To me, the selection of a running mate for Barack Obama is obvious, although the name doesn't seem to be on any other pundit's current short list: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Bill Richardson has Congressional experience, diverse national and state administrative credentials --in particular, a white-hot current domestic policy issue, energy. His UN/diplomatic service, directly or on an as-needed basis across party Administrations, dovetails nicely with Barack's approach to international affairs and provides gravitas to the discussion. He's a popular moderate governor in a border swing state, and in that politically correct criterion of ethnic diversity, Bill's mother is Hispanic (just as Barack's father is Kenyan). Obama seems to be doing better with Hispanics in the general campaign than he was during the primaries, but given Obama's love for the symbolic (e.g., Brandenburg, etc.), this is a liberal media's dream-come-true: the first black and Hispanic on any national ticket. In short, Richardson's selection would nicely complement Barack's need for an ideologically balanced and experienced partner, geographically balances the ticket with a good shot of taking back New Mexico, and could also help close ranks with Hillary Clinton supporters.
This is not to say that Richardson's choice would be without its share of problems. First, Barack Obama could face a problem like Mike Dukakis had with Lloyd Bentsen back in 1988, where the conservative Democratic senator was perceived to be far more qualified to be President. Second, Bill Richardson is not that charismatic and I do not believe he would match up well against McCain's likely choice for Veep, Mitt Romney, whom is more articulate and has more of a Presidential look. Third, I'm not sure that Bill Richardson helps Obama win any states beyond his home base. Fourth, a lot of Richardson's broad resume is fairly thin; in baseball terms, he's more of a utility player than a solid star at a position. Fifth, Richardson's attempt during the Democratic primaries to move even left of Obama in terms of the speed of a unilateral troop withdrawal would be like throwing red meat at John McCain.
If not Richardson, who? A few key Virginia statewide Democrats have been named, but they all have limited political experience and may not be able to carry their home state. The governors of Kansas and Arizona, also mentioned, have no federal experience and may not even carry their states for Obama. Hillary Clinton I don't think is viable for a number of reasons, primarily because Clinton is part of the status quo over the past generation that Obama's "change" message takes on; in addition, Hillary's resume is not really that more extensive than Barack's when you take into account his state senator experience, and their voting records are virtually identical with only modest, nuanced political differences.
Who then would be a second choice? My take of it is Evan Bayh of Indiana, the junior senator from Indiana and popular former governor (which provides administrative experience that Obama lacks) , whom could give Obama a chance to take a neighboring state that normally votes Republican. Evan Bayh had a more moderate voting record in the Senate before he made a short-lived attempt for the Democratic nomination. Bayh's nomination would not be a conventional one, because usually there would be more of an attempt to balance the ticket across regions, and from a symbolic standpoint (and Obama knows about symbolism), the two-generation Bayh politically dynasty has the same insider look and feel as the two-generation Gore and three-generation Bush dynasties--which goes against this Washington insider image Obama is targeting with his post-partisan rhetoric. However, the neighboring-state strategy has been done before, as I mentioned in an earlier post, when Arkansas Governor Clinton picked a senator from a bordering state (Gore of Tennessee).
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
McCain 2008: Repeat of the 1992 Bush Debacle?
Around March 1991 President George Bush was looking so invincible, with the end of the Cold War and a successful Gulf War campaign with an 89% approval rating, that many legitimate Democratic contenders, like 1988 VP nominee Lloyd Bentsen and Dick Gephardt, took themselves out of the running. However, Bush was vulnerable on a couple of fronts: the 1990-91 recession and an earlier budget deal where Bush was forced to renege on his infamous 2008 "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
Because of a softening economy at the end of the 1980's, federal revenues were unable to keep up with spending; the Gramm-Rudding-Hollings Balanced Budget Act meant that without a budget compromise, Draconian cuts in entitlements and defense were inevitable. Bush presented a budget with no new taxes, but it was dead on arrival. Bush was faced with a choice of vetoing budgets and risking a government shutdown or putting taxes on the table.
Bush never used his post-war mandate to drive a domestic agenda; he was seen as indifferent or aloof as the recession, perhaps sparked by the higher taxes and higher energy costs, also hit white-collar workers (including myself). Even though the Fed started cutting rates in the summer of 1991, Bush's approval ratings steadily dropped heading into the primaries.
Public disgust with bipartisan bickering and fear of deficits provided a unique opportunity for Ross Perot to make a serious third-party bid as an outsider, outdistancing both Bush and Clinton, when he dropped out in the summer, convinced he had no shot in the election if it got decided in the House of Representatives with no one getting a clear majority of electoral votes. A Southern centrist governor with no military or foreign policy experience, Bill Clinton, won the Democratic nomination.
In the meanwhile, the unpopular tax increases agitated conservative Republicans (despite the fact that Reagan also had to give back tax increases during his first term). Pat Buchanan waged enough of a battle against Bush to win a favorable slot for a speech and concessions for conservative planks in the platform.
In essence, the Buchanan effect forced Bush to the right of where he wanted to be for the election, and Clinton took Al Gore, also a Southern moderate, which broadened the ticket's appeal to independents. Clinton got a huge bounce out of the convention, but even with Perot's reentry into the race, and the effects of interest rate cuts improving the economy, Bush was never able to close the distance on Clinton, as the Clinton campaign ran a predictable Washington-outsider campaign, argued for a change from 12 years of Reagan and Bush and blasted Bush as untrustworthy on domestic issues and out of touch with the middle class. This was despite Clinton's "finger-in-the-wind" philosophy of political expediency, his migration to social and cultural liberalism, and obvious deep character flaws.
Barack Obama already shows a keen interest in symbolism, wanting to emulate Jack Kennedy's appearance at Brandenburg Gate and nomination speech in a stadium. He is also trying to assume the mantle of outsider and a vacuous rhetoric of change. [My response to "Change You Can Believe in" is what you get from a Republican teller.]
Barack Obama and the Democrats have seized on John McCain's earlier candid admission that he's not a trained economist, and they're desperately trying to tie McCain to George W. Bush's unpopularity and impugning his integrity with regards to his populist rhetoric in voting against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and his recent change of mind on offshore drilling.
There are some obvious lessons that can be taken from the 1992 election, especially the fact that Clinton was elected DESPITE a lack of military and foreign policy expertise. Second, the Iraq occupation, even though the surge has been successful, is still very unpopular. I think McCain has to back off simply reminding people he was right and Obama was--and continues to be--wrong. Most people feel we've been there too long, and for John to convince the people against the occupation, he needs to reach across to them, instead of letting Barack to lead them to believe he is looking for excuse to remain in Iraq. I would recommend he commit himself to a large pullback within 6 months of the new Iraq government taking power after elections. Third, the pick for the Vice President is important. I believe, as I mentioned in a past post, that McCain has to pick someone with solid economic credentials, has dealt with a topical issue (like health care), has more of an outsider reputation (in conjunction with the change from Bush), and has appeal to disaffected conservatives, i.e., Mitt Romney.
Fourth, McCain has to deal with G.H.W. Bush's perhaps biggest vulnerability: his so-called "vision thing". John needs to explain, in a sweeping bold picture, why he wants to be President. He needs to tie in issues like foreign energy and lack of border security to national defense. He needs to talk about replenishing military hardware and recruiting more soldiers. He needs to talk about a North American trading block, legal entry for seasonal workers maintaining home country citizenship, and diversifying foreign suppliers. He needs to take the higher road on jobs, focusing not on minimum wages but better paying jobs elsewhere because India and China graduate more engineers by a multiple factor. He should do something dramatic to spur savings and investment by offering, say, a flat $5000 exemption on interest and dividend income. He should consider resurrecting Bob Dole's former catastrophic health care plan. On social security: consider something bold like allowing diversification of social security/Medicare reserves into real assets, maybe even something like government revenues from ANWR reserves and/or new oil drilling to shore up. Consider future tax cuts in the form of credits or reduction of employee contributions to payroll taxes.
Finally, consider adaptation of Democratic "instant response" tactics. For instance, I saw of a glimpse of a materially false Obama job tonight claiming John McCain is against alternative fuels; the record shows that John opposed dropping CAFE standards (2002), voted for ethanol mixture with gasoline (1994), favored hydrogen car buildout (2003), voted for alternative fuels (1998), and voted for a nuclear waste repository (1997)
Because of a softening economy at the end of the 1980's, federal revenues were unable to keep up with spending; the Gramm-Rudding-Hollings Balanced Budget Act meant that without a budget compromise, Draconian cuts in entitlements and defense were inevitable. Bush presented a budget with no new taxes, but it was dead on arrival. Bush was faced with a choice of vetoing budgets and risking a government shutdown or putting taxes on the table.
Bush never used his post-war mandate to drive a domestic agenda; he was seen as indifferent or aloof as the recession, perhaps sparked by the higher taxes and higher energy costs, also hit white-collar workers (including myself). Even though the Fed started cutting rates in the summer of 1991, Bush's approval ratings steadily dropped heading into the primaries.
Public disgust with bipartisan bickering and fear of deficits provided a unique opportunity for Ross Perot to make a serious third-party bid as an outsider, outdistancing both Bush and Clinton, when he dropped out in the summer, convinced he had no shot in the election if it got decided in the House of Representatives with no one getting a clear majority of electoral votes. A Southern centrist governor with no military or foreign policy experience, Bill Clinton, won the Democratic nomination.
In the meanwhile, the unpopular tax increases agitated conservative Republicans (despite the fact that Reagan also had to give back tax increases during his first term). Pat Buchanan waged enough of a battle against Bush to win a favorable slot for a speech and concessions for conservative planks in the platform.
In essence, the Buchanan effect forced Bush to the right of where he wanted to be for the election, and Clinton took Al Gore, also a Southern moderate, which broadened the ticket's appeal to independents. Clinton got a huge bounce out of the convention, but even with Perot's reentry into the race, and the effects of interest rate cuts improving the economy, Bush was never able to close the distance on Clinton, as the Clinton campaign ran a predictable Washington-outsider campaign, argued for a change from 12 years of Reagan and Bush and blasted Bush as untrustworthy on domestic issues and out of touch with the middle class. This was despite Clinton's "finger-in-the-wind" philosophy of political expediency, his migration to social and cultural liberalism, and obvious deep character flaws.
Barack Obama already shows a keen interest in symbolism, wanting to emulate Jack Kennedy's appearance at Brandenburg Gate and nomination speech in a stadium. He is also trying to assume the mantle of outsider and a vacuous rhetoric of change. [My response to "Change You Can Believe in" is what you get from a Republican teller.]
Barack Obama and the Democrats have seized on John McCain's earlier candid admission that he's not a trained economist, and they're desperately trying to tie McCain to George W. Bush's unpopularity and impugning his integrity with regards to his populist rhetoric in voting against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and his recent change of mind on offshore drilling.
There are some obvious lessons that can be taken from the 1992 election, especially the fact that Clinton was elected DESPITE a lack of military and foreign policy expertise. Second, the Iraq occupation, even though the surge has been successful, is still very unpopular. I think McCain has to back off simply reminding people he was right and Obama was--and continues to be--wrong. Most people feel we've been there too long, and for John to convince the people against the occupation, he needs to reach across to them, instead of letting Barack to lead them to believe he is looking for excuse to remain in Iraq. I would recommend he commit himself to a large pullback within 6 months of the new Iraq government taking power after elections. Third, the pick for the Vice President is important. I believe, as I mentioned in a past post, that McCain has to pick someone with solid economic credentials, has dealt with a topical issue (like health care), has more of an outsider reputation (in conjunction with the change from Bush), and has appeal to disaffected conservatives, i.e., Mitt Romney.
Fourth, McCain has to deal with G.H.W. Bush's perhaps biggest vulnerability: his so-called "vision thing". John needs to explain, in a sweeping bold picture, why he wants to be President. He needs to tie in issues like foreign energy and lack of border security to national defense. He needs to talk about replenishing military hardware and recruiting more soldiers. He needs to talk about a North American trading block, legal entry for seasonal workers maintaining home country citizenship, and diversifying foreign suppliers. He needs to take the higher road on jobs, focusing not on minimum wages but better paying jobs elsewhere because India and China graduate more engineers by a multiple factor. He should do something dramatic to spur savings and investment by offering, say, a flat $5000 exemption on interest and dividend income. He should consider resurrecting Bob Dole's former catastrophic health care plan. On social security: consider something bold like allowing diversification of social security/Medicare reserves into real assets, maybe even something like government revenues from ANWR reserves and/or new oil drilling to shore up. Consider future tax cuts in the form of credits or reduction of employee contributions to payroll taxes.
Finally, consider adaptation of Democratic "instant response" tactics. For instance, I saw of a glimpse of a materially false Obama job tonight claiming John McCain is against alternative fuels; the record shows that John opposed dropping CAFE standards (2002), voted for ethanol mixture with gasoline (1994), favored hydrogen car buildout (2003), voted for alternative fuels (1998), and voted for a nuclear waste repository (1997)
Monday, August 4, 2008
Obama's Michigan Energy Speech: A Response
The first point when you hear Barack Obama's charge that John McCain is a "third Bush term" on energy (a claim made outside an E85 retailer in Manheim, PA, in early April) and disingenuous attempts to suggest McCain has been bought off by Big Energy, is to review the following quote regarding the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy bill: ""This bill does little to address the immediate energy crisis we face in this country. The handouts to big business and oil companies are irresponsible and will be disastrous for the people of Arizona. I cannot in good conscience vote to pass legislation that does not adequately address issues related to energy efficiency, security, and energy independence."
The person who released this statement? John McCain. Why? He has repeatedly evoked the memory of Teddy Roosevelt's populism and conservatism in describing his own political philosophy. John McCain refuses to use his position to get earmarks, unlike Barack Obama. McCain has a reputation among lobbyists of being one of the hardest lawmakers to influence. He will talk to lobbyists, because they represent companies or groups whom pay taxes.
Obama, in fact, voted FOR the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, because it doubled ethanol use. Hmmm. You don't think it had anything to do with the fact that they grow a lot of corn in Illinois, do you?? But Obama has the AUDACITY to politically attack the energy policies of two principal national candidate opponents whom were among the 26 to vote against the "Bush Third-Term Energy Act": John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
He also uses various misleading statistics (amount of reserves, time to market for oil finds, influence of supplies on market prices, etc.) We are producing somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.5 million barrels per day of, say, 83 million barrels worldwide per day, exceeded only by Russia and Saudi Arabia at over 9 million barrels per day. Of course, we are consuming something like 20 million barrels. Are we ever going to ramp up production to 20 million barrels a day? No. We have to work on the spread, knowing when demand closes in on supply the price will escalate accordingly. We can close our foreign import gap two ways: (1) reduce barrels used, e.g., by component demand for gasoline and other by-products; (2) increase barrels produced. This will increase the global gap, all things held equal. What is tougher to tell is to what extent suppliers can extend their production to satisfy growing demand, particularly from the fast-growing Asian regions. Some supplier wells may be on the decline (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, etc.) This is not simply a short-term problem; for instance, we can expect the number of cars for the rapidly growing middle-income population in Asia to multiply quickly.
There are a variety of ways to cut down on the use of oil; one way is to conserve energy utilization (e.g., drive vehicles with more miles per gallon, cut down driving); another way is to find alternative supplies of energy that work together with or in substitution of, say, gasoline. For example, we could run cars on electricity (which can be generated by hydroelectric, wind, coal, solar, or other means) stored in batteries. A chief issue there is battery capacity/distance between charges.
Cars can run a 10 to maybe 20% of ethanol without modifying engines. With additional hardware which might cost within $200 per car in volume, we could make flex-fuel cars, thus enabling us to run an 85% mixture of ethanol. A current issue is that we create ethanol primarily from corn; the starch must be broken down into sugar, and the corn itself today requires a lot of resources--nitrogen/fertilizer, water, etc., not to mention fossil fuel spent in planting, harvesting and processing the corn. In the meanwhile, ethanol cannot be transported through existing pipelines, we maintain high tariffs on more efficiently produced sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to protect domestic suppliers, we don't have flex-fuel vehicles readibly available in the US, and and few fuel retailers are willing to dedicate E-85 pumps.
Trying to pick winners in the alternative energy industry is risky. Even on some high-profile goals, like hydrogen-powered vehicles, we've seen adjustments to earlier targets, with some predicting hydrogen cars won't be a serious factor for another 40 years. The Democrats are pushing on a string. High energy prices provide a natural incentive for the buildout of disruptive technologies.
John McCain has generally been supportive of alternative fuels, but his strategy "does not rely on subsidies, rifle-shot tax breaks, line-items for lobbyists, or big-government debacles." John has been skeptical about the energy efficiencies of corn-based ethanol, but agrees at today's oil prices, ethanol makes sense, just as he similarly announced a reversal of his position on offshore drilling. His votes must be understood of other conservative principles, e.g., he voted against a 1999 amendment which looked to add to money for solar energy because the dollars were not matched with a budget reduction elsewhere in a pay-as-you-go context. He prefers for government to set policy goals and let the private sector determine the means.
Obama's other recycled liberal "solutions" proposed in his major energy address: windfall profits taxes and tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. For example, Exxon Mobil recently announced its biggest profit ever. Thus, it also has to pay more taxes. But the Democrats want to penalize Exxon unduly for its success, which is likely unconstitutional and in any event counterproductive (it doesn't tend to stimulate new domestic exploration). All of the oil majors are finding it hard to maintain their reserves as hostile sources nationalize operations. Now Barack Obama has reversed himself on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, basically in a transparent attempt to flood supplies and force down prices--a one-time decrease that does nothing about addressing our long-term supply/demand problem but which suddenly leaves this country economically vulnerable to a true emergency, such as a temporary disruption in oil from the Middle East due to war. This is not a "strategy"; it is shameless pandering for short-term political gain at the expense of our long-term strategy to protect our economic security.
The person who released this statement? John McCain. Why? He has repeatedly evoked the memory of Teddy Roosevelt's populism and conservatism in describing his own political philosophy. John McCain refuses to use his position to get earmarks, unlike Barack Obama. McCain has a reputation among lobbyists of being one of the hardest lawmakers to influence. He will talk to lobbyists, because they represent companies or groups whom pay taxes.
Obama, in fact, voted FOR the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, because it doubled ethanol use. Hmmm. You don't think it had anything to do with the fact that they grow a lot of corn in Illinois, do you?? But Obama has the AUDACITY to politically attack the energy policies of two principal national candidate opponents whom were among the 26 to vote against the "Bush Third-Term Energy Act": John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
He also uses various misleading statistics (amount of reserves, time to market for oil finds, influence of supplies on market prices, etc.) We are producing somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.5 million barrels per day of, say, 83 million barrels worldwide per day, exceeded only by Russia and Saudi Arabia at over 9 million barrels per day. Of course, we are consuming something like 20 million barrels. Are we ever going to ramp up production to 20 million barrels a day? No. We have to work on the spread, knowing when demand closes in on supply the price will escalate accordingly. We can close our foreign import gap two ways: (1) reduce barrels used, e.g., by component demand for gasoline and other by-products; (2) increase barrels produced. This will increase the global gap, all things held equal. What is tougher to tell is to what extent suppliers can extend their production to satisfy growing demand, particularly from the fast-growing Asian regions. Some supplier wells may be on the decline (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, etc.) This is not simply a short-term problem; for instance, we can expect the number of cars for the rapidly growing middle-income population in Asia to multiply quickly.
There are a variety of ways to cut down on the use of oil; one way is to conserve energy utilization (e.g., drive vehicles with more miles per gallon, cut down driving); another way is to find alternative supplies of energy that work together with or in substitution of, say, gasoline. For example, we could run cars on electricity (which can be generated by hydroelectric, wind, coal, solar, or other means) stored in batteries. A chief issue there is battery capacity/distance between charges.
Cars can run a 10 to maybe 20% of ethanol without modifying engines. With additional hardware which might cost within $200 per car in volume, we could make flex-fuel cars, thus enabling us to run an 85% mixture of ethanol. A current issue is that we create ethanol primarily from corn; the starch must be broken down into sugar, and the corn itself today requires a lot of resources--nitrogen/fertilizer, water, etc., not to mention fossil fuel spent in planting, harvesting and processing the corn. In the meanwhile, ethanol cannot be transported through existing pipelines, we maintain high tariffs on more efficiently produced sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil to protect domestic suppliers, we don't have flex-fuel vehicles readibly available in the US, and and few fuel retailers are willing to dedicate E-85 pumps.
Trying to pick winners in the alternative energy industry is risky. Even on some high-profile goals, like hydrogen-powered vehicles, we've seen adjustments to earlier targets, with some predicting hydrogen cars won't be a serious factor for another 40 years. The Democrats are pushing on a string. High energy prices provide a natural incentive for the buildout of disruptive technologies.
John McCain has generally been supportive of alternative fuels, but his strategy "does not rely on subsidies, rifle-shot tax breaks, line-items for lobbyists, or big-government debacles." John has been skeptical about the energy efficiencies of corn-based ethanol, but agrees at today's oil prices, ethanol makes sense, just as he similarly announced a reversal of his position on offshore drilling. His votes must be understood of other conservative principles, e.g., he voted against a 1999 amendment which looked to add to money for solar energy because the dollars were not matched with a budget reduction elsewhere in a pay-as-you-go context. He prefers for government to set policy goals and let the private sector determine the means.
Obama's other recycled liberal "solutions" proposed in his major energy address: windfall profits taxes and tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. For example, Exxon Mobil recently announced its biggest profit ever. Thus, it also has to pay more taxes. But the Democrats want to penalize Exxon unduly for its success, which is likely unconstitutional and in any event counterproductive (it doesn't tend to stimulate new domestic exploration). All of the oil majors are finding it hard to maintain their reserves as hostile sources nationalize operations. Now Barack Obama has reversed himself on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, basically in a transparent attempt to flood supplies and force down prices--a one-time decrease that does nothing about addressing our long-term supply/demand problem but which suddenly leaves this country economically vulnerable to a true emergency, such as a temporary disruption in oil from the Middle East due to war. This is not a "strategy"; it is shameless pandering for short-term political gain at the expense of our long-term strategy to protect our economic security.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
McCain: Reflection on the Post-Trip Campaign
I have to admit the McCain negative ads last week did touch a nerve and left Obama on the defensive barely off the afterglow of his cocky, over-the-top assessment to Democrat House members of his gimmicky Messianic world tour. It was amusing watching Obama's surrogates concoct all sorts of tortuous explanations for what Obama meant by "[McCain's] going to say that [I don't] look like those guys on the dollar bills". [I was halfway expecting a conservative cartoonist to come out with some kid at Mount Rushmore pointing up at George Washington and asking his mom, "Say, isn't that John McCain? No, wait...there's John McCain wearing a beard!"] Some suggested that it was that Barack looked "younger" or "less of a Washington insider". I think a comedian threw in a bit about Obama's ears. It was clear Obama was talking about skin color. I even heard one Democrat complaining about the timing of the reaction, saying that Obama's been making similar allegations about the McCain campaign since June, and this was suspicious and unfair to complain about the smear weeks after its original use! John may or may not have known about the original smear and/or let it go, giving Obama the benefit of a doubt--but when Obama recently used the same line at 3 different events in the same day, enough was enough.
I am still wincing at each mention by Democrats of the appearance of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. Some suggestions (i.e., notably from a New York Times blog) that it was intended to exploit racial tension over intimate relationships between black men and white women are really over the top. I have a number of disagreements on positions of Obama; I think he's the least qualified major party nominee in my lifetime, and he has shown consistently bad judgment during the campaign (e.g., the gaffes with Canada, Pakistan, and Israel; his stubbornness in moving against Rev. Wright; his refusal to acknowledge the fact the surge has worked and his distancing himself from General Petraeus (but he will fritter away the prestige of the Presidency by unconditionally meeting with the leaders of rogue nations)). However, I don't believe that Obama is anything like a vacuous blonde; I respect the fact that Obama has a hard-earned Harvard Law degree, and he is articulate, charismatic, and a talented public speaker. He's just not qualified to be President.
If I had been the creative guy in charge of ads, I would have approached things differently. I don't see the logic in pointing out how popular Obama is in Europe. If anything, I may have said something like while Obama seemed to be running to be President of Europe and talking about being a citizen of the world, John McCain was talking to U.S. citizens about the problems they are experiencing in a tough economy. The message: John McCain isn't interested in being popular in other parts of the world. Those crowds aren't deciding the next President of the United States--you are. John McCain puts the interests of America first, here or abroad.
I think the McCain campaign also needs to take ownership of the change issue. I would like to see more spots with McCain talking and defining himself. For example, I would say something like, "Look I'm different from those elected President and other nominees over the past 20 years, such as my friend John Kerry and my opponent Barack Obama. All of them hold degrees from Harvard or Yale. I proudly come from a family with a long history of military leadership and national service. My grandfather was an admiral; my dad was an admiral. I learned from them lessons and values that have guided me my whole life: faith, honor, integrity, courage, leadership, and putting God, my family, and my country first. When I was prisoner of war, it was hard. There were no easy ways out, and when I was given a chance to be released early, I made it clear: either all of us go, or none of us. My friends, it would have been easier on me politically not to fight with members of my own party over earmarks, such as the Bridge to Nowhere. It would have been easier not to reach across the aisle and reach compromises on things like campaign reform and immigration. It would be easy to make political promises, like Barack Obama does, to spend money that I know we don't have. We have a tough economy right now. We're up against tough competition in the global marketplace. I've seen good economies and bad economies during my years in public service. I'm not a trained economist and neither is my opponent. But I do know that we have to spend and invest our nation's revenue just as carefully as we spend and invest our own family income.
"Right now my opponent and his party want to raise taxes on business, at the time we are taxing businesses higher than our competitors in the global economy. My friends, this is not the way to get companies to invest domestically and grow jobs. While other global players eagerly look for oil where they can find it, including offshore, we produce less than 30% of our own oil. We could expand oil shale development in Colorado and Utah, we could expand drilling off the coasts and Alaska--not only increasing our national economic security, but lowering our trade deficit, and supplying good-paying American jobs in the process. In addition, I want to invest in retraining American workers for growing parts of our economy in technology and health care.
"What my opponent is suggesting, increasing taxes on higher-income workers and small-business owners, windfall profits taxes for killing domestic energy exploration, taxing the interest and dividends for small investors and retirees counting on that income. Asking more sacrifice from the taxpayer instead of first demanding better stewardship of the people's paid taxes.
"My Presidency will be a change than the previous ones. With all due respect to President Bush, he never cast a veto against ever-increasing spending bills from a Republican-led Congress. We have new Republican leadership in Congress, and things will be different in a McCain presidency. But the last thing we need is a free-spending Congress and a Democrat President whom voted with the tax-and-spend policies of his colleagues over 90% of the time. My friends, if you think there's a possibility that the Democrats will win one or both Houses of Congress this fall, you'll need a sheriff in the Presidency whom knows how to compromise--but will stand up to the liberal spenders."
Finally, I did want to credit the recent ads for fueling tensions between Congressional Democrats and Obama. Obama realizes that domestic oil exploration is an increasingly powerful trump card that is helping McCain and the GOP, and he is hoping to coopt the issue by allowing scaled-down oil exploration. In the meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of a House already with abysmally low ratings, is desperately holding off any floor vote (knowing she'll lost the Blue Dog Democrats on a vote), arguing "I'm trying to save the planet!" Yup, she's been right up there as Europeans were drilling in the North Sea, Brazilians made a huge discovery off their coast, the Chinese off theirs, and the Russians trying to tap the North Pole before anyone else (never mind drilling taking place off the Cuban coast). Ms. Pelosi seems fine with us permanently paying good money for foreign sources of oil, made available courtesy of well-paid foreign workers.
A further comment on Obama's shift towards opening the door for SOME drilling as a carrot for another boondoggle to the alternative energy industry. Here we see some contradictions (John Kerry calls them "nuances") as almost systematic in Obama: Here's a Constitutional Law professor arguing that at one hand, he supported abolition of handguns for personal defense in Washington DC and after the recent Supreme Court decision, suggests he recognized a compelling individual right all along; he, the poster child of the pro-choice movement, also seems to have backed off certain justifications for abortion (i.e., mental health). He, of post-partisan fame, decides to recant an earlier pledge to abide by public financing constraints, mostly because he sees himself as a special case and it would be inconvenient to stand by his word. And we haven't even spoken of his embarrassing reversals in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. John McCain's change on drilling reflects a realistic response to materially changed energy cost circumstances (just like his compromises for bipartisan legislation did not mean he abandoned his conservative credentials). Barack's "nuances" are designed to do or say whatever it takes to get himself elected. John is willing to fight on principle, but puts the interests of his nation first, which is why he changed his mind on a drilling ban.
I am still wincing at each mention by Democrats of the appearance of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. Some suggestions (i.e., notably from a New York Times blog) that it was intended to exploit racial tension over intimate relationships between black men and white women are really over the top. I have a number of disagreements on positions of Obama; I think he's the least qualified major party nominee in my lifetime, and he has shown consistently bad judgment during the campaign (e.g., the gaffes with Canada, Pakistan, and Israel; his stubbornness in moving against Rev. Wright; his refusal to acknowledge the fact the surge has worked and his distancing himself from General Petraeus (but he will fritter away the prestige of the Presidency by unconditionally meeting with the leaders of rogue nations)). However, I don't believe that Obama is anything like a vacuous blonde; I respect the fact that Obama has a hard-earned Harvard Law degree, and he is articulate, charismatic, and a talented public speaker. He's just not qualified to be President.
If I had been the creative guy in charge of ads, I would have approached things differently. I don't see the logic in pointing out how popular Obama is in Europe. If anything, I may have said something like while Obama seemed to be running to be President of Europe and talking about being a citizen of the world, John McCain was talking to U.S. citizens about the problems they are experiencing in a tough economy. The message: John McCain isn't interested in being popular in other parts of the world. Those crowds aren't deciding the next President of the United States--you are. John McCain puts the interests of America first, here or abroad.
I think the McCain campaign also needs to take ownership of the change issue. I would like to see more spots with McCain talking and defining himself. For example, I would say something like, "Look I'm different from those elected President and other nominees over the past 20 years, such as my friend John Kerry and my opponent Barack Obama. All of them hold degrees from Harvard or Yale. I proudly come from a family with a long history of military leadership and national service. My grandfather was an admiral; my dad was an admiral. I learned from them lessons and values that have guided me my whole life: faith, honor, integrity, courage, leadership, and putting God, my family, and my country first. When I was prisoner of war, it was hard. There were no easy ways out, and when I was given a chance to be released early, I made it clear: either all of us go, or none of us. My friends, it would have been easier on me politically not to fight with members of my own party over earmarks, such as the Bridge to Nowhere. It would have been easier not to reach across the aisle and reach compromises on things like campaign reform and immigration. It would be easy to make political promises, like Barack Obama does, to spend money that I know we don't have. We have a tough economy right now. We're up against tough competition in the global marketplace. I've seen good economies and bad economies during my years in public service. I'm not a trained economist and neither is my opponent. But I do know that we have to spend and invest our nation's revenue just as carefully as we spend and invest our own family income.
"Right now my opponent and his party want to raise taxes on business, at the time we are taxing businesses higher than our competitors in the global economy. My friends, this is not the way to get companies to invest domestically and grow jobs. While other global players eagerly look for oil where they can find it, including offshore, we produce less than 30% of our own oil. We could expand oil shale development in Colorado and Utah, we could expand drilling off the coasts and Alaska--not only increasing our national economic security, but lowering our trade deficit, and supplying good-paying American jobs in the process. In addition, I want to invest in retraining American workers for growing parts of our economy in technology and health care.
"What my opponent is suggesting, increasing taxes on higher-income workers and small-business owners, windfall profits taxes for killing domestic energy exploration, taxing the interest and dividends for small investors and retirees counting on that income. Asking more sacrifice from the taxpayer instead of first demanding better stewardship of the people's paid taxes.
"My Presidency will be a change than the previous ones. With all due respect to President Bush, he never cast a veto against ever-increasing spending bills from a Republican-led Congress. We have new Republican leadership in Congress, and things will be different in a McCain presidency. But the last thing we need is a free-spending Congress and a Democrat President whom voted with the tax-and-spend policies of his colleagues over 90% of the time. My friends, if you think there's a possibility that the Democrats will win one or both Houses of Congress this fall, you'll need a sheriff in the Presidency whom knows how to compromise--but will stand up to the liberal spenders."
Finally, I did want to credit the recent ads for fueling tensions between Congressional Democrats and Obama. Obama realizes that domestic oil exploration is an increasingly powerful trump card that is helping McCain and the GOP, and he is hoping to coopt the issue by allowing scaled-down oil exploration. In the meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of a House already with abysmally low ratings, is desperately holding off any floor vote (knowing she'll lost the Blue Dog Democrats on a vote), arguing "I'm trying to save the planet!" Yup, she's been right up there as Europeans were drilling in the North Sea, Brazilians made a huge discovery off their coast, the Chinese off theirs, and the Russians trying to tap the North Pole before anyone else (never mind drilling taking place off the Cuban coast). Ms. Pelosi seems fine with us permanently paying good money for foreign sources of oil, made available courtesy of well-paid foreign workers.
A further comment on Obama's shift towards opening the door for SOME drilling as a carrot for another boondoggle to the alternative energy industry. Here we see some contradictions (John Kerry calls them "nuances") as almost systematic in Obama: Here's a Constitutional Law professor arguing that at one hand, he supported abolition of handguns for personal defense in Washington DC and after the recent Supreme Court decision, suggests he recognized a compelling individual right all along; he, the poster child of the pro-choice movement, also seems to have backed off certain justifications for abortion (i.e., mental health). He, of post-partisan fame, decides to recant an earlier pledge to abide by public financing constraints, mostly because he sees himself as a special case and it would be inconvenient to stand by his word. And we haven't even spoken of his embarrassing reversals in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. John McCain's change on drilling reflects a realistic response to materially changed energy cost circumstances (just like his compromises for bipartisan legislation did not mean he abandoned his conservative credentials). Barack's "nuances" are designed to do or say whatever it takes to get himself elected. John is willing to fight on principle, but puts the interests of his nation first, which is why he changed his mind on a drilling ban.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Obama Plays "Let's Make a Deal"
Obama was deservedly mocked for his suggestion of getting tuneups done and maintaining optimal tire pressure as a material response to our domestic oil deficit problem. It's good practical advice for any auto owner--as it has been for decades. Hopefully this isn't one of those "new ideas" that Barack has hyped for his prospective Presidency. But I submit the main issue isn't that American car owners have suddenly stopped maintaining their vehicles the last few years, and I certainly don't think we need Big Brother auditing our engines and tires. If $4/gallon gas doesn't motivate people to conserve gas by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, maintaining their vehicles, exploring mass transit, carpooling, etc., what will do it? Barack Obama saying, "My fellow citizens of the world, can we count on you to check your tires tonight? Let me hear you now... Yes, we can; yes, we can...."
What's going on is the phenomenon of supply and demand. During the Iraq-Iran war, the supply of oil dropped about 10%, resulting in more than doubling the price from $14 to $35 a barrel. The price range has fluctuated based on the supply/demand gap, at one point dipping below $10 a barrel in 1998. A strongly improved standard of living elsewhere, particularly in Asia, has eaten up much of the surplus with oil producers struggling to keep up with demand, with some key fields thought to be on the decline. China and Indonesia, earlier in the decade exporters of oil, are now importing oil.
A key difference between the United States and other countries is that the others, like Russia, China, and Brazil, have worked aggressively to develop alternative resources, including offshore, to ensure future supplies. In the United States, we have seen politicians in a state of denial, as a small number of Americans have stonewalled oil shale deployment in Colorado, Utah and elsewhere in the north-central states, exploration off our coasts (even as the Chinese drill for oil off Cuban waters) , and, of course, ANWR. There are offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and elsewhere, operating with minimal environmental impact, but we think the small risk of an oil spill or concern for the mating habits of the caribou outweigh US economic security posed by overreliance on foreign suppliers of oil? John McCain, what good is the "pristine" nature of the Grand Canyon or Florida beaches if prospective visitors can't afford to go there? It is far more reasonable to simply insist on a small footprint, improved drilling technology, and restoration of land/environment at the end of their production lives.
However, the Democrats have put up disingenuous arguments, implying that domestic oil companies are deliberately passing up economically viable tracts they already lease in favor of riskier, more costly offshore tracts, exaggerating time to market, and arguing this is a long- and short-term issue, no short-term price relief. With regards to the latter point, if I have 50 barrels of oil now, and I think that 5 or 10 years from now demand will exceed supply and I'll be able to sell for over $200/barrel then, why sell now? If, on the other hand, the supply side improves, or demand decreases (because of economic problems, energy substitutes, etc.), I may be persuaded to sell sooner than later.
We know that with developments such as the rumored short-term introduction of a $3000 car in India, giving millions of Indians an opportunity to enjoy what many of us take for granted, those $3000 cars are going to need fuel to run on (and India is already a net importer of oil). In short, I do not expect supply to outstrip demand over the coming decade.
Democrats have always underestimated the difficulties of scaling up alternative energy production, the fuel transport and retailing infrastructure, and compatible vehicle production. Let us just consider corn-based ethanol: first of all, corn is not as energy-efficient for yielding ethanol vs. sugar-based alternatives. (Some have speculated on the alternative use of tropical maize or earless corn, where sugars are stored in the stalk and can be pressed.) But there are no pipelines among ethanol producers and gasoline refineries (existing oil pipelines can't be used). Even if we get E-85 production at refineries, only a tiny percentage of retailers have one or more pumps. Even if we get a critical percentage of retailers to carry it, most US vehicles can't run on it. Even though flex-fuel techology exists (Detroit has to build such vehicles for its Brazilian market), Detroit balks at mass-producing the technology based on cost and presumbly the inability of customers to find E-85 pumps. But, in the meanwhile, the use of food for fuel has sharply accelerated food inflation, a particularly regressive tax on the poor. The bottom line is that it will take years to build out such alternatives. Oh, and by the way, why do we still have a high tariff on Brazilian ethanol?
The Democrats also need to address the military need to protect transport of foreign-produced energy supplies to us. Dependence for oil on the volatile Middle East doesn't seem to be a viable option. Say it takes us 6 years for us to get a pipeline of or other transport of ANWR oil to U.S. refineries. Imagine if we had that oil today instead of being warned a decade ago that's how long it would take to hit our refineries. In the meanwhile, we spent up to $150/barrel to buy Middle East oil instead of paying American workers and an American company paying taxes to refine our own oil? So how is Democratic Party procrastination or inaction an answer?
So Obama comes out and suggests he's willing to play wheeler-dealer. We've seen this game before; need social program spending? No problem--I'll just take the Bush tax cut revenue for high-income earners. (Even if that results in killing job growth.) Need more troops for Afghanistan? No problem--I'll just redirect the troops I'm unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq. We never hear a legitimate answer from Obama as to how he is organically going to grow federal revenue or military manpower: just simplistic quid pro quo's.
Obama wants to open outer continential shelf to oil production just a crack--as a carrot to win higher-fuel-mileage vehicles and alternative fuels. That's not good enough, Barack. I think the high price of oil is already providing an incentive for those things. Did you see how many lower-mileage trucks and SUV's are being sold with $4/gallon gasoline?
No, Obama. What you need to do is provide a viable plan to get off foreign oil. We can't afford a weaker dollar--that's already been priced into oil. Whether Pickens' wind power/natural gas speculation is viable is beside the point. The point is--if we wait until $300/barrel oil to start drilling for oil, what will that mean--a dad taking a second job just to pay his energy bills to the Middle East? And having to wait another 6 years to see some relief?
What's going on is the phenomenon of supply and demand. During the Iraq-Iran war, the supply of oil dropped about 10%, resulting in more than doubling the price from $14 to $35 a barrel. The price range has fluctuated based on the supply/demand gap, at one point dipping below $10 a barrel in 1998. A strongly improved standard of living elsewhere, particularly in Asia, has eaten up much of the surplus with oil producers struggling to keep up with demand, with some key fields thought to be on the decline. China and Indonesia, earlier in the decade exporters of oil, are now importing oil.
A key difference between the United States and other countries is that the others, like Russia, China, and Brazil, have worked aggressively to develop alternative resources, including offshore, to ensure future supplies. In the United States, we have seen politicians in a state of denial, as a small number of Americans have stonewalled oil shale deployment in Colorado, Utah and elsewhere in the north-central states, exploration off our coasts (even as the Chinese drill for oil off Cuban waters) , and, of course, ANWR. There are offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and elsewhere, operating with minimal environmental impact, but we think the small risk of an oil spill or concern for the mating habits of the caribou outweigh US economic security posed by overreliance on foreign suppliers of oil? John McCain, what good is the "pristine" nature of the Grand Canyon or Florida beaches if prospective visitors can't afford to go there? It is far more reasonable to simply insist on a small footprint, improved drilling technology, and restoration of land/environment at the end of their production lives.
However, the Democrats have put up disingenuous arguments, implying that domestic oil companies are deliberately passing up economically viable tracts they already lease in favor of riskier, more costly offshore tracts, exaggerating time to market, and arguing this is a long- and short-term issue, no short-term price relief. With regards to the latter point, if I have 50 barrels of oil now, and I think that 5 or 10 years from now demand will exceed supply and I'll be able to sell for over $200/barrel then, why sell now? If, on the other hand, the supply side improves, or demand decreases (because of economic problems, energy substitutes, etc.), I may be persuaded to sell sooner than later.
We know that with developments such as the rumored short-term introduction of a $3000 car in India, giving millions of Indians an opportunity to enjoy what many of us take for granted, those $3000 cars are going to need fuel to run on (and India is already a net importer of oil). In short, I do not expect supply to outstrip demand over the coming decade.
Democrats have always underestimated the difficulties of scaling up alternative energy production, the fuel transport and retailing infrastructure, and compatible vehicle production. Let us just consider corn-based ethanol: first of all, corn is not as energy-efficient for yielding ethanol vs. sugar-based alternatives. (Some have speculated on the alternative use of tropical maize or earless corn, where sugars are stored in the stalk and can be pressed.) But there are no pipelines among ethanol producers and gasoline refineries (existing oil pipelines can't be used). Even if we get E-85 production at refineries, only a tiny percentage of retailers have one or more pumps. Even if we get a critical percentage of retailers to carry it, most US vehicles can't run on it. Even though flex-fuel techology exists (Detroit has to build such vehicles for its Brazilian market), Detroit balks at mass-producing the technology based on cost and presumbly the inability of customers to find E-85 pumps. But, in the meanwhile, the use of food for fuel has sharply accelerated food inflation, a particularly regressive tax on the poor. The bottom line is that it will take years to build out such alternatives. Oh, and by the way, why do we still have a high tariff on Brazilian ethanol?
The Democrats also need to address the military need to protect transport of foreign-produced energy supplies to us. Dependence for oil on the volatile Middle East doesn't seem to be a viable option. Say it takes us 6 years for us to get a pipeline of or other transport of ANWR oil to U.S. refineries. Imagine if we had that oil today instead of being warned a decade ago that's how long it would take to hit our refineries. In the meanwhile, we spent up to $150/barrel to buy Middle East oil instead of paying American workers and an American company paying taxes to refine our own oil? So how is Democratic Party procrastination or inaction an answer?
So Obama comes out and suggests he's willing to play wheeler-dealer. We've seen this game before; need social program spending? No problem--I'll just take the Bush tax cut revenue for high-income earners. (Even if that results in killing job growth.) Need more troops for Afghanistan? No problem--I'll just redirect the troops I'm unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq. We never hear a legitimate answer from Obama as to how he is organically going to grow federal revenue or military manpower: just simplistic quid pro quo's.
Obama wants to open outer continential shelf to oil production just a crack--as a carrot to win higher-fuel-mileage vehicles and alternative fuels. That's not good enough, Barack. I think the high price of oil is already providing an incentive for those things. Did you see how many lower-mileage trucks and SUV's are being sold with $4/gallon gasoline?
No, Obama. What you need to do is provide a viable plan to get off foreign oil. We can't afford a weaker dollar--that's already been priced into oil. Whether Pickens' wind power/natural gas speculation is viable is beside the point. The point is--if we wait until $300/barrel oil to start drilling for oil, what will that mean--a dad taking a second job just to pay his energy bills to the Middle East? And having to wait another 6 years to see some relief?
McCain Running Mate? My Take
John McCain has limited private sector and administrative experience; he has issues with certain elements of the Republican base, the current economic picture is challenging, health care has been a key issue this year, and he will likely deal with a Democratic-led Congress. Mitt Romney's impressive business credentials and success with Bain Capital, his organizational skills with the Salt Lake City Olympics, his gubernatorial and bipartisan leadership experience and exposure to health care reform in Massachusetts, and his popularity with many conservatives nicely complement the strengths John McCain brings to the top of the ticket. In addition, Mitt Romney has shown an ability to draw support in the western states and enjoys a favorite-son status in Michigan.
This is not to say Mitt Romney is a perfect running mate: John McCain and Mitt Romney had clashes during the campaign; Mitt Romney contradicted earlier stands on issues like abortion and immigration; he outspent and ran largely negative campaigns against his competitors, using his considerable resources which they couldn't match; he doesn't poll well with conservative evangelicals, and he won't be able to deliver Massachusetts. However, primary campaign differences come with the territory (e.g., Reagan chose Bush, despite the "voodoo economics" charge), and any Republican running statewide in a liberal state like Massachusetts would probably need to engage in some political posturing.
Some are suggesting nominating a strongly-qualified black, like Gen. Powell or Secretary Rice, which would provide a stark contrast against a thinly-qualified Barack Obama. Or perhaps Governor Palin of Alaska (as an alternate female candidate) in a year Hillary almost won her party's first female nomination. First, choosing someone as closely tied to the incumbent as Powell or Rice just feeds into Obama's spurious allegation that McCain is running for George W. Bush's third term. Second, their expertise wouldn't really add to McCain's strong credentials on the military and foreign policy, although their administrative experience is a plus. Palin's reformist reputation integrates well with McCain's, but certain allegations have been raised which essentially rule her out of this year's race. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana also would bring strong reformist credentials, in addition to his Congressional experience; however, he's already ruled himself out as a candidate.
Two other Purple State candidates have also been mentioned: Minnesota Governor Pawlenty and former Ohio Congressman/Bush Administration official Rob Portman(trade and the budget). I think the Bush connection probably rules out Portman. McCain probably needs to balance the ticket more towards the conservative side (ruling out Pawlenty), just as Reagan felt he needed to balance the ticket with a more moderate George Bush.
Given the challenges of the economy and McCain's painful admission, much repeated by Democrats, that economics isn't his strong suit (not that any of the Democrat lawyer candidates are trained economists themselves), I think Romney's success at Bain Capital and his being articulate and knowledgeable about economic issues are things none of the other people bring to the table.
John McCain may surprise me, just as President Bush 41's choice of Dan Quayle surprised me. Other candidates have also been mentioned (e.g., Sanford of South Carolina), but I fully expect McCain to carry the South. I really think Mitt Romney is a compelling pick at this point.
This is not to say Mitt Romney is a perfect running mate: John McCain and Mitt Romney had clashes during the campaign; Mitt Romney contradicted earlier stands on issues like abortion and immigration; he outspent and ran largely negative campaigns against his competitors, using his considerable resources which they couldn't match; he doesn't poll well with conservative evangelicals, and he won't be able to deliver Massachusetts. However, primary campaign differences come with the territory (e.g., Reagan chose Bush, despite the "voodoo economics" charge), and any Republican running statewide in a liberal state like Massachusetts would probably need to engage in some political posturing.
Some are suggesting nominating a strongly-qualified black, like Gen. Powell or Secretary Rice, which would provide a stark contrast against a thinly-qualified Barack Obama. Or perhaps Governor Palin of Alaska (as an alternate female candidate) in a year Hillary almost won her party's first female nomination. First, choosing someone as closely tied to the incumbent as Powell or Rice just feeds into Obama's spurious allegation that McCain is running for George W. Bush's third term. Second, their expertise wouldn't really add to McCain's strong credentials on the military and foreign policy, although their administrative experience is a plus. Palin's reformist reputation integrates well with McCain's, but certain allegations have been raised which essentially rule her out of this year's race. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana also would bring strong reformist credentials, in addition to his Congressional experience; however, he's already ruled himself out as a candidate.
Two other Purple State candidates have also been mentioned: Minnesota Governor Pawlenty and former Ohio Congressman/Bush Administration official Rob Portman(trade and the budget). I think the Bush connection probably rules out Portman. McCain probably needs to balance the ticket more towards the conservative side (ruling out Pawlenty), just as Reagan felt he needed to balance the ticket with a more moderate George Bush.
Given the challenges of the economy and McCain's painful admission, much repeated by Democrats, that economics isn't his strong suit (not that any of the Democrat lawyer candidates are trained economists themselves), I think Romney's success at Bain Capital and his being articulate and knowledgeable about economic issues are things none of the other people bring to the table.
John McCain may surprise me, just as President Bush 41's choice of Dan Quayle surprised me. Other candidates have also been mentioned (e.g., Sanford of South Carolina), but I fully expect McCain to carry the South. I really think Mitt Romney is a compelling pick at this point.
Friday, August 1, 2008
McCain: Enough Already With Stupid Ads!
The infamous "Celeb" ad is embarrassing and a poorly designed and executed concept. The implicit comparison between Barack Obama and two featured vacuous starlets like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is unfair and puzzling, shows poor judgment and a lack of creativity, and reflects badly on the campaign. The substantive part of the ad, dealing with Obama's proposed tax hikes and his refusal to support domestic oil and gas exploration as a material, commercially viable alternative to expensive, unreliable foreign oil, doesn't really integrate with the concept of celebrity. In fact, the ad may be remembered more for the images crowds cheering for Obama.
There's nothing wrong with the fact that Obama draws large crowds. The fact that the McCain campaign is drawing attention to it implicitly points out that McCain is not pulling the same type of audiences and could be interpreted as a sign of jealousy or defensiveness. But there are legitimate ways to approach the issue: for example, one could excerpt some of the vacuous things he's saying; you could talk about what, of a meaningful nature, people are taking from the speech; you could question what he's doing given his popularity now that he has the crowd's ear, or what he himself is taking away from the fact that he's pulling large crowds.
There's a reason I coined the term "Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism" to describe Obama: where will tax hikes on individuals and businesses responsible for creating jobs lead us, 8 years of trade protectionism and closed foreign markets to American goods and services, 8 years of no scalable alternative to ever-more-expensive foreign oil, 8 years of ballooning domestic spending, 8 years of pandering to rogue regimes and abandoning our allies?
Or take the image of a false Moses, leading the American people aimlessly through the desert for 8 years of his Presidency, guided by little more than the direction the wind is blowing to ensure his reelection?
Back in February, Sean Hannity had an hilarious segment of a pro-Obama focus group where no one person could identify a single accomplishment he has done. With a little creativity, you could easily simulate something a Jay Leno "Jaywalking" type segment (i.e., Jay asks ordinary people about current events) where you ask people what Obama has done or where he stands on key issues, what they remember about his speech in terms of solutions vs. empty rhetoric (and play the "Jeopardy" jingle while they ponder...)
James Taranto, columnist of The Wall Street Journal, has this recurring bit in his "Best of the Web" column, where he runs classic American quotes, say, FDR's on fear, JFK's inaugural signature quote ("ask not..."), etc.--and then quotes some ludicrous comment, typically by a Democrat. Imagine Barack, at the end of one such ad, saying, "This is the moment that the world is waiting for...I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." The delusional comment is so over the top that I think the effect would be immediate and devastating to the Obama campaign.
Or, for instance, you can take his pompous rhetoric like to the crowd in Germany where he discusses being a "citizen of the world"--and seize the opportunity to note that some Supreme Court justices have been citing European or other courts vs. deciding issues based on the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: Who would you rather see choose the next Supreme Court justice?
McCain could actually pose a nice twist to Obama's alleged judgment, without benefit of the National Intelligence estimate, regarding the Iraq War. He could remind people that the long-term Democrat policies against domestic drilling, nuclear power plants and the like forced us to depend more on foreign energy suppliers to run our economy, which reinforces our need to protect safety and mobility of tanker fleet, etc.
Before proceeding on next types of ads, I would like to address the field day that the left is taking on McCain's so-called flip-flops on energy, taxes, and the like. I think part of the problem that McCain has on some of these deals with the populist rhetoric used, which implies McCain buys into the class warfare argument or line-in-the-sand conservationism, i.e., ANWR, even after the offshore drilling reversal.
McCain is never going to get the support of ecological extremists. What he needs to do is to position himself as a pragmatic or maverick conservationist, one whom will seriously consider use of energy-rich territory given a small production footprint which is minimally obtrusive on the surrounding ecosystem and a commitment to future-period restoration. A change in position is warranted due to recent improvements in technology and the need to balance ecological with economic needs. With that, I recommend McCain go all the way and reverse himself on ANWR, noting bipartisan support in Alaska for drilling and the fact that it will yield good American jobs.
As for his so-called flip-flops on taxes, McCain needs to do a better job explaining he voted against tax hikes in 1990 and 1993 and the 2001/2003 votes (against tax cuts which passed) were more concerned with the spending side of the equation and well-founded fears of a mounting budget deficit.
McCain should then take Obama task for his blatantly expedient vote/position reversals: his decision to forgo public financing (despite supporting ethics reform), death penalty and gun rights (having been a law professor), the muddled reversals on Israel and Palestinians: Visually, you could accomplish this by going back and forth in a book--and then, at the end of the spot, pose the question as to whether the Obama on the ballot in November will be the same one after the election, not having to face reelection for 4 years?
McCain could run a number of Obama's liberal tax and spending promises--hammer home: tax, spend, tax, spend....--and then noting the numbers don't add up, ask the viewer who do you think he'll tax next... There are so many ways to play this with imagery: say, a magic show or the infamous "man-behind-the-curtain" of the Wizard of Oz.
Finally, a spot could feature something like a job application where you juxtapose McCain and Obama's qualifications and record (and in McCain's case, voluminous references), and then ask America who they would hire based on what's in front of them....
There's nothing wrong with the fact that Obama draws large crowds. The fact that the McCain campaign is drawing attention to it implicitly points out that McCain is not pulling the same type of audiences and could be interpreted as a sign of jealousy or defensiveness. But there are legitimate ways to approach the issue: for example, one could excerpt some of the vacuous things he's saying; you could talk about what, of a meaningful nature, people are taking from the speech; you could question what he's doing given his popularity now that he has the crowd's ear, or what he himself is taking away from the fact that he's pulling large crowds.
There's a reason I coined the term "Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism" to describe Obama: where will tax hikes on individuals and businesses responsible for creating jobs lead us, 8 years of trade protectionism and closed foreign markets to American goods and services, 8 years of no scalable alternative to ever-more-expensive foreign oil, 8 years of ballooning domestic spending, 8 years of pandering to rogue regimes and abandoning our allies?
Or take the image of a false Moses, leading the American people aimlessly through the desert for 8 years of his Presidency, guided by little more than the direction the wind is blowing to ensure his reelection?
Back in February, Sean Hannity had an hilarious segment of a pro-Obama focus group where no one person could identify a single accomplishment he has done. With a little creativity, you could easily simulate something a Jay Leno "Jaywalking" type segment (i.e., Jay asks ordinary people about current events) where you ask people what Obama has done or where he stands on key issues, what they remember about his speech in terms of solutions vs. empty rhetoric (and play the "Jeopardy" jingle while they ponder...)
James Taranto, columnist of The Wall Street Journal, has this recurring bit in his "Best of the Web" column, where he runs classic American quotes, say, FDR's on fear, JFK's inaugural signature quote ("ask not..."), etc.--and then quotes some ludicrous comment, typically by a Democrat. Imagine Barack, at the end of one such ad, saying, "This is the moment that the world is waiting for...I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." The delusional comment is so over the top that I think the effect would be immediate and devastating to the Obama campaign.
Or, for instance, you can take his pompous rhetoric like to the crowd in Germany where he discusses being a "citizen of the world"--and seize the opportunity to note that some Supreme Court justices have been citing European or other courts vs. deciding issues based on the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: Who would you rather see choose the next Supreme Court justice?
McCain could actually pose a nice twist to Obama's alleged judgment, without benefit of the National Intelligence estimate, regarding the Iraq War. He could remind people that the long-term Democrat policies against domestic drilling, nuclear power plants and the like forced us to depend more on foreign energy suppliers to run our economy, which reinforces our need to protect safety and mobility of tanker fleet, etc.
Before proceeding on next types of ads, I would like to address the field day that the left is taking on McCain's so-called flip-flops on energy, taxes, and the like. I think part of the problem that McCain has on some of these deals with the populist rhetoric used, which implies McCain buys into the class warfare argument or line-in-the-sand conservationism, i.e., ANWR, even after the offshore drilling reversal.
McCain is never going to get the support of ecological extremists. What he needs to do is to position himself as a pragmatic or maverick conservationist, one whom will seriously consider use of energy-rich territory given a small production footprint which is minimally obtrusive on the surrounding ecosystem and a commitment to future-period restoration. A change in position is warranted due to recent improvements in technology and the need to balance ecological with economic needs. With that, I recommend McCain go all the way and reverse himself on ANWR, noting bipartisan support in Alaska for drilling and the fact that it will yield good American jobs.
As for his so-called flip-flops on taxes, McCain needs to do a better job explaining he voted against tax hikes in 1990 and 1993 and the 2001/2003 votes (against tax cuts which passed) were more concerned with the spending side of the equation and well-founded fears of a mounting budget deficit.
McCain should then take Obama task for his blatantly expedient vote/position reversals: his decision to forgo public financing (despite supporting ethics reform), death penalty and gun rights (having been a law professor), the muddled reversals on Israel and Palestinians: Visually, you could accomplish this by going back and forth in a book--and then, at the end of the spot, pose the question as to whether the Obama on the ballot in November will be the same one after the election, not having to face reelection for 4 years?
McCain could run a number of Obama's liberal tax and spending promises--hammer home: tax, spend, tax, spend....--and then noting the numbers don't add up, ask the viewer who do you think he'll tax next... There are so many ways to play this with imagery: say, a magic show or the infamous "man-behind-the-curtain" of the Wizard of Oz.
Finally, a spot could feature something like a job application where you juxtapose McCain and Obama's qualifications and record (and in McCain's case, voluminous references), and then ask America who they would hire based on what's in front of them....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)