Archive for the ‘McCain’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

My Favorite Answer

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Thank god that’s over.

By the time my wife and I started watching the debate last night, just after 11 p.m. EST (Tivoed), I’d fairly well convinced myself it would be a debacle for the Dems.

It wasn’t — mainly because Biden did exactly what he had to do: He kept the focus on McCain, McCain’s ties to Bush, and Obama’s plans to raise up the Middle Class.

And he was uncharacteristically disciplined.

Perhaps nowhere was this more clear than when Palin twice flubbed the name of the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, calling him “Gen. McClellan” instead of David McKiernan. Biden somehow managed to hold his tongue and not correct her — which would have been the debacle that neurotic democrats everywhere were expecting. He left it to the media to correct, showing great political instincts.

Make no mistake. If I’m scoring this debate politically (and, really, what else matters?), it’s clear Palin won. The front page headlines in the Akron Beacon Journal this morning, which tell you everything you need to know about how this is playing where it matters, are:
“POINTS OF ATTACK: Palin stands her ground against Biden, sparring on Iraq, economic crisis, energy” and;
“Palin succeeds, considering low expectations; Alaska governor gets past nonsensical answers, shows confidence.”

Nevermind that. And forget the “who won on points” argument.

The lead story, when I turned on CNN this morning, was not the debate, but the House, which was expected to vote on the bailout. The next story was on the jobs report, and the news was even more bleak than most predicted. The U.S. lost 159,000 jobs in September, the biggest loss since 2003. CNN reported that the U.S. has lost 2.2 million jobs in the last 12 months.

When Palin spoke about jobs yesterday, she spoke about tax cuts. “We need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here,” she said.

Right. Because that strategy has worked so well the past eight years. Which part of 2.2 million jobs lost didn’t you pick up on, Gov. Palin?

Meanwhile, Biden spoke of creating jobs by investing in innovative energy solutions. “Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it,” he said. Later, he added that Obama’s energy policy would seek to create 5 million new jobs — a worthy priority, even if a difficult goal to reach.

Frankly, I thought Biden parried very well yesterday.

Palin kept trying to say Obama would “kill” jobs by raising taxes, but when she claimed Obama had voted to raise taxes 94 times, Biden immediately called her on it, nothing that by that same reckoning, McCain has voted “477 tiimes to raise taxes.”

It’s about time a Democrat had the acuity to throw that cheap, unfounded attack back in the face of the GOP. If you are in government long-enough, and you are a sensible lawmaker, you will — of necessity — vote to raise taxes. Reagan’s 1982 tax hike was the largest peace-time tax hike in American history. More followed in 1984 and 1987.

On the flip side, Biden spoke clearly and forcefully to counteract Palin’s false claims about Obama’s supposed tax hikes: “No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break.”

For the record, the NY Times fact checkers today had this to say about Palin’s false claims:

In addressing the issues of taxes, Governor Palin has made claims about Senator Obama’s policies that are not correct. … the McCain campaign months ago abandoned its argument that Mr. Obama favored a historic tax increase. It did so after tax analysts and other economists debunked the claim, saying that nothing contemplated by either party comes anywhere near the tax increases put into effect to fight World War II. Ms. Palin, however, revived the charge.

But my personal favorite answer last night had little to do with taxes, jobs, or the economy. My favorite answer was one I’ve seen quoted nowhere. It hasn’t even been referenced by the multitudes of pundits I’ve seen. And, yet, it may reflect one of the most salient issues in this election.

It came when Gwen Ifill asked about bipartisanship. “How do you change the tone, as vice president, as number two?”

Palin’s answer started with the obvious and veered into the nonsensical. “You do what I did as governor, and you appoint people regardless of party affiliation, Democrats, independents, Republicans,” she said. But most administrations do that. Clinton did that. He appointed a Republican, William Cohen, as his secretary of defense. It’s important, sure, but clearly not enough. The Clinton years, from the outset right up through impeachment, were among the most rabidly partisan in history.

Palin moved on from there to a non sequitur:

And even in my own family, it’s a very diverse family. And we have folks of all political persuasion in there, also, so I’ve grown up just knowing that, you know, at the end of the day, as long as we’re all working together for the greater good, it’s going to be OK.

But the policies and the proposals have got to speak for themselves, also. And, again, voters on November 4th are going to have that choice to either support a ticket that supports policies that create jobs.

You do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses. And you build up infrastructure, and you rein in government spending, and you make our — our nation energy independent.

So, to recap: the way to combat partisanship is to be like Gov. Palin’s family and, also, cut taxes.

Biden, meanwhile, in one of his finest moments in the debate, answered the question by way of a personal anecdote:

I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party’s mind, as well as Republicans’, because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.

Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day — he — I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, “What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?” I said, “I’d feel like a jerk.”

He said, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.”

I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.

I think that’s why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I’ve been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That’s the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people’s motives.

As readers of this blog know, I’ve struggled often to reconcile my passion for the Obama-Biden ticket with my deep and abiding sense that we absolutely must find ways to respect those with whom we disagree. (See my blog post: “Why I Like John McCain.”) Just a few days ago, I wrote of my personal battle against arrogance and self-righteousness, even smugness (How could you not see that I’m right?), as this campaign heads into the home stretch.

What Biden gave us last night is nothing less than a tool to achieve a less partisan America.

Don’t question the motives of the neighbors across the street who have the McCain-Palin sign on their lawn. Assume they have perfectly good and valid reasons for being pro-life; for wanting to “drill baby drill”; for believing the war in Iraq was a just cause. Instead, as Biden learned, make the case for a different direction by questioning their logic, their facts, their fundamental judgments.

If you read “The Audacity of Hope,” if you listen to Obama, you’ll see he has the same approach. This is what attracted me to his candidacy initially, and it is one thing that’s remained a constant throughout this race.

During the first debate, Obama repeatedly said “You’re right, John”; he doesn’t question McCain’s motivations — he’s not threatened by McCain — so he’s free to agree when they hold a belief in common. Obama repeatedly says he “Honors McCain’s service to this great country” — even as it has started to give many Democrats agita. And, during the Democratic Convetion, Obama’s refrain was: “It’s not that John McCain doesn’t care. John McCain doesn’t get it.” In other words: it’s not that we question his motivations — of course he cares. We question his judgments.

Contrast this with the way John McCain talks about Barack Obama.

Consider, for example, McCain’s refrain — repeated recently at the Republican National Convention: “I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me.”

In other words: Obama is motivated by personal ambition, a desire for greatness, not love of country.

Or, remember what McCain said of Obama in Rochester, New Hampshire, in July (and repeated many times since): “Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Again, McCain is saying that Obama is motivated first and foremost by political ambition. He just wants to win — and he’s willing to have troops die and America lose a war, if that’s what it takes.

McCain seems incredulous that, given his record of reaching out across party lines — and given Obama’s thinner resume in this regard — people don’t see him as the candidate of bi-partisanship.

He remains remarkably oblivious to the fact that by constantly questioning Sen. Obama’s motivation — when even a solid majority of voters don’t doubt it — he is clearly and unequivocally undermining his own claims that he will be able to rise above partisanship when it counts.

McCain quipped at the debate that it’s hard to reach across the aisle from so far to the left. Yet McCain couldn’t bring himself to even look across the stage at his opponent in an election.

Why? Because he questions Obama’s motivations.

Twenty-six years in office, and John McCain still hasn’t learned the crucial lesson in bipartisanship that Mansfield taught Biden.

It’s the judgments, stupid.

Tags: , ,
Posted in McCain, Obama | 6 Comments »

McCain and the Missile Crisis

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Last week, we had George Will, the conscience of conservatism, coming out and all but endorsing Obama, noting that his experience gap is not nearly as worrying as McCain’s “dismaying temperament.” (He called McCain the “flustered rookie” — I blogged on it here.)

This morning, we have Nicholas Kristof, one of the most even-handed, respected columnists we have, taking this critique of McCain one step further (“Impulsive, Impetuous, Impatient“), pointing out that if elected, McCain would be “more Bushian in foreign policy than even Mr. Bush is now.” McCain has become steadily more of a cowboy neocon, Kristof writes, “prone to solving problems with stealth bombers rather than United Nations resolutions.”

Suppose John McCain had been in the White House in October 1962, facing one of the great tests of the modern presidency. If so, we might remember that period not as “the Cuban missile crisis” but as “World War III.”

As Mr. McCain demonstrated in Friday evening’s debate, he is a serious foreign policy thinker who has traveled widely, and he certainly showed vision and bipartisanship in helping to repair relations with Vietnam. But it’s equally clear that in recent years Mr. McCain has become impish cubed — impulsive, impetuous and impatient — and those are perilous qualities in a commander in chief.

Kristof then goes on to talk about McCain’s dangerous positions regarding Iran:

If Iran continues to enrich uranium he would feel obliged to launch airstrikes. And while Mr. McCain understands the lack of any effective military solution (we don’t even know exactly what to hit), he can sound cavalier about a new war.

About North Korea:

A McCain administration would thus apparently mean no more diplomatic track with North Korea. The upshot would be North Korea’s restarting its nuclear weapon assembly line. In similar circumstances in 1994, Mr. McCain raised the prospect of military strikes on North Korea and suggested that war might be inevitable (instead, President Clinton stopped plutonium production with a negotiated deal).

And about Russia:

Russia underscores Mr. McCain’s penchant for risk-taking, theatrics and fulmination. Most striking, he wants to kick Russia out of the Group of 8.

Kristof concludes:

In Friday’s debate, Mr. McCain was on his best behavior. But he did reiterate his suspicion of diplomacy with our enemies, and he has often shown that his instinct in a confrontation (whether with a colleague or a country) is the opposite of John Kennedy’s in the Cuban missile crisis; Mr. McCain responds to challenges by seeking to escalate, to fight.

That’s essentially where his column ends. When I read it, I thought immediately of a trip I took a few years back to the JFK Library and Museum in Boston. There was a striking exhibit there at the time, which illustrated just how Kennedy’s cool, measured response to Khrushchev’s escalations quite literally saved the world from nuclear war.

To quickly recap the history: In October, 1962, a U.S. spy plane detected evidence that the Soviets were building missiles in Cuba. Kennedy authorized a naval quarantine around Cuba, to prevent Soviet weapons from reaching the island. Khrushchev deemed the quarantine an “act of war,” and instructed his ships to ignore it. The U.S. went to DEFCON 2, for the only time in our history.

On Oct. 26, with a stalemate at hand, Khrushchev sent Kennedy a long, overwrought, emotional telegram. I went to the State Department online archives, so I could re-read it. (You can find the correspondence here.) The telegram is 2,760 words, thereabouts. Reading it is nearly impossible. It’s at times meandering, at times threatening, at times barely coherent.

Here, though, are the most relevant three paragraphs:

Let us therefore show statesmanlike wisdom. I propose: We, for our part, will declare that our ships, bound for Cuba, will not carry any kind of armaments. You would declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its forces and will not support any sort of forces which might intend to carry out an invasion of Cuba. Then the necessity for the presence of our military specialists in Cuba would disappear.

Mr. President, I appeal to you to weigh well what the aggressive, piratical actions, which you have declared the USA intends to carry out in international waters, would lead to. You yourself know that any sensible man simply cannot agree with this, cannot recognize your right to such actions.

If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

Before Kennedy could respond, Khrushchev sent another missive, continuing his rant, and changing the terms he had offered:

We are willing to remove from Cuba the means which you regard as offensive. We are willing to carry this out and to make this pledge in the United Nations. Your representatives will make a declaration to the effect that the United States, for its part, considering the uneasiness and anxiety of the Soviet State, will remove its analogous means from Turkey.

Essentially, Khrushchev, in increasingly emotional, erratic language, was threatening the U.S. with nuclear war if it did not take a series of steps, including removal of its missiles from Turkey, a NATO ally.

Pause for a moment, and imagine how our two presidential candidates might handle this situation today? Would you rather have McCain, with his finger — and his temperament (impulsive, impetuous, impatient) — on the proverbial button? Or Obama? Which, of the two, is the riskier choice?

Here’s what Kennedy did. He ignored the second telegram. He ignored Khrushchev’s sabre-rattling. He ignored the demand that the U.S. remove its missiles in Turkey. He even ignored the fact that the Soviets had shot down a U.S. spy plane over Cuba that same day. He wrote back to Khrushchev as if the terms of the first letter were still on the table:

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have read your letter of October 26th/1/ with great care and welcomed the statement of your desire to seek a prompt solution to the problem. The first thing that needs to be done, however, is for work to cease on offensive missile bases in Cuba and for all weapons systems in Cuba capable of offensive use to be rendered inoperable, under effective United Nations arrangements.

Assuming this is done promptly, I have given my representatives in New York instructions that will permit them to work out this weekend–in cooperation with the Acting Secretary General and your representative–an arrangement for a permanent solution to the Cuban problem along the lines suggested in your letter of October 26th. As I read your letter, the key elements of your proposals–which seem generally acceptable as I understand them–are as follows:

1) You would agree to remove these weapons systems from Cuba under appropriate United Nations observation and supervision; and undertake, with suitable safeguards, to halt the further introduction of such weapons systems into Cuba.

2) We, on our part, would agree–upon the establishment of adequate arrangements through the United Nations to ensure the carrying out and continuation of these commitments–(a) to remove promptly the quarantine measures now in effect and (b) to give assurances against an invasion of Cuba. I am confident that other nations of the Western Hemisphere would be prepared to do likewise.

This letter was released to the press. Then, through back-channels, Kennedy continued negotiating — eventually agreeing, in a secret deal, to remove the U.S. weapons from Turkey. Krushchev responded by publicly announcing that the Soviets would dismantle their missiles inside Cuba. Nuclear war was averted. What’s more, because the Turkey deal was secret, Russia was widely seen to have backed down.

Obama has taken so much heat for his position about negotiating with our enemies. He’s taken criticism for being too calm, cool, and collected. He’s taking heat these days for not responding more forcefully to McCain during the debate — for being firm and resolute, without resorting to soundbite-style attacks or launching a counter-offensive. Many in the Jewish community write Obama off for even suggesting he would be open to using sticks and carrots with Iran, including holding out the prospect of negotiations.

If we don’t learn from history, I fear, we may be doomed not to repeat it.

Tags: , ,
Posted in McCain, Media, Obama | No Comments »

Best of the NJDC Policy Conference

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

BEST JOKE: Joe Biden

Every year, the Yeshiva University crew team takes on the Harvard crew team, and, every year, Yeshiva gets creamed. Finally, the Yeshiva coach says he’s had enough, and asks one of his team members to go spy on the Harvard team, to learn why they are so successful.  The guy goes and hides in the bushes alongside the river, and watches the Harvard team as it passes by. Then, he leaps up, runs from the riverside, and finds his coach.

"I’ve got it!" he says. "I know the secret to their success! They’ve got eight guys rowing, and only one yelling!"

BEST NON SEQUITUR: Joe Biden

Who added: "That’s what we have to do this election: Ignore the malarkey, distractions, emails, and get behind Barack Obama. Straight up, folks."

BEST OPENER: Al Franken

"Thank you Marc. Thank you Ira. Thank you Jews. Thank you Democrats. Thank you members of the press — some of whom are probably Jews."

BEST POLITICAL ANALYSIS: Al Franken

Who noted that he was running against Sen. Norm Coleman (a Jew) who had succeeded Sen. Paul Wellstone (also a Jew), and concluded: "Minnesota is just not ready for a gentile."

MOST OPTIMISTIC ANALYSIS: William Galston, senior fellow, Brookings Institution

"Assuming Sen. Obama does not stumble badly, the odds are he’ll score a narrow but significant victory along the lines of Bush."

BEST ANALYSIS OF SENATE RACES: Amy Walter, Editor-in-chief of the Hotline

"Essentially in the bank" Democratic pickups: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire

Democrats have a very good shot: Alaska

Possible Democratic pickups, but still a stretch: Oregon, North Carolina

Tougher races for Democrats: Minnesota, Maine

On election night: 4 or fewer Democratic Senate pickups would be a bad night; 5 or 6 are likely to go Democratic; getting over 6 "means that all hell has broken lose."

BEST ANALYSIS OF HOUSE RACES: Nathan Gonzales, political editor, Rothenberg Political Report

"The Democrats are going to pick up seats, we just don’t know how many yet."

He said, possibly: More than 19.

Among the reasons: There are 26 open GOP seats; only 6 open Democratic seats. Also, the Democrats hold a distinct money advantage: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has $54 million in the bank, compared to $14 million for their GOP counterparts. Democrats are outspending Republicans right now 2-to-1 in competitive districts.

BIGGEST UNDERSTATEMENT: Nathan Gonzales

"It’s hip to like Barack Obama. It’s hip to wear an Obama T-shirt. I don’t think many people think it’s cool to wear a John McCain T-shirt."

BEST EXPLANATION OF SOMETHING I’VE BEEN WONDERING ABOUT: Stuart Rothenberg

Who explained that pollsters believe young people who have only cell phones don’t vote differently from young people who have land lines. (Which would mean the notion that Obama’s support is under-counted in the national polls because many of his supporters only have cell phones is likely false.)

BEST ANALOGY: Amy Walter

Who compared the election to the baseball season. Most people, she said, are just tuning in to the baseball season now, as the playoffs are about to start. "I have no idea who led the league in June," she said. "But I know it now." She added: "All those games played during the season mean very little to me." Similarly, she said, so much of what happened during the primaries and even into the general election — for instance, the Rev. Wright controversy — has little impact on people tuning in now. "It’s just stuff that happened," she said.

BEST SOUNDBITE: Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada

Who described a meeting she had in March of 2007 with Condi Rice, who was lobbying for support of the administration’s plan to sell $20 billion worth of advanced weapons to the Saudis. (The sale eventually went through, as was reported by the press in July 2007.)

Berkley was very resistant to providing so much deadly weaponry to a Middle East enemy of Israel.

According to Berkley, Rice said: "The president would not do anything to hurt Israel."

At which point Berkley replied: "With all due respect Madame Secretary. In ten months, you won’t be secretary of state. Bush won’t be president. But I’m still going to be Jewish."

BEST FOREIGN POLICY POINT: Congressman Brad Sherman of California

Who said that without Russia’s help, it would be difficult if not impossible to effectively pressure Iran. Yet McCain and Palin appear ready to start and "rigorously wage" a new Cold War with Russia.

"I don’t think we can beat the Russians and the extremists in two simultaneous wars," he said. "We need a smart foreign policy, not an angry foreign policy."

BEST POLITICAL POINT: Ann Lewis, senior advisor to HillPAC

Asked why the issue of Supreme Court nominees has not resonated even more strongly among liberals, Lewis said the threat is still: "Two ifs away."

If I vote for John McCain and if he appoints someone opposed to reproductive rights. It’s less immediate, she said, then, for example, equal pay for equal work.

BEST DOMESTIC POLICY POINT: Joe Biden

Speaking about John McCain’s plan to open up the health care market in the same way that the GOP has opened up the banking industry, he quoted his father: "Don’t tell me what you value, champ. Show me your budget — I’ll tell you what you value."

BEST OVERALL QUOTE : Steve Rabinowitz, President of Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications

How much time should we be devoting in our communities between now and election day to help Obama win?

"I only ask you to spend your every waking moment," he said. "And then — you can do whatever you want."

Tags: , ,
Posted in Israel, Jewish Interest, McCain, Obama | 5 Comments »

McCain’s September Surprise: The Giuliani Comparison

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

I just returned to Akron from Washington, DC. I’d planned to finish blogging tonight on the NJDC policy conference. I will — tomorrow. In the meantime, I want to say something about McCain’s September Surprise — his call to postpone debates.

If you want the partisan red meat on this, click over to Huffingtonpost, which has a huge screaming headline “McCain Wants a Time-Out,” over a picture of a slightly dazed McCain. Or, watch the clip from Letterman, who got wind of McCain’s announcement during the taping of the show. This, from Drudge:

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, “You don’t suspend your campaign. This doesn’t smell right. This isn’t the way a tested hero behaves.” And he joked: “I think someone’s putting something in his metamucil.”

“He can’t run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sarah Palin. Where is she?”

I want to take this in another, more personal direction.

I was sitting in the audience at the policy conference when the NJDC board chair announced the breaking news that McCain was seeking to postpone the debate. A sort of audible boo-hiss rose from the crowd. I heard at least a couple people make mock chicken sounds. Bawk bawwwwwk.

I’m the Neurotic Democrat, though. I immediately worried: What’s he up to? As soon as I had the chance, I walked upstairs and found a TV at the bar. It quickly became apparent that McCain was positioning this as he had positioned the postponement of the GOP Convention with Gustav bearing down. He was assuming the mantle of leadership, rising above partisanship. It worked for him then — reporters went gaga over his presidential, for-the-good-of-the-nation posturing. Why wouldn’t it work for him now?

I had no idea what Obama should do. Once again, I fretted — as with Sarah Palin — McCain had thrown the world, starting with me, for a loop.

I went back downstairs and started asking everyone I could for their opinion on what Obama should do. A well-respected pollster suggested Obama should hold the economic debate the next night. A top Democrat in the Jewish community said he hoped Obama would stand firm — and make the point that a president should be able to multi-task.

That’s when an Orthodox rabbi, also a Democrat, said confidently that Obama should call McCain’s bluff. He reminded me of Rudy Giuliani’s move to postpone elections after 9-11, extending his term as mayor. Mark Green acceeded to Giuliani’s request. Green’s primary opponent Fernando Ferrer did not. And Green paid a steep price, as this NY Times article from September 2001 recalls:

These contrasting positions, in a year when all the candidates have struggled to balance criticism of Mr. Giuliani with praise of his tenure, caught the eye of many Democrats yesterday, among them Green supporters who were not happy with the turn of events. Some suggested that Mr. Ferrer, who waited for Mr. Green to issue a news release backing Mr. Giuliani before announcing his opposition, had seized the higher ground, at least from the perspective of Democrats who tend to vote in a primary.

Mr. Ferrer said that although the mayor had performed admirably since the attack, his handling of the crisis did not justify changing the law to allow him to linger in City Hall. Mr. Green, who is the public advocate, said he was trying to ensure that the city had an orderly transition during a difficult time.

Essentially, Ferrer was able to accuse Green of being rolled by Giuliani. ”Many Democrats may be suspicious of this kind of arrangement,” Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton’s communications director, told the Times. “Freddy looks big. He looks principled.”

Though Green held off Ferrer in a close run-off election, he eventually lost the mayoralty to Michael Bloomberg, 49 percent to 47 percent.

This may just be an apt comparison for what happened today.

What unnerved New York voters at the time was the suspending of the rule of law — and upending the orderly succession of power — especiallly given the tinge of potential partisanship that it carried.

In the same way, these presidential debates were planned a long time ago, by a bipartisan debate commission. They are an essential part of how we Americans determine the crucially important task of electing our leaders. Everything about them — from their timing to their spacing — is intentional, and agreed upon in an orderly fashion in advance. Suspending them would be a very big deal — and therefore it shouldn’t happen except under the most extraordinary conditions, for instance if our very national security were clearly and imminently at stake. And under no conditions should it happen in a way that gives one of the candidates a political boost.

Perhaps if McCain had avoided the whiff of partisanship — by discussing it with Obama in their conversation earlier in the day, before going to the media — the two could have worked out a mutual agreement, truly keeping politics out of this.

But, we now know: He didn’t. He cold-cocked Obama, who found out — like the rest of us — on CNN.

Obama had the wisdom to see that. And he had the good judgment and even temperament to react accordingly, calling McCain’s bluff, and declaring his intention to move ahead with the debate, exactly as planned.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in McCain, Obama | 2 Comments »

The Flustered Rookie

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

Unlike most people, apparently, I love Washington, DC.

Sitting on the patio at Bagels ETC on P St. this morning, eating an egg and cheese bagel and hashbrowns while reading the Washington Post, I felt something subtle — a slight spring in the city’s step — that comes around sometimes, every four years, with the hope that the old, entrenched party, is about to be ushered out by voters.

You can sometimes feel it in the air around Dupont Circle. Maybe, just maybe, the times are a changing.

When I found mostly good political news in the Post, I started getting nervous.

I’m a Democrat, remember. Good news is just one more thing to worry about.

The off-lead article today was headlined, “Obama, McCain In Tight Race in Va., Polls Show,” subdeck: “Economy is Top Issue.”

Obama leads in Virginia among likely voters, according to the poll, 49-46 percent, a statistical dead heat. Fifty percent of respondents said the economy was the most important issue, and they gave Obama a 10-point edge there. When third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr were included in the polling, Obama had a 5-point lead.

Though there were certainly strong signs of support for McCain — particularly on the commander-in-chief question — on balance, it seemed like more good news for Obama.

Virginia is a must-win state for McCain. Virginia is to McCain what Pennsylvania is to Obama: If he loses it, it’s going to be hard for him to win the election. Which means, at the very least — even if he ultimately comes out on top – he’s going to have to dump resources into the state.

The Post also reports the latest polls show Obama leading, by thin margins, in Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota, with a widening lead in Wisconsin (49-42). Leading — even the Neurotic Democrat has to admit — is at least better than not leading with six weeks to go.

But perhaps the most incredible article was this column by George Will (“McCain Loses His Head“). Will, of course, is a capital C conservative, widely respected inside and outside the Beltway for his views. At one time — maybe 8 years ago — it would have been inconceivable that a George Will would have backed a progressive candidate like Obama over a McCain. Yet here’s how Will begins:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Will compares McCain to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, who famously had “only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. ‘Off with his head!’” He goes on to skewer McCain for responding to the latest fiscal crisis by saying he would fire Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journalto editorialize that “McCain untethered” — disconnected from knowledge and principle — had made a “false and deeply unfair” attack on Cox that was “unpresidential”

And Will doesn’t back off an inch from there, writing:

McCain’s smear — that Cox “betrayed the public’s trust” — is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are “corrupt” or “betray the public’s trust,” two categories that seem to be exhaustive — there are no other people. McCain’s Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.)

Noting that McCain said he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic Attorney General from New York and son of former liberal Governor Mario Cuomo, Will writes: “Conservatives have been warned.”

He touched on something here that I’ve wondered about: Why is it that the GOP base seems now to fully trust McCain, after years of antagonism? McCain himself is telling them: I’m a maverick. I’m running against my party (and your still-beloved George Bush). I’m flip-flopping all over the political map for votes. If elected, I’ll do whatever I want. Has Palin really erased all those years of doubts about McCain, on the Right? Here’s Will’s conclusion, and an answer:

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I almost couldn’t believe my eyes. George Will, the conscience of conservatism, coming right out and saying that McCain is a riskier choice than Obama. Obama is the calmer, less likely to panic, more reasonable, more presidential candidate. There it is! Right there between those lines: Obama for president!

It’s enough to give the Neurotic Democrat a serious case of jitters.

Tags: ,
Posted in McCain, Media | 3 Comments »

McCain’s Mudslinging ‘Tipping Point’

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

Perhaps Joe Biden just made his first big gaffe, calling an Obama campaign ad about McCain “terrible,” and saying it wouldn’t have been run had he known about it. Article here. Biden has since backtracked. But how long before we again see Biden’s words used against Obama in a TV ad, indicating that the candidate of hope has sunk into the mud?

Here’s why this is even more frustrating. According to independent watchdog groups, it’s McCain — purportedly of the Straight Talk Express — who has in fact sunk so low with his Obama attack ads, most agree there’s no precedent for it in modern politics.

Consider this article, from today’s USA Today. Though the headline and subdeck indicate a kind of moral equivalency between the campaigns (“Fact checkers find rivals’ ads low on truth”), there can be no doubt — when you read the article — McCain is by far a worse offender. Here’s the nut:

Veteran campaign watchers say they have never seen ads quite like some from Republican John McCain. The spots contend that Democrat Barack Obama caused high gasoline prices, called McCain running mate Sarah Palin a pig, plans to raise taxes on the middle class and — in an ad called Education that’s emblematic of the trend — wants to teach graphic sex to kindergartners. All the claims are false.

The article notes that Obama has also run negative ads, with a key difference:

So far, several analysts say, most of Obama’s ads mislead and misrepresent in familiar ways — twisting a statistic or a snippet of video to make a questionable point, for instance. They say McCain has been in a different league, epitomized by Education.

“McCain is making no effort to be truthful,” says Farhad Manjoo, author of True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. “The lies aren’t routine political lies where they stretch the truth of what a candidate might have said, or take a candidate out of context.”

PolitiFact.com, a fact-check team from the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times and Congressional Quarterly, rates 22 statements and ads from McCain as barely true, 23 as false and six as “pants on fire” (absurdly, ridiculously false) out of 117 analyzed. For Obama, the score is 14 barely true, 18 false and one “pants on fire” out of 120 analyzed.

Check out www.politifact.com. It’s pretty illuminating, on all the candidates. Obama has certainly dipped down into the mud, particularly with his “pants on fire” ad, equating McCain’s views on immigration with Rush Limbaugh’s. But this was Obama’s first ad of this kind. McCain already has 6 that feature outright lies. Even the race-baiting Willie Horton ad run against Dukakis in 1988 was at the very least true. (Horton didcomit the crimes while out on furlough.) What we’re watching now with McCain is something new.

McCain is trying to maintain some sense of moral equivalency between his ads and Obama’s. But as the independent groups point out, there is no equivalency. McCain clearly has no standard for what he will say about Obama.

The USA Today article calls McCain’s “Education” ad, in which he knowingly lies outright – claiming that Obama’s “one legislative accomplishment” was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergartners — was a “tipping point”:

Reporters, columnists, editorial writers and watchdog groups produced fact checks pronouncing it beyond the pale even by the elastic standards of political advertising.

“It was a remarkable ad because it was wrong in so many ways,” says PolitiFact.com editor Bill Adair. Its rating was a mix of “barely true” and “pants on fire.”

Remember, Adair is a nonpartisan factchecker.

Clearly, McCain will say or do anything at all to get elected.

By the way, Politifact.com is currently slamming the NRA for a “pants on fire” mailer against Obama, sent to its members, stating that Obama would rewrite the Second Amendment and ban the use of firearms for home defense. According to the Web site:

There’s ample evidence to the contrary. Here’s Obama speaking at a forum sponsored by WJLA-ABC7 and Politico.com on Feb. 12, 2008: “I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people — law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families (emphasis added). We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage…We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”

That doesn’t sound to us like someone planning to “ban use of firearms for home defense.” Quite the opposite, actually.

On this score, as with so many issues, Obama has a reasoned approach that seeks to govern from the middle ground where most of us live.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in McCain, Media, Obama | 2 Comments »

Are Some Chabad Rabbis Playing Favorites?

Monday, September 15th, 2008

I want to state this up front: I love Chabad. But in this election, some Chabad rabbis have crossed a line, giving the distinct impression that they are backing John McCain for president.

As individuals, of course, rabbis have the right to support whomever they choose. The problem starts when the lines are blurred, and individual support for McCain begins to seem like a Chabad imprimatur on the candidate.

First, some personal history. I have fond memories of evenings spent at the Chabad House at Rutgers University, as a student in the early 1990s. When I was the editor of Moment magazine, I assigned an article on Chabad’s world-wide movement, and the positive impact it was having on Judaism. That article turned into a book, “The Rebbe’s Army,” by Sue Fishkoff, which chronicles the impressive work of the shaliachs, or emissaries, here and around the world.

When I moved to Ohio two years ago, I began studying Torah — for the first time in my life — once a week with the local Chabad rabbi. What I loved, from the start, was just how welcoming and non-judgmental he was. No question I asked was foolish, un-informed, or beneath him. I never once felt that he had an ulterior motive — that he wanted me to be “more Jewish.” In fact, he has never tired of telling me that God is more impressed with Jews like me — who are spiritually striving — than with Jews like him, who are born into an observant lifestyle. As he sees it, following Jewish law and ritual, for him, was never a choice. I appreciate his encouragement, even as I know there’s no need for the comparison.

It is partly because of his approach that, last year, I decided to stop eating pork and shellfish. Last month, in his office, I put tefillin on for the first time — a raw, emotional experience. A week later, I did it again.

It’s because I both connect with Chabad, personally, and appreciate the important work the rabbis are doing worldwide, that I am so deeply concerned about what looks to me like GOP politicking by some Chabad rabbis.

For those who don’t know, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency broke the story last week that, last month, about 40 Chabad emissaries held a conference call with John McCain, at McCain’s request. During the call, McCain asked for their endorsement.

Here, from the ChabadInfo Web site, are McCain’s closing remarks:

“I believe this is going to a be tough race. We have for the first time gone ahead in the polls. But I think we are the underdog… We’ve got a lot of work to do.

I’d be grateful for your support, it would mean a great deal to me. I believe that I can be the kind of President that is the President of every American and I will put my country first. And I want to promise you that I will put my country first and I understand the meaning of freedom and I will do everything in my power to make sure that the USA and our closest friend and ally remain secure and peaceful and prosperous and I thank you for this opportunity Rabbi Shemtov and thank you very much.”

Now, Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the Washington head of American Friends of Lubavitch, has consistently said Chabad makes no political endorsements; he has also said the emissaries would offer Obama the same forum. As the JTA writes:

Shemtov said he had “several” discussions with the Obama campaign about a similar event and the only reason it hasn’t happened yet is because of “scheduling challenges.”

“If between one event and an an equivalent event there is a lapse of time beyond our control, that can hardly be considered partisanship,” Shemtov said. “Especially in this particular case, we were clear with both campaigns that whatever would be done withone we would be willing to do with the other.”

As I learned from a Democratic operative with ties to the Jewish community, though, the Chabad emissaries didn’t reach out to the Obama camp in meaningful way until after the story broke that the rabbis had facilitated the call in which McCain asked for their endorsement. And even then, despite prior advice given to them, the Chabad rabbis never bothered to write the Obama campaign with an official reqeust. That would have been the clearest indication that they genuinely wanted to make these appearances “educational,” rather than political. “They should play it fair,” the operative said. “Don’t do it witha wink and a nod and think you can get away with it.”

The fact is, this is not the first time questions have been raised with regard to some Chabad rabbis getting involved, politically, for the GOP.

In October 2004, for instance, Rabbi Shlomo Ciment of Boynton Beach penned a missive, which he sent out to congregants, after spending a day he described as a “whirlwind tour on behalf of the re-election campaign of President George Bush and Vice President Cheney.”

According to a copy of his letter that I obtained (bold is original; Italics are mine), the rabbi, after stating that he was not speaking for Chabad and that his views were his own, went on to write:

Allow me to be clear; I am not, nor do I ever endeavor to be a political operative in any form. What has me engaged now, in my opinion, is a matter of life and death! … After the 15 hour day, I can unequivocally state that from now until November 2, this rabbi will be passionately cajoling his congregation, his community, his colleagues, and all who care to listen that President Bush must receive four more years …

Frightening anecdotal polls and statistics were discussed. John Kerry’s scary promise of revisiting the days of the need for an “even handed” approach to the “Palestinian cause” and his persistent theme of bringing back the coalition of the United Nations to fight the causes of good in this world were unmasked for their ridiculousness and utter danger to the Jewish people. …

Who fearlessly stood up on 9/11 and delivered America’s message “you will be hearing from us” and has consistently and unfalteringly delivered that message in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who has put all regimes of terror, not just with words but with effective muscle, on notice? Who has stood with determined and unchanged policy and forceful leadership? Who has stood with iron clad resolve to bring justice, freedom and liberty to all who seek it?

On the “flip flop” side, who has answered all of these legendary and heroic efforts with meek comments and the self denial reality of the threats on our lives, by promising to expend our resources, and go back to building the libraries, firehouses and roads in the US? …

Poignant stories of The President’s stunning character were shared. His unquestioning love of Israel clearly borne out with heartwarming personal stories, some never before published, were told by these distinguished individuals who enjoy experiencing the inner depths of the President’s heart through their very close personal relationships with him.

What struck me the most, though, were the tears. This was not a day of political campaigning. This was a day of heartfelt tears. Tears of anguish. Tears of truth. Tears of hope. Tears which cut right through any semblance or hint of political posturing. It was individual Jews who spoke from the heart to their fellow Jew’s heart.

That’s not politics, that’s saving lives. Our entire Torah, and everything it represents, is predicated and preceded by the sanctity of human life. We are our brother’s keeper. It is up to us to save our’s and our brother’s lives. ….

In this world of terror and destruction we have no one but on G-d A-lmighty Himself on whom to rely for salvation. He has granted us the greatest gift, humanity, Israel and the Jewish people have ever had in the White House, President George W. Bush. He has granted this blessed country with unmatched resources, unlike humankind has ever known. Let us be the wise people for which we are known. Stand up and vote and make sure that all who you know vote for Bush-Cheney 04.

Flash-forward to 2008, and that same Chabad has an article on its Web site this time around, about how Joe Lieberman was stumping for McCain in Palm Beach county during the primary. (Subhead: “He focuses on Jewish support in the Primary.”)

When McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, Lubavitch.com, the offical Chabad site, almost immediately had a piece online discussing her terrific virtues; it wasn’t until a few individuals complained that they put up something nice about Joe Biden — weeks after Obama had tapped him.

And the Lubavitch news service web site is currently promoting this story, headlined: “John Voight endorses John McCain for President on the Telethon”:

The State of California might be a bastion for Democrats but that didn’t stop actor Jon Voight from letting Chabad of California telethon viewers know that his choice for President is Senator John McCain and he hopes they will do the same. Voight’s announcement, that came shortly before 9:00pm on the east coast, was greeted with loud applause from members of the studio audience. This is the 18th year that Voight has appeared on the telethon.

Why is this important? It’s not so much for me that Chabad-Lubavitch is a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit, and, as such, is prohibited from making political endorsements. It’s that, taken together, the actions of individual rabbis begin to look like an official Chabad hecshsher on the Republican candidate.

Obama is, unfortunately, already swimming upstream in the Jewish community, in part because of all the lies and smears that have been directed against him in the past year. And Chabad matters. According to “The Rebbe’s Army,” there are as many as 30,000 Lubavitchers in this country, with large communities in Los Angeles, Miami, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Chicago. (Note the three swing states.) And, judging by my own experience, their influence far exceeds their numbers.

Incidentally, when I told my Chabad rabbi about this, and showed him the JTA article, he was appalled. He said the the late Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson (who many Lubavtichers believe was the Messiah) expressely forbade politicking of this type, because of its divisiveness. My rabbi has always described himself as a one-issue voter — Israel — but he said that he actually has an issue that is even more important to him — the unity of the Jewish people — and these activities, he says, run completely counter to that central Chabad mission. He is so angry, he is now leaning toward Barack Obama.

I asked my friend, a Jewish professional, what he hopes to see for the rest of this campaign.

“Do not do electioneering in Chabad houses for the next 8 weeks,” the operative said. “They should not be propagating GOP politics in Chabad Houses. Individuals — fine. But not from the pulpit and not using the Chabad House.

“They should play it straight,” the operative said. “Now and forever more.”

Amen.

Tags:
Posted in Jewish Interest, McCain | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »