Some Thoughts on Mr. McCain's Campaign...

Sen. McCain finished his campaign as the McCain he should've been all along. He turned his campaign back into "I have the experience" and "You've known me a long time, you can still trust me like you always have".

It is generally acknowledged that this was not a base year, especially for Republicans who saw there national registration numbers fall while the Democrats rose quite significantly. Despite this, Mr. McCain ran a campaign with rhetoric and message aimed at the base of the Republican party.

Could he have won without them? Highly unlikely. Was picking Governor Sarah Palin and switching to supporting off-shore oil drilling enough to bring them home? Yes, yes, and yes. Add to that how conservatives didn't take long to think of Sen. Obama as an "extreme" liberal (socialist) and you have your base.

You'd swear, especially from the difference in crowd sizes that the conservative base of the Repulican party think they are voting for Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain isn't even on the ticket. It is how they have talked about her and how they have defended her.

Now, what Mr. McCain is that short, strong, and sweet sound bite saying what he wants to do. He attacks, attacks, and attacks some more. Moderates and independents want to hear what he'll do. They pay attention to both candidates and decide on who is best. They don't need one guy telling them what they think about the other guys proposals. Let the VP do all the attacking.

The top of the ticket has to explain what his/her plan is. Everything should be spent, as far as the free media sound bites, on getting your tax plan or energy plan or health care plan out there. Every time you turn on a TV and Mr. Obama is talking you're hearing about his "95%" tax cuts or his $15 Bill on energy or McCain is Bush. Mr. McCain, although finally campaigning on Mr. Obama's plans, even if they're attacks rather than laying out his plan, still doesn't have that consistent soundbite and he never had it. Not this entire election. Country first died within two weeks.

Read more...

If McCain Loses

If Sen. McCain loses this race it won’t be because of Sarah Palin, it will be because of Senator John McCain. The top of the ticket is responsible for the message the campaign puts out, the people who run his campaign, who he chooses as his running mate, and everything else.

This election, excuse the cliché', has always been about big things. This election has always been about the economy hitting a down turn and us being in two wars with possibly a third (some say even a forth) on the horizon. Unfortunately all we've seen from the McCain Campaign is tactics without a strategy. We have not seen a single, cohesive, easy to figure out strategy. For a while there it was a new tactic every week, now it’s been a new tactic daily. No cohesiveness, no repetitiveness. On the flip side, with Mr. Obama, you've heard "McCain is Bush" to ad nauseum. You've heard it so much so that you catch Republican pundits on TV saying "Bush" instead of "McCain" when they're clearly talking about Mr. McCain.

The McCain camp was winning on the experience issue and they should've never left that topic but more importantly they should've been talking about the economy from the start. Now everyone knows that the economy is Mr. McCain's weak spot (as experience is Obama's) based on polling but that doesn't mean that he had to run from it. His tax rhetoric has been minute and said in an off-handed manner almost as if he wants to say "I'm a Republican, of course taxes are getting cut and none are being raised, why I even have to talk about taxes?” He has been so weak on the tax issue that polls have shown voters believing McCain will raise their taxes. How does this happen unless due to a bad campaign?

They were swinging the polls to there favor with the celebrity ads. Now it was obvious you couldn't simply hit Mr. Obama like that for 4-5 months but when those had traction is exactly when they should've brought in William Ayers. What those ad's could have done was give an opening for people who were starting to question what Mr. Obama was all about and really hammer on that feeling, on that wonderment.

Mr. McCain also simply failed to hammer President Bush. He could have and should have beaten Mr. Obama to this attack. No one who truly follows politics actually believes Mr. McCain and President Bush get along or like each other. While Mr. Obama hammered away at Sen. McCain voting with President Bush 90% of the time McCain could've pointed out all the Democrats who have voted with President Bush 70-80% of the time while highlighting his own staunch differences from our current president.

Time was also wasted, far too much time, on how right Sen. McCain was about the surge and failed to hammer home just how well things are going over there because of it. If they talked about it and hammered away about it, the media would've covered it. Now no Republican who supported going in and staying there without an end game was ever going to win that argument. Not with the poll numbers, in regards to Iraq, as they are. That only played to his base. What he should have done is instantly pivot to Afghanistan and own that issue. Afghanistan and winning there, getting Bid Laden, that is what has allowed Mr. Obama to at least hit par on foreign policy (again, based on the polling). His being against the war from the beginning simply helped him solidify his base.

Country First. We've all heard it right? Do you know what it means? Ah, it varies doesn't it? The McCain campaign never defined this. They never turned it into "Fixing our economy. Country First." They could've defined it and used it to describe everything. They made a veiled attempt to early on when they first started rolling the phrase out but they didn't ever make it stick.

In the end, if Mr. McCain looses it will be for these simplified and key reasons: 1) No strategy 2) Never a strong message 3) Too much knee jerking 4) They didn't own a single issue in terms of rhetoric 5) Horrid rollout of Gov. Palin and kept her far too controlled

Read more...

Our National Debt

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Sen. McCain and/or his tax plan.
Both of these candidates don't care about our national debt. The idea that cutting every earmark (except a $300 Mill reward for a new car battery) will matter/make a difference in our national budget is ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to claim as Mr. Obama has, that he's layed out exactly how he'd pay for all of his new spending. Hogwash the both of them. Nothing they want to spend money on is going to happen unless they ignore our debt.
It is dishonorable to this country to not talk about our national debt and want to fix it. Fixing our national debt will take a great deal of things.
1) Shrinking our government. Specifically actually get rid of all the fraud in our programs. Anywhere from 50-90% of our government programs are twice as big as they need to be.
2) Do everything it takes, short of spending more government money, to get the economy back on track. We need to take even more advantage of free trade. Part of this would include lowering business taxes. It is nice for Mr. Obama to frame Mr. McCain's tax plan as "more tax breaks for big oil" but in reality it is tax breaks for all companies. Small, medium, and big.
The facts are the facts and the fact is our corporate tax rate is too high, we're the second highest in the world. Now Sen. Obama is right that because of loopholes our companies in fact do pay much less than the current 35% but if he truly wants to cut tax loopholes then he must lower the tax rate at the same time to spur growth. If he closes the tax loopholes and leaves the corporate tax rate the same or even increases it then we'll see a lot more jobs leave this country.
It isn't simply the loopholes/tax breaks that make U.S. companies go over sea's, it is also the corporate gains tax and corporate tax rate being higher than most of the world. The more our companies grow the more jobs get created and the more revenue for the country.
This article although a bit slanted anti-Obama makes a couple key points:

While governors are forced to acknowledge harsh fiscal reality, the presidential candidates continue to dodge it. During their first debate, Obama and McCain evaded repeated questions from moderator Jim Lehrer, who pressed both candidates on what they would give up, in terms of priorities, in light of the current fiscal crisis.
"There are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed," Obama said, without specifying. He said he still hopes to "invest in alternative energy, fix our healthcare system. . . make sure that college is affordable. . . and rebuild infrastructure." Meanwhile, Obama is also promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts.
McCain said he would cut spending and lower taxes. McCain also tossed out the general notion of a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs, and entitlement programs.
Both presidential candidates seem blissfully out of sync with the overall message of doom and gloom emanating from financial analysts.
From Massachusetts to the presidential campaign trail, citizens need less hope and hype and more honesty about what it takes to live within their means.

Read more...

First Debate: Part 1

I made sure to record all of the post-debate analysis shows that I enjoy but still have yet to watch them. I haven't read a single article about the debate yet either. I have ignored all polls thus far as well. I've now given myself more than 24 hours but less than 48 hours to allow the debate to sink in. I isolate myself to allow myself to truly form my own opinion on this, even if it ends up sounding like many pundits out there. I'll talk a bit about the economic part of the debate but this was supposed to be about foreign policy and that's really my main focus about this debate. I'll be making a few different posts on the debate. Now, let me get to it...

I'm torn between a draw or a minor loss for Mr. Obama which actually helps the Obama campaign. Sen. McCain needed a game changer and with the absence of any gaffe by either man Mr. McCain didn't get one. Foreign policy is what Sen.McCain has essentially staked his campaign on and he didn't improve his standing on that but he may have at best (for the McCain campaign) put a ceiling on the level of readiness to be Commander-in-Chief for Sen. Obama. If in fact he accomplished this then he kept the race tight. Obama, outside of needing to look presidential, his biggest goal I thought was to make his case and explain that his plan for Iraq is not in fact defeat (it isn't). He attempted to directly do that once. It was nice to hear that both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama didn't even know who they were talking about:

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT BAGHDAD: And Tehran will be surprised to learn that there are late forces of the Republican Guards as opposed to the Revolutionary Guard. ...Know thy enemy obviously doesn't apply in the presidential debate.

If you just listen to the debate on the radio and/or read the transcript, on substance this was a draw. We, excuse me, political junkies learned nothing new last night but the stark differences were certainly emphasized. If you're a voter that just started around the conventions, you probably learned a great deal. If that is the case, here is a live fact check done by the Washington Post during the debate. Here is the fact checking from factcheck.org And here is the fact checking done by politifact.com

That Mr. McCain could never look at Mr. Obama was very odd as was McCain's lack of not looking into the camera. On style Mr. Obama won by a landslide -and his biggest goal was to look presidential, look safe. Mr. McCain certainly tried for humor but very little of it seemed to land. I do chuckle everytime he does the Bear DNA joke. Mr. Obama however looked directly into the camera a few times and was willing to look right at Mr. McCain who seemed like the only one he wanted to talk to was the moderator.

Shocker alert:   They both stuck to there talking points.

Read more...

Free Trade: McCain

Here is the link to the free trade part of Senator McCain's campaign web site.
Senator John McCain is pretty simple on free trade. He agree's with Sen. Obama that we need to utilize our Community College's better to re-train people for different jobs as our country continues to diversify the more we globalize. To be fair real quick, neither candidate actually originated this concept. It was another Democrat at some sort of convention a couple years ago. I apologize for not having the exact source.

Mr. McCain is essentially for free trade as it currently stands -with even less governmental interference. He'll take NAFTA and other trade agreements as is unless he can improve them but he has made no claim to re-negotiate or cancel any trade agreement. Mr. McCain's campaign web site seems to take free trade more seriously with it having much more details.

John McCain Will Push To Ratify The Colombia Free Trade Agreement. American exporters now pay an extra $3.5 million in tariffs each day because we don't have a completed trade agreement with Colombia.
John McCain Supports A Free Trade Agreement With South Korea. America exports nearly $50 billion in goods to South Korea, a key ally that deployed the third-largest contingent of troops to Iraq, and assisted in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
John McCain Will Seek An End To All Agricultural Tariffs, And To All Farm Subsidies That Are Not Based On Clear Need.
John McCain Will Open Foreign Markets Across The World To American Farmers. The biggest obstacle to this goal, however, is not to be found in any foreign market, or in the policies of any other government. It's in the United States Congress, in the billions of dollars in subsidies served up every five years to corporate farmers.

John McCain Opposes The $300 Billion Farm Bill. John McCain opposes providing billions to subsidize large commercial farms with an average income of $200,000, and an average net worth of $2 million...

It seems McCain's opinion is that the more free trade agreements this country has the sooner this country see's more and more benefits from it. A free trade agreement with South Korea is a very new idea and considering the huge out cry against our US beef being imported to South Korea it would probably be an interesting political uphill battle. Although, maybe one would be easy if we just said "free trade without our beef". A free trade agreement with Columbia is fairly controversial in Washington but it probably needs to happen sooner rather than later. It is alleged by Sen. McCain that Mr. Obama is against such a thing but can't find any concrete proof of this.

Read more...

If you care about health care...

...then here are a few things you must watch and/or read. All of these things should help greatly clarify each canidates plans.
Thanks to the New England Journal of Medicine you can watch McCain's chief health policy adviser Gail Wilensky and David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan debate and explain each canidates policies. The video is remarkable for their clarity on this complex issue and for their civility. I would urge anyone who cares about this vitally important issue to watch and/or read.
Here is the video and transcript
 This break down of the two candidtes plans.
 Critique of Obama's plan by Joseph Antos of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
 Critique of McCain's plan by David Blumenthal of a liberal Health Policy Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital

Read more...

Interesting health care tidbit...

...from an LA Times blog:

On Sept. 16, the journal Health Affairs offered a web exclusive with a critique
of the Obama healthcare plan, saying its costs are unsustainable, and one of the McCain plan, saying the number of uninsured could grow from 45 million to 60 million in the next five years. Another article in the journal suggests that America's healthcare system could benefit from a mixing and matching from each of the plans.

So both candidates have bad healthcare plans?

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash...And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode...Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions...The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered...Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange.

Read more...

Economic stump speech's

Not to take a phrase from CNN but here are the candidates "in there own words" regarding the current economic crisis (without sound bites that the TV media and articles live off of):
McCain in Tampa
McCain in Michigan

Obama in Nevada
Labeled "Confronting An Economic Crisis"

Read more...

The Candidates Tax Plans: Made relatively simple

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

Just wanted to give readers what the media wont...the facts on the candidates tax plans.

Read more...

The Palin Affect

There has been some seriously obsessive talking about the affect Palin has had. To be sure, she has energized the base unlike any other candidate would have, could have. To be sure, to the Republican base she is a breath of fresh air. The biggest thing though was that this is arguably the shrewdest political move the McCain campaign could've possibly made. The fact is that because she is so new the news channels have to vet her, and every day that they air something new, in order to vet her publicly, is another day that McCain-Palin gets talked about and less time for Obama to get coverage. Palin has become an absolute media hog (in terms of amount of discussion and coverage) without even trying. She's certainly given essentially the same exact speech at every campaign stop but every day she is covered is a win for the McCain-Palin campaign. Talking about "when does she finally answer questions?" is a win for them. Palin's coverage could last another two weeks as she gets around to doing more interviews and finally hits the Sunday talk shows. That shrinks the election to basically 40 days. That's essentially a sprint coming off of not only a convention but consistent coverage of a very engaging VP candidate.

Part of this was also an absolute over reaction by the Obama campaign and the media. A couple things come to mind in this regard:

1) Where are the surrogates to help attack the McCain-Palin ticket without focusing on just Palin?
2) Where is Joe Biden and why has he not been the attack dog VP like he's supposed to be?
3) Why hasn't Obama gotten back on message already? The Republican convention was over four days ago.

Obama is getting caught having to fight by himself for himself. Where are the Democrat surrogates? This can't simply be that Congress is out of session so they aren't in Washington to be easily accessed. How does the Obama campaign get caught attacking Palin while Palin attacks Obama? The surrogates should be doing this and helping to get the fight back to McCain. This is a very bad moment for the Obama campaign and to McCain's credit a brilliant moment for him.

Read more...

McCain's Speech

The general consensus is that his speech fell flat. It did seem like the Republicans in the arena weren't overly enthused. At times it was slow. It may just be that Palin so excited them the next would be "vanilla" by comparison. I think this speech is being underrated. In his speech, he asked voters to see him as the maverick he was seen before his endless pandering to the Republican base, stopping short only at his stance on global warming. I felt this blog was very apt: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/09/thoughts_on_mccains_speech.html

An excerpt:

Last night - McCain did three things: (a) Reminded us that he's a maverick; (b) Told us what the maverick would do if we elect him; (c) Told us why he's a maverick. [So, contrary to some pundits, it was actually a very well-organized speech.] The confession at the end was the "why." He fights for the country, not for a party, because it was in Hanoi that his country saved him. Country first, party second.

Read more...

McCain's VP pick...

...most likely Pawlenty if he's original McCain, if he caves into his base it'll be Romney. Rove says Pawlenty, which means Schmidt who is running his campaign is saying Pawlenty. They may view Hutchinson as the ACE in the hole however. With a gun to my head, I say Pawlenty.

Read more...

On vacation

For those wondering where I've been...on vacation during the entire duration of the Olympics. Congats to Phelps.

Did see the Civil Forum and here's the quick run down:

Tons of substance to this Q & A format although nothing all that new.
You could tell Sen. Obama was fresh off a vacation but he maintained his ground in nuance personality that came across measured and well thought out, plus very sincere. As far as the key voters in the swing states he is hoping to win, he may have come across a bit elite; or rather too intellectual. He said nothing that will alienate his current supporters. He seemed more comfortable talking about faith, even quoting Mathew once. He dodged the abortion question, specifically in regards to when a fetus gets rights. This will be a non-issue voting wise. Everyone knows he is pro-choice and Sen. McCain is pro-life. Him handling the question in that manner doesn't change anything.

McCain used the forum for talking points, but he did it in his at times lost fashion of being frank, blunt, and direct. This only helps him maintain the image of him being the "straight talk" politician which keeps those who have a favorable view of him and allows voters to write off his pandering to the Republican base. It helped him maintain that "comfort" he holds with a great deal of North Americans.

Not sold either candidate won over voters. Sen. Obama may have made some religious voters more comfortable with him; specifically and solely the conservative voters that aren't strict pro-life people. Sen. McCain may have ignited his base a bit more with the pro-life part of the forum but that shouldn't be seen as winning over voters that would've voted for Sen. Obama.

This forum simply reaffirmed the images and opinions of each candidate as long as one has been paying attention, not much, if anything, was new information.

Read more...

McCain claims small business...

...will have raised taxes under Sen. Barack Obama's tax policy. He says 23 million small businesses. Factcheck.org checks in and says: Wrong. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.
...But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.
The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners.

The article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

Read more...

McCain's attack ads: Food for Thought

When Paris Hilton attacks back, your own mother (McCain's) calls them pathetic, and the general consensus is that they're a bit juvenile and silly....they're working. What does that say about the voting public? That they're seeing the debatable substance (meaning only about half of the content said as fact has been found to be actual facts) that takes place at the end of the ad's or that as much as North American's love the tabloids they don't enjoy their presidential candidates being almost at that level of celebrity? Or is it they've forgotten that Sen. McCain is the one who has appeared in multiple movies, on SNL multiple times, and had to scrap his reference to him being a celebrity on his own campaign web site before he ran the ads? Most likely it has to do with Sen. McCain being substance and being frank with the country even while being a celebrity. The Obama campaign could try to do a counter ad showing Sen. McCain in all of his cameos but they simply wouldn't have the same effect. Obama's people are in a bind on this one because he just doesn't have the connection with the country that McCain does, he isn't allowed the same free passes that Mr. McCain is allowed.

Take the time Sen. McCain had to be corrected by Sen. Lieberman or the Pakistan border misstep. When both mistakes were made even Democrats admitted the reason those weren't turn into political attacks is because everyone knows Mr. McCain understands what is going on in the Middle East and one misstatement doesn't mean he has forgotten everything he knew about our situation over there.

In no way is this a fair double standard but it is reality and 20 years from now, whether Mr. Obama wins or not in November, he'll be afforded the same "courtesy". The McCain brand has a long standing foot hold in this country’s eyes, his "favorable view" ratings have probably never dipped below 50% and that is hard to accomplish.

Read more...

McCain: He talks about Afghanistan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/strategy_for_victory_in_afghan.html

This speech somehow got reported as an Iraq speech. This speech was far more about Afghanistan and something he should frankly talk more about. As valid and accurate a point as it is that Sen. Barack Obama got it wrong as to what the surge would do, McCain could stand solely on his plan for Afghanistan just as well as Obama is trying to do. He showed he understands the importance of dealing with the drug trade which could single handily ruin any and all chances of succeeding there. He showed he understands that it must be a political as well as military effort with a greater focus on support from its surrounding countries, arguably unlike what we saw in Iraq. He did however mention a few too many times that the same approach we took in Iraq must be applied to Afghanistan while only hinting once that differences between the two would have to be accounted for. Afghanistan is a different monster. Similar tactics are needed but about where it stops is simply that we need more troops. The tribes, the drugs, the terrorist’s safe havens, and especially the terrain are very different. Arguably the biggest difference though is the much longer held connection between the terrorists and local citizens. Terrorists have won elections on the premise of being better than the endless violence, of even representing change. The local citizens trust and have affection for these terrorists more so than the Iraqi citizens ever did. It shouldn't be forgotten or neglected that even Russia, at debatably the height of its power could not win in Afghanistan. So to talk as if the same tactics can be applied in virtually any fashion in order to get the same results is disingenuous when the realities Afghanistan presents aren't the same as Iraq. Before we invaded it wasn't a stable government by most stretches of imagination. Even if one doesn't agree with how Iraq was run it was stable.

Sen. McCain is right that partly because of the surge we'll have the troops to send to Afghanistan. Now right or wrong, yes President Bush chose Iraq as the more important war to win-with McCain’s support-first which created the situation where more, enough, US troops could not be sent into Afghanistan. As Al-Qaeda is growing stronger there, it is very fortunate the coalition forces were increased greatly. As more allied help is needed it should not be ignored that they have greatly stepped up in the past year and half, France being one our key allies most recently.

Senator McCain didn't talk about the fact that although two to three more brigades minimum has been asked for it will take much more to end Afghanistan, quickly or otherwise. Pakistan is the key component in dealing with the southern part of Afghanistan but he gave no hint as to how he'd get them to help more than the current administration has. McCain didn't mention that one idea which has been discussed is for our ally countries that are sticking to strictly a training role in Afghanistan, how they could be re-deployed to Iraq to train there which would allow more US troops to re-deploy into Afghanistan, troops that could be put on the front line. A key point he made is that Afghanistan’s army has to be increased, just like what we saw in Iraq when Iraqi’s surged with us.

What's interesting here is that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama really don't have many; some have said no differences in Afghanistan policy. Both agree command needs to be better unified, both want to put more US troops in (even if McCain took longer to come to this), both admit needing to deal with the drug trade, and both are calling for more allied help with a great deal of political progress from the Afghanistan government/people.

Edited 7/26

Read more...

More from Maliki

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq-sly_22jul22,0,519982.story

Maliki told Obama he hopes the troops will go home "by the end of 2010," according to Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, marking the first time the Iraqi government has specified a time limit on the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
I'm not entirely sure how one can spin the fact that Maliki's own spokesman is who said this.

But a statement issued by Obama's congressional delegation, including Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)..."Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces," the statement said. "Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces."
This quote and other things we've heard from Prime Minister Maliki frankly speak for themselves.

Dabbagh cautioned, however, that any timetable should be flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions, "to ensure that we won't be attacked by any enemy inside or outside Iraq."
It is important to remember that Obama has said he'd be open to this, specifically in saying that he would leave enough troops behind to protect our non-military personnel, train Iraqi forces, and conduct counter-terrorism. He has always said that if it was obvious Iraq was being invaded or Al-Qaeda was growing he would re-deploy to stop it. Sen. McCain has been far more specific in saying that it would be conditions that would dictate when our troops are drawn down and only conditions. Sen. Obama's plan is more of a stance that forces the issue and Sen. McCain's policy is a stance of being at the pace it happens to go. Both men, as said previously, share in the ultimate goal.

However, some Iraqi officials have said they may scale back the talks and reach only a temporary arrangement with the Bush administration, leaving it up to the next president to negotiate a permanent deal with Iraq. If Obama is elected, the Iraqis will be able to negotiate a deal that fits their goal of seeing the troops gone by the end of 2010.
Now two things about this wording: 1) McCain has never said he'd go against what the Iraqi's want. He has always said that if the Iraqi's want us out we'll leave. The idea that Sen. John McCain wouldn't agree to Iraq's wish that we have all of our troops gone by the end of 2010 is disingenuous. 2) Iraq is clearly not happy with President Bush's demands. This is a shrewd political move by Maliki. We're already seeing some public concessions and I'm sure some non-public concessions as well from our administration. Apparently they still aren't enough which calls into question just what President Bush could be asking for. One huge issue seems to be the demand that our troops and citizens be immune to Iraqi laws. Frankly, it isn't likely that President Bush allows this kind of hit to his legacy, he'll do what it takes to get an agreement done no matter what.

"I don't think that there are deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se," Obama told ABC News in an interview. "There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, of a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
The nuance (some would say spin) we'll most likely hear from Obama once he's back will be something along the lines of "my ultimate goal will still be 16 months but if it became obvious more troops were needed or withdrawal needed to be halted I'd do so in order not to lose the gains that have been made". Very similar to things Obama has said in the past. Unfortunately, a great deal of people seem to be hearing only what they want to when Obama speaks.

Read more...

Vice President

People have to be getting sick of hearing who is on each candidates “short list” or who would be the best choice to “strengthen his weakness in such and such area”. Isn’t that part of why a President has a cabinet? To appoint people that understand what they’re being put in charge of? Until Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Dick Cheney, being vice president was seen as a throw away job. The list of vice presidents that have done and almost literally meant nothing to this country, in terms of what they have gotten accomplished is virtually endless. That is said about vice presidents that didn't go on to become president or did nothing as a VP until becoming president.

It's curious that so many seem to believe they’re voting for two men as opposed to one, the actual presidential candidate. At the end of the day the president sets the agenda and determines the priorities. The VP simply takes direction. Would people be worried about this to the point of talking about it-almost literally everyday-if we hadn’t just had Gore and Cheney? Another reason we’re hearing about this may be the amount of interest from young voters. Young voters seem to care about this sort of thing more than older voters.

Hopefully anyone waiting to see who one chooses as their vice president before choosing between McCain or Obama doesn’t. Go to each candidate’s web site, pay attention to both candidates, and decide which issues are most important to you and which candidate has policies most in line with your beliefs, then vote for that one. The VP won’t have any control over the presidents priorities or policies, outside of his/her opinion. Not when the candidates are Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain anyway.

Read more...

Polls aren't hard to figure out.

Why is it so many can't understand why the polls continually-despite the shortly lived bounce-show Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama essentially in a dead heat? Obama isn't running against President Bush, he's running against John McCain who has had 20+ years to create his own "brand". McCain is also still seen as a moderate Republican despite his consistent pandering to the GOP base.
Consistently polls (some saying 65%, some saying as high as 80%) are coming out saying that the majority of Americans don't support this Iraq war or are tired of it. My bet would be that not all of those people want an immediate, timetable, non-conditioned based withdrawal; this of course isn't what Sen. Obama has been saying his plan is but the McCain campaign has successfully created the belief that it is. This is supported by the polls showing that the majority of American's feeling more comfortable with Sen. McCain's plans for Iraq and his handling of the situation in general. As I've mentioned before, Obama would allow conditions to "adjust" his tactics for withdrawal but he doesn't emphasize that enough, he doesn't emphasize it strongly unless pressed to do so. This is mainly because it would run the risk of disenfranchising those who feel they're voting for him as a vote against the Iraq war. This shows Obama's nuanced stance in more specifics-mainly from Obama's own words: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/on_iraq_an_important_semantic.php

The more important and bigger truth is that this country has a great divide as to how we move this country forward. No matter how bad this economy gets or how Afghanistan moves along, good or bad, or how well Iraq has been doing, most people have made up their minds as to where they want this country to go and who they want to support. It isn't likely that more than 20-25% of voters don't already know who they like or at the very least, which political party they tend to relate to. The cliche would be only 20-25% are "in play". This country also has two candidates with huge differences policy wise which for a lot of voters, especially those that only vote based on one or two issues, makes it a lot easier to make up their minds.
A lot of older Democrats-some say Reagan Democrats if one wants a label-feel that the party is leaving or has left them. A frequent mistake though is that a lot feel this is seen only on social issues but in reality it also has to do with energy policy, perceived over obsession with saving the environment, and yes, even expansion of the Federal and State governments. Their are a great deal of people that feel they're a Democrat socially but more Republican economically and when the economy is in the toilet, that, despite the Republicans being in power for 8-16 years (depending on how one sees the Congress), still probably helps McCain. Especially when his campaign makes the case that Obama will raise everyones taxes despite the fact that if you make under 250,000 your taxes will go down or stay the same. You also have quite a few polls saying that 60-70% of this country supports/wants more drilling, Sen. Obama doesn't support that. That puts a cap as to how far ahead he can pull away, especially and specifically in the mid-west and non-coastal states who support off-shore drilling by larger margins than coastal states.

In the end the polls will continue to stay close with bounces here or there but this is about Sen. McCain's brand vs. Sen. Obama's newness, it isn't a matter of the Republican brand vs the Democrat brand. That's even though both are very much representatives of their respective parties staunch beliefs and policies.

Edited: 7/26

Read more...

McCain: When does he talk about Afghanistan?

When does Sen. John McCain finally talk about how he’ll handle Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bin Laden? He continually talks up the fact that he was at the forefront of wanting the surge which has proved to work from a security stand point and on some levels even politically. When does he admit that because of the surge, Afghanistan has had to rely solely on International forces which, simply put, hasn’t sent in enough troops? That question doesn’t ignore the 30,000 or so extra troops they’ve sent in the past year, it recognizes that not even that has been enough. When does he talk about how he’d convince Pakistan to help us in its borders to quell the terrorist base buildups? A very poorly trained unit going into one city doesn’t cut it, despite it apparently doing the job. When, if, he ever gets asked to address what he’d do differently to address the most recent reports (even though they point out what we’ve always known) that those fighting in Afghanistan feel they’re ignored and forgotten, that they aren’t given the troops and resources to reach our actual goal, if he’ll give a real answer.

Read more...