of the recent polling that puts Obama slightly ahead of McCain in Montana (but still within the margin of error), the Obama Campaign held a press call with Montana’s Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

One of the topics: Guns

Schweitzer defended Obama’s position on gun rights assuring voters that Obama “ain’t ever going to take your gun away”, while suggesting that gun voters who aren’t sold on Obama may want to consider Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr.  He said:

“If guns are your primary issue, you’re probably not going to like either of these guys,” Schweitzer said during an telephone news conference put on by the Obama campaign.

He said a third option for voters for whom guns is their primary issue is to vote for Barr, a former Georgia congressman, “if you’re absolutely not going to vote for McCain or Obama on guns.”

The Obama Campaign later denied that Schweitzer was saying that voters should vote for Barr.  But, that’s just campaign-speak.  The suggestion was clear and it’s smart politics.  Whether or not it’s effective remains to be seen.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: McCain-Palin Interview on NBC

If that does not work, link here.

Will Clothes Cost Palin a Tax Cut?

Via Ben Smith, it is reported that Sarah Palin’s wardrobe expenses count as income under the federal tax code. As someone currently taking Tax I, this seems pretty obvious.

Her Alaska salary is reportedly $81,648. Add in the $150,000 of clothes, and her income for the year would be $231,648. 

Taking that over to Obama’s tax calculator and … she will probably not get a tax cut anymore; she would without the clothes, though. (I’ll not that I have no idea what Todd Palin made in the past year, and do not particularly have an inclination to find out.) She would have lower taxes under Obama’s plan just using her income as Governor. (Again, sans anything from Todd.)

Incidentally, I think this account of the need for the wardrobe is fair. But I’d still argue that these constitute income.

Postscript: John McCain opposed these types of purchases when he was a lowly Senator.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Criticizes Obama’s Economic Plan As Near Socialism

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Colin Powell Endorses Obama, Discusses It With Press

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/15/08)

This podcast provides post-debate analysis for the final debate between Obama and McCain at Hofstra University…

[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

LIVEBLOG: Third and Final Presidential Debate At Hofstra University (October 15, 2008)

[NOTE: all times are central standard time]

6:40: As usual, we will be live blogging tonight’s final presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.  The debate is taking place at Hofstra University.  It is set to begin at 9PM (eastern time).  It will be moderated by CBS’ Bob Schieffer.  The focus will be on domestic and economic issues.  As usual, we’ll be doing a post-debate podcast.  If you’re interested, take a moment to subscribe to our podcast.

7:23: If you’re looking to watch the debate video online, you can check out C-SPAN’s debate hub.  Just shield your ears from the agonizing call in show that precedes these debates.

7:33: The Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates is talking about the significance of the debates both nationally and internationally.  In discussing the international perception and role of our debates, she said:

In all cases, they see our debates as integral to the democratic process.  And they believe that it’s remarkable that the American public thinks they have the right to expect the candidates for high office will stand in a neutral setting and talk to each other freely about important issues and ideas.

All I can say in response to this is: no.  “Talk to each other freely”?  Hardly.  These debates are incredibly scripted and controlled, with virtually every detail negotiated and agreed to by the campaigns in advance.  I’m not trying to bash the debates, but, let’s at least be honest with ourselves.  Like past debates, tonight’s debate is hardly a “debate.”

7:50: Look, we’re not only a nation of red states and blue states.  We’re also a nation of bright red outfits and bright blue outfits.  Michelle Obama is wearing blue, Cindy McCain is wearing red.  Sigh.  I wouldn’t note this, except, even these kinds of decisions are influenced or controlled by campaigns.  This is our politics.

7:55: Hillary is in the house.  She’s sitting pretty far back from the stage.

8:00: And, it begins…

8:02: First question: Why is your economic plan better than your opponent’s?

8:04: McCain says that primary cause of the economic problem is the housing crisis.  And, he notes his plan to use $300 billion to directly assist with the failing mortgages.  Obama notes the need to address multiple factors.  Neither had nothing new to say here.

8:08: McCain follow-up question: He asks Obama about his recent exchange with “Joe the plumber” and notes that Joe was concerned that Obama’s tax plan would hurt him.  Obama responds that Joe was mistaken, and that his plan would cut taxes for a significant portion of Americans.

8:10: McCain doesn’t understand why Obama wants to raise taxes at all, even if it’s on the richest Americans.  He chides Obama for wanting to spread the wealth.

8:12: Obama mentions Buffet again.

8:14: Question 2: How would you cut spending? (ugh, how many times are they going to ask this question)

8:15: Obama talks about the need to change our culture a bit, and the need for people and corporations to become more responsible.  Obviously, he doesn’t want to answer this question with any specificity.

8:16: What would McCain Cut? He argues that we need to become energy independent by building nuclear power.  Unfortunately for McCain, even if we started building power plants the day he took office, it would not have an effect on power for too many years to actually satisfy the short term need he talked about.  He goes on to talk about an across the board spending freeze.  The one specific example he offered was ethanol subsidies.  That’s not going to go over well in the heartland, even though our ethanol program does need to be reworked totally.  It can’t just be a cut in ethanol subsidies though, there would need to be additional reforms to make up for the losses those farmers would suffer.  Dah well…

8:20: McCain says that he is not President Bush.  Then talks about his fight for reform, ethic and fiscal responsibility.  He then challenges Obama to give examples when he has stood against his own party.

8:22: Obama says that he supports tort reform, charter schools and clean coal.  Each of which, he argues alienate an element of the base.  Pander Alert! The clean coal thing was just added in there to help support

8:24: Question 3: Are you willing to say face-to-face what your campaigns have said about your opponent?

8:25: McCain hits Obama on not accepting his offer to participate in town halls, which he considers to be one of the causes of the current tenor of the campaign.  He also criticized Obama for changing his position on campaign finance.

8:27: Obama says that people expect presidential campaigns to be tough. And adds that 100% of McCain’s ads have been negative.  He also pointed to some negative 527 group ads that are being run against him.  I don’t think Obama needed to bring up the 527s, especially since, this line of argumentation would reflect poorly on him as well given some of the really harsh 527s that are being run against McCain about his age and health.

8:30: McCain criticizes Obama for not criticizing Rep. Lewis.

8:31: Obama retorts by noting that his campaign did criticize Lewis’ statement.  He adds that Palin saying he pals around with terrorists, and the lack of response to some of the strong words from supporters, like “kill him,” that have come out at rallies have not been productive.

8:34: McCain’s response is beyond bizarre.  He says he isn’t going to let Obama criticize the people at his rallies that wear “women for mccain” t-shirts or the men that wear VFW hats.  This is total nonsense.  There is definitley a better response to this and I have no idea why McCain didn’t offer it.

8:36: ACORN and Ayers are discussed.

8:39: McCain continues to try and portray Obama’s relationship with Ayers and ACORN as substantial.  If this is the argument that McCain wants to make, again, the campaign needed to figure out a better way to articulate this message.  However, they didn’t.  It’s inconsistent and somewhat confusing.

8:40: Question 4: Why would the country be better off if your runningmate became president?

8:41: Obama notes Biden’s foreign policy experience and offers some legislative accomplishments he has made.

8:42: McCain says that Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. Calls her a reformer and a role model for women.  He cites her experience within the Alaskan energy sector.  McCain also talks about Sarah Palin’s work on behalf of special needs education, like autism.

8:44: Obama circles back to point out that across the board spending, which McCain said he would do in the beginning of the debate, would prevent the advancement of special needs programs.

8:45: McCain criticizes Biden for voting against first gulf war.  Calls his recent partioning plan in Iraq cockamammy.  McCain responds by wondering why Obama is always talking about more spending.  In other words, he wonders why research and development can’t be free.

8:46: How much can U.S. reduce dependence on Foreign Oil?

8:46: McCain says that it would take about 45 nuclear power plants and he gave a target number of 7 years or so before significant gains would be made.

8:48: Obama says that energy independence can happen within 10 years.  He notes that domestic oil will not satisfy our demands.  He talks about a few examples of alternative energy.  One of the things he talked about, which will resonate well in key states like Michigan, is the need to manufacture a fuel efficient car in the U.S.

8:51: McCain criticizes some of Obama’s initiatives as underming of free trade.  He specifically notes that Obama didn’t support the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.

8:53: Obama gives a reason for not supporting the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.  It has to do with human rights abuses.

8:55: McCain responds by saying that Obama doesn’t support the Columbian free trade agreement because of human rights concerns, but is willing to negotiate with Hugo Chavez.  He concludes by saying that Obama is like an isolationist and will raise taxes, then compares Obama to Hubert Humphrey.  The two aren’t exactly the same, it’d be nice if McCain provided a reasoned argument or a syllogism at some point in this debate.

8:56: Question: Do you favor controlling health care costs over expanding coverage?  If I liveblogged this, it would actually be unfair to John McCain.   Obama is simply outclassing McCain on this subject.  He is communicating his plan in more understandable terms than McCain’s.  That’s not to say that Obama’s plan is better, I am not endorsing one plan over another.  But, in terms of performance, McCain’s performance on this subject tonight was simply bad.  Obama’s wasn’t flawless, but at least you could understand his argument, even if you disagree.

9:06: Could you nominate a Supreme Court justice who differs with your view on Roe v. Wade?  McCain wouldn’t apply an litmus test and will appoint strict constructionists.  Obama says he understands that abortion is a difficult subject, says that he supports Roe v. Wade and believes that is important.  He gives an example of the equal pay, for equal work case that just came up.  Too much to get into here, but listen to our podcast for a discussion of it.  This was a very interesting exchange.

9:15: Does poor performance in school pose a threat to national security?

9:16: Obama notes that there is a national security element to education. Says the debate is between more money or reform.  Obama says we need both. Talks about his reforms in primary schools, recruitment of new teachers, recruiting of math and science teachers, etc.  He closes on the need for parents to play a larger role in the education of their children.

9:19: McCain says that education is a civil rights issue.  Adds that there needs to be competition in schools.  Is this a subtle argument for vouchers?  Also, says that charter schools are a good step. Alright…

9:20: Should federal government play a larger role in education?

9:21: Short answers: Obama, yes.  McCain, I really can’t tell based on his response.

9:22: Obama says that he also supports charter schools, but does not support vouchers.  McCain points to the voucher program in DC and argues for vouchers more generally.

9:25: As a debater, I didnt flow rebuttals.  Accordingly, I will not be blogging the closing remarks.

9:28: First thoughts?  Obama was on point, McCain was all over the map. This is not a partisan perspective, it’s not based on the policies that they advocated.  Rather, it is based on the how effective the candidates argued their opinions.

As an aside, this is not the best live blog that I’ve done.  The format was not conducive to a live blog.  We’re going to be posting a podcast shortly with full analysis, so subscribe to our podcast if you’re interested…

Sphere: Related Content

Early Morning Debate Preview

Some early thoughts around the internets of what may happen tonight at Hofstra:

• McCain has put himself into a double bind. His new stump speech is all about ditching the anger and not mentioning William Ayers, but he’s also promised to bring up Ayers in the debate. If he can manage that - and I can’t see how even a highly skilled candidate could, much less someone as blunt as McCain - then he’ll have accomplished something, although his main hurdle will still be connecting on some economic message.
• Famous Hofstra alumni: Avi Arad, chairman of Marvel Studios (Will Terrence Howard be there to kick his ass?); Norm Coleman, current Senator (R) from Minnesota; Mary Matalin, Republican advisor and wife of James Carville, attended but did not graduate; David Paterson, current New York Governor (D); James Caan; Francis Ford Coppola; Christopher Walken attended but did not graduate; Alan Colmes; and lastly let’s go with Joseph Gregory, the former President and COO of some little outfit called Lehman Brothers. He was fired by now disgraced Lehman Brothers head Richard Fuld for … get this .. wearing an ugly suit.
  
• Jonathan Martin seconds David Yepsen’s call for a bold different type of campaign, more or less pulling a Norm Coleman and going all positive and focusing on solutions - sort of taking the Hillary 2.0 approach. I have a feeling that sort of approach feels better here in the upper Midwest than it does in states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio. I also think it’s easier to say things like “break clean with President Bush” than to actually do it, especially once Sarah Palin is on the ticket. The only way to effectively do that is to run to the right of Bush on the bank plan, but that ship has probably long sailed.
• Hewitt wants Obama asked about Patrick Fitzgerald, Defense funding, and missile defense.
• Chris Orr at TNR explains why McCain’s Ayers gambit is doomed to fail (and it’s easy to imagine this scenario happening):
  

  It’s not hard to envision how this may play out: McCain will raise Ayers in that awkward, semi-comic manner of his, as if he’s not really sure it’s something he wants to be bringing up. (Possibly moderator Bob Shieffer will bring it up for him, which would help, but I suspect any comment he makes will still sound uncomfortable.) The real-time viewer response needles will nosedive, as they have almost every time McCain has attacked in the debates so far.

  Obama will very reasonably respond that it’s a distant association, that he was 8 years old when Ayers committed his crimes, that he deplores said crimes, etc., etc. Then he’ll turn it around on McCain, pointing out that it is all very old news, and the McCain campaign didn’t think it was worth discussing until it found itself in a deep electoral hole. He’ll accuse McCain of trying to “change the subject” and will cite the top McCain strategist who idiotically told the Daily News, “If we keep talking about the economic crisis we’ll lose.” Anyone who thinks such an exchange is a win for McCain should contact me immediately, as I have a lucrative opportunity in the housing market I’d like to discuss with you.

• John Dickerson has a typically wonderful column explaining McCain’s two challenges: first, somehow attacking Obama when attacks in a debate historically are received very badly; and second, somehow connecting economically on his new message of being a fighter, when unlike Hillary Clinton he has not shown an ability to connect with the middle class:
  

  McCain’s other challenge is that Obama is not his only target. He’s got to do something to improve his lot with voters who care about the economy. Despite “suspending his campaign” to assist in forming a financial rescue package (or perhaps because of it), McCain continues to trail his opponent badly when voters are asked to evaluate the candidates on the economy.

  As the two candidates head into the debate, both have unveiled new programs aimed at helping regular Americans in a financial pinch. McCain has also offered a new pitch about character: He’s a fighter. The message is actually a cleaner version of his acceptance speech. (Perhaps the editors were barred from the room this time.) It’s also the message Hillary Clinton offered at the end of her campaign—but Clinton was far more effective in explaining how she was going to fight on behalf of the middle class.

  McCain never really explains why his ability to fight, to buck his party, or to do unpopular things is going to improve anyone’s life. Yes, he’s been tested more, and endured more in life, than Barack Obama. But voters want to know: How’s that help me? McCain has got one more night to make the case.

• Nate Silver sets the goalposts for what McCain needs from the debate in terms of polling in order to have a chance to win the election:
  

  McCain now has to go on a run of his own, a large enough run to wipe at least 8 points off of Obama’s lead, and perhaps more like 9 or 10 to cover his inferior position in the Electoral College and the votes that Obama is banking in early and absentee balloting. It is imperative that McCain does not just draw tomorrow night’s debate, does not just win a victory on points, but emerges with a resounding victory, the sort that leaves the spin room gasping for air. Failing that, we are getting into dead girl, live boy territory.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama on Debt and Credit

Angelo made a point of asking in yesterday’s podcast why more candidates have not criticized the culture of credit. I thought it was just that no candidate would dare criticize that during an election. Well, I was wrong.

Obama in his his speech today:

It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn’t have. Lenders tricked people into buying home they couldn’t afford and some folks knew they couldn’t afford them and bought them anyway. 

We’ve lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save.

Now, I know that in an age of declining wages and skyrocketing costs, for many folks this was not a choice but a necessity. People have been forced to turn to credit cards and home equity loans to keep up, just like our government has borrowed from China and other creditors to help pay its bills.

But we now know how dangerous that can be. Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt. Our long-term future requires that we do what’s necessary to scale down our deficits, grow wages and encourage personal savings again.

This is a message that John McCain should be able to give (and should have the responsibility to give too). But this fiscal conservativism has not come from the sitting Republican president or the Republican candidate - just the Democratic candidate that’s also apparently the biggest liberal in the Senate. Presidents have an obligation to educate the country. It’s high time Republicans took that seriously beyond the message of “less taxes is better.”

How times have changed.

h/t Sullivan

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/12/08)

In this podcast we offer a preview of the third and final presidential debate between Obama and Mccain as well as an overview of the state of the campaign. We also discuss our most recent election projection and the polling trends during the last week. Additionally, we criticize both campaigns on their respective weaknesses and offer some unsolicited advice for improvement. And much more…

[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

John Lewis Invokes George Wallace, All Hell Breaks Loose: A Look at 1968, Including Roger Ailes

It’s been a rough campaign cycle for civil rights icon John Lewis. First, he endorsed Hillary Clinton early on, only to find the black community to get solidly behind Barack Obama, putting him between a rock and a hard place. Eventually, he shifted over to Obama. Then Republican candidate John McCain said Lewis was one of the most wise people he’s ever met, putting Lewis in an awkward position given his support for Obama.

John Lewis today issued a statement to Politico’s Arena regarding the campaign of McCain, comparing it to that of George Wallace. This is the full statement of Lewis:

Clearly, this would have gone over somewhat better had McCain not talked down the hatred yesterday. Anyone could talk about the political ramifications. I want to take a lot at the merit of what Lewis is suggesting. On the whole, I think he has somewhat of a point (and have said so), but that invoking Wallace is way over the top. 

It’s instructive to look at the tactics of the George Wallace campaign in 1968. They’re really stunning, even in retrospect. The following are taken from Jeremy Mayer’s article in The Historian, 1/1/02 edition, titled: “Nixon rides the backlash to victory: racial politics in the 1958 campaign” [Lexis]:

Regarding Bobby Kennedy:

The Wallace forces publicized Kennedy’s role in the FBI’s campaign to wiretap King’s phone conversations. They even released a clumsy radio ad on black stations; “I used to be for Robert Kennedy, but then I learned about how he bugged my brother Martin Luther King’s phone.”

Wallace also called those who marched in Selma, Alabama “the scum of the earth.”

And of course, every rock thrown, every building set ablaze, every riot, and every street crime, played right into the political plans of Wallace. Wallace’s standing in the polls had not diminished, as most had predicted. Instead, Wallace’s support rose following Kennedy’s assassination, and then again following the Chicago debacle, to over 20 percent. When Wallace spoke in Illinois after theriots, signs were handed out by his campaign that read “Wallace, Daley, and the police.” (21) Wallace also used urban riots to reinterpret his role in the fight against civil rights, by comparing the disorder caused by the marchers for freedom in Selma, Alabama to the rioters and street criminals of 1968, labeling both the “scum of the earth.” Much of the Wallace rhetoric on crime and disorder was nothingmore than racist code words. Nonetheless, he did attempt to refine his image as a racist. Wallace tried to hide behind states’ rights, saying that he only advocated segregation as best for Alabama. He also attacked the hypocrisy of those in Congress who advocated integration, and sent their own children to private schools outside of D.C. Wallace was masterful at appearing to be a simple Jacksonian figure, homespun and honest. He also cleverly exploited the rhetoric of black radicals: “Some militants have charged every white person in the countrywith discrimination…. Even President Johnson has been called a racist.” If every white was a racist, the distinction between a Johnson and a Wallace could be obfuscated.

In terms of inciting his crowds, Wallace could hold back because of his prior reputation:

Wallace’s followers were much less subtle in their appeals to race, which allowed Wallace to whip up fervor among his hard core racist supporters without hurting his national image. Wallace surrogates attacked “race-mixing” and made blunt appeals to the white race to support Wallace. A televised speech in Arkansas raised the dreaded possibility of integrated hospital rooms for dying loved ones. Wallace himself avoided the language of white supremacy, but the brutal rhetoric of divisive violence appeared in Wallace’s speeches with regularity. “We don’t have riots in Alabama…. They start a riot down there, first one of ‘em to pick up a brick gets a bullet in the brain, that’s all. And then you walk over to the next one and say, ‘All right, pick up a brick. We just want to see you pick up one of them bricks, now!’” Wallace’s odious record on civil rights clearly helped him woo backlash votes in the North. The beatings and vicious repression of peaceful demonstrators by Alabama’s police had shocked most of the nation during Wallace’s tenure as governor, but some northern whites hadseen it as appealing. As early as 1965, an anti-black crowd in Chicago had gleefully sung of their desire to be Alabama state troopers sothey “could shoot the n*****s legally.” Wallace’s reputation asa racist hurt him with any number of voters, but it was so solidly fixed that the “new” Wallace did not need to be explicitly racist to get the votes of the northern backlash against black progress and urban upheaval.

The Nixon campaign was not much better. And yes, that’s the current head of Fox News at the end:

Nixon’s use of law and order by contrast was technically brilliant. His running mate, Agnew, was dispatched around the country to out-Wallace Wallace. “You’ve seen one slum, you’ve seen them all” was Agnew’s laconic dismissal of the need to campaign in ghettos. Nixon also relied on television, crafting an ad campaign which offered soothing hope that Nixon would end the riots and disorder. The most memorable Nixon ad featured a middle-aged white woman walking alone down a darkurban street, while the announcer recited bleak statistics on the frequency of violent crime. This ad, like others with a law and order theme, was targeted at areas that had suffered riots. Nixon privately praised one of his law and order ads, because “this hits it right on the nose … it’s all about law and order and the damn Negro-Puerto-Rican groups out there.”

Nixon adviser Roger Ailes expressed his desire to have a “good, mean, Wallaceite cab driver” in a staged appearance with Nixon. “Wouldn’t that be great? Some guy to sit there and say ‘Awright mac, what about these n*****s?’”

A week of rabid crowds does not make McCain into a modern George Wallace. McCain’s ads did not intend to use already built up anger over Obama, but rather to make Obama’s connections an issue to a greater number than was the case previously. It was done very, very inartfully, of course. But throwing out a comparison like this is not helpful, and only gives McCain some sort of moral high ground.

To be clear, I think Lewis is right regarding the tenor of McCain’s crowds, and if he had stayed away from Wallace, this would likely have been nothing to see here. But the point of this post is to indicate that no matter what you think about McCain’s campaign this past week (and I don’t think much), that invoking Wallace is over the top.

Nate Silver has some good thoughts on the matter.

 

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »