Blog

One of the questions that will be endlessly debated will be whether the convention provided John McCain with a bump up or a bounce (coming back down). You can imagine mechanisms for how a convention could do both. As Patrick pointed out, George W. Bush’s 2004 convention bump gave an enduring lead in the polls.

For example, the Democratic convention likely provided some permanent consolidation of the Democratic base. Hillary Clinton supporting voters probably came home in some part to Barack Obama. These will likely result in a sustained increase in Obama’s floor vote. The convention provided a moment for Hillary-supporting core Democratic base voters to return ot the party’s fold.

Turning to the Republicans, we see a similar mechanism in play that might result in a permanent increase in McCain’s floor. From the new ABC/WaPo poll, we note the cross-tabs of white women

White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences. The other, also to McCain’s advantage, is in the battleground Midwest, where he’s moved from a 19-point deficit to a 7-point edge.

White women supporting McCain could be attributed to any number of factors. The most obvious is Palin’s star appeal, but also McCain’s focus on service.

But another possibility is that white women are simply coming home to the Republican party. In CNN’s 2004 exit poll, George W. Bush beat John Kerry 55-44 among white women.

In other words, white women voters who should be (or at least easily could be) Republican voters are now back to supporting the Republicans this cycle. Don’t look for this dump to turn into a temporary bounce. This is a real phenomenon with a real mechanism, not some temporary blip caused by a whirlwind of media.

MyDD’s desmoinesdem points to this David Yepsen piece about reforming the Iowa caucus system. Yepsen notes, following Marc Ambinder, that both parties have created commissions to revisit the caucus process. Yepsen says:

It’s one thing to tell critics to buzz off or to outmaneuver them during internal party skirmishes. It’s another, more public-minded thing to say, "You know, you’ve got a point, and here’s what we’ve done to address your concerns." […]

So, while the 2012 election seems eons away, the procedural fights leading up to it aren’t. Iowa’s political leaders will need to move quickly after the election to discuss the changes they want to make to their processes to protect the caucuses while making them better. (It’s also wise to discuss these changes now, while institutional memories are fresh and before new leaders and staffers are in place in three years, when the cycle begins again.)

Yepsen recommends a series of changes including running the caucuses with county auditors, using secret ballots (already done by Republicans), allowing absentee ballots, picking a better day, dis-allowing same-day registration, and setting national standards.

I should point out that at the RNC’s Convention Rules Committee, a coalition of military groups fought to add language supporting a guaranteed right to vote for active duty military in all presidential nominating contests. While the langauge was gutted by the party establishment, the final language in the RNC rules is now:

Any process authorized or implemented by a state Republican Party for selecting delegates or alternate delegates or for binding teh presidential preference of such delegates may use every means practicable in the sole discretion of the state Republican Party, to encourage active military personnel the opportuntiy to exercise their right to vote.

This passes the buck to state Republican Parties who may yet decide to do the right thing and guarantee our servicemen and women the right to vote. Now with Yepsen on the side of this right (and the rights for others), there is a good chance that the caucus system may shift before the next election. And if Iowa moves, so move the rest of them.

 

Regarding the recent statements by Howard Gutman, making the kinds of attacks that Barack Obama has personally disavowed, Obama broke his word. Typically, there has been no consequences. In fact, as Jim Geraghy notes, this has been a pattern:

No sign that Gutman has departed the Obama campaign. In fact, we’re getting a rerun of something we saw earlier this year. Whenever we saw an Obama surrogate — say, Wes Clark, George McGovern, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie, Ed Schultz or Tony McPeak — attacking John McCain’s war record, the response was always the same – a short, curt, pro forma "we disapprove" statement from a spokesman, with no real consequences for the surrogate who stepped out of line.

We really have to start pressuring this guy to keep his word on this stuff. There is something profoundly fraudulent about his claims of a new kind of politics, pre-emptively denouncing this stuff, and then doing nothing when it acually happens.

In the case of Gutman, the appropriate response is clear. Minimally, he should remove Gutman from the Finance Committee and from any formal role in the campaign. If he were serious about any of this, he would give back some or all of Gutman’s money.

But Obama isn’t serious about his commitments. So it won’t happen.

Their reporters are ashamed, so why aren’t they?

Yesterday, I noticed these very strange first two
paragraphs of a Politico story:

The liberal blogosphere was abuzz Friday with
news that a friend of Sarah and Todd Palin had tried to seal his
divorce records.

Surely, the Netroots speculated, that friend must be the
unnamed business partner whom this week’s edition of the National
Enquirer alleges — without proof so far — was romantically
linked to Palin. The McCain campaign’s characterization of the
story as a “vicious lie” seemed to only fuel more speculation.

The reporter makes explicit that he (or at least they. The they
of the media and the Politico) are being driven by the netroots. At
least the Politico is self-conscious enough (or post-modern enough)
to admit its role in the farce. He goes on to note:

Those who couldn’t make it to the Palmer courthouse in person
were out of luck for much of Friday, since the court’s website
crashed from all the traffic directed to it by a link on Andrew
Sullivan’s blog.

It couldn’t be clearer that the media is not being driven by the
responsible lefty news outlets like Talking Points Memo, but by the
delusional crazies like DailyKos and FireDogLake (and, now, sadly
Andrew Sullivan, once a serious person).

In that context, Diane
West quotes Steve Schmidt in the Washington Times

Mr. Schmidt said. “Many reporters have called the campaign and
have apologized for asking the questions and said, `Our editors are
making us do this, and I am ashamed.'”

These are the same editors that are signing off on stories, and
probably encouraging them, like Vogle’s. It is clear who to blame
both for the irresponsible coverage and the self-destruction of the
media’s credibility.

At this rate, they will continue to destroy themselves and elect
John McCain and Sarah Palin. In a twisted, way I think, “bless
their hearts.” They’ll defeat themselves and Barack Obama. Two
birds with one stone.

 Today, the a twist of fate delivered a great softball to John McCain. Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in prison. What do the speechwriters add to the speech?

"I brought change to Washington. I exposed the corrupt Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I helped put a figure of the Washington establishment in prison. That’s change."

I just sat down with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell today. I asked him what the message coming out of the very short conclusion of Congressional action this fall. The key thing is that there will be two actions. The Democrats will abdicate their responsibility to pass appropriations bill and just pass a Continuing Resolution.

The second will be an energy bill. This is not a bad issue for Republicans. In fact, it is an outstanding issue. "Drill Here, Drill Now" seems to have hit a significant nerve for the American people. That will be the significant political fight of the month. That’s old news.

But consider this idea from Marc Ambinder:

Sarah Palin is, quite simply, the celebrity of September. Interest in her will be enormous. Just as Democrats painted on Barack Obama’s blank canvass in January and February of 2007, Republicans and independents will get the chance to fill in their view of Gov. Palin. She’s the new thing. The object of curiosity. The press and the larger media will obsess over her and her family and her life. 

 If Palin talks about energy for the next month, an area that she knows extremely well. So the dominant Congressional political issue happens to converge with her strongest issue both in terms of subject expertise and narrative.

And who will she be attacking? Congressional Democrats.

She will move the ball on the issue in Congress. She will move the ball on the politics surrounding Congress. And she will demonstrate expertise on an issue critical to her narrative.

Trifecta.

NYT: We don’t need no stinking balance

Today’s New York Times has a story about Sarah Palin’s critics
in Alaska. These are the “facts” that they use in the story:

• They quote the guy she beat for Mayor of Wasilia.
• They quote a Democratic city council member who says that Palin
  did something but doesn’t corroborate. The person who could have
  corroborated refused to comment.
• They note a guy who she fired and who sued and lost his lawsuit
  over wrongful termination.

In other words, they interview people she beat. Funny. They
don’t like her. Politics ain’t beanbag. I suspect that Barack Obama
knows that too.

The only person they quote who isn’t directly hostile because
they lost a political battle to her is her Deputy Mayor who just
seems to punt.

Now, this is a woman with astronomical approval ratings. Don’t
you think that the New York Times could find at least one person
who would defend her? I mean… She won a primary for Governor
based, in part, on her record in Wasilia. They could have tried, at
least, right?

Give me a break. This isn’t news. This isn’t honest. This is
just the New York Times in full attack mode. And the “newspaper of
record” should be ashamed of itself for publishing it. And William
Yardley should be ashamed for writing it.

Barack Obama’s first statement on Sarah Palin attacked her on a number of issues, including energy:

Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same."

 It has been well-noted that the politics of this attack are completely tonedeaf. But the substance of these attacks are completely dishonest. In fact, Palin’s record clearly demonstrates that she is pro-energy, but has a more complicated relationship with the oil companies. At the same time, Barack Obama can be credibly argued to be in the pocket of "Big Corn" and "Big Coal."

First, Palin’s record on energy is clearly more populist than the traditional Republican line. She has found a way to be pro-energy but express some hostility to energy companies. I point to two things: her support for a windfall profits tax. I don’t understand the details of Alaska energy policy, so I don’t now how to frame this, but I can’t imagine that the energy companies were lobbying for this. Then there’s the pipeline issue I mentioned previously. I don’t now if I support these policies, but I do note that these are clearly not "Big Oil" favoring practices. The take home:

Barack Obama talks about fighting "Big Oil", but he voted for the horrific Energy Bill that Joe Biden and John McCain voted agianst. Sarah Palin, as governor, has beaten "Big Oil" twice.

On a broader strategic level, sometimes we are "pro-energy" and sometimes, indeed, pro-"Big Oil". There are two ways to be opposed to this. You can be anti-"Big Oil" but pro-energy, which seems to be Palin’s answer. Or you can be anti-energy, which is Obama’s answer.

Now let’s actually look at the special interests he has sucked up to. It turns out that Grist, the leading enviro blog, is not at all happy about his positions. Obama’s position seem to result in higher energy prices, environmental degradation, and sucking up to special interests.

At Yearly Kos last year, the Grist blog asked Obama about his coal record. What did he do?

So, lots to talk about, but for now: I’m in a candidate forum with Barack Obama and he was just asked directly about coal. He dodged and weaved, said there would have to be a "transition," and that there would need to be "investments," etc. etc.

Unsatisfying.

Grist’s anger continues:

The piece notes that when Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he claimed that "there’s always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois, standing with miners in a press conference. USA Today also reminds readers that employees of coal companies and electric utilities have contributed $539,597 to his Senate and presidential campaigns, according to campaign finance data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

In May 1998, state Sen. Obama voted in favor of a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and preventing Illinois from making moves to regulate greenhouse gases, at least in part because of pressure from the state’s coal industry. Fast forward a decade, and now Obama calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."

The dynamic here is that there is a lot of Democratic union votes in downstate Illinois that are tied to the coal industry. As the Washington Post put it, he is "stuck between industry and environment." Grist criticizes the underlying ideas behind Obama’s legislative strategy:

With regard to global warming, the very best we could do with CTL is stay on the same disastrous trajectory we are on now. Does that sound like something that deserves taxpayer subsidies?

Why is Obama giving subsidies to companies in exchange for no positive environmental impact? Because he is paying off his buddies. The big interests in his state, he opens the federal treasury to them.

Let’s be clear: Obama is a coal whore.

It doesn’t stop with "Big Coal". There’s also "Big Corn." A friend who is an ethanol lobbyist says that they are big into Obama because McCain opposes both ethanol subsidies and the ethanol tarriff. (I actually asked McCain about the ethanol tarriff when I was with him on the bus in March of 2007, and the MSM people mocked me)

As the NYT notes in a headline, "Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol." Paul Krugman calls this stuff "Demon Ethanol". Here’s what he says:

Well, anyway — the news on ethanol just keeps getting worse. Bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet — what’s not to love?

So let’s be clear: Obama is an ethanol whore.

Now, Obama defenders will say that he is just supporting constituencies in his states, even if it isn’t great for the country or the environent. Sure. That’s true. I accept that explanation.

Except that Sarah Palin, who has oil in her state, is sticking to the oil companies.

Which one is a reformer, an independent, and fights special interests?

I have been floating around the GOP Convention pre-events and talking to people about Sarah Palin. At the meeting of the Convention’s Rules Committee meeting, I have heard that women on the committee and female staff were so excited and moved that they literally started crying. The amount of energy from all parts of the coalition here seem very excited.

Over the last 24 hours, I have started to hear some good, positive, fact-driven arguments for her successes. (after all, the optics are great, but lets start proving some details)

First, from a friend in Canada (!), a statement about one of her achievements as Governor. My friend says:

In the past 18 months she’s gone toe-to-toe with big oil companies like Exxon, Conoco Phillips and BP to get a $30 billion pipeline deal through that will deliver natural gas to the lower 48 states without being owned by the big oilcartel.

For those who follow pipeline politics, which includes the entire Canadian energy sector, it is well known that Palin has revived the Alaska pipeline project from the grave – this was kicking around going nowhere for years under Knowles and Murkowski – and taken it out of the hands of the multinational companies.   The Alaska legislature just passed Palin’s plan this summer.

I don’t understand this point. Something to do more research on. What my friend suggests is that she, once again, challenged "Big Oil"

Another point about ethics. She came to power by fighting for ethics in Alaska. She beat the corrupt Frank Murkowski in a primary. She also fought with individuals in the state party:

This is a state party whose chairman, Randy Ruedrich, has been feuding with Palin for years. Palin exposed Ruedrich for ethical violations in 2004 when both served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — and their relationship has been frosty ever since.

Ruedrich declined to comment at the historic nature of having an Alaskan on the national ticket for the first time in the state’s history.

Contrast this with Barack Obama’s failure to challenge Daley corruption, Emil Jones corruption, union corruption, etc.

I learned two things from watching Sarah Palin.

First she is a hockey mom. That plpays in New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Second, her husband is a member of the Steelworkers’ union. That plays in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.