by folkbum
"Law and Order" producers have got Obama's back, it seems.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Morning-After Musings
by folkbum
• Tonight is the regular monthly installment of Eating Liberally in Milwaukee. I will be there, and you should be there too. It's a 6 PM in the back room of Bella's Fat Cat Custard in Bay View.
• The contest winner will be announced this evening, I hope. As I type this, there are three presidential races yet to be called, and four US Senate races (including what looks like might be a Ted Stevens upset in Alaska), and a dozen or so House races. We're waiting on a couple of state races, too.
• In the last week, when I wrote about the presidential candidates' chances, I assumed, as Republicans had been claiming all along, that pollsters were oversampling Democrats and giving Obama an unfair boost. So I spotted John McCain six points across the board, and he still had a very tought map. However, the final results punctured that theory. Obama is currently winning 52.3-46.4. pollster.com showed a trend of Obama winning 52-44. 538 had predicted 52.3-46.2 for Obama (eerily prescient, no?). Those were all based in the polls Republicans were sure were wrong.
• It appears, reading the text of Obama's acceptance speech, that I may have wildly overstated the extent of his puppy-redistribution plans.
• Al Franken is down by about 800 votes in his US Senate race over in Minnesota. I had very high hopes of picking up this seat, and it may well come down to provisional ballots. Obama won Minnesota by 10 points, and Republican Norm Coleman, even though he's winning, has only 42% of the vote. Clearly Minnesota, like Wisconsin, is moving out of swing state territory. Republicans will have a hard time holding the governor's seat there in two years.
• Here's what I really don't understand: Barack Obama wins Wisconsin by 13 points, Democrats flip five State Assembly seats, and yet we can't flip a single State Senate seat? There's still slight hope for Sheldon Wasserman and Tara Johnson as I write this, but the key word is slight. I'm really quite astounded at that.
• California voted to roll back rights for gays and lesbians. That's depressing.
• Barack Obama's win was truly impressive. He won by 7 million votes, the largest margin since Clinton's 8-million vote win in 1996. (Clinton won 47 million votes then; Obama has over 62 million.) He won in every region of the country (Virginia is kind of the South, and he's up in North Carolina though it hasn't been called yet.) Exit polls suggest he beat John Kerry in almost every category, including among those working-class whites that Brian Fraley and Joe the Plumber and Hillary Holdouts were convinced Obama could never win. I think this suggests that Obama is not just the president of the Democrats, but the president of Everybody. His victory was impressive.
• Maybe the Milwaukee Public Museum's Corpse Flower will finally bloom today.
• Turnout was down nationally. 119 million this year, compared to 122 million in 2004. I don't get that. I mean, Obama's 7-million vote win is massive, and could be partially explained by Republicans staying home in some states, I suppose. Here in Wisconsin, turnout seems down by maybe 100,000 or so, but Obama got more that 150,000 more votes than Kerry did. McCain, on the other hand, underperformed Bush by 250,000 votes. I am very interested to compare county-level turnout numbers to see if heavily Republican counties had lower turnout this year. (UPDATE: Politico says I'm wrong, but their vote total is different from the maps I've seen.)
• Tonight is the regular monthly installment of Eating Liberally in Milwaukee. I will be there, and you should be there too. It's a 6 PM in the back room of Bella's Fat Cat Custard in Bay View.
• The contest winner will be announced this evening, I hope. As I type this, there are three presidential races yet to be called, and four US Senate races (including what looks like might be a Ted Stevens upset in Alaska), and a dozen or so House races. We're waiting on a couple of state races, too.
• In the last week, when I wrote about the presidential candidates' chances, I assumed, as Republicans had been claiming all along, that pollsters were oversampling Democrats and giving Obama an unfair boost. So I spotted John McCain six points across the board, and he still had a very tought map. However, the final results punctured that theory. Obama is currently winning 52.3-46.4. pollster.com showed a trend of Obama winning 52-44. 538 had predicted 52.3-46.2 for Obama (eerily prescient, no?). Those were all based in the polls Republicans were sure were wrong.
• It appears, reading the text of Obama's acceptance speech, that I may have wildly overstated the extent of his puppy-redistribution plans.
• Al Franken is down by about 800 votes in his US Senate race over in Minnesota. I had very high hopes of picking up this seat, and it may well come down to provisional ballots. Obama won Minnesota by 10 points, and Republican Norm Coleman, even though he's winning, has only 42% of the vote. Clearly Minnesota, like Wisconsin, is moving out of swing state territory. Republicans will have a hard time holding the governor's seat there in two years.
• Here's what I really don't understand: Barack Obama wins Wisconsin by 13 points, Democrats flip five State Assembly seats, and yet we can't flip a single State Senate seat? There's still slight hope for Sheldon Wasserman and Tara Johnson as I write this, but the key word is slight. I'm really quite astounded at that.
• California voted to roll back rights for gays and lesbians. That's depressing.
• Barack Obama's win was truly impressive. He won by 7 million votes, the largest margin since Clinton's 8-million vote win in 1996. (Clinton won 47 million votes then; Obama has over 62 million.) He won in every region of the country (Virginia is kind of the South, and he's up in North Carolina though it hasn't been called yet.) Exit polls suggest he beat John Kerry in almost every category, including among those working-class whites that Brian Fraley and Joe the Plumber and Hillary Holdouts were convinced Obama could never win. I think this suggests that Obama is not just the president of the Democrats, but the president of Everybody. His victory was impressive.
• Maybe the Milwaukee Public Museum's Corpse Flower will finally bloom today.
• Turnout was down nationally. 119 million this year, compared to 122 million in 2004. I don't get that. I mean, Obama's 7-million vote win is massive, and could be partially explained by Republicans staying home in some states, I suppose. Here in Wisconsin, turnout seems down by maybe 100,000 or so, but Obama got more that 150,000 more votes than Kerry did. McCain, on the other hand, underperformed Bush by 250,000 votes. I am very interested to compare county-level turnout numbers to see if heavily Republican counties had lower turnout this year. (UPDATE: Politico says I'm wrong, but their vote total is different from the maps I've seen.)
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Congratulations, President-Elect Obama
by folkbum
It's over. A lot of places haven't closed yet, but with what's been called and what's certain--like CA, WA, OR and so forth, there's no way John McCain can get to 270 electoral votes.
It has been eight years, but this is an election night I will sleep through well. Not that all of a sudden we'll all be riding ponies across rainbows in the morning, but things are looking better.
UPDATE: I at the cookie dough raw anyway.
UPDATE II: Did Barack Obama just promise us all a puppy?!?!?
UPDATE III: No rioting or looting that I can see. And I need a plasma, too. Rats.
It's over. A lot of places haven't closed yet, but with what's been called and what's certain--like CA, WA, OR and so forth, there's no way John McCain can get to 270 electoral votes.
It has been eight years, but this is an election night I will sleep through well. Not that all of a sudden we'll all be riding ponies across rainbows in the morning, but things are looking better.
UPDATE: I at the cookie dough raw anyway.
UPDATE II: Did Barack Obama just promise us all a puppy?!?!?
UPDATE III: No rioting or looting that I can see. And I need a plasma, too. Rats.
Provisions
by folkbum
Among the things I have on hand for tonight: A tube of cookie dough. Things go well, fresh-baked cookies! Things go less well, peel-and-eat. Either way, then, I'm covered.
UPDATE, 7:41 PM: Just got a robocall--first of the day!--from Michelle Obama telling me I still have "a few hours left" to vote.
Among the things I have on hand for tonight: A tube of cookie dough. Things go well, fresh-baked cookies! Things go less well, peel-and-eat. Either way, then, I'm covered.
UPDATE, 7:41 PM: Just got a robocall--first of the day!--from Michelle Obama telling me I still have "a few hours left" to vote.
Not Free
by folkbum
The Walgreen's line after work was not quite as long as the before-work line to vote. However, I can tell you that, contrary to earlier reports, the Walgreen's pharmacies are not giving out free percocet with your "I Voted" sticker.
The Walgreen's line after work was not quite as long as the before-work line to vote. However, I can tell you that, contrary to earlier reports, the Walgreen's pharmacies are not giving out free percocet with your "I Voted" sticker.
I Voted
by folkbum
I got in line at about 6:50. I voted at about 7:20. The line still stretched out of the building, down the walk, and down the sidewalk a ways when I left. I was number 27 in my ward, 52 in the polling place. (There have been some spring elections when I voted in the evening and had a number for my ward in 30s.)
I got in line at about 6:50. I voted at about 7:20. The line still stretched out of the building, down the walk, and down the sidewalk a ways when I left. I was number 27 in my ward, 52 in the polling place. (There have been some spring elections when I voted in the evening and had a number for my ward in 30s.)
This Is Why We Fight
By Keith R. Schmitz
Since the Borgias has there been a more ruthless political class?
This is why so many of us feel compelled to work countless hours or stand in line all day to vote.
RNC Hits Obama For Visit To Sick Grandmother
Since the Borgias has there been a more ruthless political class?
This is why so many of us feel compelled to work countless hours or stand in line all day to vote.
RNC Hits Obama For Visit To Sick Grandmother
Ain't This America?
By Keith R. Schmitz
Joe Klein on the Time site offers up a great tribute to Barack Obama's grandmother:
Joe Klein on the Time site offers up a great tribute to Barack Obama's grandmother:
Word comes that Barack Obama's grandmother has died. The timing is ridiculous. But think, for a moment, if you will of Madelyn Dunham, a white woman from Kansas, strolling the aisle of a supermarket, or having lunch in a coffee shop, with her grandson--way back at the turn of the 1970s, when such sights were uncommon, even in Hawaii. Think about what her friends might have thought, or said, about her...situation. Think about what she poured into the child during the years when her daughter was in Indonesia and she was the closest thing to a mother that Obama had; think about the impact that she and her husband had on creating the man we've come to know, and the satisfaction she must have felt in her dying days.
Some politicians simply are larger than life. Their stories are the stuff of high drama. Over the past few days, I've been hearing about the high emotions out in the field, as volunteers flood Obama offices to help canvass--and, in some places, find they have to wait on line for a spot on a phone bank. It is almost banal at this point to say that this has been the most remarkable election I've ever seen. It's been a privilege to be a small part of it, to have had a ringside seat. And now, there is a sense that tomorrow will be the sort of day none of us ever forgets, one way or another--a day of reckoning, in the purest sense, when we will suddenly see ourselves and our country differently, for good or ill.
It will also be the first day that Barack Obama lives without the presence of the woman who was his surrogate mother. How sad for him, how remarkable that it would happen this way.
BOAT TODAY
Monday, November 03, 2008
More for Your Money
By Keith R. Schmitz
Some interesting news today from industry web site Media Daily News:
1) According to many pundits, the way in which the Obama has managed his campaign -- being tight with the bucks and clever when it comes to spending money, efficiently organizing resources, beating one of the most formidable Democratic candidates in some time -- indicates the way in which an Obama administration will govern.
2) These guys get strategy and technology.
3) Those of you fear or who are spreading the fear that is going to be some kind of proliferate spending administration are thinking of somebody else. Team Obama might not be afraid to ask for the money it thinks this country needs, but it appears they will be getting the most for your money in terms of efficiency can results.
Some interesting news today from industry web site Media Daily News:
Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama may have made history in raising big bucks for his campaign's fund-raising--but what's more incredible has been his extremely efficient media buying.A couple of things about this.
Case in point was last week's roadblock of infomercials: According to one TV media executive, Obama's effective price--the cost per thousand viewers (CPM)--came out to a very cheap $1.66. The Obama 30-minute infomercial ran across four broadcast and three cable networks on Thursday night, grabbing a total of 33.5 million viewers.
Such figures are incredibly inexpensive when compared against a typical prime-time network household CPM, which runs in the $12 to $14 range. It is even better against other CPM demographics--such as adults 18-49, where the price tag in prime time is now nearing a $30 CPM for 18-49 viewers, across all four major broadcast networks.
This executive equated the 30-minute infomercial with 60 30-second commercial messages, or $55,000 for a 30-second commercial unit, running across seven networks.
Comparing this number against what the networks typically get for their prime-time series shows glaringly big results. One typical prime-time network spot on any of the big three networks averages around $110,000.
The reaction to this particular media buy? The TV media executive says simply: "Wow."
1) According to many pundits, the way in which the Obama has managed his campaign -- being tight with the bucks and clever when it comes to spending money, efficiently organizing resources, beating one of the most formidable Democratic candidates in some time -- indicates the way in which an Obama administration will govern.
2) These guys get strategy and technology.
3) Those of you fear or who are spreading the fear that is going to be some kind of proliferate spending administration are thinking of somebody else. Team Obama might not be afraid to ask for the money it thinks this country needs, but it appears they will be getting the most for your money in terms of efficiency can results.
Barack Obama's one-day map
by folkbum
Last week, I talked about John McCain's four-day map, and what McCain would have to do in the closing days to win tomorrow. He hasn't closed the deal, to borrow a phrase. Here's the current pollster.com national vote graph:
Indeed, John McCain's numbers have inched up in the last week or two, but those must be coming from undecided voters, because Barack Obama's numbers are also inching up. Last week in that post, I offered to assume that the polls were off, and were oversampling Democrats and giving Obama 6 points that he didn't deserve. Let's assume that's still true; as long as the pollsters have stayed consistent in their methodology, the trend is clear and real even if the number is too high. And a 6-point swing toward McCain still has Obama up by 1.
But the national vote doesn't elect a president, state votes do, so once again, here's pollster.com's map from this morning:
The astute among you will note that this map is the same as the one from Thursday (except Arkansas slipped back to dark red), suggesting that McCain hasn't put any more states into play in the last surge of his campaign. Remember that his strategy is to win Pennsylvania, which, if we spot him 6 points, he won't do. (Zogby, the pollster that Republicans loved for 24 hours last week because his one-day tracking sample gave McCain a one-point lead on Friday, has a new PA poll out showing Obama up by 14.)
But this post is supposed to be about Obama's map. Since we spotted McCain 6 points, Obama ends up losing all of the yellow states, including places where he's been polling consistently (if not highly) ahead like Florida. The easiest thing for Obama to do, with no yellow states turning blue, is hold every dark blue state and win one of the light blue ones (Nevada would mean a 269-269 tie, resolved undoubtedly in Obama's favor by the House of Representatives). Obama is ahead in three of those four states by more than the 6-point handicap we offered McCain; the most likely pick-ups are, in order, CO, NV, VA, and OH. The last two are the bigger electoral prizes, and if McCain were to somehow win Pennsylvania, Obama has to win one of those two states. If Obama holds PA, it's over likely to be all over. If Obama holds PA and wins VA or OH, then McCain is really toast. Which is why in my answers to the contest (enter here!) I predicted the AP would be calling this race very early in the evening. If Obama wins these crucial Eastern time zone states, it will be an early, early night.
After two presidential election nights in a row of barely any sleep, tomorrow night will be a refreshing change.
(For a similar kind of post, see Nate Silver at 538.)
Last week, I talked about John McCain's four-day map, and what McCain would have to do in the closing days to win tomorrow. He hasn't closed the deal, to borrow a phrase. Here's the current pollster.com national vote graph:
Indeed, John McCain's numbers have inched up in the last week or two, but those must be coming from undecided voters, because Barack Obama's numbers are also inching up. Last week in that post, I offered to assume that the polls were off, and were oversampling Democrats and giving Obama 6 points that he didn't deserve. Let's assume that's still true; as long as the pollsters have stayed consistent in their methodology, the trend is clear and real even if the number is too high. And a 6-point swing toward McCain still has Obama up by 1.
But the national vote doesn't elect a president, state votes do, so once again, here's pollster.com's map from this morning:
The astute among you will note that this map is the same as the one from Thursday (except Arkansas slipped back to dark red), suggesting that McCain hasn't put any more states into play in the last surge of his campaign. Remember that his strategy is to win Pennsylvania, which, if we spot him 6 points, he won't do. (Zogby, the pollster that Republicans loved for 24 hours last week because his one-day tracking sample gave McCain a one-point lead on Friday, has a new PA poll out showing Obama up by 14.)
But this post is supposed to be about Obama's map. Since we spotted McCain 6 points, Obama ends up losing all of the yellow states, including places where he's been polling consistently (if not highly) ahead like Florida. The easiest thing for Obama to do, with no yellow states turning blue, is hold every dark blue state and win one of the light blue ones (Nevada would mean a 269-269 tie, resolved undoubtedly in Obama's favor by the House of Representatives). Obama is ahead in three of those four states by more than the 6-point handicap we offered McCain; the most likely pick-ups are, in order, CO, NV, VA, and OH. The last two are the bigger electoral prizes, and if McCain were to somehow win Pennsylvania, Obama has to win one of those two states. If Obama holds PA, it's over likely to be all over. If Obama holds PA and wins VA or OH, then McCain is really toast. Which is why in my answers to the contest (enter here!) I predicted the AP would be calling this race very early in the evening. If Obama wins these crucial Eastern time zone states, it will be an early, early night.
After two presidential election nights in a row of barely any sleep, tomorrow night will be a refreshing change.
(For a similar kind of post, see Nate Silver at 538.)
Sunday, November 02, 2008
I am Jay the Plumber
by folkbum
But only in the sense that we tackled some long-delayed toilet repair this afternoon. In the end, it only took two hours longer and one trip more to the home center than we expected it to.
But only in the sense that we tackled some long-delayed toilet repair this afternoon. In the end, it only took two hours longer and one trip more to the home center than we expected it to.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Deep Thought
by folkbum
On the one hand, I hate having to change all the clocks for Daylight Savings Time.
On the other hand, do I really want a coffee maker so much smarter than me that it sets itself?
On the one hand, I hate having to change all the clocks for Daylight Savings Time.
On the other hand, do I really want a coffee maker so much smarter than me that it sets itself?
My Homage to Studs
by bert
Jay and others have already noted the recent death of Studs Terkel. As probably his biggest fan, (a highlight of my life was asking Studs a question when he did a reading at the Milwaukee Public Library about 5 years ago), I could probably say a lot. But in the spirit of Studs, I will let others do the talking.
This is an excerpt from what I think is about his most powerful interview out of thousands. The interview was in The Good War, published in 1985 and winner of a Pulitzer Prize.
The words are not from Studs, of course, but an interviewee named Gene LaRocque. What the man had to say may not please some who worship war, and may anger the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. But LaRocque --a retired Navy admiral whose thirty years of experience include surviving Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the battles for the Marshall Islands, and Vietnam -- is entitled to his opinion.
The genius of Studs was to hear from people when they were wise.
“Since World War Two, we began to use military force to get what we wanted in the world. That’s what military is all about. Not long ago, the Pentagon proudly announced that the U.S. had used military force 215 times to achieve its international goals since World War Two. The Pentagon likes that: military force to carry out national will. Of course there are nuclear weapons now. . .
"I was in Vietnam. I saw the senseless waste of human beings. I saw this bunch of marines come off this air-conditioned ship. Nothing was too good for our sailors, soldiers, and marines. We send ‘em ashore as gung ho young nineteen-year-old husky nice-looking kids and bring ‘em back in black rubber body bags. There are little pieces left over, some entrails and limbs that don’t fit in the bags. Then you take a fire hose and you hose down the deck and push that stuff over the side. . .
"For about twenty years after the war, I couldn’t look at any film on World War Two. It brought back memories that I didn’t want to keep around. I hated to see how they glorified war. In all those films, people get blown up with their clothes and fall gracefully to the ground. You don’t see anybody being blown apart. You don’t see arms and legs and mutilated bodies. You see only an antiseptic, clean, neat way to die gloriously. I hate it when they say, “He gave his life for his country.” Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them.”
Saturday WISGOP Mailer Update
by folkbum
I know you all have been dying to know, so here's your update. To my previous notes (1, 2), you can add one more mailer that arrived today from the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Again, not a single mention of John McCain, but there's a whole lot of sca-a-a-a-a-ry stuff about how Barack Obama (mentioned by name 3 more times) will cost you money and blow up the economy. (Not addressed: How an economy in pieces can be blown up any further.)
I know you all have been dying to know, so here's your update. To my previous notes (1, 2), you can add one more mailer that arrived today from the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Again, not a single mention of John McCain, but there's a whole lot of sca-a-a-a-a-ry stuff about how Barack Obama (mentioned by name 3 more times) will cost you money and blow up the economy. (Not addressed: How an economy in pieces can be blown up any further.)
One more day...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/les-misbarack.html
Turn up the volume and enjoy this...its lovely
Turn up the volume and enjoy this...its lovely
McIlheran Watch: Black is White, Up is Down, and McCain is a Grown Up
by folkbum
I am a lucky guy. I think. Somehow, after all these years of duels and ripostes, in the last couple of weeks Patrick McIlheran has added me to his mailing list. That means every few days or so I get an email from him with the full text of a column of his slated to run in the next day or two.
Thursday night I got his preview of Friday's column*. (Confidential to PM in Bay View: Next time, use the BCC field. Your sole liberal correspondent might feel a bit weird about being your sole liberal correspondent, and was probably happier when he believed there was a more even distribution.) "Here’s an early look at my column in Friday's Journal Sentinel. You’re seeing it because I send a heads-up to a select group of talkers and bloggers whose work I admire. You’re among them." See? Lucky!
It certainly perked me up when I read on in his emailed introduction: "[I]n Friday morning's paper, I’ll note one good reason to vote for McCain rather than Obama is that the old guy, for whatever his faults, simply seems more grown up." I'm still cracking up.
The actual column is also a hoot. I mean, no one should be surprised that McIlheran is encouraging people to vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama. But the "grown up" argument really is kind of the crux of his argument.
It's absurd to begin with, seeing as how eight years ago we were assured that if we elected George W. Bush, the grown-ups would be in charge again. The administration we are not yet finished experiencing has proved to be anything but grown up. What kind of crazy person thinks that making the argument again is a winner?
But here's what he says in the paper: "If you're still undecided, it's likely because you realize that either man's presidency will be shaped by events and issues yet unknown. All we can go on is our judgment of their judgment. I'll put it simply: Judgment is formed by experience. Obama has little and asks us to trust him anyhow. McCain, by contrast, has a record you can judge."
I have a hard time believing that anyone who's still undecided hasn't already considered the "experience" issue an discarded it. I mean, it was Clinton's biggest club in the primaries. It was, for a long time, the most effective argument John McCain himself had against Barack Obama. I say "for a long time" because John McCain has repeatedly done the best he could to undermine not only his own experience, but also the judgment that supposedly comes with it.
I have written previously how the McCain campaign has seemed like one hail mary after another. McCain's campaign has always been uphill, given that the present president from McCain's own party is currently about as popular as gonorrhea. McCain, having run towards Bush in the primaries to placate the Republican base, is now running away from Bush as hard as he can. But to rely, as I wrote then, on the hail mary as the first-down play (not to mention second, third, and fourth) is kind of the opposite of sound judgment. It certainly belies his experience of having run two honorable and sensible (but just one victorious) primary campaigns. The John McCain of 1999-April, 2008, was not a hail-mary thrower.
Recent stories have made it clear just how it happened that McCain blew it on that score, and it was with yet another hail mary--his hiring of Karl Rove protégé Steve Schmidt. When you're John McCain, and you've been standing up to (and the victim of) Karl Rove politics for the last decade, how do you then embrace them? (Answer: You embrace them because all your previous campaign staff, professional lobbyists almost to a one, belied your anti-lobbyist image.) I think by now you've seen those stories--this one being particularly instructive--and you get the sense anymore that McCain's campaign is anything but grown up. They want to win the news cycle, not the White House. They want to make a splash, not a difference. And McCain is letting it happen.
McIlheran isn't done there. He tries to make McCain look like the grown up during the financial crisis when McCain suspended his campaign (where "suspended" means kept running ads and making campaign appearances for a few days) and Obama didn't. McIlheran suggests that Obama didn't know what he was talking about during that time, and yet we know that when the two sat with President Bush and Congressional leaders at the White House, it was McCain who was unprepared and unable to talk intelligently about any of the proposals. McCain took credit for the first bill's passage just before it failed. Even Republicans involved in the bill's writing agreed that McCain politicized it--again, looking to win the news cycle. McCain first, I guess.
McIlheran defends Sarah Palin with the same tired and ultimately ridiculous excuses you hear everywhere (plaints about "Katie Couric's pop-quiz ambush about newspapers," for example). He brings up McCain's time as a prisoner of war, and how it supposedly shaped his judgment--but that was 40 years ago and McCain has repeatedly failed just this year to live up to the promise of that judgment.
In the end, McIlheran's argument is unconvincing to anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to this election. There are plenty of people who will back McCain because of his stand on particular issues, and those people are making (the wrong but) sensible decision based on the facts in front of them. This argument--that McCain has the judgment to be president--flies in the face of those very facts. Hard-core conservative Republicans, including at least one former McCain advisor from the pre-Schmidt era, have been saying exactly that left and right over the last month, and urging a vote for someone whose judgment they trust--Barack Obama.
Luckily for McIlheran--and McCain--the groundwork has been extensively laid for scapegoating Wednesday morning. It's Palin going rogue, maybe, or all ACORN's fault. All of that, however, is just a convenient way for McIlheran and his ilk to avoid the real failure--McCain.
*Note: While I was working on this post last night, the preview of Sunday's column rolled in. It's a doozy, too. Something to look forward to, I guess.
I am a lucky guy. I think. Somehow, after all these years of duels and ripostes, in the last couple of weeks Patrick McIlheran has added me to his mailing list. That means every few days or so I get an email from him with the full text of a column of his slated to run in the next day or two.
Thursday night I got his preview of Friday's column*. (Confidential to PM in Bay View: Next time, use the BCC field. Your sole liberal correspondent might feel a bit weird about being your sole liberal correspondent, and was probably happier when he believed there was a more even distribution.) "Here’s an early look at my column in Friday's Journal Sentinel. You’re seeing it because I send a heads-up to a select group of talkers and bloggers whose work I admire. You’re among them." See? Lucky!
It certainly perked me up when I read on in his emailed introduction: "[I]n Friday morning's paper, I’ll note one good reason to vote for McCain rather than Obama is that the old guy, for whatever his faults, simply seems more grown up." I'm still cracking up.
The actual column is also a hoot. I mean, no one should be surprised that McIlheran is encouraging people to vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama. But the "grown up" argument really is kind of the crux of his argument.
It's absurd to begin with, seeing as how eight years ago we were assured that if we elected George W. Bush, the grown-ups would be in charge again. The administration we are not yet finished experiencing has proved to be anything but grown up. What kind of crazy person thinks that making the argument again is a winner?
But here's what he says in the paper: "If you're still undecided, it's likely because you realize that either man's presidency will be shaped by events and issues yet unknown. All we can go on is our judgment of their judgment. I'll put it simply: Judgment is formed by experience. Obama has little and asks us to trust him anyhow. McCain, by contrast, has a record you can judge."
I have a hard time believing that anyone who's still undecided hasn't already considered the "experience" issue an discarded it. I mean, it was Clinton's biggest club in the primaries. It was, for a long time, the most effective argument John McCain himself had against Barack Obama. I say "for a long time" because John McCain has repeatedly done the best he could to undermine not only his own experience, but also the judgment that supposedly comes with it.
I have written previously how the McCain campaign has seemed like one hail mary after another. McCain's campaign has always been uphill, given that the present president from McCain's own party is currently about as popular as gonorrhea. McCain, having run towards Bush in the primaries to placate the Republican base, is now running away from Bush as hard as he can. But to rely, as I wrote then, on the hail mary as the first-down play (not to mention second, third, and fourth) is kind of the opposite of sound judgment. It certainly belies his experience of having run two honorable and sensible (but just one victorious) primary campaigns. The John McCain of 1999-April, 2008, was not a hail-mary thrower.
Recent stories have made it clear just how it happened that McCain blew it on that score, and it was with yet another hail mary--his hiring of Karl Rove protégé Steve Schmidt. When you're John McCain, and you've been standing up to (and the victim of) Karl Rove politics for the last decade, how do you then embrace them? (Answer: You embrace them because all your previous campaign staff, professional lobbyists almost to a one, belied your anti-lobbyist image.) I think by now you've seen those stories--this one being particularly instructive--and you get the sense anymore that McCain's campaign is anything but grown up. They want to win the news cycle, not the White House. They want to make a splash, not a difference. And McCain is letting it happen.
McIlheran isn't done there. He tries to make McCain look like the grown up during the financial crisis when McCain suspended his campaign (where "suspended" means kept running ads and making campaign appearances for a few days) and Obama didn't. McIlheran suggests that Obama didn't know what he was talking about during that time, and yet we know that when the two sat with President Bush and Congressional leaders at the White House, it was McCain who was unprepared and unable to talk intelligently about any of the proposals. McCain took credit for the first bill's passage just before it failed. Even Republicans involved in the bill's writing agreed that McCain politicized it--again, looking to win the news cycle. McCain first, I guess.
McIlheran defends Sarah Palin with the same tired and ultimately ridiculous excuses you hear everywhere (plaints about "Katie Couric's pop-quiz ambush about newspapers," for example). He brings up McCain's time as a prisoner of war, and how it supposedly shaped his judgment--but that was 40 years ago and McCain has repeatedly failed just this year to live up to the promise of that judgment.
In the end, McIlheran's argument is unconvincing to anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to this election. There are plenty of people who will back McCain because of his stand on particular issues, and those people are making (the wrong but) sensible decision based on the facts in front of them. This argument--that McCain has the judgment to be president--flies in the face of those very facts. Hard-core conservative Republicans, including at least one former McCain advisor from the pre-Schmidt era, have been saying exactly that left and right over the last month, and urging a vote for someone whose judgment they trust--Barack Obama.
Luckily for McIlheran--and McCain--the groundwork has been extensively laid for scapegoating Wednesday morning. It's Palin going rogue, maybe, or all ACORN's fault. All of that, however, is just a convenient way for McIlheran and his ilk to avoid the real failure--McCain.
*Note: While I was working on this post last night, the preview of Sunday's column rolled in. It's a doozy, too. Something to look forward to, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)