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.

Her Last Prayer

Much has been written over the past month about how Hillary Clinton's coronation coalition has shrunk with each primary contest. First, it was African-Americans, the young and highly educated "latte liberals." They were followed by blue collar union members, white men, low-income households and voters in their thirties and forties. Most recently, her support among her "demographic firewalls" - Hispanics and low-income women has softened considerably.

But, have no fear, TeamHillary. It appears you've managed to hold onto a *key* Democratic constituency. Gallup reveals today the New York Senator retains an advantage among highly religious white Democrats.

McCain v. Obama & Public Financing

I've had some friends express concern about the general election public financing challenge McCain has made to Obama. Will Obama honor his earlier promise to accept public financing? Or will he be tempted by his shiny new money tree - which grows greenbacks faster than kudzu. The temptation of a million dollars a day may entice the Apostle of Hope to shed his reform rhetoric, revealing Obama to be just another politician. The pundits are warning a retreat on his earlier promise could be a serious political risk.

If I were an Obama strategist, I'd embrace McCain's challenge. It's a pretty easy decision when you think about it. Each of the major party nominees will receive about $85 million this year. This is given to them after they are officially the nominee. For the Dems that is late August - and the GOP confirm their nominee shortly thereafter.

As I understand it, Obama is free to raise and spend money on his own behalf prior to the convention. It was one of the reasons many wrung their hands in desperation about Edwards' decision to take primary matching funds. He would have been hamstrung from April to August until those funds were available, if he had been the nominee. So, if Obama can raise more than enough money for his summer needs (fending off the GOP machine) AND he can lend his name to raising money for the DNC, DCCC and the DSCC I see absolutely no reason he should not accept public financing.

While it remains to be seen if he can transfer his Midas Touch to the Democratic Party in general, it would behoove him to try. He simply needs to say, "Dean's 50 State Strategy is critical to creating the governing coalition we need to become the change." If only 15% of these Obama donors opt to write their first $25 check to the DNC the party will have tapped into a HUGEpreviously unimagined financial resource.

The Republicans - already falling behind in the congressional committee fundraising race - could find themselves outspent by a factor of 2 or 3 to 1 this cycle. $85 million dollars should be enough to win over the course of the last 10 weeks of the general election campaign. I am confident the Obama advisors will see this and score the political points of accepting public financing. McCain may think they've got Obama the Reformer boxed in on this one, but I have a hunch they're wrong.

Bottom Line: MSM Wants Hillary to Hang On

Barack Obama has now won ten straight contests in the Democratic nomination campaign. He is not just winning - he's blowing his formerly inevitable opponent out of the water. He's expanded beyond his base and proved he's got the tactical ground game to back up his rhetorical brilliance. He has enticed the elusive American youth to vote in unprecedented numbers, tapped into America's deep desire for change and ignited a hope-based movement, attracting independents and Republicans to his campaign.

In a normal year, party elders would be urging the vanquished candidate to see the handwriting on the wall. Understanding the political damage likely to result from a long and divisive battle these superdelegates would be demanding an end to the contest "for the good of the party." The punditocracy would be observing "These lopsided losses are simply too much to overcome" and asking "When will she step aside?"

Instead, we have an ongoing narrative on the cable networks dominated by observations like "Never count the Clinton machine out." "Can victories in Texas and Ohio halt Obama's momentum and provide Hillary an opening?" "The campaign sees a viable path toward the nomination and may hold on through the August Denver convention." "The Clintons may go negative to derail Obama."

While there are scattered comments from the talking heads implying the Fat Lady is approaching the mic it is undeniable the dominant meme remains. Instead of being on a campaign death watch, the media is on the lookout for a "Clinton Comeback." Does anyone out there think if Obama was on a ten state losing streak the entire media-political establishment would not have already raised a deafening chorus demanding he step aside?

I believe there are two factors contributing to this strange, suspended reality. The fact Hillary and Bill are formidable politicians with a vast network and are proven Lazarus-like survivors is secondary to the MSM's profit motive. The nomination battles have helped feed the insatiable appetite of the 24/7 cable news channels. The seemingly "unpredictable" twists and turns of January and February provided fodder for the endless ego-filled television talkfest. When the spectre of this campaign coming to an end is raised on air, you can see the talking heads visibly disappointed. If Hillary throws in the towel, these politicos will see their airtime and public profiles diminished.

A few weeks ago there were stories about how Britney's tragedy feeds tens of millions of dollars into the economy, primarily into big media. This morning, I find myself wondering how much the Hillary & Bill drama pumps into the cable networks coffers?

Let's Shout it from the Rooftops

Republicans are voting for Obama!

We know Obama is running as the post-partisan presidential candidate. Throughout the campaign he has demonstrated an appeal among independents, the key voting bloc in a general election. It also happens to be the cornerstone of John McCain's campaign.

Last night's Virginia exit polls (where voters can freely choose to vote in either party's primary) 8% of the Democratic Primary voters were self-described Republicans. Fully 70% of these voters supported Barack Obama when they cast their vote. Virginians chose to vote Democrat over Republican by a 2-1 margin. With Obama at the top of the ticket, Virginia - a GOP stalwart in presidential elections since 1964 - will be in play in 2008.

With his resounding victories in the Potomac Primary yesterday, the Obama campaign has begun it's pivot to the general election campaign. Obama asks, "Bring 'em on. Who they got? John McCain?"

Democrats Heading Toward a Denver Disaster?

I am unsure as to whether I believe the rapidly forming conventional wisdom that a brokered convention is a disaster for Democrats in November.

I keep hearing the "the divided party typically loses in November" mantra repeated all morning. I'm not sure this is true in a year where the pundits have been wrong AGAIN and AGAIN.

Granted, the quick end to the chaotic Republican race seems to provide the GOP a step up in the general election campaign, but this assumes McCain can achieve two goals. Can he unify a divided party and energize the conservative grassroots base to do the hard campaign work necessary to win in November? Can he make this move without alienating the moderate independents who are the base of his support?

Beyond McCain's challenges, the muddled Democratic nomination battle may also have unacknowledged pluses for eventual Democratic nominee.

• No Clear Target: First off, the longer we go without a nominee, the less damage the GOP smear machine can do. They can only work to brand "tax and spend liberals" and "Surrender to terror" broadbased memes - which they're going to do anyway. On the other hand, both Obama and Clinton can now do a semi-pivot toward the general election - attacking the McCain/Bush foreign and domestic policy failures.

This is already underway on the campaign trail. It behooves progressives to successfully link McCain to Bush and the neoconservative ideology. By doing this, it will force McCain to repudiate and distance himself from Bush. This makes McCain's challenge to shore up conservative support much more difficult.

• Free Media: A protracted Democratic debate means both Clinton and Obama receive top billing night after night in the national media narrative, relegating Bush and McCain to the sidelines. I envision McCain saying to his old media pals, "hey, what about me? Don't forget I'm relevant over here!"
• Campaign Focused on Democratic Issues: The vibrant debate between Clinton & Obama will mean this election is defined along Democratic themes NOT Republican. Healthcare, the economy and education will remain frontburner issues while the terror card fades into the background (unless al Qaeda rears its hideous head on American soil again).
• A Third Party Candidate Emerges: The dissafected conservatives may see an opening to run a third party candidate - they may view McCain as a sacrificial lamb - and decide to send a powerful reminder to the Republican establishment that they cannot win without grassroots conservative support. Don't be surprised if this happens. I think the longer the Dems don't have a nominee (which means we've got the spotlight) the greater the likelihood a conservative grassroots third party candidate jumping in becomes.
• The Power of the Media: The media is absolutely LOVING this. There is a bottom-line profit motive for our 24-7 cable news that propels this back-and-forth. If you haven't noticed, each time one of the Democratic candidates seems to propel slightly ahead, the moment the underdog over-performs, the MSM declares a momentum shift. A prolonged fight feeds the insatiable machine. They have a dog in this fight - and it's ALWAYS the underdog.