He Isn’t Called a Big, Fat, Idiot for Nothing

Ah, Rush:

“How come the conservative movement is fracturing,?” when there’s a blueprint for winning it, 1980, there’s a blueprint. McCain is not the blueprint for how Republicans win landslides. Going after moderates, independents, and all these yokels is not the blueprint. The blueprint’s there, 1994, taking back the House, the blueprint’s there. Why are these people ignoring it?

Did this jerk forget the “Reagan Democrats?”

Alex Massie notes that going with the “true believers” ain’t enough:

Of course, as Daniel Larison points out, the GOP won in 1994 in large part because it was able to appeal to many more independent voters than it had in 1992. (Clinton’s less than stellar first two years in office obviously also helped). As I have suggested, once a party’s brand has become contaminated – as was the case with the Tories in the mid-1990s and the GOP now – you cannot simply retreat to first principles and assume that the public will forgive and forget your sins. It doesn’t work like that. And, again as the Tories discovered, once the brand has been contaminated the base is no longer enough to win. When the electorate moves, political parties that are truly interested in winning move too.

Reagan won in ‘80 by winning over enough Dems frustrated by their party. Obama seems to be doing the same thing with the steady stream of elephants trekking over to his side. You win by trying to widen the tent, not make it smaller.

Dear GOP Leaders: After we get our backsides handed to us in November, please, please, whatever you do, don’t listen to Rush, unless you want to be remain out of power for about decade.

Colin, John and Me

I look up to Colin Powell.

He’s a fellow black man that happens to be a moderate Republican like myself. When there was speculation back in the mid-90s that he might run for president, I was hopeful. Here was a black man who had a real shot at the White House. When he became Secretary of State under Bush, I was excited that we had our first African American Secretary of State, a black man sharing the world stage.

But it wasn’t sheer racial pride that has made me an admire of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was a moderate in his party. Save one other person, he was the head of a more moderate face of the party, one that was inclusive and spoke to our dreams and hopes and not simply our fears.

So, when Colin Powell decides to break with his party and support Barack Obama, that says something to me.

Michelle Bachmann Gets Republican Challenger

After Michelle Bachmann’s spectacular flameout of an interview on Friday on MSNBC, her Democratic challenger in Minnesota’s Sixth District, Elwyn Tinklenberg, recieved a big boost in donations to his campaign.

Now it looks like Bachmann’s GOP challenger in the September primarym, Aubrey Immelman, is getting back into the race as a write-in candidate:

McCain Versus Obama: What Is A Moderate To Do ?

As a relatively moderate Republican I have found myself facing something of a dilemma regarding my choices for President this November. Looking at the two major choices I find that neither one is particularly appealing to me. Each one has things I like and each has things I dislike. Some of the things I like however are not particularly relevant to being President and while admittedly some of the dislikes are unfair the fact remains they are there.

In the hopes of reaching out to fellow moderates and reviewing my own concerns I thought I’d discuss where I am regarding my choices.

Moving into Ambiguity

A few weeks ago, I was chatting with someone about the upcoming presidential race and I must have said something that made her asked if I was wavering in my support for McCain.

I said no, but in reality, I was.

At this point, I am not sure who I will vote for. There are certain things that make me pause with both candidates. No matter what I do, voting for McCain or Obama will have its risks.

The thing that has given me doubts about McCain can be summed up in two words: Sarah Palin.

Great Depression 2.0, Meet New Deal 2.0

The reason that John McCain and the rest of the GOP is failing this year is not because of media bias, or dirty tricks by the Obama campaign, but because conservatives have run out of ideas. McCain has never been an idea person, hoping that people would elect him on his august resume.

But you can only go without new ideas for so long, which is why the GOP is getting its head handed to them come November.

But I tend to think this is a Republican lost and not a Democratic win meaning, just because the GOP isn’t doing so well, that doesn’t mean that Democrats have new ideas ala Bill Clinton in 1992.

The Democrats have pretty much abandoned the “New Democrat” strategy, which placed a more centrist face on the party. It was that willingness to co-opt conservative ideas that gave Clinton two terms in the White House. But the base thought such moves were nothing more then “Republican-lite” and have worked to cast the Democrats in a more traditional liberal mold. Because of that, and because of the utter failure of the GOP under George W. Bush, we have a Democatic party running on policies that are 70 years old.

Politico is reporting that Democratic lawmaker see a need to bring back some of the programs that had their start in the Great Depression. Call it New Deal: The Next Generation.

With visions of a massive liberal majority in the next Congress and the power to remake economic policy for the next generation, Democrats are dusting off their New Deal history books and openly discussing the idea of re-engineering Depression-era agencies for the 21st century.

Several lawmakers want to bring back the Home Ownership Loan Corp., and others have discussed resurrecting the defunct Reconstruction Finance Corp., a federal program that made direct loans to businesses. Others see a lame-duck stimulus bill less as a short-term cash infusion for the economy and more as a long-term, government-driven jobs creator — a kind of modern Works Progress Administration that invests in infrastructure, bridges and roads.

The recent mess on Wall Street has led some to think that desparate times call for desparate measures and so we get this supposed New Deal sequel.

I think it can be wise to look at what worked in the past, and since the New Deal has been such an important part of history for the Dems, that makes sense. But it seems like they are trying to recreate some golden past instead of trying to work for the future. My personal feelings on government intervention aside, maybe some New Deal-style programs would make sense, but the fact is, we don’t have the economy we had in 1933. Also, it’s still murky as to whether or not a depression is an outcome. A lot of experts think we are headed more towards 70s-style recession than 30s-style depression. So, if that’s what we are headed for, does it make sense to have such a big response?

I’m not saying the government should have no role. In such a crisis as this, government needs to have a role to keep us from entering a 21-century depression. But I wonder if this dream to establish a Second New Deal is overkill. The Dems need to come up with ideas that fit the current times.

The GOP have no ideas and that’s bad. But have the Dems dust off old ideas isn’t any better and voters can only take that track for so long.

Obama: The Great Moderate-Conservative Hope?

One of the things that has been astounding me as of late is the abandonment of moderates and conservatives of John McCain. Many of them are jumping ship and going over to Obama, even though the Senator doesn’t share share their values at all. They talk on and on about how John McCain isn’t the McCain of old and that he’s become mean and nasty. While I will agree that the tone has become more negative and that focusing on people like Bill Ayers in the time of a economic crisis is silly, the thought that McCain has is the 21st century version of George Wallace is silly. If you nasty Republican tactics, let’s try the whole Willie Horton ads of 1988. Or how about the “Hands” ad by Jesse Helms in the 1990 Senate race where he used resentment over affirmative action to win another term. Or how about all those horrible rumors about John McCain fathering a black child in 2000. Those past campaigns did stoke racial fears in order to win. The McCain campaign’s “dirty” tactics, such as the celebrity ad, or now talking about Ayers is child’s play compared to campaigns of the past.

At some point in the near future, I will write about why I as a moderate Republican support McCain, but this article by Victor Davis Hanson makes some very good points. He give some reason why some on the right might be jumping ship:

Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away–as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home.

I can understand this. As a moderate myself, I am tired of Bush and Bush hatred. I long for it to be over. But as Hanson notes, the cure might not be any better than the disease:

They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. “The Great Satan”), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago.

Jimmy Carter came into office hoping to restore dignity to the White House after the nightmare of Watergate. But he didn’t do that and was out of office four years later.

My own guess, is that a lot of moderates and conservatives are in love with Obama. And like a new crush, you don’t see all the “blemishes” or where he might disagree with you. Obama is everything that Bush and to some extent, McCain is not: he is witty and ubrane. He is well traveled and exudes a certain grace under pressure. He’s like the really cool guy at school that everyone just admires. Compared to a grumpy, old fuddy duddy like McCain, who wouldn’t want that?

I will admit, it’s hard not to look at Obama and think he can bring about better times in America. But to make a judgement based on the externals and not look at his beliefs is at the very least misleading.

But I think my fellow moderates and conservatives fail to see the record of John McCain is more in line with them. What matters more to me is not that Obama talks about hope and change, than about their records and if they share my values. When I think about it that way, then McCain comes out on top. He has a good record on the environment, has truly reached across the isle on issues such as climate change, campaign finance and immigration, and has been willing to incur the wrath of his party for the greater good.

Voting for Obama means we are voting for someone with a liberal ideology. That’s not a bad thing, it’s just not my thing. I’m sorry, but if you think voting for Obama will bring about a moderate government when he has a thin record of true bipartianship and with substantial Democratic majorities in Congress, then you are fooling yourself.

There is a part of me that believes a few years from now, midway into an Obama first term, there will be a lot of mea culpas from moderates and conservatives who will write tearful letters about how they were duped by Obama.

Of Tempers and Temperment

With John McCain tanking, I have sometimes wondered why on earth am I still supporting him.

Giving it some thought, I come up with one answer: I know what I’m getting with the Arizona Senator. I don’t know what I’m getting with Barack Obama.

I know that I am getting a man that supports the environment and that tends to be more gay-friendly than past GOP nominees. I know that I am getting a man that has worked with Democrats and shunned his own party’s narrow interests to work for the national interest. I know that I am getting a grumpy and testy old man, that deep down in a good and decent man.

I don’t know what I am getting in Obama. That’s not to say that he is a bad person, I just don’t know. He doesn’t have a long record. He has not done as much of the bipartisan work that McCain has done. In many ways, he feels like a blank slate.

If we were looking at resumes, then McCain probably has the stronger of the two. But we also tend to look at a lot of other things besides experience. The presidency is a mythic office. Unlike our British cousins who have queen that represents all that is the UK and a Prime Minister that does the day to day grunt work, we Americans wrap both offices into one job. Obama has that mythic quality that befits the office. McCain, doesn’t.

The Media vs. John McCain

No, it’s not what you think.

Jay Cost has an interesting analysis as to why John McCain is doing so badly in the polls and there is nothing that he can do about it. He notes:

McCain’s problem a week ago is the same as his problem today, enhanced anxiety about the economy. The deal failed to sooth any nerves, so McCain is still in a weakened position…So long as the newspapers and the televisions are full of stories about contraction, which as you can see dominated every day this week here in Pittsburgh, John McCain’s poll position will be weak. That’s all there is to it. Conservatives can criticize McCain for not doing this, that or the other; liberals can praise Obama for doing this, that, or the other. But the fact remains that, as of today, the state of the race is pretty simple: this was an even-steven contest until the markets started to sputter and people started really worrying about the economy. Now Obama’s up 6 points.

Cost notes that McCain’s downward slide and Obama’s rise is not about who is a better campaigner, as much as it is whose party is in power:

The average voter doesn’t understand the intricacies of economic policy. Heck, when you think about it, nobody really understands the economy. So, voters often rely on simple yet sensible metrics to make political decisions about the economy. One of them has been more or less operative since the election of 1840: if the economy tanks during a Republican administration, vote Democrat. If it tanks during a Democratic administration, vote Republican. Applying this rule to 2008, we get the following. McCain, because he is of the incumbent party, gets the political harm. Obama, because he is of the out party, gets the political benefit. That’s all there is to it.

I agree. If we had a President Gore and the economy was tanking, the public would vote for a Republican like Mitt Romney. Folks blame the party in power for economic conditions and hope the out party can make some changes. The public was angry at Carter during 1980 because of the economy and went for Reagan. The public thought Bush the Elder didn’t get it in 1992 and chose Clinton.

In these 24-hour, all-day news world that we live in, it’s hard to NOT escape such bad news and put hope in the new guy.

Of course, focusing on an aging radical and his ties to Senator Obama only help feed the view that McCain is out of touch with what is going on.

The Coming Arms Race

This National Public Radio story credits Barack Obama decision to not accept government financing as the reason he is so close in many of the “red” states.

If, as it is so likely, that John McCain loses, I can imagine come 2012, the GOP candidate will also refuse government financing, creating a new general election arms race to see who can raise the most money.

Obama’s move might have won him this election, but it may just open a whole can of worms.

Something tells me Common Cause is going to be busy in four years.