Watching John McCain and Sarah Palin mouth the same old Republican platitudes (low taxes, government is bad, etc., etc.) at a time when most of the people in the country know it is just those principles which got us into this mess, has made me aware yet again of the strength of Conservative convictions and the weakeness of Liberal ones.
Obama can barely bear to mention the word Democrat. His campaign is all about him. He panders to the Right, not even to the center. He is all "soft": both parties are at fault, we have to come together, etc., etc. Why? Well, partly of course, it's because he has no political convictions, but mainly because he cares only about what he has to do to win.
Unfortunately, this describes most Democrats today. Republicans (Conservatives) stuck to their principles throughout the reigns of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Their mantra of personal responsibility (social Darwinism), low taxes, no government regulation (except, of course, when it comes to morality), and the supremacy of the free market has never changed.
We can see this in the McCain/Palin campaign. At a time when McCain needed to reach out to Independents and disaffected Democrats, he chose possibly the least qualified and most conservative Republican woman candidate around because she would appeal to the Right Wing base of the Party. He, himself, has given up any pretense to being a maverick. He continues to sell himself as a Bush Republican, but a Bush Republican who will actually govern as a Republican.
The Democrats, OTOH, after the Vietnam War seemed to completely lose their way. Not only did they stop promoting Democratic (Liberal) values, they stopped defending them. Even Bill Clinton campaigned and governed mainly as Republican Lite. (Hillary, OTOH, is much closer to the FDR, RFK ideal.)
Today we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all bowing to the Conservatives, begging for their support, doing everything they can to avoid creating controversy, least they be accused of being Liberals.
What I don't understand is why. Why do Conservatives never lose faith in their principles, no matter how much reality differs from fact while Liberals caved in at their first major loss (to Reagan)?
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Experience vs. Judgment: The First McCain-Obama Debate
My latest nightmare, the first debate between McCain and Obama:
Obama will bring out that old line he's used against Hillary that judgment outweighs experience when the latter's result is Iraq.
McCain, with a twinkle in his eye and that half-smile, will look at the audience and say "He made one statement about the Iraq war being dumb back in 2004 and thinks that qualifies him to be President. What is the younger generation coming to?"
That exchange will be run repeatedly by all the news networks that have been praising Obama as the Next Coming and, all of a sudden, all those pundits will say "gee, you know, McCain is right".
I realize that many Obama supporters assume that Americans, who now overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, will not support a man, McCain, who endorses the war. What they do not realize is that Americans do still see the world as a dangerous place and, when push comes to shove, they will prefer a "straight-talking" President with lots of experience to an arrogant young man in a very big hurry.
Obama will bring out that old line he's used against Hillary that judgment outweighs experience when the latter's result is Iraq.
McCain, with a twinkle in his eye and that half-smile, will look at the audience and say "He made one statement about the Iraq war being dumb back in 2004 and thinks that qualifies him to be President. What is the younger generation coming to?"
That exchange will be run repeatedly by all the news networks that have been praising Obama as the Next Coming and, all of a sudden, all those pundits will say "gee, you know, McCain is right".
I realize that many Obama supporters assume that Americans, who now overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, will not support a man, McCain, who endorses the war. What they do not realize is that Americans do still see the world as a dangerous place and, when push comes to shove, they will prefer a "straight-talking" President with lots of experience to an arrogant young man in a very big hurry.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Electability. Why Obama Can't Beat McCain
When it comes time to pull that lever or mark a box with an X in the General Election, more voters will choose McCain than will choose Obama.
This isn't because they will agree with McCain's stand on Iraq. They won't. Or because he is an inspirational speaker. He isn't.
No, I think when push come to shove, voters will see a very ambitious young man on the move who has not yet paid his dues vs. a man who has served his country above and beyond the call of duty, a man who has earned the right to be President.
Hillary, too, would have to overcome this fundamental respect for McCain the soldier. But they are closer in age. And she, too, has paid her dues and then some. No, she wasn't a prisoner of war. No she hasn't suffered physical torture for her country. But she has been tested, and she has proven her mettle. And that vote on Iraq that hurts her so much with liberal Democrats will be a plus in the general election because it will demonstrate that she is willing to support force if force is needed.
This isn't because they will agree with McCain's stand on Iraq. They won't. Or because he is an inspirational speaker. He isn't.
No, I think when push come to shove, voters will see a very ambitious young man on the move who has not yet paid his dues vs. a man who has served his country above and beyond the call of duty, a man who has earned the right to be President.
Hillary, too, would have to overcome this fundamental respect for McCain the soldier. But they are closer in age. And she, too, has paid her dues and then some. No, she wasn't a prisoner of war. No she hasn't suffered physical torture for her country. But she has been tested, and she has proven her mettle. And that vote on Iraq that hurts her so much with liberal Democrats will be a plus in the general election because it will demonstrate that she is willing to support force if force is needed.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
OBAMA v. MCCAIN or CLINTON v. MCCAIN
Well, it's pretty obvious that McCain will be the Republican nominee, so the obvious question is which Democrat has the best chance of beating him. I honestly don't know, but my current analysis follows:
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
