The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.

It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.

But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com)

President Barack Obama

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America.

He was a remarkable candidate, and the historic nature of his victory tonight is truly extraordinary.

While I supported John McCain in this election, I can certainly recognize why Obama appealed to so many Americans.

And I hope that every American can set aside differences in political party or ideology and appreciate the significance of our country's first African-American president.

There will be a time to look back and analyze how Obama won or why McCain lost, and without a doubt, this 2008 campaign has been one of the most interesting, exciting and complex races in modern politics.

For now, though, I hope America can collectively celebrate this incredible milestone in the history of our great country.

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, to his campaign, and to his supporters.

The Case for John McCain

Last week, the free newspaper here in NYC, amNewYork, asked me to "make the case for John McCain in 400 words or less". Now, as frequent readers of BraggingWrites know, brevity is not my strong suit! Nevertheless, I managed to make my case (in 402 words!), and I think it nicely -- and yes, succinctly -- sums up why I will vote for John McCain on Tuesday.

For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.

With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:

---

The events of today often makes it easy to forget what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow. Today, we have been kept safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for more than seven years. Today, the situation in Iraq is more stable – both militarily and politically – than at any point since the war began. Today, Americans are intensely focused and concerned about what is in their wallets and their 401(k) plans. Today, voters are wondering if the value of their homes will return to previous levels and if their jobs are secure. All of these facts obscure the harsh reality that we are living in a new and dangerous era – today and tomorrow.

In this time in which our national security remains under constant threat, John McCain is the right candidate to assume the weighty responsibilities of the presidency. His foreign policy knowledge and instincts are tested and proven. His support for the so-called “Surge” strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular is testament to that. His opposition to “spreading the wealth around” through redistributionist tax policies is correct. Cutting taxes for all Americans and lowering the taxes on corporations and small businesses alike will keep more money in Americans’ pockets and create more jobs – exactly the right tonic for our ailing economy. A President McCain would represent a crucial check and balance against the ultra-liberal Pelosi House and Reid Senate, creating the scenario in which true bipartisan compromise can and must be achieved.

Lost in the midst of Barack Obama’s impressive domination of the “change” mantle is the fact that McCain represents change, too. He is not President Bush. In fact, he ran against Bush in 2000, and has been a frequent critic of Bush and his policies throughout the last eight years. Drowned out by Obama’s empty promises to usher in a new kind of politics is the reality that it is McCain who has the long and distinguished record of putting political party aside in order to reach across the aisle for results. As impressive a politician as Obama is, he lacks the record, the experience and the judgment that John McCain possesses in spades.

With his long and dedicated service to our country, John McCain is the right choice on Election Day – not because he deserves the presidency, but because he is the president that the American people deserve – today and tomorrow.

Bottom of the Ninth...Two Outs, Two Strikes...

Apologies for the sports analogy, but that's a pretty apt description of where John McCain finds himself tonight heading into the third and final presidential debate. While the degree to which he trails varies, there is no denying that McCain is definitely running behind Barack Obama and that, had the election been held today, Obama would have won -- likely handily.

And so here we are with one last debate, one last chance for an extremely large audience of voters for both candidates. Obama's mission tonight is quite simple: don't screw up. Continuing the sports lingo, Obama is very close to being able to "take a knee" and "run the clock out", and should he dispatch with McCain in tonight's debate, he'll almost certainly be able to do just that.

McCain's task is extraordinarily more complex and difficult. Without question, he is going to have to be more aggressive tonight. He is going to have to challenge Obama in ways and about things he has thus far been unable or unwilling to do. The biggest quandary he faces is that he risks being labeled desperate by the mainstream media, (and indeed he is almost guaranteed as much). If McCain brings up William Ayers, he'll at best be accused by the media of trying to avoid the "real issues" or the "issues that matter" -- at worst accused of racism or inciting anger, two charges McCain has recently faced for virtually anything negative he says about Obama. The reality is, with the relatively little we know about Obama given his brief political career, his past associations are important and speak to his judgment. We as voters deserve to know what the man who will likely be our next president thinks about the person in whose living room his political career was launched -- the same person who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and feels he "didn't do enough".

As for the "real issues" and the "issues that matter", McCain does absolutely need to do a better job of articulating his plan for getting us out of the current financial crisis and for repairing a badly damaged economy. He blundered with his "campaign suspension" during the congressional bailout negotiations, and he has never really regained his footing -- not on economic issues and not on the race in general.

This is do-or-die for McCain tonight, and based on Obama's past performances, he's unlikely to make a blunder that will give McCain a boost. So the onus is on McCain, he's come from behind before, and if he's going to do it again, he absolutely has to start tonight. Let's watch!

Are We Done Here?

I sort of think we are done here, by which I mean it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

This is my gut reaction after watching the second debate between Obama and John McCain.

I'll elaborate more when I have time (and on that note, apologies for the relative blog silence of late. Work, as one might imagine, has been absolutely nuts over the last few weeks).

The bottom line tonight is that McCain needed to either have Obama make a gargantuan blunder or McCain had to have some sort of breakthrough performance in which he was able to significantly outshine Obama. Neither happened.

Speaking of Embarrassing...

Last month, I pointed you in the direction of "Our American Prayer", a video in which a variety of movie stars and pop stars were, it seemed, praying to Obama. I still think it's creepy, but today I came across something else that out-creeps "Our American Prayer". Take a look:



This strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. First and foremost, though, if you view this on YouTube and click on the "more info" link, you'll find the following description of what you have just watched:

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered to sing original songs in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these nonvoting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

Sing for Change was a confluence of hard work, good will, and shared vision. Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks. Several musicians heard of the effort and volunteered to accompany the children. Parents and older siblings designed and provided the T-Shirts and the banner. There's a first for everything, but rarely do so many firsts come together at once: for the children and their parents, this is their first performance, first video, first banner, and first involvement with grassroots work on a presidential campaign.

As Sunday approached, a neighbor volunteered a home. Production wizards got wind of the project and offered their help in recording it. The likes of Jeff Zucker, Holly Schiffer, Peter Rosenfeld, Darin Moran, Jean Martin, Andy Blumenthal, and Nick Phoenix rearranged schedules to participate. When Jeff Zucker went to pick up the camera package, Ted Schilowitz happened to be there and offered a RED camera set up on a Steadi Cam.

What we accomplished in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon embodies the nature of the Obama campaign: its grassroots inspiration, its inclusiveness, its community building. People pitched in quickly for a cause that resonated with them. There were not many conditions: "Think this is a good idea? Want to help? Great. Sunday at 12:00." At the heart of the project were 22 children and their music. The willingness of all involved to come together for them was a testament to our hope, unity, courage, joy and belief in the future represented by these children.

So let me quickly indicate just a few of my issues with this:

1. Some of these children are as young as 5 years old. Is a 5 year old (much less the children here who are between the ages of 6 and 12) really able to make a conscious political choice for himself or herself? I would argue probably not, and if you grant me that, how are these children not being used as political pawns by their parents and others involved in producing and disseminating this?
2. Given that this can be found here on Barack Obama's official website, Obama and his campaign therefore shares the responsibility for promoting it.
   
3. Heavily involved in apparently every aspect of this was Jeff Zucker. Jeff Zucker also happens to be the President and CEO of NBC Universal, which encompasses not only NBC News, but also MSNBC. That strikes me as a blatant conflict-of-interest at worst -- a clear indication of the bias held by the man atop NBC News and MSNBC at best.
4. While I obviously cannot prove this point, I would be willing to bet an awful lot that if this video featured children singing for John McCain (or George W. Bush), the liberal community would be in an uproar about the exploitation of children, etc. And I would bet even more that the phenomenon would be featured prominently on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC primetime show. (Yes, Jeff Zucker's MSNBC).

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons why I find this offensive, hypocritical and (with apologies for the repetition) creepy, but I'll stop here. I'd be curious to hear via the comments function what you think. Let me know!

Slipping Away

This election is beginnig to slip away from John McCain. To be clear, I wouldn't necessariliy argue that the election was ever firmly in his grasp, however he has managed to keep things close and competitive so far. I had thought things would remain very tight heading into Election Day, and until yesterday, I would probably have predicted another long election night with no winner declared until early the following morning. But now my gut feeling is that it's getting ugly out there, and more worrisome for McCain, I don't think the prospects for a comeback are very good. A few primary contributors to McCain's current predicament:

1. McCain's campaign suspension and return to Washington last week were widely viewed as a political stunt, and one that now appears to have backfired.
2. Initial post-debate reaction seemed to hold that either McCain had been slightly better or that it had effectively been a draw. Either way, that's likely a net win for Obama. Why? Because as the one trailing in the polls, McCain has the burden of significant outperformance on him, and it would be difficult to argue that he significantly outperformed Obama Friday night. Secondly, the foreign policy area was perceived as Obama's possible weakness. By holding his own in the debate, he probably alleviated concerns some voters may have had about his commander-in-chief qualifications. Over the weekend, though, a quasi-consensus developed that Obama had, in fact, won the debate outright -- from a stylistic a perspective as well as a substantive perspective.
3. Sarah Palin has derailed. McCain's choice of Palin, initially a wildly successful political move, may come back to haunt him. In the immediate days following Palin's selection, the Republican base was both excited and relieved. The media buzz surrounding the selection effectively buried the positive reactions to Obama's convention acceptance speech, and questions about her experience (or lack thereof) had the (unintended?) effect of reflecting the experience question back onto Obama. The wheels began to fall off during Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Though he was condescending and arguably looking to trip her up, the result was nonetheless a perception that she had been a bit shaky in her performance. If the Gibson interview was shaky, her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News last week, however, was an unmitigated disaster. The impression likely left on those who watched the interview was that of someone who is in over her head -- not the impression the McCain wants to leave with a 72-year old nominee. The stakes were enormously high for her convention speech a few weeks ago, and she delivered a game-changing performance. If it is possible, the stakes are even higher now for the vice presidential debate on Thursday, but my confidence in Palin's ability to again deliver a game-changing performance is lacking, and the choice of Palin as a running mate is quickly beginning to look like a big mistake. Palin can turn this around, but she'll have to be nearly perfect on Thursday night.
   
4. The media continue to aid Obama. Ironically, he might not need their help, but nevertheless, the media bias in this election is rather striking. Talking heads on television, op-ed writers in newspapers -- these are people who have enormous power in terms of driving the national conversation, and they have consistently driven that conversation in a decidedly pro-Obama, anti-McCain fashion. (The New York Times has been particularly shameful). This shows no sign of abating any time soon, and it simply adds to the litany of factors now making a victory for McCain unlikely.

Obviously a lot can happen in the next 36 days, but as I write, McCain has likely reached the lowest point of his General Election campaign to date. At this point, I simply don't see a way that McCain will be able to make enough of the uphill climb necessary to turn things around. I suspect this may begin to snowball, that we'll see continued movement towards Obama in the coming weeks, and that on November 4th, we might be going to bed early.

(If this morning's news is any indication, chances are I'm in for another crazy week at work. I will try to chime in when possible, but wanted to get these thoughts "out there" before the "fun" at work begins)...

Short & Sweet

Well, unless you've had your head buried in the sand for the last week, you've probably noticed that things on Wall Street have been a little hectic. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, insurance giant AIG nearly did the same on Tuesday, and the markets have generally been in turmoil -- the Dow down nearly 450 points yesterday, and then up over 400 points today. In over eight years "in the business", I cannot recall a busier week -- nor can I can recall seeing more volatility. Most alarming for me, I think, is that I can't recall seeing more uncertainty, even from so-called "experts". With the government's apparent plan to create an entity in which to dispose of all of the toxic debt plaguing so many financial firms, the buyers returned today with more conviction than I've seen all week.

Long story short, I've barely had time for lunch this week, and what is already a fairly stressful job has been even more so this week. As a result, blogging has been the last thing on the agenda. The last hour or so of today brought the first signs of potential stability, and should tomorrow be a return to (some semblance) of normalcy, I'll hope to be able to write a post or two this weekend and early next week. In the meantime, a few quick thoughts to leave you with...

• The McCain-Palin "bounce" in the polls following the Republican National Convention appears to have exhausted itself. This is not unexpected -- a "bounce" is inherently temporary.
• With that said, though, McCain likely catalyzed the reversal in the polls this week when, in the midst of Lehman Brothers' declaration of bankruptcy and a stock market meltdown Monday, he affirmed his belief that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". He's not entirely incorrect, technically, but that was the last thing that nervous Americans wanted to hear, and it was remarkable in its political tone deafness given the slew of headlines people were seeing that indicated quite the opposite. The lead McCain has enjoyed in the polls since the convention immediately began to disappear, and as of today, he again trails Obama.
• According to CNN, Obama is now using the teleprompter for each and every speech he gives -- even for what would normally be considered fairly informal, casual stump speeches. I have a few thoughts on this bit of news. First, clearly the Obama Campaign had become concerned about the candidate's ability to stay "on message" when speaking extemporaneously, perhaps trying to avoid another "lipstick on a pig" moment. Second, this reinforces the belief many have that Obama lacks some degree of substance. He can absolutely write a great speech and he can sure as hell deliver a great speech, but every one of the "great" speeches he has delivered has been while using a teleprompter, and conversely, many of the missteps he has made have been when shooting from the hip. Lastly, this is just further evidence of the media's double-standard. Were this McCain who was now relying on a teleprompter for each and every word he uttered in public, the media would be in a frenzy, and the leftist blogs would be buzzing with claims that McCain is so old (or perhaps even approaching senility), and therefore he is unable to even remember his stump speech lines. (Were it President Bush who did this, the same crowd would be trumpeting how "stupid" Bush is, as evidenced by his need for a script whenever he speaks). With Obama, though, not so much as a peep. (NOTE: I stand corrected on this point thanks to a comment from a reader -- and a good friend -- Brandon. Thanks for the correction, Brando).
  
• A week from tomorrow is the first of three presidential debates -- Friday, September 26th at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS. I predict that Obama will maintain his lead -- perhaps even build on it slightly -- and head into next week's debate with a 3-5 point lead in the polls. I believe the debates are crucial this election year. A disastrous showing by either candidate could have a significant impact on the polls and on the election's ultimate outcome, so be sure to tune in and watch.
• After a series of missteps and strategic errors, Obama and his campaign enjoyed their first good series of days this week since the Republican Convention. While they seem to have regained their footing for now, he still appears unable to close the deal with American voters. If he had done so, he'd likely be leading by double-digits given the poisonous political environment for any candidate with the Republican "R" next to his or her name. Even still, this election has been and remains Obama's to lose.

I'll be back soon...

Mixed Emotions

It has certainly been an interesting few days for Sarah Palin, her family, and the Republican Party. As indicated here on Friday, I was extremely enthusiastic about John McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate. This enthusiasm only grew over the weekend as I was able to hear more of her on the stump, and also to gauge the almost unanimously positive reactions of the people to whom I spoke. But then, on Monday, news broke that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was pregnant, and I began to feel far less optimistic about Palin and the overall chances for the ticket.

Full of newfound doubts, on Monday, I wrote the following, which now appears at Splice Today:

Well, it was a fine three-day run for the McCain campaign, and Republicans in general. As we went to bed last Thursday night, it appeared McCain was on the verge of tapping Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty for the veep slot, and the more I thought about that, I was disappointed, particularly when juxtaposed with Obama’s acceptance speech. Pawlenty is qualified, but he is essentially the personification of “boring white guy.” Friday morning by the time I got to work, the room was buzzing about the rumor that McCain had instead chosen the nearly unknown Sarah Palin. Soon it was confirmed, and I was thrilled. I was familiar with her, but thought she was a long shot at best, particularly with the cloud of an investigation involving the Alaska public safety commission hanging over her. Now that she had been picked, though, I assumed that the team vetting McCain’s potential running mates had looked at the situation closely and determined she had done no wrong, or at least that the controversy wasn’t sufficiently detrimental to disqualify her from being chosen. What’s that saying about the folly of assumptions? Something about making an ass out of you and me?

Friday’s official introduction of Palin energized Republicans; many probably had their first genuine moment of enthusiasm about voting for McCain. To the extent that enthusiasm extended to their wallets, the windfall of contributions the campaign received over the weekend seemed to confirm GOP voters’ newfound excitement. In talking to a variety of friends and relatives of varying degrees of political interest and multiple political leanings Friday, I found the reaction to Palin uniformly positive. Palin’s enthusiasm, her verve, her genuineness, her refreshing departure from typical Washington politics and politicians—all were among the attributes positively cited by those I spoke to. Perhaps more importantly, though, her conservative bona fides are unassailable, and for a Republican base still suspicious of McCain’s sincerity on social issues, this was a choice that put many of those lingering concerns to rest. Over the weekend, McCain’s rallies had an energy level higher than any his campaign has seen so far. Record crowds turned out to see the Alaska governor in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Predictably, the media questioned her experience (despite their general disinclination to do the same for Barack Obama), but in reality, she’s not much less experienced than Obama, and by virtue of having even a day of executive experience, she bests that of Obama, McCain and Joe Biden combined. Whether intentional or not, in a brilliant stroke of political jujitsu, every time the experience of the #2 person on the GOP ticket was questioned, the focus was implicitly or sub-consciously turned back to the inexperience of Barack Obama—the man at the top of the Democratic ticket.

But the subsequent news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy reminded me of that moment in movies when the thriving dance party is suddenly interrupted by the sound of a record scratching. Was she properly vetted? On its face, the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy is just not a big deal. Nearly every family has had a similar instance, and based on the Palin family’s statement about the issues, it sounds as though they are dealing with it in a loving and unified way. But it is a very big deal in its implications. Does her daughter’s teenage pregnancy make her unfit to be the vice president? Of course not. But if McCain knew about this when he selected her, it raises serious doubts about his judgment and political acumen. If he indeed knew, and if he decided it was not sufficiently damaging to stop him from choosing her, then his campaign should have made this fact known shortly after unveiling her on Friday. Surely that would have been preferable to the bombshell news breaking on the first day of the Republican National Convention and in the midst of one of McCain’s only true momentum surges this year. I frankly don’t believe he did know, and if his vetters couldn’t unearth that, is there anything else that McCain’s campaign doesn’t know about Palin? And if Palin herself didn’t tell him, what does that tell us about her?

In general, it seems that most of the same conservative bloggers and writers who were heralding her choice Friday were now downplaying the political implications of her daughter’s pregnancy. The pro-life crowd is predictably ecstatic that Bristol Palin was choosing to keep her baby, and the emerging party line seems to be that the manner in which Sarah Palin and her husband had embraced the news only made her more appealing as a mother, and further, how dare the media and the Democrats invade the Palin’s privacy in this way! Obama, to his credit, almost immediately announced that the families of candidates should be off-limits, and that, oh, by the way, his mother had only been 18 when he was born. This was a classy reaction from Obama, and it was also politically pitch-perfect. Magnanimity is the shrewd play here, and Obama and Democrats will now sit back and give Palin and the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. As for Republicans and conservatives now claiming that this will have no backlash (or even that it will somehow be a net positive), they are simply kidding themselves—drunk, I can only assume, from a weekend bender of political enthusiasm after several painful years on the wagon.

Palin was unquestionably a risky choice for McCain, and for the pick to work out she had to be controversy-free until Election Day. While this was the gamble I thought McCain had to take in order to change the game and catalyze his candidacy, it was only worth it if he and his campaign were 100 percent certain there were no surprises about Palin waiting in the wings. Obviously they weren’t, and so in apparently failing to properly vet her, McCain will now find his judgment questioned, and rightfully so. As a committed Republican, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief and disappointment.

Tim Pawlenty is looking pretty good right about now. Perhaps there’s something to be said for the boring white guy after all.

Since writing that, however, I have started to return to the happy, optimistic Bragg of the weekend. Well, almost...

Here's the bottom line: I still think this was a terrific pick by McCain. I think Palin is a star already, and on her way to even bigger and better things (regardless of whether that ascendance begins with the vice presidency this time around or not). I am extremely interested in watching her speak tonight at the Republican National Convention, and I am even looking forward to watching her debate Joe Biden next month. On the other hand, I feel like what could have been the absolutely perfect pick has been somewhat tainted, even if only slightly. I think that to take the risk McCain took in picking her, the whole package (the candidate, the vetting process, etc.) had to be pristine, and it has not been. A part me of me, then, still feels deflated and disappointed, but then on the other hand, is it possible that all of this could still become a positive? Can the McCain-Palin ticket bounce back after a rough few days? If you'd asked me Monday -- as evidenced by my Splice post above -- I'd have said there was no way to come back from this. But the more I think about it and the more I watch the media (predictably) overplay their hand, the more I think this whole thing could, in fact, boomerang in Palin's favor.

The aggressiveness and borderline glee with which liberal bloggers, the mainstream media and some Democrats have attacked Palin is astonishing. The reason the news of Bristol Palin's pregancy even came to light at all is because hateful bloggers at Daily Kos (a preeminent liberal blog) were alleging that Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy (which resulted in the birth of her son, Trig, 5 months old, who suffers from Down Syndrome) in order to cover up her daughter's. In other words, they were alleging that Trig was in fact Palin's grandson. It was truly despicable. The Obama Campaign itself had to back down from their initial official reaction after the consensus held that it had been overly hostile. The media have, as expected, questioned her experience despite their willingness, by and large, to allow questions about Obama's -- the person at the top of the Democratic ticket -- to go unasked. Some reporters have questioned her ability to run for (much less serve as) vice president while still being able to adequately mother her children, a blatantly sexist inquiry. Has anyone ever asked Barack Obama if he feels he can be a good father to his two young daughters while running for (much less serving as) president?

The reality is that she is hardly less qualified than Obama no matter how one measures experience. And if executive experience is the benchmark, well then she has more than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. The fact that Obama on Tuesday felt compelled to compare his experience with that of Palin's -- again, the person in the #2 spot on the opposing ticket -- shows not only some measure of concern on the part of Obama and his campaign, but also the political brilliance of the Palin choice. Going one step further, McCain's campaign responded today with a new ad addressing the experience question, and I think it's fairly effective. Have a look:


I'm going to have to cut this shorter than I had wanted, but I'll be back later this week with more. In summary, I absolutely wish that the McCain Campaign had revealed Bristol Palin's pregnancy at the outset (even as a part of Sarah Palin's biography -- "expectant grandmother," maybe???) rather than let the news come out on the first day of the Convention, but perhaps they had their reasons. If I have learned one thing over the last few weeks, it's that I have consistently underestimated the political instincts of the McCain Campaign. Perhaps this is all part of their grand plan? Whether it is or not -- and whether that plan will work -- remain to be seen.

Tonight's speech would have been make-or-break for her even without the distractions of the last few days, but because of it, the stakes are astronomically high for Palin as she prepares for her primetime address to the GOP Delegates and, in all likelihood, millions of Americans watching at home. Here's hoping it's her turn to hit a home run!

Sarah Palin: A Homerun for McCain?

It appears McCain has indeed "swung for the fences" with his vice presidential selection. All signs this morning point to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, someone I've mentioned here on a couple of different occasions. (And someone who a BraggingWrites commenter "Ted", really, really liked).

In a normal year with a level playing field, McCain's choice should have been Mitt Romney. But McCain is facing an uphill battle over the next two months. In Barack Obama, he is up against an extraordinarily well-funded, remarkably charismatic candidate. The anti-GOP sentiment in the country is real and formidable, as is the so-called "Bush Fatigue". (McCain also inadvertently dealt an enormous blow to Romney's chances of being chose with his "inability" to answer a question last week about how many houses he and Mrs. McCain own).

So, who is Sarah Palin? At 44 years old, she is the first female Governor of Alaska, an accomplished outdoors(wo)man and athlete, and a former beauty queen who finished second in the Miss Alaska contest in 1984. She and her husband have five children, the eldest of whom will be headed to Iraq in September with the Army. She is currently the most popular governor in America (in terms of her statewide approval ratings), and she has a record of reform, particularly in terms of aggressively fighting corruption. Perhaps most importantly for McCain, who continues to be viewed with some suspicion from the "base" of the GOP, Palin's conservative bona fides -- social and fiscal -- are unassailable. Lastly, as a woman, she has the potential to appeal to disenchanted Hillary supporters.

What will we hear about her from Democrats or anti-McCain members of the media?

1. She's too inexperienced: While it is true that she is relatively green, she is really no less experienced than Barack Obama, and he's at the top of the Democratic ticket! (And in terms of executive experience, by virtue of having any, she already has more than Obama). Quite frankly, I don't think the "experience" argument is one that Democrats will want to make given the obvious and potentially unfavorable comparisons to Obama's experience (or lack thereof) that will result.
2. The "scandal" in Alaska: Quite frankly, I can't completely understand this one as it seems to be rather complex. Long story short, Governor Palin fired the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety and offered him a spot running the state's ABC Board instead. He turned down the offer, and then alleged that Palin had fired him because of his refusal to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who is in the process of divorcing Palin's sister. The story is full of twists and turns and at the end of the day, I don't think it has any legs.
   

Given the reality of the political situation facing McCain, I believe that, on balance, he has made an excellent choice. It's unexpected, it's going to catch many in the media off-guard (in a beneficial way for McCain), it's bold, and it reinforces McCain's "maverick" reputation for which he is so often praised.

I think the Palin choice is a game-changer, and that's exactly what McCain needs.

---

UPDATE: ABC News reports that Palin is still in Alaska, raising the prospect that she is, not, in fact the choice. Personally I believe this is a smokescreen designed to throw the media off the scent. BUT, if she indeed is not the pick, watch for three more wild-card women to emerge as the actual pick:

1. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman
2. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
3. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

We'll know by Noon today at the absolute latest...

Will McCain Swing for the Fences?

As we finally enter the homestretch of the 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama should probably have a 5- to 10-point lead in the polls, but instead finds himself effectively tied with (or even trailing) John McCain. In generic poll after generic poll, Democrats are decisively favored over Republicans, yet for some reason, Obama lags. The Obama Campaign knows this, is nervous about it, and their anxiety has started to show. In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama made a tacit admission that a bolstering of his experience and qualifications – particularly with regard to foreign policy – was necessary. Biden is not likely to do any harm for Obama’s chances, particularly given that I would expect the Obama Campaign to have him speak only on a scripted basis to avoid his infamous propensity to put his foot in his mouth. On the other hand, it’s difficult to make the argument that choosing Biden will help much either. Would a president and vice president who were both sitting senators – Biden for 35 years – really represent a departure from the “same old Washington politics”? Does that truly represent change?

Switching gears, John McCain made a colossal mistake last week. Just at the moment when he seemed to truly be gaining some momentum, he committed a gaffe that will likely haunt him all the way until Election Day. Asked by two reporters from Politico.com how many houses he and his wife own, McCain offered the following answer:

“I think – I’ll have my staff get to you – It’s condominiums where – I’ll have them get to you”.

Wow. That one hurt. In McCain’s defense, were one to take the time to try to understand the reason he could not provide a clear answer (namely that there are properties owned by his wife’s family trust of which he may not be aware and probably cannot actually be considered an owner), it becomes easier to understand his hesitation or inability to answer the question. Unfortunately for McCain, no one is going to take that time. The national media certainly won’t, though were Obama to commit a similar mistake I feel confident his fourth estate admirers would quickly come to his rescue. No, regardless of the nuances or complexities that led to his non-answer, the narrative has been established that John McCain is so “rich” and so “out of touch” that he cannot even keep track of how many houses he and his wife have. In a time of economic weakness – especially when the housing market is bearing much of the brunt – this is the type of answer that loses elections.

Meanwhile, back at the Democratic Convention, Monday night was initially billed as Michelle Obama’s time to shine. This changed slightly when Ted Kennedy – “’lion’ of the Senate” – opted to make the trip to Denver, and then further, to address the convention. It is truly sad that Kennedy is gravely ill with a terrible disease I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But can the Democratic Party and the media spare me some of the sycophantic coverage of the “heroic” Kennedy making the “courageous” journey “against medical advice” to “summon the strength” to speak in order to symbolically “pass the torch” to Barack Obama? As John McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk, my friends. To the extent that Ted Kennedy was ever worthy of holding the same torch as either of his late brothers, that torch was extinguished by the water underneath Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick in 1969 – along with the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. I couldn’t help but wonder if Chris Matthews was aware of the irony when he said on MSNBC Monday night:

“He’s a sentimental guy, whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, and he looks out for other people”.

Really?

Speaking of Democratic political giants prone to moral failings, when Bill Clinton addresses the convention on Wednesday night, many in the Obama Campaign will be watching nervously to see just how warm or sincere he seems in his support of Obama. Already controversy has surfaced over the former president’s reported displeasure at being scheduled to speak on a night the DNC has themed “Securing America’s Future”. Apparently “The Man from Hope” would much rather speak on economic issues and is bitter about a missed opportunity to do what he loves most: talk about himself. Obviously Clinton believes the economic strength of the 1990’s is his best chance for a lasting legacy not involving the name “Monica”, and it’s a safe bet that the narcissist-in-chief will say as little about Obama as he thinks he can get away with, attempting instead to better his own political standing first and foremost, and if he has extra time, that of his wife too. I remain puzzled that Obama did not dispatch with both Clintons on the convention’s first night, much as McCain is smartly doing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Day One of the GOP Convention. The Clintons and the ever-present melodrama in their wake pose a real threat to distract from one of the Obama Campaign’s best opportunities to introduce their candidate to the nation on their terms. And the Clintons wouldn’t have it any other way.

Looking ahead to Thursday night, Obama is slated for his own star turn. Rather than address the convention in the convention hall as is traditionally done, he and his campaign have opted instead to use neighboring Invesco Field (home of the Denver Broncos) so that “The One” can make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 adoring disciples. I predict that, like his “premature victory lap” in Europe, the Obama Campaign may come to regret sensationalizing and over-hyping what is almost certainly the most important speech any presidential candidate ever gives in the course of a presidential campaign. American voters get it by now. We understand that people literally faint at his rallies, that it’s “cool” to support Obama, and even a Republican like me can’t help but find the Illinois Senator awfully likeable at times on the surface. What American voters may not get, however, is just precisely what is in store for us if Obama becomes president. It seems unlikely we’ll learn much more on Thursday, as a speech in an outdoor stadium to such an enormous crowd is not a setting that lends itself to a serious and sober discussion of what specifically Obama plans to do as president. In making this choice, the Obama team will only perpetuate the very negatives so aptly pointed out in McCain’s “Celeb” ad. Hope and change are wearing thin, and “I’m not George W. Bush” is in and of itself not sufficient rationale for being elected to the highest office in the land. Voters want a president, not a rock star.

With back-to-back party conventions likely nullifying the usual post-convention “bounce” in the polls, there’s a great chance that the fall campaign will officially begin in a deadlock. John McCain is likely to name his running mate any day now, and the Republican Convention begins next week. McCain needs a game-changer to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama, and he has a remarkable opportunity for just that after Obama’s bland, status quo choice of Biden. The how-many-houses gaffe should effectively eliminate Mitt Romney as a potential vice president for McCain, because having an honest-to-God multi-millionaire join the ticket with a man now being portrayed as fabulously wealthy and aloof would make the Obama Campaign’s ads too easy. On the other hand, an argument could be made that McCain’s misstep last week boosts Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s chances given his bona fide blue collar background, but in many ways, Pawlenty represents the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either. McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Each has pros and cons to be sure, but unlike Obama, McCain’s vast experience affords him more leeway to swing for the fences in selecting his running mate. If he wants to win in November, he may have to do just that.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Barack Obama: "Our American Prayer" ???

Over the last few months there has been much discussion of the quasi-deification of Obama in popular culture. Primarily it has been tongue-in-cheek, and the McCain campaign even got in on the action, releasing a clever ad a few weeks ago called "The One" that humorously took on the phenomenon.

Today, however, I was directed to a YouTube video. I can't accurately describe it, other than to say it's just downright creepy, and so I would only encourage you to watch it for yourself:

What I can say with confidence is that this is not the sort of thing that will help Obama. Voters, I think, have some degree of fatigue when it comes to celebrities using their fame to promote their political views. This video, though, takes the "Obamessiah" phenomenon to an entirely new and arguably inappropriate level, tosses in a healthy dose of celebrity worship for good measure, and the end result is an extremely bizarre and, in my view, off-putting production. The more this video is seen, the better it is for John McCain.

"Dream Ticket" Déjà Vu

Here's a slight follow-up to today's earlier post: Can Obama Close the Deal?

As I wrote, with all of the bumps in the road for Obama and his team lately, it should come as no surprise that the Obama Campaign leaked Monday evening that his vice presidential selection was imminent. It was a good move, taking the focus away from Obama’s shaky weekend performance at Saddleback, and probably attempting to preemptively bury news of a McCain lead in the polls that their internal polling may have already indicated was coming. Indeed, since Monday night, the Obama veep frenzy has been at full steam, and the three names that are most commonly mentioned now as the likely choice are Delaware Senator Joe Biden (this week’s fashionable pick), Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (the flavor du jour in early August), and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (the first trial balloon floated by the Obama camp last month). Each man has his strengths and weaknesses, and Biden and Bayh in particular would represent very safe choices. But I smell a rat, and I think Obama has a surprise up his sleeve.

All of this week's buzz and especially the heavy focus on Biden, Bayh and Kaine may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In fact, I suspect this is an elaborate ruse designed to give maximum impact and surprise value to the person who I now believe (and who Republicans most fear) Obama will tap as his running mate: Senator Hillary Clinton. Yes, I’m aware of the many reasons why he wouldn’t or shouldn’t pick her, and I feel certain that in his heart-of-hearts, he does not truly want to pick her. But if today's Reuters/Zogby poll is correct and he is now trailing McCain, he may just need Hillary, her electoral strength, and perhaps most importantly, her supporters. Choosing Clinton would ensure that next week’s convention would be a veritable love-in for the Democratic Party, and the groundbreaking ticket of an African-American and a woman would be historic manna from heaven for the media. The GOP largely recognizes this, and I think any realistic Republican would admit that if Obama picks Hillary, it’s game, set and match for the Democrats.

Could the “dream ticket” become a reality? More and more, I think it just may.

(A version of this post can also be seen at amNewYork's Politirazzi).

Can Obama Close the Deal?

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. An argument can be made however, that the trip was a mistake, and that in fact, it marked a turning point in the campaign at which McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. Have the last few weeks simply been bumps in the road for the usually brilliant Obama Campaign, or do they portend the beginning of a McCain resurgence?

Obamamania reached fever pitch in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and lastly to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to hop the pond, generally enjoying leads in the polls of anywhere from 6 to 10 points. As a Republican, I was admittedly nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a very presidential feel to it – certainly by design – and while I was apprehensive about the Obama Campaign’s ability to help the voters envision a President Obama, it now appears they may have overplayed their hand. The bottom line is that the trip was over-the-top. No presidential candidate has ever attempted such a bold maneuver during the campaign. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama Campaign staffers in Freudian slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. Then, of course, there was the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, a second-choice venue after the campaigns request to use the Brandenburg Gate – site of JFK’s and Ronald Reagan’s famous presidential speeches – was denied. Tens of thousands did indeed turn out to hear Obama’s speech, one in which he proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” and that included lines such as “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.” This line epitomized the hubristic nature of the entire trip, and ultimately, I believe many Americans were put-off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain Campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” I think the Obama Campaign recognized this too, evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a “bump” in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from John McCain and his campaign. First there was the now well-known “Celeb” ad released by McCain, comparing Obama and his fame to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. While many in the media echoed the Obama Campaign’s response that the ad was silly or juvenile, McCain surrogate and friend, Senator Lindsay Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose, and likely the reason for its subsequent effectiveness. When asked about it, Graham said the primary theme of the ad was, "fame without portfolio. [There is this] hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there. So fame without portfolio is sort of fashionable. But leadership without experience is dangerous." This ad represented one of the deftest moves to date by McCain and his campaign. By using Hilton and Spears in the ad, attention was guaranteed, but more importantly, they used that attention to shrewdly call attention to a key argument of theirs that Obama is the proverbial “empty suit”. The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One”, poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on fervor of religious proportions.

And the hits kept coming. Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and opined as to the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” The McCain Campaign reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which it seems obvious was the case. In a slow pre-Olympics news cycle, this was the primary story for several days, eventually forcing Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to respond. When he did so, his explanation of the Senator’s comments was laughable. “What [Obama] was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs claimed, though most saw through this feeble defense and recognized Obama’s comments for what they were. Obama had used a similar line before, but the irony was that neither McCain nor the RNC, (or anyone else affiliated with either) have ever made comments or claims like those Obama referenced. Doing so, they realize, would be extremely unwise politically, and so the McCain campaign was very wise to promptly call Obama out on his ploy, as doing so was the best way to prevent him from trying a similar, racially-tinged maneuver later in the campaign.

Obama’s late summer of discontent was still not over yet, though. Towards the end of July and first part of August, stories began to surface about Democratic “nervousness” about Obama’s apparent inability to “close the deal” against McCain. Generic polls show the American public decisively favoring Democrats this election year, yet the party’s nominee was finding himself in essentially a statistical tie with McCain in the polls. There was chatter about the party having “buyer’s remorse” in selecting Obama over Hillary Clinton. Exacerbating this was Obama’s curious decision last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party behind Obama, the argument can be made that it will do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of hardcore Hillary supporters such as the so-called P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass") group who still are extremely reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband too. It’s inconceivable that this subplot and the almost certain drama that will follow won’t distract from the Democratic Party’s “official” introduction of Obama to the nation. Further, Obama’s acquiescence to the Clinton’s demands prolongs some of the doubts many Democrats may have about him, and calls into question his willingness or ability to take a stand for himself.

Barack’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at Saddleback Church in California. Both candidates appeared there for the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of the very popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, telling Pastor Rick “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”. Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have an informed opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s. McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and likeable, and he was as forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. On issue after issue, McCain gave answers that seemed to have far greater depth than those of his relatively inexperienced opponent. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I actively felt enthusiastic about John McCain, Republican Nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience – both political experience and life experience – was impossible to miss. The Obama Campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months – none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally – perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect Obama would be in serious trouble by now.

And maybe he is. In a bit of shocker, a Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows McCain with a 5-point lead over Obama -- a 12-point shift in the Arizona Senator's favor from July, when Obama led by as many as 7 points. In reality, the polls fluctuate frequently, but it's obvious that this race is very close – probably tied or with Obama leading very slightly. So perhaps Democrats should be nervous, and maybe there is just cause for buyer’s remorse. After all, as the stakes increasingly rise and the spotlight progressively brightens, it seems as though Obama and his campaign are more frequently failing to rise to the occasion. But as much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. The Obama Campaign realizes this, and the primary reason the Obama campaign leaked news of an impending vice presidential selection yesterday was almost certainly to place the focus back on their candidate, on a new story, and to return to some of the excitement and energy surrounding Obama that they have used to such great effect throughout this election year. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama and his campaign begin to again rise to the occasion? Can he close the deal?

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Not the Hillary We Thought We Knew?

Despite being a Republican, I will readily admit that I gained newfound respect for Hillary Clinton during the course of her campaign, particularly the tenacity with which she continued to battle Barack Obama until the very end. I was frequently impressed by her command of facts and the ease with which she could articulate her positions. She debated well, and showed flashes of humor and charm that I had not previously seen. I had decided a few months ago that if there had to be a Democrat in the White House, I hoped it would be Hillary. I felt she was more qualified than Obama, and from the standpoint of national security and foreign policy, I felt that she’d be less likely to “go wobbly” on us, to quote the great Margaret Thatcher.

With that said, in reading Joshua Green’s much-discussed article this month in The Atlantic, I feel as though a Hillary Clinton presidency might have been far worse than I had begun to think. Green’s article is a must-read for political junkies (particularly the juicy memos and emails that Green obtained and provides), but for Clinton supporters – especially those who contributed to or raised money for her campaign – I recommend a stiff drink prior to, during and probably after reading it.

The article exposes a campaign riddled with paranoid infighting, hurt by damaging leaks, weakened by inept financial management, crippled by an absence of contingency planning and, most of all, fundamentally flawed by shockingly poor leadership from the top – from Hillary, herself. Green paints a picture of a candidate who, despite starting her campaign with a seemingly insurmountable set of advantages, still managed to make mistakes often enough and significant enough to squander everything. A Hillary Clinton is revealed in the article far different from the one we saw on the campaign trail, often exuding confidence and strength. Instead, the reader meets a Hillary who is unwilling and/or unable to make the tough decisions, incapable of maintaining cohesion among her senior staff, and alarmingly unskilled at quickly adapting her strategy, message and resources on the fly – an imperative in a national campaign.

For those who supported Hillary, I suspect reading this will be unsettling and almost incomprehensible. After all, presumably so much of what attracted them to her in the first place seems to be completely lacking. For those who contributed to the Clinton Campaign, the mismanagement of campaign resources chronicled in the article is staggering, and sure to prompt stomach-turning regret about where that check could have been spent instead. For me, someone who had started to reconcile himself to the real possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, there is great relief. If a President Hillary had exhibited the indecisiveness and ineptitude of Candidate Hillary, the country would have paid the price. Speaking of paying the price, if a Hillary Clinton Administration had mismanaged taxpayer money as woefully as they did campaign funds, the consequences would have been tremendous.

In many presidential campaigns, an important test of the candidates is often overlooked, particularly for those candidates who lack “executive experience”, such as Clinton, Obama and McCain this year. In actuality, running a campaign – now nearly a billion dollar enterprise with thousands of employees, incredibly high stakes and stratospheric stress levels – is perhaps one of the best indicators of a candidate’s executive ability and skills. There are few governors (even few CEO’s) who have had to deal with an operation as complex as a presidential campaign. If Green’s article is accurate, Hillary failed this test spectacularly. On the other hand, to Barack Obama’s credit – and as much as I might worry about his lack of experience – his campaign has been run to near perfection thus far. Should he go on to win in November, I’ll be able to take some comfort in that knowledge.

---

As an aside, I was recently asked by amNewYork -- an excellent and growing publication here in NYC -- to contribute to their political blog, Politirazzi (http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/). My first post -- the same content you just read -- was published there today. I'd encourage you to check out Politirazzi frequently, as there are 11 other individuals blogging there as well, and the commentary is intelligent and thought-provoking. In addition to my new work with Politirazzi -- and those of you who have been reading BraggingWrites for awhile probably know this already -- I have also been contributing a weekly column to a fantastic website called SpliceToday (http://splicetoday.com/) for a few months now. My column -- called "Far Corner, Right Side" -- is political in nature every other week, and about basically anything else in between. I would also encourage you to check out SpliceToday as often as you can for an eclectic mix of content and commentary. This happened to be a non-political week for me at Splice, and so if you're a football fan, you might enjoy this week's column about Brett Favre's move to the New York Jets. As always, thanks for reading, thanks for commenting, and thanks for the support!

Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).