I've seen some opinion articles lately that run along a certain theme, that is that a purely anti-Barack Obama campaign by the Republicans won't get John McCain elected president.
From the liberal perspective, it's a warning against "smears" or "swiftboating." Any criticism of Obama is seen by the left as a smear. Any pointing out of the Democratic nominee-to-be's flaws is swiftboating, of course. They're not, and neither is criticism of McCain.
While the Democrats obviously want to short-circuit any damage that can be done to their highly vulnerable candidate, there's a larger point here that Republicans -- especially McCain's handlers -- will ignore at their own peril. McCain and the GOP need to come out with their own positive vision of what they will do in office. Merely calling Obama inexperienced, soft on national defense and too radical will not save Republican fortunes this year.
McCain needs to come out with a clear five-point plan that regular people can rally around. Elect me and this is what I will do. Obama is going around promising all kinds of things to all sorts of people. Don't tell me what your opponent can't do, tell me what you WILL do. McCain, other than saying I'll be tough against our enemies, really hasn't done this.
Let's go to energy, an issue that's being demagogued by both political parties. People smell that stuff out in a second now. They don't like the Democratic controlled Congress going after the "windfall profits" of oil companies nor their knee-jerk opposition to offshore drilling. Yet, Republican promises to drill our way out of the energy crisis doesn't score any points, either.
So let's get to a real plan. Drill, sure. Well off-shore. But you have to couple it with other things, such as an end to the disastrous corn-for-ethanol subsidy and re-regulation of the oil futures markets. Add tax incentives for continued efforts to develop fuel cell technology and figure out how to revive nuclear energy. We need everything on the table in order to build our energy supply back to where it should be and remove speculators from the market.
A good starting point that is apparently going to waste was publicized by Robert Novak in a column that you'll find on Monday's list of articles on Realclearpolitics.com. The reform plan by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has been dismissed by GOP House leaders and ignored by McCain campaign staffers, according to Novak. Not a good idea. Republicans need all the help they can get if they're going to win any elections at all in November.
While the campaign remains in its early stages, the spread between Obama and McCain in the polls has hardly budged the past two weeks. McCain needs a push. If he doesn't get one, Obama is going to trounce him and Democrats will dominate Congress.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Curious Opening to Calif. Same-Sex Marriages
My California county today began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in response to the state Supreme Court decision that overturned a voter-approved ban on such ceremonies. I covered the morning activities for my employer and found some things to be rather interesting.
1. I asked two just-married men, after they told me they'd had a commitment ceremony five years ago, why they felt being married was so important on top of the commitment they'd already made to each other. The one who answered actually said "Hmmm" and paused for several seconds before answering. One would think that since they wanted to take advantage of what they called a historic day, they'd have a good reason at the top of their minds. Uh, no. He finally said that now they get to be equal with everyone else. However, as someone else pointed out, with civil union laws, they already were equal.
2. A coalition of groups that support traditional marriage held a rally at the county building where most of the same-sex marriage licenses were being handed out. The people who rallied were outnumbered by the media. Add the gay curious who happened to walk around to the other side of the building where the rally was being held, the participants were far outnumbered. One television camera crew interviewed a gay couple in the middle of the rally. Considering that the overturned ban gained support of 62 percent of the voters, there really wasn't much opposition shown today.
Some other observations:
-- I had a discussion with an intelligent young woman who thinks that the large majority that supported the gay marriage ban in 2002 will be whittled down by young voters who have no qualms with same-sex couples, maybe to the point that a similar ballot initiative in November, that would overturn the Supreme Court decision, will fail. In a state that in recent years voted to allow children to have abortions without telling their parents, she might be right. There's no doubt that change is afoot in this election season in a number of ways.
-- For all the hoopla, only about 200 same-sex couples were expected to obtain marriage licenses on the first day, an amazingly small number for a county of more than 2 million people. San Diego has a lively LGBT scene (which produced Andrew Cunanan, sorry), so you would expect more of a rush and a much bigger number, but it didn't happen. There was never much of a wait in the clerk's office. County officials eased the process by taking appointments, but walk-ins were also welcome.
-- I still think any such couples who want to be married better do so before November.
---
How about we just keep the U.S. Open golf tournament in San Diego permanently, kind of like New York does for the U.S. Open tennis event.
---
With all the reaction to the death of NBC News personality Tim Russert, it was terribly sad how the death of retired sports announcer Charlie Jones was overlooked. The affable Jones also died last week of a heart attack. He was a good sports announcer and by all accounts a good human being who helped the careers of several people with whom I'm friendly. Jones should also be remembered, and recalled fondly.
1. I asked two just-married men, after they told me they'd had a commitment ceremony five years ago, why they felt being married was so important on top of the commitment they'd already made to each other. The one who answered actually said "Hmmm" and paused for several seconds before answering. One would think that since they wanted to take advantage of what they called a historic day, they'd have a good reason at the top of their minds. Uh, no. He finally said that now they get to be equal with everyone else. However, as someone else pointed out, with civil union laws, they already were equal.
2. A coalition of groups that support traditional marriage held a rally at the county building where most of the same-sex marriage licenses were being handed out. The people who rallied were outnumbered by the media. Add the gay curious who happened to walk around to the other side of the building where the rally was being held, the participants were far outnumbered. One television camera crew interviewed a gay couple in the middle of the rally. Considering that the overturned ban gained support of 62 percent of the voters, there really wasn't much opposition shown today.
Some other observations:
-- I had a discussion with an intelligent young woman who thinks that the large majority that supported the gay marriage ban in 2002 will be whittled down by young voters who have no qualms with same-sex couples, maybe to the point that a similar ballot initiative in November, that would overturn the Supreme Court decision, will fail. In a state that in recent years voted to allow children to have abortions without telling their parents, she might be right. There's no doubt that change is afoot in this election season in a number of ways.
-- For all the hoopla, only about 200 same-sex couples were expected to obtain marriage licenses on the first day, an amazingly small number for a county of more than 2 million people. San Diego has a lively LGBT scene (which produced Andrew Cunanan, sorry), so you would expect more of a rush and a much bigger number, but it didn't happen. There was never much of a wait in the clerk's office. County officials eased the process by taking appointments, but walk-ins were also welcome.
-- I still think any such couples who want to be married better do so before November.
---
How about we just keep the U.S. Open golf tournament in San Diego permanently, kind of like New York does for the U.S. Open tennis event.
---
With all the reaction to the death of NBC News personality Tim Russert, it was terribly sad how the death of retired sports announcer Charlie Jones was overlooked. The affable Jones also died last week of a heart attack. He was a good sports announcer and by all accounts a good human being who helped the careers of several people with whom I'm friendly. Jones should also be remembered, and recalled fondly.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Energy Policy an Opportunity Not Taken
Three pieces of information, highly related:
-- A House panel this week voted 9-6 along party lines to reject a bill to allow drilling for oil 50-200 miles off the Atlantic and gulf coasts. I don't need to tell you which party's congressmen voted which way.
-- Republican senators blocked a Democrat plan to tax windfall profits of oil companies, which are maximizing their incomes in this era of high gas prices.
-- The job approval rating of Congress by Americans is 16 percent, according to the most recepoll on the subject taken last month. That's barely more than half the dreadful rate of support for President Bush.
Are those interconnected? Oh, yeah!
What's really telling about the failure of our national "leadership" to actually lead is that we have what's turned into a huge issue, in a presidential election year, and no one is seizing the opportunity to create a common sense energy platform to put before the American people. There's been nothing but platitudes from the Obama and McCain camps. Congress' way of helping was to prevent more drilling and try to impose extra companies on the very companies that are trying to bring energy to us.
This is a heck of an opportunity for McCain or Obama to take a strong position and, instead of simply campaigning on it, taking it right to the Senate and trying to get something done. McCain, especially, has a record of taking such aggressive action. So far, all that's happened is that, months ago, McCain supported a plan to rescind the federal gas tax for the summer driving period. Obama criticized the idea and nothing ever happened. While the effect of the "gas tax vacation" would have been minor, it would have been better than nothing. Coupled with unloading a third of the strategic petroleum reserve, prices might have fallen some.
Instead, here in mid-June the price of a gallon of gas around my area is near $4.50 per gallon. While it's just an annoyance to most of us, my trucking firm-owning brother-in-law is getting wiped out and airlines are dropping like flies. Prices on just about everything are increasing because petroleum is involved in everything from product manufacturing to transportation.
An incredible political opportunity, especially when joined with the voter disaffection noted in my previous post -- and no one's seizing it. Amazing.
---
Maybe a good thing to come out of this latest energy crisis is that Americans might be finally realizing that congressional inaction on energy policy has been long-term -- that the situation we're in didn't just come about overnight or by accident. Gas prices nearing $4.50 per gallon is, rather, the direct result of a combination of restrictive policies by Congress or legislative inaction.
The same thinking that brought us to this point remains alive today. The windfall profits tax has already been tried once and it resulted in lower domestic production. Plus, Exxon Mobil paid $30 billion in taxes for 2007, compared to a $40 billion profit. So the tax seems about right.
The ban on offshore drilling is also obsolete. There hasn't been a major offshore oil spill in decades now. Many drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico were damaged in Hurricane Katrina without causing spills. There's no reason why we shouldn't be drilling outside the 50-mile mark from the coast, where we can't see the rigs.
ANWAR is a dicier prospect. I'm not terribly convinced that drilling in a small part of the wildlife refuge would be an environmental hazard, but I'm also not sure that there's so much oil there that could be delivered in a reasonable amount of time to make a difference. However, environmentalists who have opposed ANWAR drilling for years run a considerable risk of having oil production brought much closer to home, like in the shale of Colorado. Demand for oil is inescapable, no matter how much you hate it. It could come down to giving up ANWAR or Colorado. If I'm faced with such a choice, it's "see you, Caribou!"
---
Here's some food for thought. If Congress has completely botched energy policy, then we darn well better wake up to other issues that our national "leadership" has ignored: chief among them immigration policy and entitlements. Those other problems have languished for years, with nothing changing. We hit a crisis point on illegal immigration already. The entitlement problem will crush us soon if we don't address it now.
---
If you're new to this blog, feel free to check the archives. Articles in May and January have other thoughts on oil prices, including reasons why the prices are so high and what the next president can do to solve the problem.
-- A House panel this week voted 9-6 along party lines to reject a bill to allow drilling for oil 50-200 miles off the Atlantic and gulf coasts. I don't need to tell you which party's congressmen voted which way.
-- Republican senators blocked a Democrat plan to tax windfall profits of oil companies, which are maximizing their incomes in this era of high gas prices.
-- The job approval rating of Congress by Americans is 16 percent, according to the most recepoll on the subject taken last month. That's barely more than half the dreadful rate of support for President Bush.
Are those interconnected? Oh, yeah!
What's really telling about the failure of our national "leadership" to actually lead is that we have what's turned into a huge issue, in a presidential election year, and no one is seizing the opportunity to create a common sense energy platform to put before the American people. There's been nothing but platitudes from the Obama and McCain camps. Congress' way of helping was to prevent more drilling and try to impose extra companies on the very companies that are trying to bring energy to us.
This is a heck of an opportunity for McCain or Obama to take a strong position and, instead of simply campaigning on it, taking it right to the Senate and trying to get something done. McCain, especially, has a record of taking such aggressive action. So far, all that's happened is that, months ago, McCain supported a plan to rescind the federal gas tax for the summer driving period. Obama criticized the idea and nothing ever happened. While the effect of the "gas tax vacation" would have been minor, it would have been better than nothing. Coupled with unloading a third of the strategic petroleum reserve, prices might have fallen some.
Instead, here in mid-June the price of a gallon of gas around my area is near $4.50 per gallon. While it's just an annoyance to most of us, my trucking firm-owning brother-in-law is getting wiped out and airlines are dropping like flies. Prices on just about everything are increasing because petroleum is involved in everything from product manufacturing to transportation.
An incredible political opportunity, especially when joined with the voter disaffection noted in my previous post -- and no one's seizing it. Amazing.
---
Maybe a good thing to come out of this latest energy crisis is that Americans might be finally realizing that congressional inaction on energy policy has been long-term -- that the situation we're in didn't just come about overnight or by accident. Gas prices nearing $4.50 per gallon is, rather, the direct result of a combination of restrictive policies by Congress or legislative inaction.
The same thinking that brought us to this point remains alive today. The windfall profits tax has already been tried once and it resulted in lower domestic production. Plus, Exxon Mobil paid $30 billion in taxes for 2007, compared to a $40 billion profit. So the tax seems about right.
The ban on offshore drilling is also obsolete. There hasn't been a major offshore oil spill in decades now. Many drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico were damaged in Hurricane Katrina without causing spills. There's no reason why we shouldn't be drilling outside the 50-mile mark from the coast, where we can't see the rigs.
ANWAR is a dicier prospect. I'm not terribly convinced that drilling in a small part of the wildlife refuge would be an environmental hazard, but I'm also not sure that there's so much oil there that could be delivered in a reasonable amount of time to make a difference. However, environmentalists who have opposed ANWAR drilling for years run a considerable risk of having oil production brought much closer to home, like in the shale of Colorado. Demand for oil is inescapable, no matter how much you hate it. It could come down to giving up ANWAR or Colorado. If I'm faced with such a choice, it's "see you, Caribou!"
---
Here's some food for thought. If Congress has completely botched energy policy, then we darn well better wake up to other issues that our national "leadership" has ignored: chief among them immigration policy and entitlements. Those other problems have languished for years, with nothing changing. We hit a crisis point on illegal immigration already. The entitlement problem will crush us soon if we don't address it now.
---
If you're new to this blog, feel free to check the archives. Articles in May and January have other thoughts on oil prices, including reasons why the prices are so high and what the next president can do to solve the problem.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Disaffected Voters Key to Election, Olympic TV Woes
The key to winning the White House in November became clear last week, and it wasn't in the soaring oratory of Barack Obama or the stumbling discourse of John McCain. It came in the form of a poll by Rasmussen Reports, a polling service I frequently quote on this blog.
It stated that 67 percent of Americans believe that the federal government has become an interest group of its own and serves its own will. Only 17 percent of voters agreed that our national leadership represents the will of the people.
I frequently caution against putting your trust into the results of one poll, so I don't necessarily believe those specific figures. But that's a really big number, and an awfully small one. Whether the 67 percent or 17 percent are really accurate or not, who knows, but the trend is obvious. The idea that people are displeased with the federal government is upheld thoroughly by other polls showing that support for President Bush and Congress are at historic lows.
There are clearly a lot of disaffected people out there, and the presidential candidate who reaches them first and most effectively will win the general election.
The favorite to get to the disaffected first is the Democrat candidate, Obama. Momentum is with him and his party, and his "hope" and "change" message still resonates with a lot of people. He will continue to position himself as someone who can push through dramatic changes in government programs and will have the benefit of a favorable media that will make his proposals appear popular.
Obama will also receive the benefit of a simple assumption that many of the disaffected are that way because they are Democrats or liberal independents critical of the Bush administration's health care and environmental record and are upset that neither the president nor Congress can get us out of Iraq.
In McCain, the disaffected are confronted with an old candidate who has been in Congress for decades and will continue America's wars. Not much change likely there -- especially if he allows the Democrats to tar him with the "Bush's Third Term" label.
The Arizona senator shouldn't be counted out of the race for disaffected voters, however. In fact, I think he has as good a chance at getting them as Obama does.
Here’s why. Obama will get a sizable bounce in the polls now that Hillary Clinton has pulled the plug on her campaign, but the fundamentals of his candidacy that prevented him from burying her earlier still exist. The poll indicated that many disaffected voters are also Republicans, likely upset at Congress for playing politics with Iraq and energy instead of leading the country. Moderates and conservatives will not go for Obama's liberalism. In fact, with Obama listed as the senator farthest to the left, there are a lot of folks who aren't going to vote for him .
McCain, even though he's been in Congress for ages, also has a record as something of a maverick, so he might be the one guy who could survive association with that institution. His efforts on behalf of immigration reform, campaign finance reform and trying to break the logjam of approving justice appointments earned him bad marks from conservatives but could now be looked upon as the product of someone who is at least trying to break governmental inertia. He's trying something while the others are fooling around.
These disaffected voters want someone who speaks plainly and will confront the problems we face head-on. McCain can easily fill that role.
Anyway, we're talking about two-third of the electorate. My bet is of them, a third are probably naturally set up to go to Obama and another third will go toward McCain. The battle will be over the middle third. With it will come the White House and, for Obama a friendly Congress or for McCain, a limit to the GOP losses in the legislative branch.
---
Two things in California favor McCain and should make his campaign staff reconsider their decision to not spend much money in the Golden State. First will be the presence of the latest ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. You know which side the two candidates will land on, so the majority in every such election favors McCain. Obama could make himself too plainly liberal even for Californians.
Second, while there is much hand-wringing over McCain's poor performance in his speech Tuesday night, there is evidence that Republican worries could be overblown. In San Diego, voters handed Mayor Jerry Sanders an overwhelming first-ballot re-election victory. Like McCain, Sanders is a sort of rumpled, plain speaking and not terribly smooth problem solver. Those who follow the news know that the city of San Diego has faced a fiscal mess, and Sanders has been working on it.
The challenger, millionaire businessman Steve Francis, is glib, handsome and slick. Think Mitt Romney right down to the position changes. He spent millions in advertising ripping Sanders to shreds. By election day, San Diegans were sick to death of Francis and returned Sanders to office.
The public just might have more of a taste for old, rumpled problem-solvers than slickly marketed politicians.
---
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dems Get What They Pay For With Obama
Probably every kid in the history of the planet has had their mother say to them at least once: don't wish too hard for something, you just might get it. Well, the leadership of the Democratic party really, really wanted to get rid of Hillary Clinton and make Barack Obama their presidential candidate. They worked for it. They paid for it. Now they have it.
In so doing, they tossed overboard the candidate who might have the best chance of bringing the White House back under Democratic control and replaced her with someone whose vulnerable in a number of ways. Clinton, for all the arguments against her, showed an ability in the primary season to carry the big states anyone will need to win in November. McCain carried most of the big states in the Republican race and would probably be competitive in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey -- but this isn't a GOP sort of year, you know?
There was a recent study that showed Clinton going into November with 300 likely electoral votes, with only 270 needed to win.
Compare that to Obama. I think a lot of Hillary voters would rather vote for the Illinois senator than a Republican who will keep the Iraq war going. Some will go for McCain, but probably not much. The numbers, though, are a lot tighter in the looming November matchup. Among big states, Obama in the primaries won his home state of Illinois and North Carolina. In Ohio, which shapes up as the main battleground state again, he was creamed by Clinton.
Plus, in the popular vote early polls, Obama is either tied with McCain or holds only a slight edge. Historically, favorable press generates a big early boost for the Democrat candidate. If this is it, then it's not much.
The funny this is, this almost worked in reverse. Hillary Clinton had a strong finish to her campaign, winning most of the states in the past two months. That was helped along somewhat by an effort by radio host Rush Limbaugh, who urged his mostly Republican listeners to vote in the Democrat primaries for Clinton, in order to keep her campaign alive and prevent Obama from concentrating on the general election campaign. The swing of voters just might have put Clinton over the top in Indiana and Texas.
Theoretically, if Limbaugh and some of the radio hosts who joined in might have propelled Clinton to the nomination and given McCain tougher competition. Limbaugh will consider his gambit a success because he kept the divisive Democrat campaign going longer than it might have -- and he'd be right. But it also might have been suicidal.
The moral of the story: don't try to rig the system. You could get burned.
---
Remember how months ago I predicted that Clinton would get ripped when she went down? Not anymore. A strong close to the campaign might have re-established some respect for her.
Probably not enough respect to be given the vice-presidency, however. The whole notion of Hillary being there to pat Obama on the head and say "There, there. Mama's here to save you" just won't go over well.
---
There is a way for McCain to win this election in a runaway and maybe change the GOP's flagging fortunes in Congress. Of course, Obama might take that way, too, and help increase the congressional majority to one that's cloture-certain. Whoever makes the case best will win the White House.
That'll be the subject of my next post in a couple days.
In so doing, they tossed overboard the candidate who might have the best chance of bringing the White House back under Democratic control and replaced her with someone whose vulnerable in a number of ways. Clinton, for all the arguments against her, showed an ability in the primary season to carry the big states anyone will need to win in November. McCain carried most of the big states in the Republican race and would probably be competitive in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey -- but this isn't a GOP sort of year, you know?
There was a recent study that showed Clinton going into November with 300 likely electoral votes, with only 270 needed to win.
Compare that to Obama. I think a lot of Hillary voters would rather vote for the Illinois senator than a Republican who will keep the Iraq war going. Some will go for McCain, but probably not much. The numbers, though, are a lot tighter in the looming November matchup. Among big states, Obama in the primaries won his home state of Illinois and North Carolina. In Ohio, which shapes up as the main battleground state again, he was creamed by Clinton.
Plus, in the popular vote early polls, Obama is either tied with McCain or holds only a slight edge. Historically, favorable press generates a big early boost for the Democrat candidate. If this is it, then it's not much.
The funny this is, this almost worked in reverse. Hillary Clinton had a strong finish to her campaign, winning most of the states in the past two months. That was helped along somewhat by an effort by radio host Rush Limbaugh, who urged his mostly Republican listeners to vote in the Democrat primaries for Clinton, in order to keep her campaign alive and prevent Obama from concentrating on the general election campaign. The swing of voters just might have put Clinton over the top in Indiana and Texas.
Theoretically, if Limbaugh and some of the radio hosts who joined in might have propelled Clinton to the nomination and given McCain tougher competition. Limbaugh will consider his gambit a success because he kept the divisive Democrat campaign going longer than it might have -- and he'd be right. But it also might have been suicidal.
The moral of the story: don't try to rig the system. You could get burned.
---
Remember how months ago I predicted that Clinton would get ripped when she went down? Not anymore. A strong close to the campaign might have re-established some respect for her.
Probably not enough respect to be given the vice-presidency, however. The whole notion of Hillary being there to pat Obama on the head and say "There, there. Mama's here to save you" just won't go over well.
---
There is a way for McCain to win this election in a runaway and maybe change the GOP's flagging fortunes in Congress. Of course, Obama might take that way, too, and help increase the congressional majority to one that's cloture-certain. Whoever makes the case best will win the White House.
That'll be the subject of my next post in a couple days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)