The leading media conservative, Rush Limbaugh, argues that some recent election results data showing 20% of self-professed conservatives voted for Obama and the fact that he won independents and moderates by 20% ultimately reflect another failure of (what I'll call) the center-right or pragmatic wing of the Republican Party, including the defeated campaigns of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole. The prescription? A return to the basics of a Reaganesque media conservatism: Reagan economics, an assertive national defense, law-and-order (including zero tolerance for illegal immigration, particularly from Latin America), and social conservatism.
I disagree with Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other media conservatives. First of all, it is very difficult for a party to win 3 consecutive Presidential elections under normal circumstances; George H.W. Bush was the last to do so since Truman completed a 5-election streak for the Democrats in 1948. Second, the immigration issue backfired on McCain, even though he supported it, because of lingering Hispanic anger over media conservative opposition. McCain won only about 30% of the Hispanic vote, about a third less than Bush in 2004, and the Hispanic vote was a key element in the losses of three 2004 Bush states: Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Hispanic vote is also a key reason why the Republicans have had a hard time winning a statewide race in California since Pete Wilson was last governor (and Governor Schwarzenegger is not Rush Limbaugh's prototype of a Republican governor). Third, the "red meat" approach, the negative attack by association, in the past campaign by Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and/or Tony Rezko, in particular, negative robocalls, is very toxic with swing voters. Palin's characterization of Obama "palling around with terrorists" was over the top. All it did was give voters already sold on McCain-Palin another reason to vote against Obama. I have an Indian immigrant friend whom had no problems with my praising McCain's qualifications or questioning Obama's, but he had zero toleration for what he considered the GOP's "gutter politics". Personally, whereas I think that Obama showed some lack of judgment and am still unconvinced by his lip service against offending words or actions, I thought the McCain's campaign was unfocused at the end of the campaign and relied too much on negative attacks.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the economy tanked shortly after the Republican convention, and then the economic tsunami. I think over the past 50 years or so, if voters have leaned towards the Republicans for national security leadership, they also lean towards the Democrats for economic security, given social welfare net programs, e.g., unemployment insurance.
Finally, the Obama organization was across the board superior (more offices, "get-out-the-vote" workers and active voter registrations in battleground states) and had over a 50% funding advantage. It used its funding superiority to buy market share in several battleground states, forcing the McCain to concede every blue state except Pennsylvania down the home stretch and running itself ragged trying to defend 2004 Bush states.
The basic problem is that the vast majority of the country felt, under George Bush's leadership, it was going down the wrong path. John McCain, although he could claim some differences with Bush on specific policy matters and military strategy in Iraq, didn't distinguish from Bush in more than a nuanced manner on key economic and foreign policy matters.
My Analysis on Why John McCain Lost: Other Considerations
Over the tenure of the general election campaign, I've noted a number of things I did not post to my blog or briefly mentioned. I have written a few other posts on Sarah Palin, and I know, from virulent feedback to a milder critique from Kathleen Parker, that media conservatives are not tolerant of any perceived slight of Sarah Palin. But then I found myself virtually alone posting to a different conservative blog before the Florida primary in support of McCain. I have no problem with Palin's social conservatism and her reformist credentials, and I don't regret her obvious national ambitions. I think if she had demonstrated herself (beyond prepared speeches) to be highly intelligent and articulate, I would have been willing to give her the benefit of a doubt in terms of being a quick study, even as a 2-year governor. McCain made a mistake; there was some failure in the vetting process, just to get a feel for the scope of her knowledge on national and international matters suitable for any candidate without federal experience. Perhaps they thought there was a correctable problem.
But I don't buy press speculation that McCain's move was a "desperation" /"Hail Mary" pass or a mere pandering for Hillary Clinton's supporters: I think he saw some of his own spunkiness as a reformer and bipartisan leader in Palin's taking on corruption and resistance from her own party. However, I seriously doubt if McCain had heard the Couric interview beforehand, he would have picked Palin. There were leaks that she tried to scapegoat the McCain staff for poor preparation, felt that the interviews were edited out of context, and was furious with media analyses of the interviews. I heard her go rogue in a televised interview with Fox News' Carl Cameron after the McCain campaign abandoned Michigan, publicly second-guessing the campaign. When she responded to the post-election leaks in a very hostile, judgmental way, it confirmed for me previous rumors of temper tantrums after bad reviews and of being very difficult to work with. As I recently cringed at hearing her speak about "no ceilings on achievement, glass or otherwise", I think she would have been better served by turning down the opportunity, having recognized her own limitations or the demands on her family, particularly a special-needs infant. As a GOP VP selection, she now joins a list populated by such notables as Agnew, Quayle, and Cheney.
The opinions of others may vary, but I think many of the observations I've written here are not echoed elsewhere to the best of my knowledge.
--McCain's Comments on the Economy
First of all, it was not helpful for McCain to say certain things off the top of his head which have been so politically damaging, including the fact that the economy "is not something I've understood as well as I should." It's clear he wasn't as comfortable talking about economics issues as well as, say, political reform or military and foreign policy. Some people might wonder, if you don't understand economics, what does it says about the hundreds of votes you've cast on relevant issues during your 26 years in Washington? What McCain should have said is something like, "Look, even professional economists disagree on specifics, there's great variability of opinions among them, and I'm not a professional economist. As a matter of fact, none of my political opponents is an economist either. But I do some reading of economics on my own to improve my knowledge of the subject matter, including the latest book by former Fed Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. I also work with a number of well-regarded economists on my campaign."
Second, McCain made an unfortunate public comment in mid-September, quickly retracted but Obama made him eat every word, that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". He subsequently made an even more puzzling and unexplained point that he means that the strength is the American worker. I think what he meant to point out is that we showed growth during the last reported quarter (spring 2008) and our economy was (at the time) in a stronger position than many of our competitors, especially Western Europe. He could have also expressed a voice of confidence in the fact that he has seen difficult economic times before during his Congressional career and has faith in the resiliency of the American economy.
I personally thought when he made the statement, he was not oblivious as to economic turmoil but was attempting to set an optimistic tone, just as FDR insisted after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had devastated our Pacific fleet, that we would prevail. One wonders if today's Democrats would have similarly considered FDR "out of touch" given the reality of what the Japanese had just accomplished.
However, the last thing in a time of economic uncertainty a voter wants to hear is what appears to be a confession of ignorance on economics matters and someone whom is out of touch with the facts on the ground during the economic tsunami just as Bush was clueless in praising FEMA chief Michael Brown a few days into the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
--McCain's Debate Performance
Certain Debate Questions
There were times John McCain's responses just made me cringe, although I didn't see a lot of discussion about them in the press. First, there was McCain's suggestion of Obama supporter Warren Buffett as a possible Treasury Department Secretary. (If we were discussing moves of how to bring bipartisanship to Washington, McCain could have used an obvious example of former UN Ambassador New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson whom at times has served as a special envoy.) Warren Buffett, one of the top 2 or 3 richest men in the world, was a terrible idea for several reasons: First, his own wealth is so tied up in so many companies it would require significant personal sacrifices to accommodate existing government restrictions--and that's assuming Buffett would want a public policy position at this point in his life. Second, the last thing 72-year-old John McCain needed was accentuating the issue of his age by suggesting an older member to his team. Third, Warren Buffett is known for advocating higher tax rates for wealthier people, which contradicted his own tax policy. Fourth, it gave Obama a chance to argue that McCain had so few new ideas on what to do on the economy that McCain was resorting to Obama's own economic advisors, and, by the way, thanks for reminding people he's endorsed me and the vision I bring to the economy. Fifth, and most importantly, Buffett isn't qualified to be Treasury Department Secretary. His expertise is in the air of equity investments. If you were going in the direction of celebrities in financial investments, you could maybe discuss names like bond guru Bill Gross or James Grant. Personally, I think McCain could have used the opportunity to distance himself from President Bush's weak dollar policy by suggesting a hawkish Fed Reserve governor and/or signaled his desire to work with, say, one of the University of Chicago Nobel Prize-winning economists. What bothered me here is that John McCain's response seemed to be spontaneous, seat-of-the-pants impulsiveness, more like his disastrous decision to suspend his campaign during the financial bailout crisis and less like his prescient, sure-footed response to Russian aggression in Georgia.
Then there was this question-answer segment from debate 2 that made me cringe:
BROKAW: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence? Senator McCain?
MCCAIN: I think you can work on all three at once...
Wrong answer, Senator. Nobody is suggesting that the three aren't important and must be dealt with in a 4-year term. But the question is how do you prioritize them and why. Saying you can do all of them begs the question. I will suggest a response here which is my take, not necessarily what McCain should have answered. First, energy needs to be addressed, because it is a prerequisite for our functioning economy, a national defense concern, and given global economic growth, we cannot continue to import most of the energy we need; we have an exploding trade imbalance, and in the long term, we'll need to raise interest rates to contain inevitable inflation. We need to minimize domestic energy exploration restrictions, as soon as possible for offshore and others in order to lessen the time to market, even if it's years from now, because it will be needed then. We also need to ramp up nuclear power plants, which lessens our dependence on fossil fuel energy, using today's commercially viable technology. Finally, we need to look at ways to use our existing fossil fuels more efficiently and looking at what ways we can accelerate alternative energy sources and fuels to market. Second, we need to tackle entitlement funding; to some extent there is a blurring between Medicare/Medicaid and health care reform. However, given the fact of longer lifespans and the fact that the Baby Boom generation is beginning to retire and no interim changes in 25 years, we need to tacke this problem now, look at the reserves and funding issues with everything on the table. Finally, we need to tackle health care. This is difficult because it involves private and public sector financing and certain restrictions at different levels of government, and the current federal operational budget is seriously constrained in a recessionary environment, especially given recent and ongoing federal bailouts.
Debate Tactics/Performance
One of Barack Obama's glaring debate problems during the Democratic Primary campaign was his tendency to overexplain and/or gaffe on unexpected questions. Now, in a certain sense, McCain had no choice in the sense that all 3 liberal debate moderators fed softball questions which did not challenge Obama's liberal political views, e.g., as Mike Dukakis in 1988 was forced to address how he would respond to an act of violence on his wife Kitty or as Obama made a notable gaffe in agreeing to meet rogue leaders without preconditions in the Youtube debate. But there were ways to pose questions and dilemmas to Obama on followup responses.
Too Predictable. McCain's performance was often too predictable and failed to anticipate Obama's obvious rebuttals. For example, McCain elaborated on one of his pet peeves, earmarks. After he finished, Obama quickly slammed the discussion down, pointing out the sum total earmarks is hardly significant in the context of total federal expenditures. He also impeached McCain's credibility on spending constraint, arguing McCain had voted for multiple budgets with excessive spending, and frequently (without comment by McCain) made reference to a $10B/month cost of the war on Iraq and an existing Iraq budgetary surplus. [John McCain is one senator; ultimately, the President must be willing to use the veto to hold the line on spending. Earmark reform is critical to political reform as well as transparent budget processes; Obama's objection seems self-serving, given his own use of earmarks. Even Obama's 16-month plan on Iraq withdrawal requires funding, you need to valuate the investment in Iraq as preventive expenditures against a wider, more expensive regional/sectarian war, not a quid pro quo against domestic spending. Iraq has deferred capital improvement spending but had planned for significant budgetary increases over the coming year.]
Another example was McCain's puzzling reference to Obama's ill-advised relationships, e.g., with Ayers. Obama did his usual lip service to denouncing something what this guy had done over 30 years ago, noted that Ayers was well-known in Chicago circles and had met with other prominent politicians, and had met him a few times at public events. John McCain seemed to back off, claiming that he didn't care about some washed-up old terrorist but joined Hillary Clinton in saying Obama needed to fully disclose their relationship.
Belated or Unaswered Responses to Criticisms. Obama made several unanswered claims and false statements. For example, Obama repeatedly made reference to give 95% of working Americans a tax cut, although 40% of them pay no income tax at all. But John McCain never really addressed the Robin Hill scheme until after Obama made a fateful attempt to talk to Joe the Plumber while walking through his neighborhood and was recorded on video tape mentioning how it was "to spread the wealth around".
The Straw Man "Deregulation" Argument Unanswered. Another blatant example were Obama's misleading attempts to blame regulation, or lack thereof for the financial crisis. In fact, the Democrats themselves failed to show leadership--under the Clinton Administration. Back in 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission raised the issue of regulating complex financial instruments (i.e., swaps and derivatives) when the market was $28.7T. (As of October 2008, the aggregate amount was over $530T.) Clinton SEC Chair Levitt, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his deputy Summers, along with Fed Reserve Chair Greenspan, passed on the opportunity, claiming the industry could regulate itself. [It is true that McCain in 2000 sponsored an amendment that basically carried this deregulation, re: the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, but it was included in an omnibus budget bill with only 7 Democratic Congressman voting in opposition, "unanimous consent" in the Senate, and signed by Clinton.] Technically speaking, Democrats have been disingenuous in raising the "deregulation" argument regarding these complex instruments, because they were never really regulated from the get-go, and the concern at the time was government getting in the way of an emerging industry success story. It's not clear to me that Democrats made regulation of derivatives and swaps an issue until the crisis late summer.
As mentioned in an earlier post, there is probably existing authority for the Fed to declare many of the gimmick loans "unfair", e.g., option-ARM/"pick-a-pay" (e.g., Golden West Financial), and there were multiple concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for which McCain was also on the record arguing for regulatory reform years ago.
McCain really needed to provide a better response to Obama's implied argument that deregulation and McCain's unqualified support to the concept was responsible for all our economic problems. McCain needed to make more of a case that he wanted to open up competition, e.g., across state lines, or have businesses deal with operational inefficiencies caused by arbitrary restrictions and the costs of expensive government reporting requirements. However, the real problem was the government regulatory system being too fragmentary (e.g., the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not fall under SEC oversight) and not able to keep up with changes in the marketplace (e.g., the explosion in unregulated swaps and derivatives or an increasing exposure of the government via GSE expansion in the US mortgage market).
Ambiguous Responses to Voters. Obama also made arguments against McCain's taxation of health insurance benefits and wanting to deregulate healthcare insurance (in the sense of companies being able to market across states without being tied to individual state idiosyncratic mandates on certain features). McCain did respond in one debate, in essence discussing expensive features like hair plugs and gold-plated benefits in terms of people whom would pay taxes. What he should have said is something like: "All people not in employer plans will get tax benefits they don't currently receive. For people in employer plans, almost all will be at least as well off, if not better, on standard health plans under my proposal; if your company health insurance tax benefits under the current system exceed $5000, you pay the difference."
Credibility. Some of McCain's responses were not regarded as particularly credible by voters, e.g., his insistence of holding the lines on taxes (given the federal bailout, etc.) and his improbable promise to close the federal deficit by the end of his term. In fact, McCain I thought put himself in a potentially difficult position by discussing cost overruns and/or the use of flat-bid (vs. cost-plus) defense contracts. Obama could have used the opening to say something like, "I'm glad to see that John McCain has come around to my point of view that there's a lot to cut in the defense budget..." Also, John McCain specifically left only 3 areas he wouldn't consider for spending cuts: the defense budget, social security, and veteran benefits. Those seem to be politically convenient... Is he saying the same bureaucratic inefficiencies only exist in terms of domestic expenditures? It wasn't enough to talk about an isolated defense project here and there; he needed to be more specific in terms of spending and cost containment reforms and their aggregate projected savings. At the same he needed to point out that Obama's attempt to play Robin Hood with minor percent increases to the top 2 tax brackets to give workers not paying federal income tax large tax credits and another $800B in new program spending, even after a $700B federal bailout.
Ill Preparation. McCain didn't know enough about Obama's policy specifics to attack them effectively. In particular, McCain made a predictable criticism in terms of Joe the Plumber, including higher income tax rate, higher investment taxes, and/or a potential tax penalty for not sponsoring health insurance. Obama, at that point, basically retorted that Joe the Plumber would actually qualify for his small business capital gains tax break and indicated Joe would actually end up better off under his tax cut program. McCain clearly did not expect Obama's answer.
--Maverick or Leader?
Comedienne Tina Fey, who notably starred in some widely watched SNL Sarah Palin skits, famously spoke of the "mavericky maverick" ticket of bipartisan reformers/corruption fighters John McCain and Sarah Palin. Perhaps one can speak of reforming agencies and departments under the Executive Branch leadership.
One of the problems John McCain has had is his mix of conservativism and populism (including conservationist concepts). So, for instance, McCain sided with environmentalists on offshore drilling--long after other countries (including China and Brazil, to name a couple with massive new discoveries offshore) were aggressively exploring offshore. On the other hand, the world's largest consumer of exported oil, the United States, refused, for ideological reasons, to drill off its own shores, despite increasingly environmental-friendly offshore technologies. Finally, facing the reality of $140/barrel oil, McCain suddenly came out in favor of offshore exploration and drilling. However, he remained hands-off on ANWR development, where environmentalists have virulently opposed drilling, famously not to disturb the mating habits of caribou; in fact, he retained his ANWR development prohibition even after choosing as a running mate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a strong advocate for oil drilling in ANWR.
McCain's mixed messages to the voters appear elsewhere, such as his failed advocacy for a summer gas tax holiday, without explaining what revenues would balance the loss in income for the federal highway trust. Another argument could be made over the McCain/Leiberman "cap-and-trade" (climate change) legislation which some suggest could add 35% or more to energy costs over the next 8 years.
The problem is that McCain's maverick politics can appear as eclectic and philosophically incoherent. In his 2001 vote against the Bush tax cut legislation, he used class warfare arguments in proposing an alternative proposal of cuts. That was a bad decision in rhetoric, because the conservatives never forgave him, despite his 2006 support to make the Bush tax permanent, and the liberals accused him of trying to flip-flop his way back to the 2008 GOP nomination. (If the voters are going to vote on class warfare grounds, this is the Democrats' home turf; they're not going to settle for a watered-down GOP version.) McCain could make a point that the 2001/2003 tax cuts were gimmicks in the sense they had expiration dates which can distort investment decisions and he was concerned about balancing tax cuts with spending (although the spending argument was more explicitly discussed with respect to the 2003 cut).
Being a maverick or independent can be virtuous in a legislative role, because one can bridge the partisan divide. But it becomes more difficult in a leadership role, because a Republican President is the de facto party leader. There's a difference between being willing to compromise and starting a negotiating position having already dealt away the strongest cards you're holding. You are making policy and setting the initiative. One can certainly get involved in bipartisan negotiations, e.g., like Bush has on education, Medicare drug plan, and immigration reform. But when Bush pushed certain initiatives (e.g., the financial bailout and immigration) without effectively dealing with House Republican conservatives, he failed to garner necessary support.
I think that Republicans are fond of looking at the Reagan years, just as the Democrats are of the Clinton years. To some extent, you wonder if many of the media conservatives today who wax enthusiasm over the Reagan revolution today would vote for Reagan today; after all, Reagan initially negotiated to put pro-choice former President Gerald Ford on his 1980 ticket, agreed to a payroll tax increase and other income tax adjustments, ran up the national debt, and signed the last immigration bill over 20 years ago.
McCain needed to communicate a new vision of conservatism; I think the first step was to acknowledge the failures of the last 30 years and (as Obama suggested) to turn the page. I heard glimpses of it in terms of revising regulations for the 21st century. For instance, I would have argued more of a focus on Western Hemispheric regional trade and defense and less in foreign entanglements elsewhere. I would have talked about the growing infeasibility of the American auto industry, with uncompetitive fuel-inefficient products and an unsustainable cost structure, with wages and benefits (especially health care and retiree) far in excess of foreign manufacturers with local plants. I would have likened our failing urban schools to the equivalent of Hurricane Katrina in terms of local and state government mismanagement, how we focus less on intellectual rigor, written communication, math and science literacy, and high attendance and graduation rates, maintain an obsolete agrarian calendar, and are unduly constrained by a teacher union system that tries to scapegoat social problems for teaching failures, and has miserably failed at self-policing and weeding out unproductive teachers. I would have talked to how Democratic policies and interest groups have resulted in no new nuclear power plants and almost no new domestic oil finds over the past 30 years and how Democratic answers to alternative fuels resulted in handouts to Big Agriculture and regressive food inflation.
--Inability for McCain to Separate Himself from Bush
This may sound like a trite observation: Haven't I myself asked and answered Obama's frequent campaign references to McCain being a third Bush term, "more of the same"? I've talked about McCain's votes on the 2001/2003 tax cuts, his opposition to the Medicare drug benefit without proper financing, the 2005 Energy bill, his 2003 and later opposition to Iraq staffing and strategy and his call for Rumsfeld's resignation, his criticisms on Bush's failure to control Congressional spending, and Bush's torture policy.
But I'm really going beyond that and talking of some general points: the general failure of the Republican-dominated tenure of 2003 through 2006, which perhaps nullified McCain's occasional warnings about a Democratic Congress and President in terms of checks and balances, in particular, general military leadership failures and civilian administrative incompetence during the unpopular Iraq stalemate, exploding deficits, the incompetence and inexplicably slow response to Hurricane Katrina, the embarrassingly underqualified crony appointments of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, the disreputable Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prison scandals, Congressional earmarks, the Abramoff Indian, Cunningham, Mark Foley, and other political scandals, and a bunker mentality of the Bush Administration at home and abroad (including reaching out to the Democratic minority, perceived unilateral assertions of American power abroad, and perceived threats to individual rights under various iterations of the USA Patriot Act).
Bush, the first MBA President, badly compromised the Republican claim of superior management as demanded in the private sector. I think in part McCain could claim that it was due to lack of Bush's government experience at the federal level and suggest that Obama might be vulnerable to the same type problems; McCain has served under 4 different administrations and has learned from their failures. He could send a powerful message in terms of a diplomatic rapproachement by nominating Democrats to powerful positions in the State Department. He could argue that when he led the largest air squadron in the Navy, he promoted on the best of merit and performance and had little patience for underperforming or counterproductive officers to stated objectives. He could have argued for 9/11-style commissions, say, for instance, populated by retired judges, CEO's and Nobel laureates, to investigate intractable problems, like entitlement programs, to provide a baseline for followup bipartisan action like his likely support. At the same time, except at service levels (e.g., teachers in the classroom, intelligent agents, cops on the street, boots on the battlefield, VA hospital medical personnel, Border Patrol service agents, meat inspectors, and IRS taxpayer service representatives), we need to reduce head counts (e.g., early retirements, flattened management levels, and redundant function consolidations).
--Overreliance on the McCain Resume: Straight Talk?
I think to a certain extent John McCain counted too much on his obvious superior qualifications to be President vs. a four-year senator with a liberal voting record and limited track record of legislative accomplishments. Perhaps McCain underestimated Obama's ability to establish his general intelligence, to improve his debate performance over his over-explanatory, gaffe-susceptible, stuttering performance in the Democratic campaign, and to put over his mild, reasonable, inclusive public demeanor. You can almost sense his frustration as he just didn't seem to understand (just as Hillary Clinton didn't) why American voters don't perceive the obvious: Obama doesn't have that experience, that depth of knowledge, and that record of bipartisan behavior. After all, this wasn't like in 1992, when the Cold War had ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economy was already coming out of recession: the nation could afford to give a chance to a Southern Democratic governor without federal experience to grow into the position. We are dealing with two hotspots with violence (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
To a certain extent, I believe that John McCain didn't feel sufficiently challenged to establish his worthiness, even though he lacked executive experience (beyond being a squadron leader) and perhaps the dismissive response to experienced individuals: "what have you done for me lately?" I would have preferred that he had focused more on his legendary "Straight Talk" reputation: to Obama's infeasible promises, John McCain would acknowledge that he would be pragmatic, not ideological, to face and resolve tough problems and not simply pass them on to his successors.
I think McCain, although justifiably proud of his prescient support of a change in Iraq post-liberation strategy and his accurate early take of the Russian invasion of Georgia, relied too much on his resume, his endorsement by 5 past Secretaries of State and over 200 retired generals and admirals. I would have made less mention of his POW experience and his record in Washington; first of all, McCain is well-known, and second, in a change election, the challenger is generally running against Washington, and McCain has served in the House and Senate 26 years; his own direct comparisons with Obama could come across as snide. There's a familiar disclaimer that investors constantly encounter: past performance is no guarantee of future results. In part, America has witnessed a deadly, expensive, long trial of nation building in Iraq; there is a feeling, with low savings, a ballooning federal deficit, and huge trade deficits, America is overextended and needs to be more selective and pursue a more decentralized strategy of world democracy leadership.
I think it was important for John McCain to say something like, "Look, we've got serious problems: entitlement programs are facing long-term solvency problems that cannot continue to be passed along to our successors. We have infrastructure problems, we have urban public school systems running on archaic school calendars and high attrition rates that are failing to provide opportunities for better-paying technical, health care, and other careers. We have huge federal and trade deficits and have made few changes over the past 30 years to lessen our strategic dependence on foreign energy supplies. We cannot continue to engage in analysis paralysis, by pointing out it takes 10 years to bring oil to market, and 10 years later we find ourselves with high-growing global competitors competing against us for the same external supplies of oil while we sit on existing undeveloped resources of our own." McCain should have been willing to put taxes on the table if the Democrats were willing to put spending on the table; Americans don't really believe there is a free lunch if you are serious about solving America's problems.
--McCain's Minimalism in Terms of Policy Reform
Why did Bush and McCain offer small, incremental change vs. bold action in terms of certain policy reforms, e.g., vouchers for education and allocating a small portion of social security investment for individual reform? Whereas incremental change is a conservative tactic, when Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates, he did so in a bold manner.
--McCain's Mishandling of the Financial Bailout Process
I think part of the problem here was that McCain's populism that led him to lash out Wall Street greed was essentially a pale imitation of Obama's Big Business bashing. I think he needed to question why credit rating services, accounting firms, the SEC, the Fed, the Treasury Secretary, and others failed to anticipate the catastrophic risk; the reactionary vs. proactive leadership of the White House and the Congress in dealing with the unregulated explosion of complex financial instruments (swaps and derivatives) and option-ARM's escalating an unsustainable trend in home prices beyond the prudent reach of most households.
This was a tragically lost opportunity for McCain to distinguish himself from Obama with the extraordinarily unpopular financial bailout package. Obama was essentially held hostage with the fact that the Democrats had control of the Congress; the public would hold the Democrats responsible if they failed to act in a liquidity crisis. Paulson had short-shrifted House Republican concerns. The House Republicans were worried about the scale of the intervention into the private market, whether a federal insurance program might be a more efficient approach minimizing taxpayer exposure, if modifications or clarifications to mark-to-market accounting (in particular, valuating mortgage-backed securities under illiquid market conditions), etc. And of course, there's now the contagion effect as automobile companies, airline companies, textile companies, state governments, and local governments grab for an available teat of the federal sow. McCain reportedly implied in the White House meeting where Paulson and Obama seemed to be pushing to isolate the House Republicans that his sympathies were with the House Republicans, but he didn't seem to say much during the meeting or in its aftermath. Perhaps he felt constrained by his earlier statements, but he missed a prime opportunity to distance himself from Obama at a time when the bailout plan was highly unpopular.
But the truly baffling decision was McCain's decision to suspend his campaign to fly to DC without getting a buy-in from Obama less than a week before the first presidential debate. McCain had to know that passing a major bill in Congress--especially one involving $700B with fuzzy Congressional oversight over disbursements of the people's tax money--was uphill; he knew at the same time the House Republicans weren't happy over the Senate package being discussed. He also had to know that the last thing Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid was going to do was let McCain log another notch on his bipartisan bill belt at Obama's expense. In the meanwhile, Obama refused to go along with McCain's request to defer the first debate (on foreign policy, a McCain strength) and baited him, suggesting McCain was looking to duck a debate with him. The debate commission gave Obama cover, boxing McCain in. Behind in the polls, he couldn't afford to forfeit a debate, but if he showed up Monday night without a Congressional bill passed, it makes him look impulsive and ineffective.
Indeed, the Democrats sought to politically exploit McCain's dilemma, calling McCain's actions "erratic", a thinly-disguised ageist smear, while providing Obama political cover for his decision for putting the campaign first (by arguing Obama's periodic cellphone calls provided helpful guidance).
--McCain's Selection of Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin, a 2-year Republican governor without federal, military or foreign policy experience, seemed an unusual choice for McCain, whose principal argument against Barack Obama was experience. This was particularly relevant given McCain's age. Some people called McCain's choice a "Hail Mary", an impulsive, desperate attempt to shake up the race; others say it was a blatant attempt to grab the Hillary Clinton vote. Still others saw it as a vehicle to motivate in particular the social conservative base (given her recent delivery of a Down syndrome child, Trig). I don't think any of these were true. He didn't pick Palin because of the bare minimal number of electoral votes from Alaska. I think like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Sarah Palin is a voice of reform, battled corruption in the state, including going up against the GOP establishment, including the incumbent governor. She's had a bipartisan approach and vetoed or killed a number of spending initiatives, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. I think that Palin's being female was a positive factor, but no one expected a conservative female governor would appeal to the followers of liberal Hillary Clinton, whose voting record is almost identical to Barack Obama (although Sarah Palin seems to be somewhat obsessed with Hillary Clinton, constantly raising her name in rallies (one of the few disconnects with the otherwise adoring Republican base)).
I think that in addition to the common maverick image, John McCain, with the selection of Sarah Palin, was attempting to counterbalance his "Washington insider" image that Obama was trying to pin on him as being part of the Bush-Clinton dynamic over the past 20 years, not to mention transitioning to a new generation of Republican leadership. In his own way, McCain was bringing change to the Republican Party.
I think Sarah Palin did draw great crowds and did motivate the base, but I think the popularity is somewhat misleading, because this election had one of the highest turnouts in history. She understands television (as a former sports anchor on Alaskan television) and uses the media very well. The initial selection speech in Ohio and the VP nomination acceptance speech went very well, but anyone can read a scripted speech. I think, in particular because of the nasty personal attacks launched at the beginning of her candidacy, not to mention her compelling life story, she gained some hardcore political support in the base--many of them people whom never cared for McCain in the first place.
It was very clear that the McCain campaign was containing Sarah Palin. There was a considerable delay before her first national interview, with Charlie Gibson. You knew there was a problem when he asked her about the "Bush doctrine". She couldn't answer. (Most conservatives gave her the benefit of a doubt, implying she was confused by which version of Bush's foreign policy Gibson was referring to. I don't believe so. I don't think she know any of them. This would not be what I consider a gotcha question, because she should know Bush's policies, McCain's policies, and differences between them.) After Gibson disdainly described his interpretation (after asking her 'what do you think it is?'), Palin put together a safe response, supporting action against terrorists. She made an implausible defense of her foreign policy credentials (also in an interview with Katie Couric), citing trade missions in Alaska with its neighbors (Russia and Canada), which was similar to George Bush's claim of foreign policy experience with Mexico as governor of a border state.
I've described other convoluted responses elsewhere, particularly one involving the financial bailout. For me, I think that one was the final straw, because the bailout was on her watch. And then her sheer chutzpah in pursuing a trivial point on energy while Joe Biden had gone on to mischaracterize McCain's position on health care, a key policy issue on which McCain badly trailed Obama--saying she knew what the moderator wanted her to talk about, but it was her time to talk about what she wanted--she went rogue in the middle of a national debate, and she lost my respect. Sarah Palin, on a Fox News interview with Carl Cameron, publicly voiced unhappiness with the campaign's then recent decision to pull out/concede Michigan. I voted for McCain despite Palin. There is no question in my mind that Palin cost McCain votes with moderates and independents, with ratings showing higher unfavorables than favorables; Colin Powell specifically mentioned her selection in endorsing Obama. Now it's difficult to rate specific reasons because as the VP candidate, she had the role of attack dog on Obama, and the attacks on Obama's ties to Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc. were regarded by many as "gutter politics". Plus, Palin may have motivated some discouraged conservatives to vote whom may otherwise have skipped the election.
It was very clear there was a concern. Sarah Palin had a freer hand on Fox News, including interviews with a largely sympathetic Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susterend but wanted a joint interview (with John McCain) for Bill O'Reilly's highly-rated O'Reilly Factor. The NBC-TV Brian Williams interviews also were joint.
I watched a number of hours of Fox News during the campaign runup to the election; I found myself automatically reaching for the mute button on my remote whenever Obama or Palin were addressing rallies. Here are relevant comments from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, which are from a Sept. 26 column and I strongly second:
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do...I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there....If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself... What to do?
McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability... Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
McCain repeated his praise of Palin in the post-election Jay Leno interview. He ruled out a rematch with Obama and implied Palin will be one of a number competing for the future of the Republican Party. As to the alleged smears regarding diva behavior and basic knowledge gaps, he raised doubts that the leaks came from a legitimate top-ranking campaign advisor and noted that fingerpointing is often a consequence in a losing campaign. I don't think his response will satisfy the pro-Palin forces holding McCain responsible for the leaks.
It strikes me that the outrage is a state of denial. People can argue all they want about the nature of the allegations and that Palin's tortuous responses to Katie Couric's questions were "edited out of context". John McCain perhaps should have more closely considered the fact that the woman attended at least 4 different colleges, finally graduating from the University of Idaho. We know for a fact that the campaign dragged its feet on making Palin available to the media. Why? Especially given her high favorability at the time? We've heard the incoherent, rambling, repetitive, political spin responses to softball questions. We saw her go rogue in a debate and in interviews (e.g., Michigan campaign, the use of robocalls, etc.) She jumped the gun on Bill Ayers before the campaign rolled out the issue. We saw the third-grade class where she gave a materially false definition of what a VP does--in late October. We know John McCain's presence was a requirement for later interviews.
I don't think we have to invent some conspiracy theory about staffers anonymously trying to sabotage her future in national politics; I think, as Kathleen Parker (who was more impressed with Palin's debate performance than I was) indicates above, McCain was caught between a rock and a hard place; I think the honorable thing would have been for Palin to resign when she realized she was in over her head. It's fairly clear there was some internal tension among campaign staff (e.g., Schmidt, Wallace, and Schuenemann) stemming from how Palin felt she was being mishandled before the ABC News and CBS News interviews, which were politically damaging. At least 10 days before the election there was discussion in the press about Palin's diva status. So I think these post-election leaks were simply an extension of some existing differences between the candidates' staffs. Whether the NAFTA and Africa questions and responses were accurate (they were unusually specific), it's interesting to note Palin's early response focused on things being taken "out of context" than a straight denial.
I myself will never vote for another national ticket with Sarah Palin on it. I think that any of her future opponents will revisit some of the Obama campaign arguments regarding her use of earmarks as Wasilla mayor and governor and the fact that she actually supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" during her gubernatorial campaign and waited about 9 months to kill the project after discovering the bridge estimate had almost doubled. I think her opponents will scrutinize her bipartisan deals with the Alaskan legislature (just as the media conservatives scorned McCain's bipartisan initiatives) and her departures from GOP economic orthodoxy, e.g., throwing subsidies at alternative fuels and energy and a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I also expect that future debate moderators will not let her turn a debate into a soapbox on topics of her own choosing. She needs to aspire to John McCain's hard-won reputation for straight talk with the American people, to show gravitas, providing substantive proposals and not simply winking at the TV camera, giving speeches consisting of an incoherent series of sound bites and political spin, and engaging in outrageous public smears of her opponents (e.g., accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists").
--The Negative Attacks vs Positive Reasons to Vote McCain
I'm not generally surprised by the fact that campaigns go negative: the tactic often works. But I would handled things differently. Think of a "Daisy" type ad, where someone says ominously, "Under the next President's watch, other rogue nations may join the nuclear club. Barack Obama has said he will cut funds intended for modernization of our national defense. Which candidate puts a strong America first: John McCain." or "Barack Obama says he didn't do much as a community organizer to help the poor neighborhoods in Chicago. When he had decision-making authority with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for disbursement of education grants, the grants did not result in positive changes in achievement scores relative to other schools. He has not achieved in any significant signature legislation in his past 12 years as an Illinois senator and US Senator from Illinois. But we are about to trust him with leading the US with two wars in process and the worst economic challenges since the Great Depression. Do you really think that Barack Obama is ready for the Presidency? We know John McCain. He's been in the Congress before during multiple recessions, during the stock market crash in 1987, during the Nasdaq meltdown in 2000, on 9/11, and during the corporate scandals. He will see us through this crisis."
I think, though, that the McCain campaign needed to do more to project the vision of McCain as President: his Cabinet selections, his domestic economic agenda, his first 100 days in office, his priorities on prosecuting any criminal actions contributing to the financial bailout crisis, regulation of complex financial instruments (e.g., swaps and derivatives) and ensuring adequate loss reserves for risky tranactions, etc.
