Fight on the Right - George Will lashes out against McCain

This is why some thoughtful conservatives have grave doubts about his ability to be president.

That's the reaction of conservative columnist George Will to John McCain's recent call for SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to be fired. Will spoke yesterday to a business group in Michigan, and McCain was definitely a topic. Will, a friend of Cox, clearly wasn't in a friendly mood when it came to McCain. Here is more from the article:

In his speech, Will said McCain worries conservatives because he is someone who "can so polarize every argument into a kind of moral melodrama. You can't have honest difference of opinion with John McCain. This is very difficult because to disagree with he who is honor personified is inherently dishonorable."

SEC Chairman responds to McCain

Christopher Cox, SEC Chairman, responded to McCain's call earlier today for him to be fired:

"While I have great respect for Sen. McCain, we have sometimes disagreed, and
this is one such occasion. The SEC has made plain that we have zero tolerance
for naked short selling. In this market crisis, the men and women of the SEC
have responded valiantly as they always do -- with the utmost dedication and
professionalism. Addressing the extraordinary challenges facing our markets, the
independent and bipartisan SEC has taken the following decisive actions."

My take:
It seems to me that Cox is treating McCain like a senile old uncle...with the appearance of deference and respect, but with a knowing wink.

What Obama needs to do

It would seem obvious to me that for the next 53 days, Obama needs to, every single day, release a major speech, ad or press release talking in-depth about one of the following topics:

• Education
• The economy
• Afghanistan ("the forgotten war")
• Health care
• Middle-class tax cut

He should have specific proposals, and call out McCain daily for the fact that McCain talks in generalities and vague concepts, whereas he has solutions that will work. But he needs to start every day with a communication designed to control the topic for that day...even if the McCain camp responds, they'll be reacting to Obama. Of course, Obama also needs to play "defense", aggressively responding to every charge.

Nobody ever said it would be easy. Well, OK, a few people did...but they were dumb.

Disappointment and rebuttal

As an independent-minded Democrat who really liked John McCain in 2000, I'm disappointed by the negative, nasty tone his campaign has taken. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, so take this for what it's worth. But two things strike me as interesting:

• The McCain campaigns almost complete unwillingness to actually talk about their own proposals, and their almost complete focus on Obama. For example, this morning on CNN's"Late Edition" McCain Economic Advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer was asked if McCain and Obama were in fact moving closer together on the drilling issue. She basically started out her answer with "Well, what's important is that Barack Obama has...". In other words, she totally ignored his question about McCain in order to maintain complete focus on Obama. This, to me, is just wrong. It's OK to talk about the other guy, but you should talk at least as much about your guy. Otherwise, you just look like a hack. Especially when you are asked a direct question about your guy.
• The "Celebrity" ad. Here's the thing about this ad that strikes me as really offensive. There are lots of big celebrities, some of them arguably even better-known than Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. There's Bono, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Madonna, Tom Hanks, Johnny Depp, etc. But the McCain team chose Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Why? Is it a coincidence that they are two young, white girls who are known for being promiscuous? Maybe it is just a coincidence...but it smells. Bad.

I just think the John McCain of 2000 would not have behaved this way. I admired that John McCain. This one...not so much.

What Obama Should Do Now

Now that the dust has settled, and Obama has the nomination sewn up, there are a few tasks that lay ahead of him:

1. Integrate Hillary Clinton into the campaign (but don't make her VP). To pick Clinton now would inject all the wrong energy into the mix, and would make Obama look weak. I think the perfect pick would be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, the decorated Vietnam veteran who served in Reagan's Defense Department and is pro-gun and pro-military.
2. Accept McCain's idea of town hall meetings. Make him wait a little while (but not too long) and immediately go right after him on foreign policy. You don't stay away from an opponent's perceived strength, you attack it head-on...that's what Obama should do with McCain on Iraq. He has most of the public on his side, and if he just holds his own, he'll win this issue.
3. Take maximum advantage of the money gap. He can contest McCain pretty much everywhere...even in states where he doesn't win, he will force McCain to spend valuable resources...

If he does these things, Barack Obama will be the next President. According to me.

Clinton supporters and women's super-rights

It strikes me, as I read of some supporters of Hillary Clinton spread their discontent with the outcome, I am reminded of the words of women's rights pioneer Susan B. Anthony.

She published a periodical called Revolution to fight for women's right to vote. The motto of the paper was "The true republic — men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less."

Is it just me, or do these people seem to be asking for super-rights? The fact is that Hillary Clinton had ample chance to make her case. Democrats all over the country heard her many, many times. Many supported her, and I applaud them. But when all is said and done, Barack Obama will have the most delegates, and will have the nomination. The plain, simple truth is that Senator Clinton made some huge mistakes (such as ignoring early caucuses) and Obama siezed his opportunities. I really believe sexism had nothing to do with it, any more than it had to do with the fact that Senator Clinton got many, many more votes than Richardson, Edward, Biden, Dodd, etc. all put together. Last time I checked, they're all men.

Hillary video...yowch

I'm not a big fan of campaign videos...this one doesn't change my mind...can anyone say "Row, row, row your boat for Roosevelt"?

Mike Erickson on the issues...or not

Has anyone noticed Mike Erickson's website doesn't really say much at all about where he is actually at on the issues?

It strikes me as a little strange that he's accepting online donations and asking for volunteers, but not saying anything about where he is on the issues.

Thoughts on Not-Quite-Super Saturday

Here are some random thoughts on today...

Democrats

• Saw Obama's speech...wow. I don't agree with much of what he says, but you have to admire his ability to work a room. He reminds me of a young Muhammad Ali...so graceful, so smooth, so quick, that you forget how powerful his shots are.
• Clinton isn't out of it...but she's really behind the 8-ball. There's tremendous momentum for Obama, and if it goes to the convention there will be tremendous push for Obama to be the nominee.

Republicans

• Not a good night for Republicans. McCain shows real weakness, yet he's inevitably going to be the nominee. So at this point the nomination process has shown there are three candidates, and three factions that have yet to come together: Romney with the economic conservatives, McCain with the national security conservatives, and Huckabee with the social conservatives.
• What's the deal with McCain and Romney? I just noticed the last few times McCain has talked, he makes a point about saying he is continuing to have talks with Romney and that "together we will have success in November." Definitely grist for the rumor mill.

Gordon Smith challenger claims they'll stay positive...

Bates' strategist: don't go negative on Smith

The above BlueOregon post concerns Sen. Alan Bates and his possible challenge of Gordon Smith for his U.S. Senate seat. His people are saying he pledges not to go negative. Here's a snippet:

Former Ashland Mayor -- and Bates' campaign strategist -- Cathy Shaw commented in response (and quoted in the Daily Tidings) that a Bates campaign would stay positive and not engage Smith directly.

Cathy Shaw on a Bates candidacy:
Of Novick and Bates, they’re both great with each bringing different strengths and weaknesses. Although I do not know Steve well, I do know Bates and he will never go after a democrat in a race. How do I know that? Because, he won’t attack a republican opponent either; never has, never will. Before all of you roll your eyes and say that anyone refusing to go negative is an “amateur” or doesn’t know the game, I would suggest reading Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book entitled: Everything You Think You Know About Politics…And Why You’re Wrong (A New Republic Book, 2000).

And in the Tidings:
As for running an aggressive race, Shaw said Bates "never has, and never will" run a negative campaign. "He just doesn't do that," Shaw said. "People say it wins elections, but it doesn't."

My take:
It all depends on what you mean by "negative campaigning". If a candidate refuses to aggressively point out flaws in their opponent's actions or positions, then they have no business running for public office. However, pointing out an opponent's bad policy decisions or faulty political ideas is not the same as attacking someone personally. I'd expect a candidate who is tough and courageous, but also principled and wise. The end is important, but it ultimately doesn't justify the means.