Bob Schieffer on Obama's "Restraint"

I actually think, for the major TV networks, Bob Schieffer seems more objective and less liberally biased than most major newscasters. I thought the way he conducted the third Presidential debate, the best I thought, was well-done. I thought that CBS-TV made a mistake by hiring Katie Couric as its anchor after Bob Schieffer took over from the dismal final days of Dan Rather's tenure and was steadily growing an audience. Other than a brief pop in the ratings with her first few shows, she quickly slid to the bottom of the major newscasts.

Bob Schieffer's closing commentary on this Sunday's Face the Nation lauded Obama's "restraint" over the election, noting that he was hoping for one of Obama's ethereal, "we are the ones we've been waiting for" stem-winders at Grant Park on election night and expecting Obama to rub McCain's nose in it. 

Oh, yes. Let's review how, with Obama's superior campaign organization, fundraising (because he reneged on a pre-campaign promise to accept public financing of the general campaign) that in one month alone nearly doubled what the McCain campaign had for the whole general campaign and outspent McCain up to 8-to-1 in battleground states, and running down the economy after the worst economic tsunami since the Great Depression, Obama managed one-point victories in North Carolina and Indiana, a 2-point victory in Florida, a 3-point win in Ohio, and a 4-point win in Virginia and a smaller margin of victory in all but two national polls?

Obama's election night restraint with no fireworks, etc.? Well, Obama just might think at a time we're in an economic downturn, it just might not be good politics to gloat. There's an old saying: "Be careful of what you wish for: you just might get it." Maybe Obama's worried about people with unrealistic expectations, supporters with contradictory agendas; he's not going to be able to be all things to all people.

What I take particular exception to is the following:

That restraint, Obama's understanding of how it would all look - an ability so often lacking in today's politicians - may well be what brought him to victory.

Time and time again in a hard-fought campaign there were lines Obama could have crossed and didn't. He made no issue of John McCain's age; he raised no questions about his health; he never went after Sarah Palin. He knew how it would have looked. 

Are you kidding me, Bob? No issue of John McCain's age? A recent UCLA story of registered voters said that of Obama's supporters, 63% listed McCain's age as a factor. In contrast, only 10% of McCain supporters listed Obama's multracial background a factor--while it was a huge plus in Obama's support. 

Let's see: John McCain was "out of touch"? He "can't remember" how many houses he owns? "We don't want the same OLD folks in Washington"? The campaign ad that was retro early-80's and noted John McCain can't use a PC or send emails? Why they were focusing on Palin's inexperience being a heartbeat from the Presidency? Obama's use of the terms "angry" and "confused" in describing McCain? "The old boys network? In the McCain campaign, that's a staff meeting..."

Obama not raising issues with McCain's health? Are we playing word games here whether he or his surrogates/supporters were using it? In a mid-September ABC-TV This Week with George Stephanopoulis, Carly Fiorina and Senator Claire McCaskill were discussing Sarah Palin, when McCaskill justified her adverse scrutiny of Palin on the grounds that John McCain had battled skin cancer (4 times). In fact, some pro-Obama 527 groups (Brave New PAC and Democracy for America) put together a relevant spot, running it on MSNBC. (McCain supporters wryly renamed MSNBC the "Obama TV Network",  with pro-Obama Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman finally dropped from election anchor coverage.)

Obama never went after Sarah Palin? Oh, come on, Bob! You don't remember Anderson Cooper 360, when Barack Obama tried to compare running his campaign with Palin's administrative experience running the city of Wasilla and the state of Alaska? Obama's Midwest stump speeches blasting Palin's record on earmarks as a mayor and governor shortly before the "pigs wearing lipstick" kerfuffle? Or this late October Obama quote referencing to Palin's poorly worded statement on Obama's TV spots and his own use of robocalls: "It's getting so bad that even Senator McCain's running mate has denounced his tactics. As you know, you really have to work hard to violate Governor Palin's standards on negative campaigning." Bob, that statement seems fairly judgmental to me.

Sarah Palin Overreacts to the Campaign Leaks

What curious about the post-election Palin leaks on Fox News is the lack of even-handedness. Late evening news show host Greta Van Susteren, who has the first exclusive Palin post-election interview in Alaska Monday night, has been unambiguously contemptuous of the nature of the leaks since Fox News McCain campaign reporter Carl Cameron first reported them. Other than Cameron, who reported what was told to him, and Bill O'Reilly's defense, in the face of certain viewers furious at Fox News for reporting them, of just reporting a newsworthy story, Fox-TV anchors and others discussed the topic in judgmental terms. I was surprised, in the sense during the campaign they also would cover Obama rallies, interview Obama press representatives, and have discussions with surrogates from both campaigns.

The controversy focuses on allegations made of Palin diva and rogue behavior (e.g., she refused preparation for the Couric interviews and wanted to confront the press when she got bad reviews), certain clothes shopping sprees, and some notorious general knowledge misses, which must have surfaced during interview or debate preparation (geography of the Middle East, whether Africa is a country or continent, which countries are party to NAFTA, etc) From an independent standpoint, the knowledge items are unusually specific; I don't believe someone just dreamed them up to make Sarah Palin look like a dunce. I don't think this is an attempt to "scapegoat" Palin for the campaign; if anything, it further questions McCain's judgment in selecting her. I don't think it's sabotaged Palin for 2012; Sarah Palin has already done this to herself, and she's politically astute enough to realize she doesn't match up to Obama now, never mind an incumbent President Obama.

My take is that these are some staffers whom have been very frustrated with their dealings with Governor Palin but holding their tongues until after the election to voice their complaints. Nevertheless, given Sarah Palin's own gaffes in the interviews, the debate, and even a visit to a third-grade classroom, the question is whether what was leaked is consistent with what we know, and for me, the answer is 'yes'.  America was considering electing someone as Vice President whom probably wouldn't qualify for the game show Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

Fox News anchors had all sorts of excuses for Sarah Palin: People make all sorts of mistakes when they're tired; remember Obama's gaffe about the 57 states in the US? Things are being said out of context, etc., not to mention the predictable complaints about people talking behind other people's backs. They made snide remarks about staffers hiding behind anonymity; these staffers have a right to make a living without worrying about politically motivated reprisals.

When these anchors had guests on these Palin leaks, they didn't interview Republicans whom felt that the selection of Palin had undermined John McCain's chief argument of experience against Barack Obama, whom cringed when Palin started talking about Alaska trade missions with Russia as foreign policy experience, and whom believed that the Palin pick was the major reason McCain lost the moderate/independent vote, a natural constituency, by 20 per cent. Instead, they interviewed, for example, one of their regular commentators, former US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). Santorum, in fact, was on the record for vehemently opposing McCain's nomination in the first place. So is it any wonder that he indignantly called on McCain to publicly denounce these leaks? (It's as if Santorum never heard McCain's gracious concession speech where he accepted full responsibility for the loss and praised Palin, identifying her among others as the future of the GOP.)

For some reason, Palin's bipartisan approval in Alaska, like Bush's in Texas, didn't translate in the national campaign. I think some of it has to do with the national media's attention on conservative issues, e.g., whether Sarah Palin had attempted to censor book purchases while Wasilla mayor, for which exceptions would she permit abortion, does she believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, does she want to push creationism (vs. evolution) in school curricula, what does she think about her church's attempts to convert gays to a straight lifestyle, etc. I believe that Palin needed to be more proactive in defining her own image vs. letting the media define it for her.

But Sarah Palin, who was receiving a lot of sympathy for what others perceived an unfair personal attacks, decided to take matters into her own hands:

I consider it cowardly...If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context. That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came

away with it, taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair, and it's not right.

Well, so much for the lady not speaking up for herself. Not good, Governor. Your response is politically inept and overly defensive. You still haven't learned when to shut up instead of digging your hole ever deeper; you need to tighten up your responses, stop repeating questions, and develop more of a thick skin. Remember when you said a few weeks back, pinching yourself and saying that wasn't just baby fat, but some thick skin there? This was not a thick-skinned response.

How are the alleged statements out of context? I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's possible that someone who knows there's a state called West Virginia and another state Virginia, might similarly think if there's a country called South Africa, there's a country called Africa. I'm not sure how that surfaced in debate or interview preparation. If Palin made mistakes, rather than denying they occurred, she should have said something like, "Look, I'm sure I made some mistakes during preparation time--I'm only human; that's the purpose for doing dry runs of debates and the like. I made some mistakes; I've learned from them. It's in the past; let's move on." If, on the other hand, Palin never discussed with campaign staff NAFTA, Africa, or geographic locations in the Middle East, etc., she should say so.

Let me explain why I think these revelations were newsworthy and not simply as Fox News disingenuously implies, some mean-spirited staff with an ax to grind against Sarah Palin. For a long time, the national media were demanding access to interview Sarah Palin, and the McCain campaign seemed to be restricting access to her, without explanation. If the reason why the McCain camp was restricting access to the media is that Sarah Palin was not up to speed on current events and certain salient domestic and international facts and issues, that's important to know. Then the question is--why didn't these national political literacy issues crop up earlier in the vetting process? Was the staff expressing their concerns to McCain? What did McCain know and when did he know it? Was it after the convention? Did he entertain the notion of dumping Palin? Why hasn't  the pompous Bill O'Reilly opining on whether there was a connection to Palin's unavailability to the media during the early general campaign, instead of meekly reading furious viewer attacks on the leaks and saying, "Hey, I'm just reporting the news, not defending what these guys did."

What is clear, though, is that the staffers implied that Palin was very upset at the reviews from the Couric interviews and wanted to counterattack. Unfortunately for her, Palin did overreact and in the process gave credence to staffer leaks.

The California Proposition 8 Kerfuffle

Obama and Biden announced that they accept the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but at the same time refused to support California proposition 8, effectively reinstating the traditional marriage. Ironically, an extraordinary black turnout in California for Obama, the overwhelming majority of which supported traditional marriage, carried the proposition, which had been trailing in some polls.

The basic history is in 1999, California established civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, and proposition 22 in the 2000 election (for which I personally voted while living in Santa Clara) formally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the marriage definition violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution for same-sex couples. Proposition 8 served to overturn the alleged new right for same-sex marriage.

This has led to angry protests in reaction to what same-sex marriage proponents say is instituting "discrimination" into the Constitution. Several groups are filing legal challenges, and particular hostility is being directed to the Mormon church, which some allege has violated its special tax status for actively supporting the proposition. It would seem to me that marriage is a fundamental concept in a religion's faith and morals and the Mormon church has a clear First Amendment right to promote its beliefs.

The institution of marriage was developed primarily in context of natural procreation, something the California Supreme Court explicitly recognized in 1948. Incidental differences of a life partner, such as ethnicity or religion, are not logically equivalent to structural differences, i.e., gender. California law already provides a legally-protected status for same-gender couples.

The traditional English language definition/common law concept of marriage fundamentally traces back to Judaic-Christian roots: at a time when homosexual activities and partners were accepted in ancient Greece and Rome. For thousands of years same-gender partners have found ways to pursue their happiness without abrogating the heterosexual foundation of marriage.

There are no gays I'm aware of in my family tree, but with over 20 nephews and nieces, I've wondered what it would be like if any of them would "come out". I know I would love them just as our God loves them unconditionally. I also know what it's like to live a lonely life; I wouldn't wish that on them. I would hope that one day they would find someone whom finds in them and cherishes the same wonderful qualities I've known all their lives, for we would share that in common. And I would hope that others honor and respect the relationships of my relatives and their loved ones.

TV Series "Boston Legal" and Election 2008

I have been a fan of the ABC-TV series spinoff of The Practice from its inception, starring James Spader as Alan Shore, a quirky, unconventional, talented lawyer, whom, like all liberals, typically views his clients as not responsible for their misdeeds or victims of  some neglected social problem (for which, of course, enlightened liberals have government solutions) or the government siding with moneyed (lobbyist) interests, and resorts to whatever means are necessary to win the case. Another memorable character is William Shatner's Denny Crane, the legendary "undefeated-in-court" founding member of Crane, Poole, & Schmidt, a rather eccentric, womanizing senior citizen, whom fears his vulnerability to Alzheimer's; Crane, a steadfast gun-toting Republican, and Shore, far-left Democrat, have an unusually close friendship, and each episode ends with them on the balcony engaging in small talk while enjoying cigars.

I certainly did not expect producer David E. Kelley to provide a fair and balanced viewpoint of the McCain-Obama Presidential election, given the fact that the show has at its core the Alan Shore character. But at the very start of this past Monday's episode, senior law partner Shirley Schmidt has flown to battleground state Colorado to vote because she knows her vote (clearly for Obama) will mean more there, than in Taxachusetts where Obama was already a lock.

Alan Shore and Denny Crane begin to quarrel as Alan obviously suspects, but can't actually believe that Denny is going to vote for McCain. The producers/writers always have had Crane voice preposterous, caveman-like strident views, while Shore articulates well-reasoned, irrefutable, intuitively-obvious points of view. Denny refuses to let Alan bait him into an argument, but confirms that he will be supporting McCain. Alan is taken aback and is incredulous at the very thought that ANYONE, never mind his best friend, could possibly support McCain. How could anyone vote for four more years of the same? [Obviously Alan is a Koolaid-drinking Obamacon. McCain openly differed with Bush on Iraq, key legislation and policies and heavily criticized the expansion of Medicare drug benefits without funding; he has criticized Bush's fiscal deficit record.] He offers Denny a deal: he suspects that Denny can't even give him 2 reasons to support McCain, and he promises to keep his mouth shut while Denny gives his reasons. Denny promptly gives two ludicrous reasons (not involving campaign issues). Alan goes berserk and starts repeatedly screaming, "Maverick!" Denny returns fire, chanting "Change!" And then they decide to resolve their differences, as all good lawyers do, with an old-fashioned exchange of paint ball, where each lands over a dozen shots on the other.

The main legal battle of this episode involves Valerie Bertinelli playing a cattle rancher whom wants the ability to medically protect her cattle against "mad cow" disease; the Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the cattle ranchers association, is attempting to stop her, primarily because they seem to think that Valerie's character is going to use her proactive treatment to market her product to differentiate it as safer than competitive products which have been government-inspected. [Actually, a conservative doesn't have a problem with product differentiation. There is more of a question of whether the cattle are being treated as advertised and the legitimacy of any claimed benefits over other inspected meats. We would be more concerned about the government's mandate of additional various treatments or other costs which do not affect product quality and which we cannot pass along to the customer.] Shore wins as the judge dismisses the case.

The end of the episode shows the various characters voting, mostly in Boston, and we fade to the two colleagues sipping drinks and smoking cigars. Alan asks, in a resigned tone, whether Denny voted and whom he voted for. Denny admits that he decided to vote for Obama. Alan, in an Obamanian ecstatic rapture, shares a kumbaya moment with Denny, professing his eternal love and friendship, both having followed the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism across his make-work Bridge to Nowhere. I suspect as the writers wrap up this final season of "Boston Legal", that Denny's decision to vote for Obama is the first confirmation of Alzheimer's, because clearly he forgot McCain's record of bipartisan leadership, his expertise in military and foreign policy, and fidelity to the concept of limited government, taxation, and spending, he forgot what happened to Bill Clinton's pledge of a middle-class tax cut in 1992, and what a Democratic Congress passed the next year (a tax hike), and what happened when Hoover also raised the high bracket tax rate following the 1929 crash. Denny also forgot that Obama is a fourth-year senator having spent the last two years running for President, no significant legislation to his name, no administrative, military or foreign policy experience.

I for one am sick and tired of cartoonish portrayals of conservatives or Republicans in TV, where liberals are portrayed as enlightened, tolerant, knowledgeable and incisive--and conservatives as prejudiced, anti-scientific, xenophobic, jingoistic, manipulated by moneyed interests, and obsessed with guns, Bibles, debunking climate change, and sex and marriage.

With one of the few exceptions of "Family Ties", where the former hippie Keaton's had strident conservative eldest son Alex, you've rarely seen TV shows feature conservative characters in a positive light. Story writers need to understand that conservative caricatures aren't as interesting 

Is Sarah Palin a Scapegoat?

It's not surprising to me that the media conservatives, who were ecstatic that Sarah Palin, in the unique position of having recently given birth to a Down syndrome child, having rejected eugenic abortion, and coming from an energy-producing state and promoting tapping ANWR, which her running mate opposed, was chosen to be on the ticket, are seething at the post-election news leaking out regarding Sarah Palin.  Not a few are accusing anonymous McCain staffers of moral cowardice for not stepping forward and identifying themselves, self-righteously refusing to accept the leaked stories at face value but downplaying any incidents as likely distorted out of context, and slamming McCain for not coming to her immediate defense. Other than the reporting of what has been said by staffers, the Fox News Channel's interviewers and talk show hosts, at least on this topic, have presented primarily viewpoints sympathetic to the counterattack against the leaks, including females arguing the attacks are motivated by sexism and Sarah Palin is a very smart woman.

Are McCain Staffers Scapegoating Palin for the Loss?

Media conservatives have used these leaks as sour grapes by an incompetently run failed campaign to renew their assault on John McCain as Republican-In-Name-Only and to argue that McCain allowed Obama to do an end-run to appeal to the majority center-right of America.

First of all, John McCain took full responsibility for the election loss in his concession speech. He also praised Sarah Palin, identifying her as part of the future of the Republican Party. I don't think he needs to address the matter further. I feel that the leaks are not inconsistent with other things that surfaced during the campaign, e.g., her interview performance with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and the kerfuffle over her attire bought for her use during the campaign. 

Second, John McCain got about 46% of the vote, which is more than most final polls indicated, when Bush's job approval rating was about 26%.  McCain lost North Carolina by 1%, Indiana by 1%, Florida by 2%, Ohio by 3%, and Virginia by 4%, despite being vastly outorganized and outspent by the Obama campaign, in a typical change year election, when Obama was fortuitously aided by the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, less than 2 months before election day. I can't think of a single Republican whom could have done better in this election year under these circumstances. I disagreed with several things in the McCain campaign strategy, and I will address these in a future post. 

But there's this ongoing myth, especially with the media conservatives, that the reason the Republicans lost was because McCain didn't carry the water on conservative issues, such as legal immigration, and reveal Obama's hidden liberal agenda. The fact is that John McCain, despite his politically courageous support of immigration reform, only won about 30% of the Hispanic vote (vs. Bush's approximately 44%), and a lot of that has to do with McCain paying a political price for Hispanic anger over the immigration controversy, which is perceived as culturally motivated. Apparently the GOP has not learned the lesson of California, where former Governor Pete Wilson's political exploitation of the immigration issue has, except for movie star and Republican moderate Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, all but vanguished the GOP from statewide office.

No, I don't think there was any scapegoating of Palin. I think there was a desire for the sake of John McCain not to give the Obama campaign ammunition. I reject there was an intent to "smear".  How do you smear the reputation of a candidate whom didn't know what the 'Bush doctrine' is, failed to come up with the name of a single newspaper or magazine she reads, or incorrectly described her target job to a bunch of third-graders, all in front of a camera? 

Was Palin a Plus or Minus for the Campaign?

One might argue that the media conservatives weren't as worried over illegal immigration in Alaska from Russia or Canada. 

First and foremost, I called on McCain to dump Palin before the Vice-Presidential debate; this is despite my initial enthusiastic support, although some concern over the Troopergate scandal, and I wrote a subsequent post addressing rumors that Palin might run for President in 2012. Hence, it shouldn't be a surprise to any blog readers that I believe Sarah Palin was a minus for the campaign. I think she has a certain charisma, her decision to give birth to a special-needs child Trig is inspirational, and I applaud her political courage in taking on corrupt public officials, including relevant members of the Alaskan Republican Party. 

"Let Palin be Palin!" shouted the media conservatives. One could argue that Palin excited many in the conservative base to volunteer and get the vote out for the GOP. Many were excited by the fact that Sarah Palin broke the glass ceiling on the Republican ticket, being the first female national candidate.

However, one thing is absolutely clear: Palin's favorability ratings started going down, as well as McCain's own poll numbers, after her initial interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. There have been a number of apologists trying to explain away Sarah Palin's abysmal performance on easy, predictable questions. I cannot think of a single politician or even another person whom would babble incoherently in response to a question of what newspapers or magazines she reads to keep current; it wasn't intended to be a gotcha question. When Fox News interviewed her several  days later, Palin had a ready response for the same question and had a disingenuous explanation for her earlier response: She regarded the Couric question as a cultural insult against Alaskans, implying that they didn't read newspapers or magazines. (At the same time, Sarah Palin insists she has a thick skin.)

When I first learned of Sarah Palin, as credentials to be President, her record as a mayor and 2-year governor seemed somewhat light, but I was impressed by her reformist and bipartisan record and her sky-high approval ratings; in theory, you can make a quality vs. quantity argument. She seemed to be reasonably articulate in her acceptance address in Ohio and her nomination address at the Republican National Convention. I made a tacit assumption that a politically-ambitious woman, such as Sarah Palin, was reasonably well-versed on current events and American history, at least as well-informed as I am.

I have already expressed my post-selection reservations about Palin on previous points, but when she started reusing debunked soundbites, like telling the Congress 'thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere: if we want the bridge, we will build it ourselves'. The reality is that Congress (including Obama) agreed to give the $230M request to Alaska, but Alaska was free to use the money for other projects (which it did). Palin, in fact, campaigned FOR the Gravina Island Bridge. But at some point she was given a revised project budget that showed the bridge cost had almost doubled. She didn't include any bridge expenditures in the state budget and in September of that first year, after the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse,  she killed the project. But the bridge money was approved by Congress before Palin ever became governor, and the money had already been designated for other infrastructure projects; she certainly didn't volunteer to return the money. Not only that, but Alaskans hate the term "Bridge to Nowhere" for the Gravina Island Bridge. At minimum, reusing an applause line that had been publicly refuted seemed odd and raised a red flag.

There were other things that surfaced of an unexpected nature. It never occurred to me that a pageant swimsuit runway clip of a Vice Presidential candidate would surface, or a college dorm snapshot of Sarah Heath  sitting on a bed cross-legged proudly stretching out a t-shirt reading "I may be broke, but I'm not flat-busted".

In terms of the initial Gibson and Couric interviews, it's seemed, at minimum, one should have been prepared to discuss the prior 2 terms of  George Bush--because the Democratic candidates had been bashing Bush nonstop for 2 years. Thus, Palin should be cognizant of the Democratic criticisms of Bush--his foreign policy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, civil liberties (FISA), Guantanamo Bay detention, torture policy and intelligence activities, child health insurance, social security privitization, judicial nominees, the federal and trade deficits, homeland security (especially port security), FEMA, taxes, business regulation, middle-class wage growth, etc. Second, Palin should have been able to articulate substantive differences between Bush and McCain on domestic and foreign policy and also between McCain and Obama.  Third, she should have been ready to compare and contrast domestic and foreign policy priorities. 

The latest revelations indicate that Palin was initially unable to identify the countries party to NAFTA, didn't know Africa was a continent, geographical layouts of Middle Eastern countries, basic civics knowledge (structures on the local, state, and federal levels), etc. There are also allegations made about diva behavior (e.g., refusing to be prepped for the critical Couric interviews) and/or temper tantrums, rogue behavior (e.g., her Fox News interview disagreeing with the campaign's decision to abandon Michigan; the spoofed Sarkozy call), other odd behavior (e.g., answering McCain staff door knocks dressed only in a bath towel), and Sarah/Todd Palin clothes-buying binges, sometimes on staff personal credit cards. Sarah Palin refused to acknowledge any allegations without a name behind them, and conservative spokesmen such as former Senator Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham are in a state of denial and demanding that John McCain defend Sarah Palin from what they regard as a post-election fingerpointing smear. (Actually, John McCain himself predicted dysfunctional post-campaign staff behavior if he lost.)

I'm not going to address the diva behavior or clothing purchase allegations. However, Sarah Palin recently addressed an elementary school class and, in responding to a child's question about what a Vice President does, answering that she would be running the Senate and influencing policy. [Actually, the primary function of the VP is to replace the President in the event of a disabling event; he or she formally presides over the Senate and votes only in event of a tie.] This just follows a number of fairly disturbing interview gaffes; despite valiant excuses by some conservatives to excuse Palin, it's fairly clear that Sarah Palin has no clue what the 'Bush doctrine' was--in any of its incarnations and bluffed a response based on the context Charlie Gibson gave her. But then came other interview questions, like identifying Supreme Court decisions OTHER than Roe v. Wade; Palin starts babbling with the wording of a question--something she repeatedly has a tendency to do--and then starts talking about Roe v Wade.  Then there's the question of what newspapers and magazines she reads to keep current, and she starts rewording the question again--but fails to cite a single newspaper or magazine by name.

A number of media conservatives have praised her performance in the debate against Joe Biden, pointing out that he made about a dozen factual errors. However, the point I remember from the get-go (and I underscored this in earlier Palin posts) is Joe Biden has repeatedly misstated McCain's proposal on health care (this is a key point because McCain was badly trailing Obama on the topic of healthcare, which the McCain campaign basically ignored over the last few months of the campaign), and Palin is totally ignoring that discussion and keeps going back to energy to make trivial, predictable points about domestic production. At one point, she openly admits she's going to disregard the question the moderator asked about and talk on what she wants. I had never seen that happen in a televised debate before.

Sarah Palin often engaged in inappropriate winking and formulaic sound bite stump speeches but never really pushed Obama, whom might be able to easily turn aside Palin's criticisms in one or 2 sentences (e.g., references to Ayers).

I personally thought Sarah Palin didn't bring anything to the table on energy. The natural gas pipeline deal she referenced is years away from trickling to the lower 48. Even if we aggressively deploy all domestic sources, at best we can only dent the current 60% daily gap supplied by external sources. Now, true, the Democratic response of a moratorium on offshore drilling sustains indefinitely a reliance on imported sources and contributes to the trade deficit. Unless we are able to displace oil with other resources--e.g., replacing natural gas power plants with nuclear power plants and then using compressed gas to replace gasoline--or using energy from nuclear plants to power electric cars. You need to talk from a big-picture perspective, including time-to-market. Second, Palin ignored Biden's jab that what Sarah did in Alaska was the equivalent of a windfall profits tax which is anathema to McCain and almost every other Republican. Now, granted, somebody reading this might say, "Ronald, you might be say something that an energy czar might understand, but Palin is going to reach more people saying "Drill, baby, drill". The response is, it's easier for me to simplify my message than for Palin to explain how punitive corporate tax policies will result in the companies' drilling.

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President of the United States. There is no doubt that there was a double standard here: people are going to put greater emphasis on the running mate of a 72-year-old President than a 47-year-old given typical lifespans. I personally thought, and still do, that Joe Biden was a terrible choice of a running mate. It is true that Biden brings some foreign policy experience, but no administrative experience and he did not represent ideological diversity (his voting record is almost identical to Obama's). I thought Bill Richardson would provide an ethnic dream ticket given Richardson diverse background. The naming of Hllary Clinton would have clearly been extraordinary for the base. Or Obama could have chosen a centrist former governor like Senator Nelson of Nebraska. So when people claim Obama made a great choice, I didn't see it at all, because I think any of the above choices would have made a better ticket.

Don't get me wrong--I think Sarah Palin can learn from her mistakes. But on the national stage, I think you have one time to make a "first impression".  I did not really see evidence she had the initiative to diagnose and resolve her knowledge gaps; for example, the erroneous job description for the VP was given to the elementary school class about 2 weeks before the election. The first contacts with Palin were made several months earlier. You would have had thought she had had enough time to read the US Constitution in the interim.

I'm not saying that Sarah Palin was "the" reason for McCain's loss.  This was a change election year, the incumbent President to whom McCain was tied had an approval rating of about 26%, Obama had bought a lead in many battleground states with a better organization and a massive advantage in fundings, and McCain faced the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. I think there were issues with McCain's own performance--he was too predictable during the debates, he repeatedly let Obama get away with the 95% tax cut claim, never pointed out there weren't enough high-end taxpayers to pay for Obama's programs, and didn't really question what Obama meant by tax cuts to people whom paid no taxes until Joe the Plumber got involved. But the choice of VP candidates is one of the easier comparisons voters can make regarding the judgment of candidates. 

Was Sarah Palin a plus or minus for the campaign? I think she's popular to the base, but, you know, when Obama made the Freedom of Choice Act one of his top legislative priorities in the campaign, I don't think the pro-life movement needed Sarah Palin to motivate the base. Palin DID NOT win over independents and moderates (and has zero appeal among liberals).  I think in the end the loss of moderates and independents outweighed any gain in conservative votes.

Did McCain Vet Palin?

I don't know the specifics of the vetting process, but I doubt that they give a quiz on current events, high school civics, etc. I presume the McCain campaign reviewed public records of her political career, watched her gubernatorial debates, etc. 

I don't think McCain was engaged in a desperate move, as some seem to think. I think the fact that Sarah Palin was female was a positive point, but Palin was never chosen as a pure Hillary play. I honestly believe it was more Palin's spunkiness on going head-to-head with members of her own party over corruption and beating an incumbent governor and then a former governor to win her gubernatorial campaign, vetoing spending bills, and working in a bipartisan manner.

I do think they realized there was an issue after Palin was chosen, which explains why they heavily controlled the media's access to her; none of what happened should have surprised anyone. Shouldn't McCain have asked her to step down if and when they determined there was a problem?

I think McCain was caught in a dilemma: If he replaced Palin, it was an admission he had made a mistake, and it also would have infuriated the highly motivated conservative base. If he didn't replace Palin, he risked more damage with liberals and moderates. I don't think it's an accident that McCain attended the final major (NBC-TV) Palin interview. I think there was a hope and expectation that Palin could grow into the role.

President George W. Bush and the Transition

I have been tough on President Bush for a number of reasons during his second term: his appointments of Texas cronies with dubious qualifications (i.e., Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General; Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court); his unwillingness to enforce fiscal discipline; his mismanagement and slowness in changing strategy during the Iraq occupation; his delayed proactive response to the crisis of broken levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina; his botched opening gambit of private accounts for social security which underestimated resistance from the powerful status quo (e.g., AARP), which made social security reform dead on arrival; and the initial outline of a financial bailout, which deeply violated conservative principles (including the fact that Bush did not negotiate with House Republicans before publishing the plans). On the topic of the recent financial tsunami, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on a late October ABC-TV's This Week with George Stephanopoulos wryly observed that the reason he had voted against 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry was because of a fear Kerry might  (paraphrased) "do away with our capitalist system and nationalize the mortgage industry, the banks and Wall Street". [The point being, George W. Bush, a self-professed conservative Republican, has overseen the largest scale market intervention in decades.]

But whereas I've been critical of Bush, I recognize the fundamental success he has achieved (at least to present) in preventing a second major terrorist attack on American soil, the successful change in Iraq tactics (fought vociferously by Democrats demanding unconditional retreat, regardless of conditions on the ground), his negotiations of free trade treaties with South Korea and Colombia, his lifting an executive order against drilling offshore, and his valiant attempts to secure comprehensive immigration reform.

However, Bush bashing has been ongoing since even before Bush took office, with Gore refusing to accept the Bush win, as confirmed by two machine counts of statewide ballots. The Clinton Administration refused to work with the Bush transition team until after the Supreme Court  ruled 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional and 5-4 that there wasn't enough time for yet another, lawful recount. (It should be known independent media recounts authorized by the Freedom of Information Act also confirmed the Bush victory.) The point of recounting this is not to reargue Gore's unprecedented challenge to national election results. Rather, it was the reported sophomoric behavior that the Clinton team left to Bush personnel, including trashing of facilities and the letter "W" (George Bush's famous middle initial) removed from many keyboards.

The barrage has been nonstop. Even as Bush inherited a recession led by the Nasdaq meltdown starting in year 2000, we saw the 9/11 attacks and the corporate scandals (Enron et al.); the Fed Reserve pushed interest rates down to near zero.  We were teetering on the edge of a global economic recession. We conservatives feel the tax cuts and the ability of homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages under more favorable interest terms freed up enough consumer discretionary income to provide a spark for an American-led global recovery. Yet Bush had to withstand more personal attacks as many protestors around the globe disagreed with the decision to liberate Iraq, despite the fact that the original ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War had been repeatedly violated, Hussein had attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait, and Iraq had violated some 17 UN resolutions. Many countries criticizing Bush (e.g., Russia, China, Germany, and France) had sweetheart deals with Iraq, not to mention UN corruption itself in the Oil-for-Food program.

To be honest, I found it ironic that George W. Bush, who had criticized Clinton for nation-building during the tragic years of  ethnic cleansing of the Yugoslav wars, would have immersed himself in precisely the kind of sectarian issues his father sought to avoid at the end of the first Gulf War. I myself did not see how Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, but I knew Iraq had WMD knowledge and training, access to black-market oil revenues, and an anti-American motive. I also knew that the US and Britain were absorbing high ongoing costs for maintaining no-fly zones and that Hussein had unilaterally kicked out UN WMD inspectors with existing chemical agent stocks still intact. As I understand it, there were international intelligence assessments, which corroborated American ones. I do believe that Bush was cognizant of the sectarian implications of a liberated Iraq. I trusted him to make a judgment on the liberation of Iraq. I do not believe that the decision to overthrow a rogue war criminal whom, without provocation, twice invaded neighboring countries, was a bad one. I'm less convinced about the stabilization footprint and various military, civilian and political miscues during the occupation itself.

Nevertheless, the left has gone after Bush in very personally abusive manner, not just the tiresome pronunciation foibles, the constant ridicule of his intelligence (despite his two Ivy League degrees), and other obnoxious insults. For example, some 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition to name a local sewage plant after him. There have been constant threats to impeach Bush over political differences, to indict him for "war crimes", etc. I remember Al Gore sighing audibly and contemptuously and directly approaching him at the podium in an intimidating manner during the 2000 debates, and I recall John Kerry droning on about Bush's "stubborn incompetence" and "colossal failures of judgment" (and this is after he said he wasn't going to let a couple of  "draft dodgers" question his patriotism--less than 10 years after he argued military service wasn't a prerequisite for Clinton's credential as Commander in Chief over war hero Bob Dole). It seemed every other sentence out of Hillary Clinton's mouth was to make some putdown or slam of President Bush, and Obama ran the entire general campaign on Bush's "failed" economic and foreign policies (in particular, Iraq) and trying to link McCain to them. Despite a difficult start including an inherited recession, 9/11, and the corporate financial scandals, the Bush tax cut years saw lower unemployment, higher economic growth, and lower inflation. The Fed did need to raise interest rates as commodity prices climbed, and the related burst in the housing bubble, as home prices appreciated beyond what the typical household could afford, did serious damage. 

Notably Obama took no responsibility for his party's disincentives for domestic energy exploration, i.e., energy price inflation as international customers competed for available oil supplies, his own support for inefficient corn ethanol which helped ignite food inflation, and despite alleging McCain's deregulation stance caused the economic crisis, his and his own party's failure to regulate and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and  to limit their related government exposure to a disproportionate share of the US mortgage market and their purchasing and bundling of high-risk mortgages which has a lot to do with the ongoing economic crisis.

President Bush would have every right to treat Obama, the hypocritical exponent of post-partisan rhetoric whom made exceptions in his own stump speeches for Bush and McCain, with similar behavior and/or lack of professionalism of the departing Clinton Administration. However, George Bush, who, to the best of my knowledge, has always been friendly and graceful with respect to his political opponents, once again demonstrated his fundamental decency in his post-election public statement:

Last night, I had a warm conversation with President-elect Barack Obama. I congratulated him and Senator Biden on their impressive victory. I told the president-elect he can count on complete cooperation from my administration as he makes the transition to the White House....all Americans can be proud of the history that was made yesterday...They chose a president whose journey represents a triumph of the American story...Many of our citizens thought they would never live to see that day. This moment is especially uplifting for a generation of Americans who witnessed the struggle for civil rights with their own eyes and four decades later see a dream fulfilled...During this time of transition, I will keep the president-elect fully informed on important decisions...It'll be a stirring sight to watch President Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their beautiful girls step through the doorsof the White House. I know millions of Americans will be overcome with pride at this inspiring moment that so many have waited so long...I know Senator Obama's beloved mother and grandparents would've been thrilled to watch the child they raised ascend the steps of the Capitol and take his oath...Last night I extended an invitation to President-elect and Mrs. Obama to come to the White House...

John Sidney McCain: Chivalrous in Defeat

John McCain has undergone an impressive political odyssey on the way to his loss this week. The early campaign's finances collapsed with his popularity, heading down to single-digit range, as he took the lead in supporting the surge and taking heavy hits over immigration reform and amnesty. He famously flew coach, carried his own luggage through airports, and in order to get a campaign loan, took out a life insurance policy. He then staged an unprecedented comeback, a phoenix rising from the campaign ashes to take the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries, despite being vastly outspent with negative ads and virulent attacks from media conservatives like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, principally for immigration, his votes on the original Bush tax cuts, and various bipartisanship initiatives. 

McCain went into the general election inheriting the baggage from a disastrous Bush second term, marked by a stagnating, casualty-intensive Iraq occupation and passive federal leadership in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Bush, the first MBA President, did not seem to have a detailed plan of what to do in nation-building after the successful liberation of Iraq; he did urge Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco to evacuate, which they failed to do, but didn't seem to have a plan once the levees started failing. He also failed to keep a Republican-led Congress for the first 6 years of his tenure in check from massive deficit spending. McCain had also to play his ties to the President, still popular with the base, for the Republican primaries, which made it difficult to distance himself in the general election as Barack Obama made him eat each photo op together with Bush and every vote cast consistent with Bush's stands on Senate votes. In addition, McCain's positions on Social Security and health care reform were very similar to Bush's; from a tactical standpoint, given the fact that Bush's proposals were dead on arrival, McCain probably needed to differentiate himself on those issues, key to a number of voters.

John McCain also had a sticky situation in terms of having to compete against a black candidate where anything done or said by the campaign or his supporters could be scrutinized for any hint of racism; we saw that play out when Rep. John Lewis, someone McCain has praised in print, heard the term "kill him" was shouted at a Palin rally and assumed it was intended for Obama  (it turned out an individual said that after Palin mentioned Bill Ayers, a former domestic terrorist whom worked with Obama on education issues.) 

Barack Obama had a much easier road: a highly-motivated base, hungry after the Gore and Kerry defeats; a normal change election cycle, which has operated since the 1950's; superior fundraising; a deteriorating economy; the lack of a substantial voting record which would alienate special interest groups; his opponent's age and selection of a running mate which undermined the experience argument. Obama backed off his commitment to public financing and also an agreement for joint townhall meetings, agreeing only to the minimal number of public debates; these steps gave him a strategic money advantage and lowered his risk for another "meet without preconditions" gaffe. And then the financial tsunami fell into his lap. Obama regained the lead from a McCain Palin/convention bounce and never looked back. He had also built a strong ground game for the caucuses (including red states), outorganizing Hillary Clinton, and used that as a baseline to force McCain to defend his own territory.

I regret the election outcome, because I honestly believe that America missed the chance to elect the best President of my lifetime. I believe in McCain so much I made the first political contributions in my life--at times when I didn't have a job and before the first primary vote was cast (although I worked as a volunteer in the Carter campaign and stood for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Texas caucus). I thought (and still do think) McCain is a true reformer, an officer and a gentleman and proven bipartisan leadership, a family history of distinguished military service and a POW whom refused preferential early release, a man with straight talk, no spin and no hidden agenda,  a man whom is willing to sacrifice his greatest political ambitions to do what's right for our beloved country, an uncommon man of integrity, due, honor, and courage. A man of class, grace and loyalty, whom heard himself personally attacked by Dems, including John  Kerry,  whom McCain defended during the 2004 campaign, as "erratic", mercurial,  hot-tempered, blood-lusty, and senile, but maintained his dignity and stood by his selection of Sarah Palin, even as she became a political liability with independents and moderates. I am privileged and honored to have had the opportunity to vote for a man I truly respect, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. 

McCain gave one of the most stirring and gracious concession speeches ever: 

The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. A little while ago, I had the honor of calling Sen. Barack Obama to congratulate him.To congratulate him on being elected the next president of the country that we both love...He managed to [inspire] the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight... I...offer him my sincere sympathy that his beloved grandmother did not live to see this day,...so very proud of the good man she helped raise.I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in ...offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to...bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited... We fought as hard as we could. And though we fell short, the failure is mine, not yours...I won't spend a moment of the future regretting what might have been. This campaign was and will remain the great honor of my life, and my heart is filled with nothing but gratitude for the experience and to the American people for giving me a fair hearing...I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Sen. Obama...

I thank you, Senator McCain, for having fought the good fight, for having finished the race, for having kept the faith. You are a man among men. The valiant efforts and sacrifices of you, your ancestry and millions of veterans are the bedrock of this nation. Whatever the president-elect and others may accomplish, they would do well to remember these words of Sir Isaac Newton: "“If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”