This is a great one from John McCain today regarding the two Democrats still in the race:
At least it is to me, but according to the recent head-to-head polls pitting McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs. Obama, McCain leads in both matchups (by 9 points over Obama and 5 over Clinton).
The negativity in the late-stage battles between the Dems may be to blame and it may not last...in fact we can expect the usual ups and downs in polls in upcoming months leading up to conventions and the November election. But considering the prevailing opinion in the media and generally, this is a pleasant surprise.
Undoubtedly this is in part due to McCain's strength among independents, but it does not tell us what the conservative base will do and how motivated they are. This will be a critical factor for him in the fall.
And I still have the same areas of concern I had about McCain all along. That said, compared to the Democrats and on the most critical issues of the war on terror, the economy and national debt and expenditures, and the Supreme Court, I trust McCain far more than Clinton or Obama.
An interesting post to the National Review's "Corner" blog mentions the challenge right now with Obama, in that nearly every challenge or question presented to his candidacy is derided on the basis of being racist/insensitive. As this post suggests, Clinton is even being out-Clintoned by all this!
Perhaps, VDH suggests, McCain may be a proper antidote to some of this:
"McCain may become a proper antidote for all this. Unlike the verbose Michelle Obama, he really has suffered in his life; unlike Barack Obama he really has reached across the aisle and paid a price for it; and unlike Obama's promises of transparency, he really does talk in specifics and bluntly rather than in mellifluous platitudes. And as for an against-the-odds candicacy, in postmodern America a 71-year-old survivor of communist torture and malignant melonoma seems to match the narrative of a young Ivy-League graduate of mixed ancestry."
Hillary did finally win Texas also, which gave her 3 of the 4 states voting yesterday, including the "big two." I don't think it erases all Obama's momentum, nor does it give a big swing to Hillary going forward, but it does make it a race again, when it was starting to look like Obama would roll.
So, for the Dems it will continue to be a dog fight. I find it interesting that according to a number of media accounts, Obama was finally asked some tough questions by the media this week (he really hasn't been up to now), and it did seem to swing some support away from him and to Hillary. That may indicate Obama has some real weaknesses and has come this far mostly on an emotional wave of support. Emotional waves do have a way of cresting at some point.
It all remains to be seen and is very fluid.
For the Republicans, we won't be on the front cover much for a bit since McCain has clinched the nomination now, but it's a time to do behind-the-scenes raising of money, and planning, and consolidating of support. I'm sure McCain will also continue to take pot shots at the Democrats. ;-)
McCain swept the four primaries held today: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. That puts him over the top in terms of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Huckabee finally conceded the race.
Not that it really means much, but in terms of "moral victories" Romney will end up second place in the delegate count, still ahead of Huckabee despite Huckabee having stayed in the race longer.
The Democrats still will not have their race decided today. Clinton has won Ohio and Rhode Island. Obama wins Vermont. Texas as of right now is still too close to call, though Clinton has a very tiny lead. Particularly if she wins Texas, she will still be in the race.
Sorry no recent posts the past few days - I've been out of town. More on the series looking at McCain v. Obama to come in the next few days though!
Next we will look at the distinctions between McCain and Obama on economic policy and leadership.
Much has been made during the Republican primary process about McCain’s admission that a personal understanding of economics is not his strong suit. Appropriately so. However, it’s not hard to look at the general approach to economic policy that characterizes the two parties, as well as the voting record of McCain vs. Obama on economic issues.
Since Barack Obama had the most consistently liberal vote in the US Senate last year, we should consider the general liberal/progressive view of taxation and economic issues. Because the liberal political philosophy focuses on large-scale government solutions to problems, which costs money, liberals are often forced/pressured into increased taxing to pay for these programs. They will generally vote against tax cuts. And they generally prefer to really crank up the taxes on the “wealthy” and you hear "class warfare" rhetoric from liberals constantly (think of John Edwards' "two America's" lines).
McCain voted against President Bushes tax cuts early on, but says it was because legislators were not willing to cut expenses at the same time. Overall, though, he has a record of preferring tax cuts and avoiding tax increases and has made such a pledge if he becomes president.
And on the other side of the ledger he's one of the best Republicans around at working to limit government growth and spending and deficits. He could be one of the best Presidents ever in this very important ongoing effort.
Occasionally you will note that I am still in mourning over Mitt Romney. The economy was and is his strong suit. McCain doesn’t have any particular personal advantage or skill in this area, but his principles are strong and generally market oriented. The liberal agenda I don’t believe to be particularly good for the economy. However, either person as president will get advice from people who are more skilled and knowledgeable than they are.
I see this as a matter of tax policy as much as anything as well as "larger government" vs. "limited government" and I strongly prefer McCain’s approach to Obama's.
Now let’s tackle what will be one of the two top issues which will define the differences between the two parties and between the two candidates this fall: the War on Terror, including it’s
Both candidates say, for the record, that protecting Americans and the world from the assaults of terrorists is important. That’s where the agreement ends. The differences begin with the overall assessment of the level of importance and priority that should be assigned to this conflict.
Since Obama has shown exactly zero inclination to differ from his party on this issue, I will present his side based not only on Obama’s own statements, but the general position of Democratic Party leaders.
For Democrats, I believe it is fair to state their position on the problem this way: “Although 9/11 was a national tragedy, and radical Islamists certainly would like to harm us, we don’t believe it represents a mortal threat to the United States; in fact, we would not even call it a “war” because that just invites conflict and causes people to hate America more than they already do. It’s not worth all the blood and treasure we have spent on the conflict so far. There are other, more pressing priorities for us: stopping global warming, reducing poverty, giving everyone health care and expanding other government entitlements.”
For Republicans and John McCain, I would state it this way: “On 9/11, it became clearer than ever that we face a threat in radical Islamic jihadism that has the potential to destroy much of what
Where Barack Obama has said that his principle goal would be to get us out of Iraq within a year as his main priority, John McCain has said that his goal would be to continue to learn and adjust so that we may be more effective and able to win in Iraq and achieve our aim there of having a stable ally, able to maintain its own internal security, and with a functioning representative democracy in an area of the world that has never had this before in its history.
Barack Obama has placed himself in a position where if things continue to improve in
Obama’s position also has the practical effect of demeaning the tremendous physical and emotional sacrifice and courage of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in
John McCain will be as strong as President Bush in the prosecution of the war, but I suspect will be wiser and more sure in his approach. He has been willing to criticize tactics in
The third area of contrast I would present between McCain and Obama is in what we know about their leadership ability. I think it’s fair to say that the summation of all Obama’s resume of high-level leadership experience is this: he has run some effective political campaigns and been elected to office. He has served as a leader in the Illinois state legislature, and is just into his second term in the U.S. Senate. That to me is a fairly thin portfolio for the person who would be leader of the free world. (I will avoid here the temptation I feel to regret the fact that we lost out on the candidate with the strongest and most compelling leadership experience resume: Mitt Romney…[sigh]…)
However, I will give him this aspect of leadership ability: he is inspiring and can capture an audience. This is one very important element of leadership, but of course not the only important element.John McCain, in contrast, has been a leader of men in the military, has also led many successful political campaigns, and has been a political leader of a number of political causes. And although there are a number of those political causes which I personally disagreed with him on, there’s no question he has a lot more political courage than most, as he has shown a willingness to take on both political friends and political enemies for those causes. If you want a President with political backbone, who is willing to stand on principle rather than polls and popularity, then John McCain is clearly your man.
Barack Obama has not shown a similar inclination to act on principle rather than party, in that he has been perhaps the most consistent party-line and liberal vote in the Senate, as evidenced by his ranking as 2007's "most liberal senator" based on a liberal think tank ranking. If it really has been his principles rather than party affiliation that have led to this record, then he certainly is not in the American mainstream in his beliefs and policies. As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer noted in a Jan 13th 2008 article: “The freest of all passes to Obama [from the media] is the general neglect of the obvious central contradiction of his candidacy—the bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn, on every policy, an unwavering, down-the-line, unreconstructed, uninteresting, liberal Democrat. He doesn’t even offer a modest deviation from orthodoxy.”
[Quick note: I should have said this from the start of this series of posts just to make it perfectly and forthrightly clear: I do not favor one of these candidates over the other based on their race, their gender, their age, or their particular religion. I would favor one over the other only due to differences in policies, ability, skills, and character. If Condoleeza Rice was running for the Republicans, I would vote for her in a second. If Senator Harry Reid (a Mormon, and current Senate Majority Leader) were running for the Democrats, I’m sure I wouldn’t vote for him. For the Democrats, “identity politics” based on voting for or against someone based on whether they are a member of “your racial/gender group” has been an issue (particularly in this primary season, it seems). For Republicans, gender and race and age don’t seem to matter so much, but apparently for some, their religious affiliation does (i.e. for some who voted against Romney at least in part due to discomfort with his being Mormon), though these appear to be a fairly small minority.]
[UPDATE: Based on input from a friend, let me clarify also that I don't mean to impugn Democrats or Republicans as a whole in the above statement; I was really more thinking of this campaign season along with some of the recent histories of the parties where some of these group identity issues have played a role. This point has been made by numerous mainstream media sources and bloggers based on exit polling.]Now let’s consider the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama in communication skill. Despite all the advantages I see for McCain compared to Obama, this is an area where Obama has a crushing advantage. Obama is compelling to listen to. His rhetoric is inspiring. McCain too often sounds like…well, a stodgy old Senator. I’m not saying McCain can’t be compelling too, because he can be. But hand it to Barack…he’s very good in this area.
However, there are two issues I have here. 1) At least so far, Obama hasn’t said very much. That is, he says the same things over and over and over. It is great stuff, but once you’ve heard it a time or two, it becomes less compelling. 2) Action is needed, not just words. I do not agree with the criticism suggested by Hillary Clinton and other Obama critics that it’s “just words” or that words don’t matter much. As Obama rightly suggested in response, words can mean a lot and are very important. However, words alone do not cut it. It’s one thing to inspire people as John Kennedy did with “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” It’s another thing to do something or act on that inspiration.
What you really want is someone who can say the words that inspire and in a way that inspires, but who can then also translate it into effective action. That is, you want a Ronald Reagan who could say “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” but could also build up the military and a more focused and strong foreign policy to cause the Soviet Union to implode internally which in turn led to that wall coming down.
Unfortunately, we don’t appear to have a Ronald Reagan running this year. You have Obama’s inspiring words but with almost nothing to show for it, and you have McCain’s more limited ability to communicate and inspire, but with significant practical experience in getting things done in Washington. Since we only get one of the two, you decide what’s more important.
