Numbnut of the Day: Rep. Eric Cantor!

So, let me get this straight. The reason Eric Cantor didn't vote for the bailout bill today was because he didn't like the speech Nancy Pelosi gave about the bill before the vote? Seriously?

Per his own grand proclamation today, Cantor believed in the bill and planned on voting for it right up until the point where Speaker of the House Pelosi laid our current financial crisis at the feet of George W. Bush specifically and Republican policies in general (De-regulate!). Call me crazy but I thought that Congress was voting on a very important bill and not on what the Speaker of the House said about the bill before the voting began. What kind of numbnut would let his vote on a crucial piece of legislation be swayed by something said by a member of the other party? Could Cantor's skin be any thinner?

If I lived in the 7th Congressional District of Virginia I might just hold a grudge against Cantor based on the fact that I lost several percent of my meager savings today when the stock market imploded after he and his thin-skinned Republican brethren failed to pass a bailout bill because mean old Nancy Pelosi hurt his delicate feelings. The truth of the matter is that Eric Cantor is a numbnut and I hope Virginians in his district remember that on November 4th.

CORRECTION: Eric Cantor actually DID vote in favor of the first bailout bill. He had the inner strength, apparently, to fight off Pelosi's partisan shenanigans. He was merely suggesting that many of his Republican brethren were thin-skinned, hyper sensitive, and spineless enough to change their votes based on the Speaker's speech. Upon further reflection, I've decided that this makes Cantor even more of a numbnut than I originally thought.

Let the Pie Eating Contests Begin!

Debate Reaction Cacophony

The first presidential debate is in the books. Who won? As always, no matter what your wacky view is, you can find a supposedly credible somebody who agrees with you. Behold:

Jim Geraghty: Major Win for McCain

Tom Bevan: Solid Win for McCain

Jonathan Last: McCain wins handily

Mickey Kaus: A Small Victory for McCain

Byron York: Obama plays nice guy and loses

John Dickerson: It was a tie!

Dan Balz: It was a dead heat!

LA Times: Too Close to Call

Joe Klein: Obama Wins Debate

Clive Crook: Comfortable Win for Obama

Madeleine Albright: Breakthrough Night for Obama

Dick Morris (of all people!): Obama Won

David Corn: McCain loses by not beating Obama to a bloody pulp

Chuck Todd: One of the best debates in a long time

Roger Simon: One of McCain's Strongest Performances ever

Josh Marshall: McCain seemed "angry, angry, angry"

Reid Wilson: Echos of Reagan and Clinton

NY Times: Crotchety McCain

Tom Shales: McCain was Condescending and Rude


There you have it, a clear consensus.

"Most Liberal Senator" Nonsense

In last night's debate McCain trotted out the standard and extremely tired "most liberal" senator charge against Obama. This claim, based on the assessment of the conservative National Journal, is dubious at best. Amazingly, they somehow are able to apply the "most liberal" title to whoever the Democrats nominate for President whether it is Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or Mondale. Go figure. What ticks me off more than the dubiousness of the label is Obama's lack of response to the charge during the debate.

Conservatives have worked so long and so hard to turn "liberal" into a four letter word that Democrats reflexively cringe in unison when the word is blurted at them. Obama, too, seemed unable to form a sentence in response to McCain calling him such a profane name. To me, the correct response is simple and a man as eloquent as Obama is the perfect person to deliver that response.

In the eyes of Republicans all you have to do is call someone liberal and you've automatically banished that person to the extreme outer reaches of society; You've defined that person as leftist and out of touch with the mainstream by uttering one simple word. This connotation of the word liberal is, of course, nonsense and was created out of thin air by people like Rush Limbaugh. Democrats, however, have for many years seemed powerless to disarm the totally fabricated and inaccurate definition of the word.

Step one in responding to the word liberal is to expose Republicans as the propagandists they are. Explain briefly and coherently the source of the ranking- a conservative publication- and the fact that said publication has a history of labeling every Democratic nominee as "the most liberal". The charge lacks credibility and the candidate needs to say so.

The second step for a candidate like Obama is to say "I'd like to address Senator McCain's charge by explaining which votes and views of mine have earned me- right or wrong- the 'most liberal' label. Frankly, the majority of Americans agree with the vast majority of my so-called liberal positions." Obama can then briefly recite his positions on a number of positions:

• I believe our veterans shouldn't be nickled and dimed on health care.
• I believe that corporations should be held accountable.
• I believe quality public education benefits all of society.
• I believe in pursuing energy independence.
• I believe we have a responsibility to protect the environment
• I believe in stem cell research.
• I believe that our trade partners should have to play on a level playing field.
• I believe that the power of lobbyists and special interests are too great.
• I believe all Americans should have access to quality health care.

There are obviously dozens of other view he could cite. The point is to deconstruct the term "liberal" down to its components and show that the views that make Obama liberal are all incredibly mainstream.

It's time for Dems to stop cowering when they are called "liberal". Instead, they need to attack the charge head on and actually try to take the profanity out of the word once and for all.

Is Palin a dotcom bubble waiting to happen?

Chuck Todd provides an analysis of the Sarah Palin enthusiasm bubble and asks Will it bulge or bust? Todd contends that while Palin appears as of now to have had a positive impact for Republicans up and down the ballot, this is probably as good as it's going to get:

The Obama campaign is counting on the Palin effect wearing off. They’re hoping that the final month of the campaign will be about Obama v. McCain.

I think he's right. Obama needs to stop focusing on Palin and try to let the enthusiasm die down a bit. While I expect the Republican base to stay in love with Palin (and McCain by default), I think Governor Palin's celebrity has probably peaked with independents.

Could Romney have Delivered Michigan for McCain?

Right in the midst of Palin mania, I still find myself thinking that Sarah Palin's appeal is by far the strongest in the reddest of red states. Yes, she will undoubtedly help ensure a Republican rout in Alaska, The deep south, Idaho, Kansas and the Dakotas. That said, any old Republican chosen at random from the phone book could defeat Obama by double digits in those states. But does she push McCain over the top in any of the key swing states? I'm not so sure.

Yes, McCain appears in polls to have gotten stronger in Pennsylvania and Ohio since the RNC. That said, Pennsylvania will probably still swing to the Dems in November and Ohio still looks to be a coin flip as usual. As I tinker endlessly with the innumerable combinations and permutations on my beloved 270towin.com, I keep finding myself coming back to Michigan. Simply put, if the Dems lose Michigan they've probably lost the White House once again. And which potential running mate would have given McCain the best chance of locking up Michigan? Mitt Romney, of course.

I see the core most winnable states for Obama in three distinct groups: 1) Out West (CA, OR, WA, NM), 2) the midwest (MN, IA, WI, IL), and 3) the Northeast (PA, MD and everything northeast of there). With all of these states shaded blue, Obama would have 243 electoral votes and would still need 27 more delegates to reach the magic 270. If he wins Michigan's 17 electoral votes, he reaches 260 and- this is extremely important- puts himself in a position where he can win the Presidency while still losing both Ohio and Florida. With Michigan going to the good guys, Obama could win the race by merely winning one of the three of OH, FL, or Virginia. Without Michigan, the math gets much tougher. Without Michigan, winning Ohio alone would not be enough to put Obama over the top. Without Michigan, Obama could win both Virginia and Colorado (neither of which will be easy) and still lose the White House. Without Michigan, Obama would probably need Florida and we all know how hard that state is to deliver to a Democrat.

Recent polls (see here, here, and here, for instance) are showing an extremely tight race in Michigan. Romney, who won the Michigan Republican primary by 9 points over John McCain and is the son of a three term Michigan Governor, could very well have been the tipping point in swinging Michigan, and perhaps the election, to the GOP.

In November we will hear lots of pundits say that Palin shook up this election for McCain. I won't be suprised, however, if Romney might have been the VP who could have actually won this election for McCain.

Palin and the Hillary for VP Second Guessers

Politico.com asks "Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems"?

The short answer in my estimation is "yes". I don't mean that Hillary would have counteracted Palin's appeal to women. Rather, I mean that if Obama had chosen Senator Clinton as his running mate that McCain would never have chosen Governor Plain as his VP in the first place.

When Obama made the safe choice in running mate of an old school Washington insider and most importantly, a white male, the door was left open for McCain to choose a game changer such as a woman or a minority. Palin, at this moment, is looking to be just such a game changer. Had Obama chosen Hillary to run with him, the obvious alternative for McCain would have been to choose someone safer such as Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney.

I don't blame Obama for not choosing Hillary. Having both Bill and Hillary at the forefront of the campaign most assuredly would have been a distraction. Further, I still maintain that there would have been no better way to maximize Republican turnout than to add Senator Clinton to the Democratic ticket. If Obama loses, the second guessing of this decision will linger for years. That said I still think he did the right thing in picking Biden.

It's All About Fannie and Freddie...

The bailing out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is yet another example of our government not practicing what it preaches in regard to the wisdom of free market capitalism. A government bailout to the tune of billions of dollars used to be rare; In 2008 it's become standard procedure. Frankly, however, if the U.S. were lead by capitalist idealogues who refused to intervene, we'd be looking at a crash of our entire economy akin to 1929.

Yes, government intervention in this case was pretty much inevitable given the current housing and liquidity crises. That said, intervention only became inevitable because of banking de-regulation which directly lead to the sub-prime mortgage mess. Capitalism isn't a perfect system and can lead to all sorts of wild market swings and vicious downturns. That's why government regulation became necessary in the financial markets in the first place. I'm not holding my breath, however, waiting for a Republican epiphany in regard to the fact that de-regulation often leads ultimately to tax payer bailouts.

Here are some interesting Fannie/Freddie articles:

Bloomberg: Fannie, Freddie Credit-Default Swaps May Be Settled

AP: US government takes on big role in mortgage market

CNBC: Bailout Bolsters Markets But May Not Solve Crisis

NY Times: Few Stand to Gain on This Bailout, and Many Lose

Sunday Links

• Jesus General shares McCain's new slogan, No You Can't...

• Why should Palin have to actually face this press? She's only running for VP! TPM chimes in.

• Yep, the Republicans lost their way when they were in charge. And now McCain wants to re-brand the GOP. The platform is exactly the same as it has always been but he's calling it "new and improved". Here's Ezra Klein's take.

• RNC vs DNC: The words they used.

• Whatever it is, I'm Against It has a great recap of the RNC. Of Moose and Mavericks, indeed.

• Early on during the primaries it became obvious that the kryptonite for John McCain is to remind people that he agrees with Bush almost all the time. Is comparing Palin to Bush the way to burst her bubble as well?

Greenwald On One-Way Character Attacks

From the wicked smart, Glenn Greenwald:

Every four years, the GOP unleashes unrestrained personality attacks on Democrats and exploits cultural resentments. Every four years, Democrats tell themselves that such attacks don't work and are counter-productive. And every four years, that belief is disproven. These "character" issues end up mattering largely because Democrats, in election after election, allow wars over "character" to be waged in a largely one-sided fashion.

My succinct reply is "true dat". The Karl Rove method of viciously attacking your opponent's strength- such as John Kerry's military service- is boilerplate Republican strategy. The Democrats, on the other hand, have time and time again opted for the "John McCain is an American hero but..." approach. Whereas Rove comes right at you and punches you in the face before the opening bell even rings, his opponents too often lose the rhetorical battle by sticking with the rules of civil discourse.

I've been waiting my entire adult life for Democrats to not only hit back, but also to hit first from time to time. And maybe even hit first and hit below the belt from time to time. Personally, I'm not optimistic that Obama/Biden will be the ones to end this Dem habit

Late Deciders Will Determine Outcome (As Always)

It is important to remember, especially after having watched enthusiastic Democrats and then enthusiastic Republicans rallying at their respective conventions during consecutive weeks, that a good chunk of the electorate still isn't paying close attention to this election. In a close election- which this will undoubtedly be- the voters who decide the winner often make their decision very late in the game.

As we sit here one day less than two months before election day it is instructive to look at exit polling from 2000 and 2004 to get a feel for how many voters still haven't made up their minds between McCain and Obama. In 2000, according to the CNN polls, an astounding 31% of voters decided who they were going to vote for within a month of election day. More than half of that group of late deciders made the decision within a week of election day. There were fewer late deciders in 2004- probably because Bush was an incumbent- but 11% of of voters still made their decision within a week of election day.

Like the past two presidential elections, I'm expecting Obama/McCain to be decided by, at most, a few percentage points. Furthermore, I once again expect that several swing states will be decided by razor thin margins. If that is the case, it will be the last voters to decide who ultimately determine the winner. It makes me wonder what will be the tipping point that pushes those last minute deciders toward one candidate or the other. Will it be the press coverage or a specific world event or a gaffe by one of the candidates that decides it? Will it be a particular TV ad or a swift-boat type attack that provides the margin of victory?

This just in from the RNC...

John McCain is a maverick. You heard it here first.

Obama in command in Minnesota

A CNN poll released today has Senator Obama with a commanding 12 point lead over Senator McCain in Minnesota. This is up slightly from the 10 point lead Obama enjoyed as of last month.

Obama's strength in Minnesota brings two questions to mind:

• Could Obama enthusiasm in Minnesota help Al Franken in his Senate campaign against incumbent Republican Norm Coleman? As recently as six weeks ago polls were showing Coleman with a double digit lead. The latest poll from mid-August shows Franken having pulled into the lead at +1 percentage points.


• How will the Sarah Palin "hockey mom" meme play in Minnesota? If it doesn't help McCain in Minnesota it's not going to help him anywhere. I believe Minnesota is where the term "hockey mom" was invented...

RNC's Greatest Hits

I've watched a bunch of the speeches from the RNC this week purely because I'm a masochist political junkie. Granted I'm not the Republicans' target audience but up until Governor Palin spoke, every speech had felt to me like the 10,000th time listening to Lynard Skynard's Greatest Hits on cassette tape. If you listen closely you get a hint of their appeal; Even if Skynard isn't your thing you can sort of see why others might like them. The problem is that by now you've heard the album way too many times and the cassette is worn and never really sounded all that great in the first place and your musical taste has changed a bit over the years. Sure, the folks in attendance in St. Paul still scream and hold up their Bic lighters when they hear the opening bars of Freebird. I think most of us watching from afar, however, just want to hear something else. Anything else.

Guiliani, Romney, Whitman, Fiorina, etc al. each trotted out the Republican greatest hits- small government, low taxes, and a sort of populist moral superiority. The problem is that the Republicans had many years controlling every single branch of the government and failed miserably in actually delivering any of stuff they talk about endlessly. As we sit here with a giant, bloated, corrupt and inefficient government largely of the Republican's making, the right is still trying to sell with a straight face the same stuff they've been yapping about since Goldwater but have failed to deliver. I'm obviously biased in the totally opposite direction but I have to believe that the same old Republican talk has to come off to your average American as being nothing but empty promises.

Why Not Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

If McCain wanted a woman on the ticket, why didn't he choose the senior female in the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison? She's been in the Senate 15 years, has been mentioned for years as a potential VP or Presidential candidate, is widely respected among Republicans and checks off all the right boxes:

• She's pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-free trade.
• She's anti-immigration, anti-union, anti-church state separation, anti-social security, anti-taxes, anti-affirmative action, anti-gay rights, anti-public health, anti-environment.

She obviously has serious conservative cred! So why didn't McCain choose Hutchison? I think the answer is fairly simple. Yes, McCain was pandering to women when he chose Sarah Palin. His campaign was just cynical enough to think that supposedly disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters might just slide over and vote for a woman who had nothing besides ovaries in common with Senator Clinton. But being a woman, of course, was only half of the intended pander. The other half of the pander was to choose someone more acceptable to the religious right than McCain. This metric is where Hutchison falls short. Whereas Palin is reputedly a conservative Pentecostal Christian with "no abortion under any circumstances" views, Hutchison is a little less pure in her religious ideology. Hutchison is an Episcopalian (a liberal protestant sect) and is on the record as saying that she does not believe abortion should be made illegal. Abortion is now- and has been for decades- the cornerstone of evangelical politics and Hutchison simply has the wrong opinion on the subject.

So that's it in a nutshell. Standard single issue politics has brought us Sarah Palin instead of innumerable more qualified men and women, including Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Organized Democrats?

Tom DeLay (of all people) says the Democrats are now better organized than the Republicans. Wait, I thought "organized Democrats" was an oxymoron?

Exiled former Senator Rick Santorum has by far the funniest quote of the linked article when he laments how the left's control of Hollywood has helped them take power. "All we have is the family. All we have is the churches.” So says Righteous Rick as he trots out the world's most tired cliche about underdog Republicans.

WSJ Pronounces Obama Campaign Dead

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "Why Obama Can't Close the Sale", the writers lament Obama's inability to secure a lead over John McCain.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Poor Republicans, if only writing of Obama's weakness would make it so. As I review five different national polls released yesterday (Gallup, Rasmussen, USA Today, Hotline, and CBS News), I see Americans are "not committed" to Obama to the tune of a 6 to 9 point lead over Senator McCain. The Rasmussen write-up notes that "this is the highest level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008". The CBS News poll notes that Obama now has sizable leads among women and independents and has pulled even with McCain among male voters. That same CBS News poll notes that Obama leads McCain in "enthusiastic" supports 67% to just 25%.

Since the national head to head vote doesn't actually matter, I'm looking forward to seeing post-convention swing state polls over the next few days. I'm expecting Obama's bounce to have put him back in the lead in key states such as Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and perhaps even Florida and Virginia. Even after these state polls show Obama with a healthy lead in the electoral vote projections, I still expect that the WSJ will continue to clutch onto their own version of reality where Obama can't get any traction in this race.

I acknowledge there is obviously a lot of time between now and election day for Senator McCain to reclaim the lead from Senator Obama. This race is far from over. That said I would argue that a respected publication like the WSJ should be at least somewhat honest as to the current state of the race. This opinion piece is pure Republican spin and is full of unsupported claims. How about a little bit of data to support the litany of claims made in the piece?

Bush gets kudos on Iraq? Not from me...

I'm feeling a bit apoplectic after reading a Jonathan Kay article about Bush's Iraq legacy. This paragraph in particular didn't sit well with me:

In the long run, history will be kinder. Bush's legacy will be based not on his intellect, nor on what becomes of New Orleans. It will turn on his signature project, the war in Iraq. Though the war itself was a mistake - at least in the clumsy, thoughtless way it was fought - an extraordinary new book has convinced me that Bush deserves enormous credit for turning the tide in what might have otherwise become the single greatest military disaster in American history.

Is Kay really arguing that history will be kinder to Bush simply because the consequences of his boneheaded decision to invade Iraq could've been worse? Bush drove the Porsche into the ditch and he deserves applause because he eventually stopped being pigheaded and we're now in a position where it's plausible that the car may one day be extricated from the ditch?

Isn't giving credit to Bush now while our soldiers are still in harm's way in Iraq potentially another "Mission Accomplished" banner? In order to accept what I respectfully find to be a faulty premise by Kay, the reader has to believe the following: 1) Bush deserves credit because the Iraq War has been less disastrous than it could have been, and 2) that we're now in the clear in Iraq and our soldiers will experience a minimum of casualties from this point forward, and 3) it was "the surge" that made it all happen. Call me stubborn but I'm not ready to concede any of the three points just yet.

Lastly, who is to say that Iraq still won't end up being "the greatest military disaster in American history"? Until we're out of Iraq completely and able to assess the long term impact of Bush's mistake on both Iraq and the middle east as a whole, I'm not willing to say that the Iraq War hasn't been a bigger disaster than Viet Nam. Personally, I won't be surprised if history ends up being less kind than the present when it comes to Mr. Bush's legacy.

Reaction to Sarah Palin, in a Nutshell

I'll leave it to others- such as The Huffington Post- to cover the swirling details of the Sarah Palin story. I will focus instead on trying to summarize the punditocracy's reaction over the past week to McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.

In short, here's the story in condensed form:

Choosing Palin was inspired, game-changing, gutsy, and bold. It was a brilliant, but risky choice that helped McCain reclaim his maverick image and electrified the conservative base. Although some critics have said the move was cynical or even breathtakingly reckless, the fact of the matter is that Palin is a dream girl for the GOP.

Palin's Resume Not the Issue; Lack of Time is

In a thoughtful post over at neo-conservative commentarymagazine, John Podhoretz argues that the quality of Sarah Palin's resume will not be the deciding factor as to whether she's a successful pick as McCain's VP:

“Palin will be a failed pick if her conduct between now and November 4 reveals that she does not have the judgment to be a heartbeat away; that her comportment is not what we would wish of our leaders; and that she does not seem large enough for the office.”

The above quote nails the issue on the head. The reason Palin is an incredibly risky pick is not because she’s inexperienced. As others have stated, her resume is actually fairly similar to Obama’s in breadth. The risk of Palin is entirely different for McCain.

In my opinion, the reason Palin is an irresponsible pick by McCain at this moment is more related to the timing of the choice. Mrs. Palin now has only ten weeks to overcome the “inexperienced” objections that Obama has been addressing for nearly two years. Obama has been in the national spotlight for four years now and was able to hone and rehearse his message beginning way back before the Iowa caucuses, when few were paying close attention. Palin, on the other hand, enters the battle at a point when the entire media and much of the citizenry is now focused on the race. Can you imagine if Obama were just now being introduced to America and had to spend the next month not only presenting his case and preparing to debate a heavyweight like Joe Biden but also defending against the charges Republicans threw at him (Rezco, Reverend Wright, etc.)? It’s hard to imagine that Obama could have ended up looking presidential in ten weeks and I seriously doubt Palin has better political skills than Obama.

The pundits who are spending time these days comparing the resumes of Obama and Palin are missing the point. Just because one relatively inexperienced candidate is deemed to be qualified by some doesn't mean that everyone who is similarly qualified gets an automatic free pass. Obama has had a two year headstart over Palin in convincing Americans that he's ready to lead. Ten weeks, in my opinion, is just not enough time for Palin to catch up.