Note: this post has been incubating for a while and I decided to publish it in its current form. Part of an effort to get back into political musings.
I am of the belief that this is a critical issue for the GOP to resolve. Conservatives cannot mimic what the Democrats did for the last eight years. I have a post titled “Bush 43″ that has been ruminating in my draft section for more than six months. Bush is not popular among the vast majority of the country, but he is also hated among the vast majority of liberals. This really bothers me, I don’t want to mime this ridiculous behavior.
I have noticed evidence of conservatives reaching out to Obama. One, he campaigned on promises of bipartisanship. Granted, he won, he gets the spoils of that. (No one is expecting a fairness doctrine-esque regulation of the cabinet). Two, every conservative wants to see policies implemented that are best for the country. That doesn’t happen by alienating everyone! Ironically, only a strong Obama presidency will result in this outcome. A strong presidency will be guided by the beliefs of the nation, a moderate-conservative standpoint. I think that we can see this move to the center in Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Update: Recently, we have Obama reaching out to McCain in a formal meeting. Also, Obama has indicated he might keep on Defense Secretary Gates. I hope we see more of this kind of “reaching across the aisle”. It needs to go both ways though because conservatives will absurdly alienate themselves otherwise.
The truth is that there was little Mr McCain, or his campaign, could do with a party falling apart at the seams. When Mr McCain announced his second run for the presidency on April 25 2007 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the Republican brand was already tarnished, perhaps beyond repair. At that time, a poll for Democracy Corps, a non-profit polling organisation I co-founded, found that his party was viewed more negatively than positively by far, with 47 per cent of likely voters giving it poor marks and just 34 per cent viewing it positively. At that point 66 per cent of likely voters thought the country was on the wrong track. Of course, it only got worse as the campaign and George W. Bush’s horrendous presidency trudged on. Our latest poll finds that 79 per cent say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
A great piece in the Financial Times by James Carville chronicling the atmosphere that McCain faced in this election as a Republican. Makes you wonder what the future holds for Republicans if things this November don’t go as planned.
Okay, yes, I stole Kanye West lyrics to title this post. Actually, I chose the title first and have been debating how to fit appropriate content to this title. Of course, my first impulse was some sort of political statement. So let’s take it there. My second impulse is to relate it to the talk that Monica and I went to featuring James Carville and Mary Matalin. So let’s take it there too.
I’m going to be honest, it is tough to find pictures of politicians outside in the cold. I’ve been scouring the internet looking for a picture of McCain in a pea coat. I know they exist, I’ve seen it in the paper before. In that respect, please have faith that I have done due diligence. This post is supposed to be bipartisan, in so much as it attacks both sides.
It has become popular in political rhetoric to focus on working class roots. In fact, I’m not sure you can run for office unless you do. In one respect I understand it. My family’s roots are important to me and certainly define many of my goals. On the other hand, I don’t think that it should be a prerequisite for political communication.
At the Carville-Matalin talk (if you’re not familiar, wiki them), they mentioned that after all of the campaigns they’ve worked on that they’ve observed one of the most important qualities of a politician is the ability to communicate. This really made sense to me because policies are important, but so is the ability to succinctly communicate the ideals of your campaign. Also, think about the absurd amounts of money the candidates are spending. Lastly, consider that whoever we elect president we are paying nearly $2 million dollars over the next 4 years.
Perhaps this sort of rhetoric is necessary to connect with people in a meaningful way so that policy issues can be discussed.
Okay, I’m sure some of you are sick of the political angle this blog has taken in the last month. But believe me, thinking about all of these political issues hasn’t been easy!
I think this post will be worth your while though. CBS News’ Katie Couric of Sarah Palin-stumping fame, not exactly a die-hard conservative, did some investigative journalism regarding Obama’s fundraising. Obama isn’t taking any public money and hasn’t disclosed a significant number of donors. CBS has found that many fake and suspicious names plague the list of his donors. If you live in a ‘battle ground’ state, then I’m sure you’ve experienced the Obama ads that this money is buying:
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
To make the story more interesting, McCain has disclosed all of his donors and made the information available online:
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The worst part of this story are the donations given under fake names over the donation limits:
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
The article goes on to explain potential illegal fundraising from abroad. What does all of this really mean? It means Obama’s record fundraising is also break records for suspicion and potential illegal activity. It means that factors about Obama’s campaign and his history continue to trickle out to voters. I think most of all the question of experience and judgment arise again. In other words, what was he thinking? This is an American election, not a game. The results of the election are serious and money matters, it moves candidates around the country and puts them in advertisements in places they can’t be. I think the effect of the ads will be a wash, convince some people and tire out others. But what it reveals about character won’t be resolved as easily.
“The fact that the obama camp has not provided more info about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message,” says Krumholz.
What about the big money donors? Both campaigns boast of many, but when it comes to the interests of those Wall Street firms caught up in the economic crisis, Obama often bests McCain.
“I’ve been on the phone the last couple of days with some of my friends … and we’re getting ready for the biggest culture war battles ever,” Donohue said.
Something has been bothering me lately. It has been plaguing my conscience and running rampant throughout this blog.
Things go wrong. It happens. We depend on the leaders we elect to use a philosophy consistent with our own to avoid mistakes. They happen none the less. As citizens in America’s polity, the officials we elect are accountable to us in a unique way.
Currently, it is clear that political actions have had ramifications in the economy. It is also clear that foreign policy decisions by our political leaders have resulted in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
Bush’s approval ratings show that the American people are not completely satisfied with this. In other words, it is too little too late.
The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made “a mistake” in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
My question is where will the buck stop in 2008? Will it keep going back to Bush? If the Democrats are elected, I think Bush will be blamed for the next 8 years. I think McCain got it right when he said Obama isn’t running against Bush. I think the entire DNC needs to realize this:
“Senator Obama, I am not President Bush,” said McCain in the third and last presidential debate Wednesday night after Obama pointed out that he had voted for Bush’s budget proposals. “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”
The problem is that Americans are not happy with the buck stopping with a Republican in the White House. The party needs to convince people that the buck will stop with John McCain and he’ll take responsibility for the future of America.
If Bush keeps getting blamed, when will we move on? Bush did not have a great presidency, only history will show how it is really viewed, but we need to move on. Every candidate is campaigning on change, but if we don’t change our mindset to the future and to ownership of our actions, there will not be real change.
I’d like to see Congress take responsibility for subsidizing mortgages, Democrats take responsibility for Congress post-2006, and the next president take responsibility for the future. The past affects our future, but we cannot keep blaming the past or we will never move on.
Well, it depends on who you’re listening to. Two new national polls show the race is statistically a dead heat. But new state-by-state polls are showing something completely different. And to make things as confusing as possible, the polls are all coming out at around the same time.
Why am I addressing this issue? Because I think it needs a reality check. Both sides are putting out a lot of extreme talk that I think is wholly unwarranted.
I said it. Maybe I lost a few readers. Now that I got that out, let me qualify that statement. Is race going to elect Barack Obama? No. Is race going to elect John McCain? No. Are there some people that will vote for Obama because he’s black? Probably. Are there some people that will vote for McCain because he’s white? Probably.
Can race be a factor in people’s decision-making process? Yes. Is it a deciding factor? Usually, not.
I think that anyone who denies that race can play a factor, even as negligible as say 1% of a decision, is incredibly naive in regard to the complexity of the human psyche. Human attraction, emotion, and decision-making processes are incredibly complex. Ask someone studying marketing or jury selection. According to theories of jury selection, racial factors make it more likely for our fellow citizens to give someone a death sentence. This consideration alone makes it seem
Recent Comments