I am Spar..Joe the Plumber!!

Really, it had to be done.



Now Compare



Cmon, this entire economic strategy built around Name the Occupation is about the most stupid and juvenile thing yet. It is beneath the dignity of a serious political campaign, luckily mccain is not running a serious political campaign. Serious political campaigns deal with issues and the concerns of voters, neither of which mccain addresses.

McCain has been running around telling people the center piece of his campaign is the economy. Clearly this is a laugh line. The center piece of the mccain campaign are lies innuendo and smear currently being spread by robo calls. Go over and read the NYT preview of the mccain campaign article. This pretty much sums up the mccain campaign

After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview with Palin and Gov. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Democrat, on “The Charlie Rose Show” that was shown in October 2007. Reviewing the tape, it didn’t concern Davis that Palin seemed out of her depth on health-care issues or that, when asked to name her favorite candidate among the Republican field, she said, “I’m undecided.” What he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues — energy independence and ethics reform — and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence. And . . . well, look at her. A friend had said to Davis: “The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P.”

Could you ask for a more shallow and incompetent way to pick a running mate? Truly this explains why palin spent 150K on clothing, she was picked to look pretty distracting viewers from her filibuster and lack of knowledge. I mean they knew about the abuse of power investigation and ignored it. This validates every thing said about how the gop operates, they live to win campaigns and not to govern.

Read more...

Its all they know how to do.

2000 and 2004 were elections where the country felt it was in a relatively good place. Sure 2004 had the War in Iraq but the war was not universally loathed at that point in time and Bush still had a 50% approval rating. Bush strategist Karl Rove ran a campaign based largely on smoke and mirrors. He focused on cultural and other distraction issues designed to fire up his base and win on turn out and voter suppression.

Fast forward to 2008 ans Rove protege Steve Schmidt is running the McCain campaign. Schmidt is a veteran of the Bush campaign and he headed up the war room in 04. He spent his time learning at Rove's right hand. He has a masters in GOP campaigning. Unfortunately for him the election is not taking place in 2000 or 2004. The country is in a bad way. For the first time in a generation an election is about more than cultural issues. Sadly for the GOP those are the only things they know how to do.

Commentators and Bloggers have been looking at the mccain campaign and asking why they persist with ayers, acorn, etc when that stuff is totally unimportant to the public. it seems to make no sense. The answer is that this is all these people know how to do. it has been their specialty for the past two decades. It is all they have ever needed. Now though they are being asked to do something new and different and they are totally out of their depth. So they try to up the game on what they do know getting slimier and slimier. Unsurprisingly they are not succeeding. Schmidt and co is out of their depth.

This of course frustrates them. They lash out and they look desperate, because they are. They simply dont have a handle on what to do against obama and in the face of an actual crisis because they have waged the past elections with smoke and mirrors. When it comes time to deal with problems though tricks dont get it done.

Read more...

Political Realities

If there was ever a more cynical phrase used in politics i am not sure what it was. The idea of Political Realities is constructed entirely on "Conventional Wisdom". A political reality is something that the pundits and commentators just cannot imagine is untrue. Gather together their basic assumptions about the way politics works and how candidates act and you get "Political Reality". The biggest problem is that there really are not any "political realities" in the sense that the traditional media use them. Take this article for example, Political Realities May Pose a Test to Obama’s Appeal to Young Voters . It deals with one of the most basic premise of elections. Candidates start closer to the base and move to the center.

The thing about political realities is that they are all theories. They are based on human observation, human experiences. One of these theories is called the "spacial model of elections". The spacial model deals with rational choice theory. Voters have two policy options on a spectrum. The one closest to their own position is who they vote for. This is a very simple model designed to help people get a handle on where the parties stand. Here is a visual.



The problem is that this is way too simple. Imagine the thousands of different issues that people can have an opinion on. What defines where the middle is on these issues? What is a liberal position versus a conservative position on nuclear proliferation? The way the distribution of voters is always talked about people must assume that there is this fat lump of people in the middle to target. This is just not the case. Most people have picked a side. The middle is full of people who are not really sure what to think. They dont have a developed ideology, that's why they are in the center. So why would candidates move to these non informed voters? This though is the perceived "political reality".

Remember that article i linked to at the beginning? It is all about how the young people will be dissatisfied and give up hope when Obama does the inevitable and moves to the "center".

Mr. Meek, a co-chairman of a Democratic group working with young voters, said this subset of the electorate would be especially attuned to shifts in policy, even subtle ones, made by Mr. Obama.

“He’s going to have to master the art of being able to keep individuals motivated,” Mr. Meek said, “so that they don’t feel heartbroken because something they were told during the primary phase is something that he’s going to have to take a different position on in the general election.”

Is Obama really going to do this? When this "political reality" is talked about i always wonder why the candidate has to give up on his position that is well reasoned and based in reality to pander to people uninterested in the facts. When the pundits say center what they mean is "position polls well". It is one of the things that drags down our country, the idea that we need to move to the center. Stake out the correct policies in the primaries and go with them. Convince people your ideas and policies are the correct ones.

In many ways Obama sees things as i do. His acceptance speech was a renewed restatement of liberal values. in it he talked not about moving off his positions but finding common ground where the opposing sides could work together. This means he is not abandoning his primary positions for more popular ones in the general election. It is my opinion that we should not reward candidates who sell out and pander to those without an opinion. The challenges we face are serious and we need serious people to solve them. Those who are willing to jettison their beliefs for a few more votes are not the people we need.

Obama is going to take his ideas and his policies to the people. He will go door to door if he has to but he is going to convince the people he is right and that he is in earnest. People are tired of the cynical "political realities" where candidates do things not out of conviction but based on a poll. If Obama is able to do this then it shatters the idea of the "political reality". It would not be the first time he has done this. Think back to the primary when the reality was that Obama would be unable to compete with the Clinton Machine or that Obama could not get the votes of low income whites or Hispanics. These things were all disproved. Not much of a reality is it? Political reality is just another word for cant and i think Obama has shown he has little respect for that word.

Read more...

Obama Strategy for Destruction of Conservatism

The general dynamics of the campaign narrative have been a feature of the campaign. There has been a fight going on over the type of strategy that Obama should run. Most Dems are so petrified of losing that they want to pursue what they feel is the least risky strategy, tie everything to Bush and let him sink McCain like an anchor. The greater part of the blogosphere has been insistent that the Dems could win only if the election is a referendum on Bush. Anything else and McCain wins. I have argued something different.

I have argued that Obama has been more than willing to allow the campaign to be about him. In this way it is more than a simple rejection of bush in a retrospective manner, it is an embarrassing of Obama. This is what i wrote back on Aug 2,

The real debate here is about how Obama should be placed in the meta-narrative of the election. One school of thought is that after the last eight years everything should be about how awful Bush has been and how McCain is just like Bush. It is a theory based around retrospective voting. This school wants the electorate to punish the ruling party by rejecting its policies and choosing the other guy. I think it is a strategy formed on desperation. It is a strategy from a party out of power that is so scared of losing that any way back into power is ok. Do not get me wrong winning is the goal but to govern with a progressive majority and to gain a mandate Obama needs to do more.

There is a very good reason Obama would want the election to be about him. If it is a referendum on him and his Ideas, the win becomes more powerful. It is not merely a rejection of the other but an embracing of Obama. An Obama win when the election is about him shows that the American people want his ideas and policies and that Congress should get in line and pass them. If there is any hope for a transformative election I think that the election needs to be more about the prospective. Prospective voting would be an acknowledgment that Obama is the right direction.

When it comes down to it I think that people vote on the future not the past making the current Obama strategy more sound. It will not leave questions about what Obama plans to do. No lingering, "Yeah Bush Sucks, but what do you plan to do?" Building a strategy around the future is better than building one around the past. It may be a little more risky if only because there is so much to punish the GOP over but the reward is greater. Obama also seems like the type of person who wants to win on his own merits and gain the confirmation that he is being chosen because of who he is and his policies.

Kevin Drum now at Mother Jones echoed my thoughts today.

Tonight Obama made a start on a campaign that's based not just on talking points (though there will be plenty of those), but on a sustained assault on modern conservatism and a sustained defense of modern liberalism.

But it was only a start. He needs to keep pressing both halves of that game plan, even if it means occasionally saying some hard things. If he takes a few chances and does that, though, he'll not only win, he'll win with a public behind him that's actively sold on a genuinely liberal agenda. This is why conservatives have so far been apoplectic about his speech tonight: if he continues down this road, and wins, they know that he'll leave movement conservatism in tatters. He is, at least potentially, the most dangerous politician they've ever faced.

It is a more risky strategy than the one that most dems would prefer, the simple, "Bush sucks. Therefore, Republicans suck. McCain is a Republican. McCain sucks" election strategy. Obama's definitely has a higher reward and that reward is the destruction of movement conservatism.

The reason that i bring all of this back up is that Barack Obama is making sure this happens with his focus on the policies of John McCain. He is working to take out all the personal aspects of the campaign. That is why he went out of his way to deny something most dems hold true, namely that John McCain takes his positions for political reasons. It is not even that controversial as he has reversed on 75 plus issues during his campaign. Obama though wants to have the public support to enact his health care and other domestic plans. This can only come with the referendum on ideas he is trying to force.

Kevin believes that this tact will make it harder for McCain to justify his campaign of dishonor. I disagree and think it only gets worse. When faced with obstacles McCain is not likely to change course he is likely to escalate. The GOP has one mode and that is "any thing to win". That means that any slander they can think of will be thrown out there. Republicans dont adapt they escalate. The question then becomes not only what the voters decide to do but what does the media want to do?

They have a long standing love affair with the Mythic Maverick. This has started to fray around the edges as he cut down access and ran a sleazy campaign. However, it still exists, McCain is still graded on a curve and some still wonder why McCain lets his advisers dictate his actions. Obama's speech and strategy might even get us some media reform. Who knows what could happen if they start covering issues?

Over all i think Obama is going for the Big Win the transformative win. If he gets it he will change America and the results should be something to behold.

Read more...

Presumptuous is a Stupid Line of Attack for McCain

The latest GOP attack line against Obama is that he is “arrogant, presumptuous and overconfident”-maybe even uppity. The GOP has gotten the media to run with this for a while so it might seem as if it is a successful smear. I think it is a very poor choice of attacks. There are several reasons for this. Whenever one candidate attacks the character of another candidate the attacker needs to be conscious of the way that attack will be perceived by those who hear it. In the case of the presumptuous attack, you have a 72-year-old white man telling a younger black man to stay in his place and mind his manners. The attack oozes racism. Second, the age of McCain makes the attack sound jealous or bitter, “I waited my turn! It is my chance now!” Jealousy is not a particularly inspiring attribute. Third, McCain has taken many actions that could be considered just as presumptuous.

ome more effective smears, they need to play more to the strengths of McCain. The presumptuous attack would have been very effective coming from George W. Bush. Bush had the humble person routine down. He was younger and he is much better at telling jokes. Humor can be an effective weapon but McCain is not too good at using it in attacks. He always sounds mean. McCain has never been a candidate particularly dedicated to acting humble and that is just not a part of the image people have created of him. He needs to smear from his strengths.

Believe it or not McCain has one strength that he can attack from that might hurt Obama. McCain should attack Obama as someone who is not a man of action. McCain can legitimately claim that he is willing to take action. We all know how much he loves the surge. He can easily claim that he is trying to win the war in Iraq; things are not going well so he wanted to try something new and bold. McCain’s maverick image would help him with this story line, as the idea of a maverick is bold and dynamic. People would believe that a former fighter pilot would be a man of action.

Obama may have opened himself up to this line of attack when he admitted that his biggest regret about his time in the Senate was not acting in some way in an attempt to stop the interference in the Terry Schiavo case. Obama did not act quickly to reject and denounce Farrakhan and had to be pushed to do so by Clinton. Obama’s debate speaking style and the way he answers questions in a deliberative manner might help to reinforce the attack. Obama is an intellectual out of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago. Obama was against the war and he gave a speech. Great, but if he was so against it why did he not do more? He is in the Senate now yet he has not done a great deal to end the war. It is easy for him when he is on the outside but when he actually has to do it he becomes indecisive.

How effective would it be to run an attack ad where McCain uses video of Bush on September 11 reading My Pet Goat with the voice over, “In a time of crisis we cannot have another indecisive president.”? Find some things that Obama has taken time to study further and use those as examples of his indecision. Turn his careful thought and intelligence against him. It does not matter if he made the right decision in the end because it simply took to long.

Could Obama show counter examples and defend himself? Yes. I am sure he could attack McCain for indecision on the birth control incident or other things, but I still think that branding Obama as an indecisive leader unwilling to take action in contrast to McCain would be a much more effective attack. It would just fit the perceived stories better than the presumptuous line that seems so forced. In the end, it will not matter because McCain will not be able to carry out the attacks properly. He has a terrible habit of undercutting and sabotaging any potential momentum with hideous decisions and gaffes. If your gonna make a character attack at least play to your strengths.

Read more...

The Obamacentric Universe

Anyone paying attention to the 2007-08 campaign for President cannot but help to see that the since Iowa the race has been about Obama. The Primary became about him. Could he survive Jeremiah Wright? Could he earn the votes of Sen. Clinton’s base? The discussion about whether Sen. Clinton should stay in the race was driven by projections about her effect on Obama’s future chances. The compelling story that is Barack Obama became the star of the show. This race dynamic centered on Obama has only solidified since the General Election has started.

The dreadful performance of the McCain campaign has been well documented as has his inability to get a great deal of media coverage. Some speculate that the lack of coverage is actually good for McCain because it prevents people from understanding how confused he is about really important things. The argument assumes that more coverage would equate to more coverage of his mistakes. This is not necessarily true. What the McCain campaign has to be upset about is the lack of positive press in addition to his screw ups. His screw ups are virtually the only thing being covered because they are generally so bad that not covering them is unethical. The McCain camp is pissed because they cannot generate the positive images and coverage to offset the screw ups. Barack Obama has taken firm control of the race dynamic.

The Obama camp plan of attack is clear. They are taking advantage of the time before the convention to define Obama. It is hard for us who follow the political events rapidly to contemplate that some people really do not know who Obama is. The campaign is filling in his weakest areas and the areas people may perceive as weaknesses. They can define Obama how they choose to and there is not a whole lot the McCain camp can do about it because they are not in control. McCain has to react to Obama and as a consequence is always a step behind him. The McCain camp realizes that Obama is defining himself and they are trying their best to intervene. The wild and constant attacks that are entirely about Obama are their attempts at defining him before he firmly defines himself for the voters. Obama is the more unknown and he needed to define himself lest the right set up the lenses through which the voters view him.

While McCain spends all his time talking about Obama he leaves himself open. McCain should not rely on the old press and identity he built up. McCain should be out there trying to take more control of his identity reinforcing the maverick label with legislation or some coherent policy plans. Instead he spends all his time reacting to Obama and racking up policy inconstancies and gaffes.

Many kossacks are worried because they see McCain going undefined and continue as a maverick. The Obama team has chosen to sure up their own base and image before going to define McCain. This has a number of advantages. The first is that sets them up to attack McCain closer to the election when the Obama camp must feel that it will be more effective. People might forget what happened four months before the election but a steady stream of attacks just before the election might sway some minds. Defining McCain closer to the election also allows the Obama campaign to bring back Bush. Making himself seem safe early allows Obama to make the election a referendum on Bush. Voters can go into the booths and think, "Bush sucks. Therefore, Republicans suck. McCain is a Republican. McCain sucks" without worrying that the non-republican cannot do the job. Obama does not want to be defending himself at the wire.

I would look for a major paradigm shift around the time of the convention. By that point Obama should be as well defined as he is going to be. Both candidates will get their convention bounce and then Obama will go to work hammering on McCain until the election. The first half of the race will be about making sure Obama is up to the task. The second half will be about defining McCain to people, not as a maverick, but as the confused neo-con panderer. If McCain’s campaign continues to be this inept, I do not foresee them being able to stop Obama. They cannot stop him defining himself now and they will not stop him defining McCain later.

Read more...