Flying Pink Unicorns

McCain's incredibly cynical VP pick, Palin's speech and McCain's speech.

This post is now REALLY long, but bear with me, I do have some useful things to say here.

I've got three things on my mind:

1) McCain's speech (I mostly liked it, I expect that it will, along with Palin's, hugely help the McCain campaign in the polls, at least in the short run. I think the GOP has probably won the battle of the conventions.

2) Palin's speech (I loved it except that it wasn't at all substantive);

3) Just how utterly cynical a choice Palin was as a VP (extremely)

In that order:

1) McCain's speech.

I mostly liked it, though it was at times short on actual specifics, and those specifics he did give us were in most cases harmful policies, like tax cuts. Still, the speech was much more the old McCain than the new Bush-McCain. As the New York Times said in today's editorial, he's vigorously trying to have it both ways, running as the Maverick he really once was while supporting the policies of the modern GOP machine, as well as their tactics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

The end of his speech, recounting his horrors in North Vietnam, was awfully AWFULLY good! Really really good. And of course only so relevant to being president, and not at all relevant by itself to solving our nation's problems.

In my opinion this portion of his speech was hugely effective. It will show in the polls, very very quickly. I suspect the GOP will win the battle of convention bounces, and possibly by a lot. If I'm right, this race will be truly even going into the real campaign, which begins in earnest now.

I, however, do not like how he has used his experience in Vietnam. His survival of torture has long been his get out of jail free card. He helps Bush enshrine torture in the CIA playbook? Can't question him, he was tortured. Wrong on Iraq? This is a man who understands a tough fight. Its difficult for the democrats to take advantage of this, but I sure don't like him using it as a get out of jail free card. General Wesley Clark was enormously impolitic but correct when he said that getting shot down (and being tortured, he could have added) does not qualify you to be president. Not in the least if you actually think about it. Does it go to character? Sure. Is character important? Sure. But as between character and a president who believes in solving America's problems in ways that make sense, I'll choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. See, e.g., Clinton comma Bill.

McCain either didn't mention Bush, or barely did. You'd swear there was some unnamed democrat in the White House the last 4 or 8 years.

He did look good, and vigorous. Old, which he is, but still, very vigorous. On appearances, he came out reasonably well. McCain's not a natural speaker. Ok, the teleprompter is his enemy. He's fine in small crowds, but set piece speeches are not his thing. Palin's new on the national scene, but is much the better natural speaker (to say nothing of Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Reagan).

During his speech, McCain said, "we were elected to change Washington and Washington changed us!" This is remarkable self-criticism for a Republican! Both parties grew government. Pretty amazing stuff for a GOP nominee. You'll note there was no applause at all on this theme. Zippo. None. Except at the very very end of this, and it was pro forma. GOP activists, the ones that will be all over the administration, simply don't think that too too much went wrong the last 8 years. We're winning in Iraq (laugh), we cut taxes, and who cares about bridges to nowhere. That lack of applause is as good an indicator of why you should vote for Obama as anything I can pour out onto my blog. I'm 100% stone cold serious.

"We believe in letting people keep the fruits of their labor, a strong defense." Well ok, that IS a policy. No word on believing in PAYING for government, but at least that's not vacuous. And what a strong defense means is of course well open to interpretation.


"We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities." Now THAT'S VACUOUS. Its this kind of baloney that the GOP has been foisting on the public for YEARS. We're for you, the dems are weirdos, French, wind surfers, elitist. They're not for you. If I had to name the single reason Bush "won" in 2000, and won in 2004, that's the reason. The dems are weirdos, and don't care about real people, we god-fearing Republicans do. Its amazing, they are selling the belief they're for the little guy, and people buy it. Never underestimate the ability of the American people to believe in stupid things. Or, put another way, images are powerful things.


"I will cut government spending." LOL. LMAO. Where John? Cutting Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? You seem to want to increase defense. Where are you cutting, other than pork, which is less than 1% of the budget. This is fine in a Convention, of course, but it will be repeated during the campaign, and the media, which knows better, will not call him on it. THAT is infuriating.

He's for judges who don't legislate from the bench. Well ok, but does that mean an anti-Roe litmus test? I sure hope they ask that in debates. He'll lie, but at least he'll have to.

"I will open new markets for our goods and services. My opponent will close them." Fair enough. McCain's always been a real free-trader, and Obama sure did flirt with protectionism in the primaries, although Obama has been running 100 mph from his anti-trade position he staked out in the primaries. Still, no one is messing with the general gist of free trade.

"My tax cuts will create jobs." John, we cut taxes a ton this decade, and had the slowest job growth of any decade since the 1930s. WAY slower than the 90s. Slower even than the troubled 70s, by a ton. Anyone going to call him on this?

"My health care plan will make it easier to find health insurance. . . . His plan will force people into "government run systems where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

Now THIS makes my blood boil, for a variety of reasons.



1) I don't have a doctor. I'm uninsured. Better a bureaucrat gatekeeper than no doctor John!!!


2) Ever heard of HMO's? Many Americans already have such gatekeepers. This mythical ideal of an American and her doctor making decisions unfettered by others is almost entirely false. Insurance companies, HMOs, governments in the case of the VA, Medicare and Medicaid. That's pretty well everyone John.


3) MOST IMPORTANTLY-- Hey John, ever heard of MEDICARE? Its a GOVERNMENT run program where a bureaucracy stands between you and your doctor! And MILLIONS of seniors who vote VOTE VOTE, love it. I'd run ads using this exact line, with a voice over saying that Medicare works, and McCain voted against Part D, the new prescription drug bill. Yup, McCain voted against it. This is the one and only issue that gives Obama any hope in Florida, but only if they use it ruthlessly. In addition, the populations of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan are older than the national average. There are also new retirement communities in Virginia and North Carolina where this pitch may help. But fundamentally, with care and caution not to go overboard, the Obama campaign can paint McCain as a questioner of Medicare.

Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help. Ok, I guess. Cutting health care costs on business would have the same effect of course, as well as have a zillion other benefits.

Same old GOP BS. Cut taxes, cut taxes. Reagan and dem congress did-- huge deficits ensued. Bush and GOP Congress did-- huge deficits mysteriously ensued. This is NOT a coincidence, nor is it rocket science. Clinton and a dem Congress raised taxes on the rich-- deficit fell, economy boomed. Its astounding that the GOP can still get away with the demonstrably false claim that cutting taxes helps the economy grow. They can if circumstances are right and marginal tax rates are very high (early 1960s). But the incentives in cutting rates from 39 to 35 are very very minor.

He's for choice in schools. So am I. The GOP is right on this crucial issue, and the democrats are largely wrong. Of course, the GOP has long been unwilling to spend the money needed to actually provide schooling.

McCain barely mentioned the word "Bush" and his campaign is focusing a lot of time and energy on distancing him from Bush. I predict this will very largely work, for a wide variety of reasons. The Obama campaign has to do more than reinforce this.

I would spend 5-10%, at least, of the Obama ad campaign, on the following ad:


"John McCain helped George W. Bush defeat Al Gore in 2000." (cut to clip). "We all make mistakes. John McCain helped George W. Bush win reelection in 2004." He did more than just endorse George W. Bush, he campaigned for him here, and here, and here (naming states) and raised X $$ for him. You've heard the saying, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. John McCain helped George W. Bush push through the Iraq war. He said, "insert quote about ease of victory." That attacks McCain where he's perceived to be strong, national security. It lashes him to Bush. And its utterly factual and can't be rebutted effectively. Of course, the Obama campaign won't do it. They think they can coast to victory. And they're likely right in 2008. Of course, we tried this in 2000 (when we shouldn't have been able to lose) and 2004 (when we should have won) and it didn't work then, either. Playing not to lose hasn't worked too well, has it?

When he says he'll veto pork barrel spending, he has immense credibility. Won't make even a dent in our fiscal problems, but it looks good on television. When he says he will name and shame the congresspeople, he also has real credibility; he's done it before. Of course, to get anything done he'll have to compromise. But he's 100% entitled to gloat and brag about his record against pork. 100%.

Its true that he's getting back to running as John McCain the Maverick reformer. And she does fit well on that score, very well. Of course she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, but still, she IS a reformer, who has taken on the Alaska GOP. McCain's always been at his best running against Washington, and now he's doing it again, which is great to see. But in recent years he's been a real part of the problem, helping Bush on Iraq and torture, and flipping the full 180 degrees on taxes for political reasons.

One other thing before I shut up. McCain's people seriously believe that Iraq is a positive for them. They mention all the time that he was right about the surge (he was in many ways) while Obama was wrong on the surge (he was, in many ways, if you simply leave out the costs of accomplishing what we did in the last 8 months weighed against the benefits). But OBAMA WAS RIGHT ABOUT GOING INTO IRAQ. AND MCCAIN WAS WRONG. Very very wrong. And unless you think its just ancient history, well, Iran is a live live issue.

Obama should be relentlessly arguing this point. I agree with the moribund Obama campaign that this election will be about economic and not security issues (absent a big change in the world). Doesn't mean you can't make this point. Letting McCain get away with claiming to have had the better judgment on Iraq is beyond the pale.

I was for the war at the beginning, strongly. I was wrong. WRONG. If you can't admit these things you can't learn and move forward. You also lose all credibility. I hugely underestimated both the difficulty of the post regime-change task and the venality/incompetence of the Bush administration. I would tie McCain to that vote and decision so tightly he couldn't breathe.

2) Palin's speech:

Well I'll jump right in. It was AMAZING. I am NOT being sarcastic. Anyone who can watch that speech and not be inspired by what that remarkable lovely, and just plain remarkable woman has done, well I can't really help them. I am VERY biased AGAINST the GOP and still found her speech enormously inspiring on a certain level. She was, in fact, ELECTRIC.


As for her merits, her nickname aint Sarah Baracuda for nothing. It may have been given to her when she was a High School basketball star, but it fits. Underestimate her at your peril.


She was greeted like a rock star. The activists at the Convention are in MAD PASSIONATE love with her. Which is why she was chosen, as I discuss below.


To her speech. She looked great, and I don't just mean beauty. Smart, poised, confident, and able to be angry without making you want to just shoot her. Hillary should do so well in terms of delivery.

In terms of substance, however, not so much. Her speech was brilliantly written and very well delivered. Of course, it was about almost nothing. "The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." Great line. Who cares. But that line was alas typical.




She did give some substance on attacking wasteful spending in Alaska. Ok, very good. A trivial problem in terms of our massive deficit and debt, of course, but still, her and McCain's record is phenomenal here. So this was some substance. But that was about it.


As for energy (she is governor of Alaska), a natural gas pipeline is going to help us get towards energy independence. Gimme a break. The pipeline may make sense, but the GOP now lies about energy just as effortlessly and seamlessly as they do about money matters. To listen to the GOP we're going to drill our way much closer to energy independence. That's just insane.


She did repeat the administration's talking points about nuclear power, geothermal, wind, etc. Brief lines, but these I have no problem with.

So she was substantive-ish on energy and largely wrong.

As for problems? She seems to think that, to quote Reagan, government isn't the solution, its the problem. Obama wants to raise taxes. They're going to keep lying about this and lying about it, and the Obama campaign has to tell everyone they are not telling the truth. Obama's tax hikes almost exclusively hit the rich, super rich and Bill Gates rich. But the GOP has small town values. How many rich and super rich in a typical small town of 5,000? 8? Seriously, not nearly as many as a random block in Manhattan. Literally.


Speaking of small towns, Palin spent a LOT of times talking about small town values. These are honest god fearing Americans you understand. Never mind that big cities and suburbs subsidize small town America. Never mind that Blue states hugely subsidize red states. Its one of modern America's great ironies. Blue states, being much richer than red states on average (MUCH), send more money to Washington than they get back. By definition if you have any redistribution from government, as we do (and should in my view). Never mind a lot of things. The democrats CANNOT again let the GOP position itself as the friend of "normal" Americans. Bush cleaned Kerry's clock, just destroyed him, in small town and rural America. These people earn less than the average American and benefit little from the huge tax cuts Bush gave (and McCain opposed, before he was for them) primarily to the rich, the super-rich and the Bill Gates rich. But the GOP is for them. How does the GOP help them get better health care and schools (bigger problems in small town America than the suburbs for certain, and the cities too to an extent? Well, not so much.



To conclude, her speech was mostly about nothing, and of course hid her views on abortion (wants to repeal Roe) as this you see is not what swing suburban mothers in Ohio or Colorado or Minnesota or where ever want to hear. But as a speech introducing her to a public that had never heard of her a week ago, it was a grand slam home run.




3) Just how utterly cynical a choice Palin was as a VP.





She was picked because the McCain people thought they were losing and needed the media attention. Its a stunningly cynical pick, really. McCain has referred to Islamic fundamentalism as, "the transcendent challenge of our times."



http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm



(search for "transcendent"). Given that THE issue of our times, in his world view (I vigorously disagree) is Islamic fundamentalism, and he's 72 and a cancer survivor, the person best suited to deal with this challenge is ......... SARAH PALIN, first term governor of Alaska? The rank selfishness/hypocracy is obvious. McCain has carefully cultivated an image of putting country before self. The Palin pick is only the latest example of how far he has strayed from that credo in his campaign. As I like to say, images are powerful things. His pick of Palin, along with his HUGE flip flop on the Bush tax cuts are two prominent examples of his acting in self-interest first, the country's interests be damned. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain. I don't any longer.

I note in passing that this "transcendent" threat was barely mentioned in McCain's speech.

Its obvious to anyone with a brain that she was picked because she is young, female and telegenic, and would give a jolt of excitement to the base. The idea that she's the best man/woman for the job? Well, that reminds me of what Bush 41 said when he nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He said he was the best qualified person for the job. Many a republican got a good laugh out of that one.

The Palin thing was also a naked play for Hillary supporters. See, she's a chick, Obama picked a guy, I picked a chick, vote for me. They have run ads and really tried to egg on the wrath of the jilted Hillary voter. Woman scorned and all that. That won't work, democratic unity is well on the way following the Democratic shindig in Colorado. But for her other assets, she is a real win for the McCain campaign as of right now.