And the Buck Stops...

The FAA's recent rediscovery of it's regulatory role has caused endless headaches for the nation's air travelers this week. But I have to say that this is refreshing. Wonder if anyone named Bush or Cheney may have been paying attention?

PA Republicans: Amnesty for Party Deserters

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Richard Mellon Scaife's scandal-mongering "newspaper" reports the PA Republican Party is launching an aggressive "Come Back to the Party" campaign to woo wayward Republicans. Gotta love the fact the state party is forced to spend its limited resources on rebuilding in a formerly competitive presidential swing state.

Keystone State Dems are unconcerned about the GOP re-recruitment effort. They're confident the nearly one million voter advantage (they've added over 300K voters since last fall, according to the PTR article) they now hold over Republicans makes Pennsylvania a deep blue state in November's elections.

The GOP Playbook: "Mommy vs. Daddy"

Former Clinton strategist and pollster Dick Morris (the one who departed the Clinton inner circle before Mark Penn and has a long history as a hatchet man for the Republicans) has a revealing article in The Hill discussing a recent Gallup poll in which he selectively distorts the numbers to push the "Obama is weak/McCain is strong" narrative into the Beltway consiousness.

This poll was released by Gallup in mid-March under the headline, "Perceived Honesty Gap for Clinton Versus Obama, McCain." The pollsters summarized their findings as follows:

It is clear that voters are able to distinguish among the three major presidential candidates and rate some areas as strengths and some areas as weaknesses for each. Clinton would appear to have more weaknesses in the public's eyes than McCain or Obama, though that might reflect the fact that she is a better-known figure (and has lower favorable ratings). Currently, she holds a significant lead over Obama on only 2 of the 10 character dimensions evaluated here (strong and decisive leader, and having a clear plan for solving the country's problems) and McCain on one (clear plan). Despite this, she remains competitive with McCain in general-election matchu.ps and she has held off Obama's attempts to wrap up the Democratic nomination

Morris chose to focus on the secondary headline, "McCain most likely to be viewed as a strong leader" and push this as the narrative. Just as the Rove Republican smear machine labeled Kerry as a "flip-flopper" in the spring of 2004, the 2008 strategy is to define Obama as weak and indecisive. It is important to understand this effort is already well underway. Morris even admits the Right needs to soften him up now for the general election campaign: "the pressure the right brings to bear on him will cause him to appear weak in the face of attacks."

But a close look at the numbers doesn't show a huge difference between Obama and McCain at this stage of the campaign. Let's look at the numbers Morris is using. According to Morris:

Obama won:
• Cares about the needs of people like you, 66% to 54%
• Shares your values, 51% to 46%
•Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives, 67% to 55%

McCain won:
• Is a strong, decisive leader, 56% to 69%
• Is honest and trustworthy, 63% to 67%
• Can manage the government efficiently, 48% to 60%

Neither won:
• Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems, 41% to 42%
• Has a clear vision for the country's future, 67% to 65%
• Would work well with both parties in Washington to get things done, 62% to 61%
• Is someone you would be proud to have as president, 57% to 55%

The toe-sucker didn't indicate what the MoE was on this poll. It's plus or minus 3%, which means the separation between Obama and McCain on the "honest and trustworthy" and "shares your values" traits are statistically insignificant.

These numbers fit into one of Morris' favorite memes: Democrats are the (empathetic) Mommy Party and Republicans the (efficient) Daddy Party. The conclusions he draws are selectively simplistic and spun to fit into his oft-stated worldview. Morris goes once step further, diminishing Obama's general election chances and elevating McCain's by pulling out the Republican trump card, 9-11:

in an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama’s weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.

Morris's analysis depends on spinning these numbers in three subtle (yet sinister) ways. Ignoring the positive, redefining the term "weak" and exaggerating the negative.

Ignoring the Positive: At this stage of the campaign, both candidates have a positive national image. Morris fails to note that both Obama and McCain exceed 50% on all but two questions. Obama almost cracks the 50% threshold on efficient management while McCain is only slightly under that mark on the "shares your values" question. Both fall short on the same question: Neither is viewed as having a clear plan for the country's future.

Redefine "Weak:" Fifty-six percent say Obama is a decisive leader and sixty-five percent says he has a clear vision for the country's future. Only in the view of a GOP-spinmeister could Obama's respectable and competitive numbers translate into being "weak."

Exaggerate the Negative or How deep is that "Strength"? Additionally, the points that McCain has "won" are likely to be very much in play once the Democratic nomination battle is settled and the Democrats turn their unified energies to McCain. It will be a Democratic priority to morph McCain's steadfastness into Bush's seven years of stubbornness. The Dems will also make the argument that the neocon laissez-faire economic ideology embraced by McCain simply amounts to four more years of Bush's disastrous domestic policies. Once this happens, I cannot see McCain maintaining a significant advantage on the leadership or management questions. Conversely, can anyone see McCain closing the gap on the "empathy" questions once the general election campaign is underway?

Morris fails to consider the dramatic changes underway within the 2008 electorate and dismisses the 2006 results. He basically admits the only path to a GOP presidential victory depends on convincing a majority of voters that foreign threats are more important than domestic economic concerns. Will the Republican Party be successful once again playing the politics of fear?

Perhaps counter-intuitively to progressive activists, Morris is correct in stating Iraq may be McCain's strongest (and perhaps only) winning general election issue. This is why Obama doesn't want to be talking about Iraq 24-7 in the summer and fall. He should (and I believe he will) focus on the economy.

McCain's March Deposits: $15M

While the MSM frets over the potential divisiveness of the Democratic Party's never-ending nomination fight, the Republican Party continues to struggle to close the "enthusiasm gap" with the Democrats.

The latest omen: The WSJ reports presumptive GOP nominee John McCain raised a paltry $15 million in March. This is far smaller than the enormous mountains of cash raised by the Democratic contenders (Obama's $40M+; Hillary's $20M). McCain is succeeding at gathering the party faithful (Bush '04 donors are now giving) to his cause. But how can that be a good thing when the Democrats are attracting money (and votes!) from indies, young people, and new voters at unprecedented rates?

McCain: "This Meeting Is Over"

John McCain's recent "Service to America" introductory tour was a biographic trip down memory lane for the presumptive GOP nominee. Designed (perhaps by Karl Rove?) to reacquaint Americans with a political leader who has been lurking in Washington for nearly as long as Bob Dole and whose public image has been burnished by a lovesick corps of reporters, the S2A Tour ran into an unanticipated speed bump at McCain's alma mater, Episcopal High in Alexandria, VA.

The tough question comes from a high school student, Katelyn Halldorson who asks(h/t to Media Matters):

"We were told that this isn't a political event. So, what exactly is your purpose in being here?

McCAIN: I knew I should have cut this thing off. This meeting is over.

It takes a teenager to ask the real questions? Shouldn't this inquiry come from the professional journalists at CNN? Perhaps MSNBC?

Is McCain a Sacrificial Lamb?

Polls show voters rank the economy and Iraq War as two of the top three issues - along with healthcare - in Election 2008. Despite a majority of Americans opposing the war and supporting a withdrawal timetable, Republicans are on the precipice of nominating John McCain, a candidate who envisions the possibility of another Hundred Years War and pleads ignorant to the machinations of the national economy. Yesterday, McCain himself admitted his November success is intricately linked to voters viewing the Bush/McCain troop surge as a success.


How does a "Know Nothing" economic warhawk candidate who happens to be despised by his own party's base convince enough Republican voters he is the most electable general election nominee? Is the answer as simple as GOPers adhering to their tradition of selecting the guy next in line? Or was he simply the strongest candidate in an extremely weak field?

I think it was a smart Machiavellian political calculation by conservative leaders. Facing a political climate dominated by a foreign policy fiasco and a domestic economy in shambles after nearly a decade of conservative governing, "movement conservatives" eventually realized the chances of Republican victory in November were remote. MSNBC talking head (and conservative former GOP Rep) Joe Scarborough has said on air, "Republicans won't admit it in public, but they are preparing for a landslide defeat to the Democrats this year." If this is truly the case, it raises the question: Is McCain a sacrificial lamb?

Think about what McCain at the top of the GOP ticket means:

1. The party is "All In" on Iraq: As they were in the 2006 midterms, Republican electoral chances are intrinsically tied to the public's perception of the Iraq quagmire. Perhaps moreso this time around. This is not limited to McCain's campaign, but to all Republican candidates.
2. The conservative base may stay on the sidelines: Despite the recent rallying of conservative talk radio hosts and pundits to McCain's side in the aftermath of the NY Times McCain lobbyist story, it remains unclear as to whether or not the grassroots conservatives will show up at the polls in November. These are the foot soldiers critical to fundraising, GOTV efforts and victory up and down the ballot.
3. The loss of immigration as a wedge issue: Over the past two election cycles, GOP strategists have attempted to gin up the base (as well as blue-collar Reagan Democrats) with the specter of illegal immigration as an economic and cultural wedge issue. Despite its failure to produce GOP electoral victories in states from Arizona to Virginia, all signs were for the nativist rhetoric to continue through the 2008 campaign. McCain's partnership with Ted Kennedy (of all people!) on the failed effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform compromise removes this issue as a central tenet of the Republican strategy.
4. The End of Campaign Finance Reform: The recent news McCain is trying to escape the limitations of the public financing system must be delicious vindication for the conservatives who have long vilified McCain for his leadership role on this issue. Watching the champion of CFR find the limits placed on his candidacy by the legislation he co-authored must be sweetly ironic from the conservative viewpoint.

When (as many political strategists now anticipate) McCain goes down in flames in November the conservatives, led by Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity and the rest, will self-righteously proclaim, "We told you so! Republicans lose when they nominate a moderate! They can't win without the conservative base. Campaign finance reform's limits on free speech do hurt Republicans more than Democrats who have their allies at the New York Times and CBS providing free media and positive stories! Republicans ignored the biggest domestic problem facing America today - illegal immigration - and they paid a price for inaction." The chorus will be well-choreographed and deafening.

The last time the Democrats won in a landslide - 1964 - it was the conservative Barry Goldwater who was blamed for the GOP loss. The wingnut opinionmakers are hoping to flip the historical precedent by offering up the McCain effectively banishing the moderates from the party.

You may think the conservatives are too power-hungry to concede this year's election and relinquish control of the White House. But conservatives are not unlike the four-year old who runs from the kitchen after breaking the cookie jar and responds "Not me!" to his mother's question, "who made this mess?" Don't be surprised when they point their finger at the Democratic administration and yell, "It was them!"

The Grey Lady Learns Sex Doesn't Sell

This week's New York Times article about John McCain has been chewed up, digested and regurgitated by the 24/7 news cycle and what should come as no surprise to any alert 21st century citizen - the conventional wisdom's final conclusion completely misses the point.

Let's get this straight. The story is about the possibility of influence peddling by the self-styled ethics reformer and presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. It was not about sex. It never was.

The Times made a huge blunder by mentioning campaign staff's suspicions about a romantic relationship developing between the Senator and an attractive young lobbyist. Whether it was used as a hook to pique the interest of a salacious public or they actually thought the story would be more powerful by including this anonymously sourced "gossip" the end effect was devastating. It allowed the right wing noise machine to ratchet up attacks on the "liberal media" and created enough clutter to obscure the real story. The rabid Right Wing Freak Show suceeded in making the journalistic practices of the Times (and by extension the entire Main Stream Media) the diversionary story.

The feeding frenzy was reminiscent of the CBS News/Bush Air National Guard story during the 2004 presidential campaign. The truth of the underlying facts of a story are lost in the echo chamber. The press is silenced into submission. A timid press corps diminishes the likelihood of maintaining a vibrant public discussion vital to a healthy democracy.

And the REAL STORY is this: McCain is a politician who has made his national reputation by publicly denouncing the power of money and the influence of lobbyists in our political system while at the same time taking money from powerful corporate interests, developing cozy relationships with these "evil" lobbyists and may have even used his position to influence policy in their favor.

McCain defends his actions:



Whether or not McCain had sexual relations with that woman is unimportant to me (as it was regarding another politician during another place and time). What is important is whether the Senator's Straight Talk is simply more Republican Corporate DoubleSpeak. Americans are tired of our leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Brave New Films has a take on McCain's "Friends"





Do something! Sign the petition asking McCain to end his ties to corporate lobbyists.