Well, it's been a exciting two weeks in the presidential contest, no question. And the race has been turned on its end by McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. I've got a lot of thoughts about this and they are all rambling through my head....so I apologize if they all aren't coherent.
First, this is rebranding at its best. Look, it's clear now that the Bush brand of Republicanism is not good. Politicians with an R next to their name are running scared.
So how does one re-brand the Republican label? Well, figure out what people don't like about the current brand and fix it.
We can debate about this for hours, but I believe that people turned against the R label because of:
- corruption/scandals (think Larry Craig and Abramoff)
- high spending/deficits (not in line with traditional R principles)
- lack of "humanity" and not being in touch (Katrina).
I don't think it's the war - especially now with the Surge working well.
McCain can rightfully claim that he can turn around the party on those first two planks - corruption and spending - but the third one is iffy. How can a 72-year-old white man show that he can relate to the masses?
Well, enter Palin. She complements McCain on the first prinicple and clearly shows that she is "in touch". So what do we have now? The party can now be rebuilt around:
- strong defense
- lower spending
- driving out corruption
- in touch and responsive to needs
and this rebranding has some substance behind it - since McCain /Palin have a track record on some of those issues.
It will be a long process - but it is the start of a divorce from some of Bush's domestic policies. This separation process may not be successful in 2008 - I still think this election will turn on whether the US think Obama is ready and willing to embrace him - but this rebranding could be fantastic in 2010 and beyond.
Look- those principles that McCain/Palin is trying to rebrand the party on are very similar to Newt's contract with American in 1994. 2010 could be a 1994-type election if Republican's nationwide embrace those planks.
So - again - why Palin? Well, she can be the face for those new principles for the next decades. McCain has - at most - 10 years in the public eye. Who will be the Reagan and carry the banner for decades more? Palin is being set up to be a spokeswoman for these principles - almost like a Barry Goldwater. The 2008 election may not be won, but the base for a successful rebirth of a party can form around these thoughts.
I don't think you can pick a more effective spokesperson than Palin. And yes, that has to factor into the equation in picking a VP candidate - in effect, picking another national candidate to carry the banner.
Some more thoughts:
2. Palin is an excellent pick as she walks the line between social conservatism and drawing in working women. I am amazed on how this pick has woken up the conservative base. Palin - through her social conservative views - is starting to be a cult hero to conservative women. These women weren't even sure they were going to vote this fall! This is huge.
And Palin can be seen as appealing to independent, working women....those women that are married, have children, and have a career - those women who share some child care duties with their husband as the two of them juggle day care responsibilities. THose women - I guess you can call them "soccer moms" - voted Democratic in 2006 but voted for Bush in 2004 and 2000. Palin appeals directly to them.
And where are they located? Butler, Warren, Medina, Geauga counties in Ohio, Macomb in Michigan...the suburban counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and northern Virginia. These are not the Clinton feminists that Palin is trying to go after.
The pick of Palin - in one fell swoop - get the social conservative on board and also should swing some soccer moms to McCain. Brilliant.
3. It's amazing how easy you can make your strategy when you know the opponent's response. For a golf analogy: if you are in match play, and know that every time you get up and down from off the green to tie a hole, it drives your opponent crazy - and that craziness causes him to swing harder and harder.......well, wouldn't you try to miss greens? Wouldn't you try miss greens, knowing you can get up and down and purposely sending your opponent off the deep end?
I swear I think the Republicans know this. The media and most liberal democrats are predictable. We can guess what their reaction is going to be - "a woman governor from Alaska? She's a dumb hick that can't possibly hold up in the national media spotlight. And besides, she has 5 kids! She can't do the job!"
Well, if you can predict that reaction, you can be one step ahead of them by preparing and strategizing against that. Her speech onWednesday was good - boiler plate attack dog stuff - but since the story was the "dumb hick" angle, she looked impressive.
By the way - if you just read the speeches and didn't know who made them, you would think the historical speech was McCain's. It is shocking to hear the presidential candidate of a party effective bash much of the party's record over the past few years. It was -as I said earlier- a start of a divorce from 2001-08.
4. For all these reasons, Palin is a great political pick. And I think that's what drives some on the other side nuts. They expect to win this election, and in their eyes can see no way how the Republicans can or should win. As a result, they expect the Republicans to almost concede - that's what a pick of Pawlenty or another white male would have been.
But the Republicans are actively giong to try to win this election - that's what the pick of Palin signifies. This, I believe, is what is scaring Democrats. Some believe - after 8 years of Bush - the Presidency should automatically be handed to them. It's not, and they will have to make a case. That's not what they were expecting - and that's why the Palin pick took them by surprise.
25 comments:
Eric, I agree that she was a great political pick and has an intriguing personal story, but do you think she's qualified to be president?
Truthfully - no. But I don't think any of our Presidents over the past 50 years were quailfied to be President (with the possible exception of George HW Bush and Richard Nixon).
The Presidency is a massive job - each one will assemble a team who he/she can trust. While that team is assembled, it will be rough going for a while. Clinton's first month was a bad one, if I recall. So was Reagan's.
She's not qualified now? So? No one is. Really.
And - let me ask you a question.
Why do you ask this?
What makes you think that this is a key question that decides who wins the Presidency? Time and time again, we see Presidents or Vice Presidents win with a lack of experience (think Quayle, Carter, Kennedy, ...)
It doesn't matter.
Why are you hung up on that?
This is the key difference between Democrats and Republicans - and why Democrats keep losing Presidential elections.
Democrats want to influence the criteria for a President. They want to make sure everyone is using the same stadnard in making their decision. In effect, they want to help "change the game".
Republicans just want to get to 270 within the rules. Given the current criteria, how do I get to 270?
An analogy to Monopoly:
Democrats think the election season is about changing the salary when you pass "GO" to be $300 instead of $200.
Republicans want to amass the most money and knock the other person out within the rules.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Lets bring someone to the national map who wants to teach Creationism, inject the government's "views" regarding a women's body, reject stem cell research, and abolish Sex Ed. Yes!!!!! What a step forward for our country. Hello 1930's!! Ugh.
Maybe that's the problem with the Republicans? Do whatever it takes to win the election instead of what's good for the country. I'll leave it at that for now.
And, if the republicans our supposed to be so good for for the wealthy and the economy, why is my 401k down 25% since November? Something is fucked up and I'm going to blame the party who's been in office for the last 8 years. I want to retire a millionaire and it's not looking so good right now.
In re-reading my comment, I think I was too harsh in my transition from answering Laura's question to going off on (another) diatribe. Sorry - did not mean to be so curt.
Mer: comment 1: One can easily argue that Republicans are trying to win so hard FOR the good of the country - since they believe the policies of the other party would make the country worse. So that argument doesn't hold water.
Comment 2: You are angry that your 401k is down 25% from last November. Good!
Who has been in the presidency since November, 2007: Bush, A Republican.
Who has controlled Congress since November, 2007: hmmmmmmmmmmm. Not Republicans.
It's a divided government now. No one party is in control right now. You don't like what has happened over the last 12 months - fine!
But make sure you blame the Demcrats in the SEnate (*Ahem*Obama*Biden*) as well.
My archaic opinion is that qualifications matter. Bush 43 made that pretty clear. Having a good team is clearly not enough to compensate for bad judgment.
I think what you're getting at is that years of service (while a good measure of experience) do not determine one's qualifications for a particular promotion. A candidate with 2 years as gov. in Alaska might be more qualified to be president than a senator with 25 years of experience. But to say that "no one is really" ready to be president is a poor justification for picking someone that is obviously unqualified.
In terms of Palin, does anyone really know anything about her qualifications? As the potential leader of the free world, one would think that she's obligated to make herself available to public inquiry. A game this is not.
"Qualifications matter"? I'd love to hear your criteria.
Look at some of the more experienced candidates out there that ran for president:
Geroge HW Bush
Richard Nixon
And some with very little experience:
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Franklin Roosevelt
So what, exactly, is the relationship between qualifications and the type of presidency?
Please draw that for me.
"As the potential leader of the free world, one would think that she's obligated to make herself available to public inquiry."
To be my most cynical self, this is so idealistic it's crazy. Inquiry by who? Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews? Matt Lauer?
What's the point of having public inquiry when the inquiry person is so hopelessly biased?
The days of having the press be the "heart" of America - like Walter Cronkite in the 60s - is LOOOOOOOOONG GONE. The press does not, and should not, play a role in being king-makers and act as "judge" for us stupid peons.
Besides, it took Obama over a year to appear on O'Reilly. And you are mad that it has been less than 2 weeks now that Palin has not had a press conference....
Gotta say that I agree completely with laurad.
And yes, she should be under public inquiry now. The election is less than 2 months away.
We don't need 4 more years of a party that rejects basic science in their decision making. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe that the earth is only 8000 years old. That right there should make you unqualified to run for any office.
And I think you're wrong about what's turned people off from the Republican party. You're thinking about it from a right wing point of view. The people are pissed off that we're spending all this money on the war in Iraq when it could be better spent on correcting problems here. I'm all for spending on defense and the war on terrorism but Al Qaeda didn't appear in Iraq until we went in. We should have been focusing on Afghanistan and catching Bin Laden.
Oh, and O'Reilly is an idiot.
Kermit:
"The people are pissed off that we're spending all this money on the war in Iraq..."
No, I don't think that's the reason why people are pissed off at the Rep's. And here's why.
In 2006, we had an historical election. The Republicans were thrown out of leadership of the House and the Senate. And the margins were not small. I think the Democrats gained 7 seats in the Senate and over 30 in the House.
That's significant.
Every time we have had significant elections (think 1980, 1992, 1994..), things change. Things get done. Policy shifts.
Now let's go back to 2006. The election results indicated that people wanted change. But change what?
The assumptions were:
1) A party (D) that was against the current funding/execution of the war,
2) A belief that the majority of the people were against the current funding/execution, and
3) the election put the Democrats in power.
With those set of events, something should have happened. The war execution should have changed from 2006-now. Political parties should have been clawing all over themselves to prove they were for changing the war strategy, based on those election results.
But the strategy has not changed.
Nothing has changed.
In fact, the Democrats are moving away from teh anti-war rhetoric. Obama calls the surge "a success", and Obama is moving away from his plan to remove troops in 16 months.
Why is he doing this?
My answer is that the assumptions were faulty. One of those 3 assumptions above were faulty. If they were all true, wouldn't we have had a shift in the strategy by now, as one political party responds to the voters?
My theory is that the majority of the voters don't want change in the war strategy. Assumption #2 is faulty. Democrats got into power in Congress for other reasons - which I laid out - but not for the war.
I'm going to disagree some more. We're not happy with the war but we realize that we're there and we can't just pull out (that's what all my girlfriends tell me). And, I for one, resent the Bush administration for getting us involved.
But, Obama, unlike McCain doesn't say we're going to stay there a hundred years if we have to. Hopefully, the next president can get us out and leave a stable Iraq. I doubt it. As soon as we pull out it's going to be a civil war. The Shiites and the Sunnis have hated each other for a long time.
What's the over/under on Iraq being 3 countries in 10 years like what happened with Yugoslavia?
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine yesterday. He started talking about how the Republicans run their elections by driving fear into the voter:
Vote for the Dems if you want higher taxes, vote for the Reps if you want to be safe at home, don't vote for Obama, he's a Muslim and must be terrorist, vote for the Reps for family values or else your children will grow up gay.
Those are a little extreme and the party doesn't explicitly send out all those messages. But, they're there. Weekly, I get a message about how Obama is a Muslim or not a citizen.
So, maybe people are starting to get tired of the same old rhetoric. Maybe 2006 was the beginning of the change that people are looking for. With Obama in the WH and a Democratic congress maybe a little change for the better will happen. I'm not expecting a lot but a little would be better than what's happened in the last 8 years.
I want to live in a progressive country and not a regressive one that longs for the 50's.
At the very least, each major network anchor should get an interview-we're not talking Olberman here. How can I decide if I want to vote for her if I don't know anything about her? For example, can you tell me her views on No Child left behind? Would she push to have Creationism taught in public schools? What type of relationship does she think that the US should have with Iran and N. Korea? Does she understand what Fannie and Freddie do? What would she do to stabilize the housing market? Would she aggressively pursue a green energy policy or is she only for drilling? You know, those silly kinds of things...
And, more importantly, are her more extreme views on abortion, gay rights, and creationism now part of the official McCain platform?
Eric, you've gone off the deep end trying to convince yourself that it's OK to vote for this woman without knowing anything about her other than the fact that she's a republican. That, my friend, is why people are sick of politics.
Anyway, I'd like to change the subject to something more agreeable.... Is anyone going to Vegas in March?
I want to get back to Kermit's comment in a minute, because he brings up some great points...
but Laura, please ask yourself those same questions on Obama and Biden. What, exactly, is Obama going to do about Fannie/Freddie? What is his real stance on NAFTA?
Can you truly answer those questions yourself about Obama and Biden?
Oh, how I wish there were public forums coming up where TV anchors can ask the candidates question on these issues......it's too bad we can't have the two candidates on a stage, answering questions like this for 90 minutes at a time....
oh wait....
A single debate is not enough for her. The other three have been campaigning for over a year now and I understand their positions on pretty much every issue. Her opinions on local Alaskan politics are widely available but I can't find much out there on her national views. And yes, I do believe I understand Obama's position on trade and the housing crisis. Both were discussed widely in the primary debates.
And you didn't answer my questions-do you know her views on these types of issues? Is there some right-wing site I can visit to get this secret information because it's not making it through to the mainstream media. They're too busy talking about lipstick on a pig...
For some reason the lipstick quote makes me laugh. I keep thinking of the Simpson's episode where a guy comes to town to sell a monorail:
"Y'know, a town with money is a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it."
"Both were discussed widely in the primary debates".
Let's see, from the primary season:
Obama: "I don't think NAFTA has been good for American - Iand I never have"
Obama: "I don't think it is realistic for us to repeal NAFTA"
So - what is the position here? Obama knows NAFTA is not good for America, but won't do anything about it? Do I have it?
No, I don't know everything about Palin's stances on issues - however, she is not for teaching creationism in schools, and has stated a "hybrid" (no pun intended) energy platform on Wed night that includes drilling in Alaska.
If you recall, from her speech:
"in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources."
I hope that answers your question.
And finally, "Does she understand what Fannie and Freddie do?"
Yes.
Now let's get back to Kermit. He states:
" He started talking about how the Republicans run their elections by driving fear into the voter:
Vote for the Dems if you want higher taxes, vote for the Reps if you want to be safe at home, don't vote for Obama, he's a Muslim and must be terrorist, vote for the Reps for family values or else your children will grow up gay.
Those are a little extreme and the party doesn't explicitly send out all those messages. But, they're there."
I understand what you are saying. However, you can't be naive to think that those subliminal messages are only on the Republican side.
These messages are out there:
"Vote for the Republicans if you want people killed for oil. Vote for the Republicans if you want changes in Social Security that will kill old people. Vote for the Republicans if you want back-alley abortions. Vote for the Republicans if you want racism to return. Vote for the Republicans if you want cuts in social services that will kill children."
Those messages are out there, too.
Yes, people are sick of it, and I think we all want it to end.
A while ago, I was OK with the thought of Obama winning. I was hopeful that he would bring the parties together. He could do this much better than Hillary!
But nothing's changed. He and his supporters talk about change, but their actions speak differently. I do not see him at all reaching out to me or understanding any of my issues. And his supporters? Well, just look at this blog! I've "gone off the deep end" in supporting McCain/Palin. Nice way to try to bring the parties together.
It gets to be too much. It's laughable when I hear.."I want a kinder, gentler political season....by the way, Bush is EVIL! Cheney is the Devil! Boooo!"
I believe Obama, in his heart, wants to help America. I just believe that the policies he believes in are wrong.
I get the feeling that Obama and many, many other Democrats can not say the same about Bush.
And if we can't start there, then we have no common ground.
So...Palin's interview last night was interesting. She has clearly been studying! We know that she plans to follow the Bush doctrine (now that she knows what it is), is averse to blinking (boy her eyes must be dry), and plans to use her knowledge of "Energy" as her qualification for most any issue. Why is she qualified to handle islamic terrorism? She knows energy. Slumping economy? Energy. Global warming? Energy. National security? Energy.
The funny thing is that I agree that energy independence and conservation IS the key to all these issues. Democrats have been promoting this idea since the Carter administration. Thanks for catching up.
This is a perfect example of the main difference between the philosophies of the 2 parties. Democrats want change-and fast! Republicans tend to like things the way they are and change only when absolutely necessary. This can apply to most every issue out there. And, I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other. Actually, I think that a balance of the two is probably the best course for the country. How's that for common ground?
Maybe I just tune out the negative Democratic ads. Actually, I don't watch ads at all.
I don't believe that McCain is the devil although I think Bush/Cheney are.
Palin on the other hand is totally distasteful. Instead of picking a V.P. towards the center, McCain picks a right winger talking about tasks of God. How's that for dividing the election? The Reps are running scared to the Evangelical vote that got them elected 8 years ago.
And you want to know what I'm really afraid of? The more Republican terms we have the more likely the Supreme Court is going to shift farther right. This does not reflect the views of the majority. This is a divided country as seen by the last 2 presidential elections and the Supreme Court should stay towards the center.
Just my naive opinion.
Kermit, I just have to ask you a question. And this is NOT about policy.
You say:
"The Reps are running scared to the Evangelical vote that got them elected 8 years ago."
"The more Republican terms we have the more likely the Supreme Court is going to shift farther right."
and
"This does not reflect the views of the majority. "
How do you reconcile the two?? If the Republicans run to the evangelical right....and they keep winning elections....
how can you say that doesn't relfect the views of the majority?
That's what elections are for, right? If they keep running on a prinicple...and they keep winning.....isn't that a principle that is in the majority?
That's why there are elections..to decide who/what is in the majority.
Laura:
"Democrats want change-and fast! Republicans tend to like things the way they are and change only when absolutely necessary."
I think that's pretty fair for most issues. Let's show our agreement on this topic by bashing Layup.
I would liken this to the golf pool that Layup and I are in. We go in together and pick a golfer for the week - let's say Frank Lickliter.
On hole #2 on Thursday, Lickliter bogies. I will get a call at 10:00 am on Thursday with a rant from Layup: "He SUCKS! Why the hell did we pick him???"
However, I will stay the course and only say he sucks until he is 14 shots behind on Sunday with 5 holes to go.
I think that illustrates the difference pretty nicely. Yes, there is a balance between the two.
Come on Eric. Do I need to spell things out? What was the margin of victory in the last 2 presidential elections? This is a divided country. In the 2000 election, Bush didn't even get the popular vote. In 2004 it was 51% to 48%. Not exactly a resounding victory.
And that's why McCain was almost palatable. That was until he picked Palin.
Seriously, is anyone going to Vegas in March??
Yes, Laura, as far as I've heard, we are all in. A couple of us (Kermit, Steve, I) are working in the background to ensure our spot in March...
Post a Comment