What a surprise!

Rice: Mideast peace by year-end no longer possible

Recall, this was to be W's signature achievement before leaving office! ... tho' he didn't get started on it till last November - amid much hoopla: the famed "Annapolis Conference".

How many days till Jan 20, 2009???

From This Modern World

Eight long years
... The Republicans tried to win with hate and fear and division, and instead they failed. Spectacularly, definitively, repudiated in a landslide. And you know what I hope, at this moment? That Joe the Plumber becomes a widely-used symbol for all that has been wrong with America. That tv commentators invoke his name as shorthand for the politics of stupidity — “Maybe Joe the Plumber thinks we need to put all the Danish-Americans in internment camps, but no rational person agrees!” — and a heartfelt chuckle is had by all, and no more need be said, so universal is the understanding.

I very much want that to be the legacy of Joe the Plumber.

As noted in previous post, we have three pretty good case-studies illustrating the failure of "hate, fear, and division" and character assassination as campaign tactics.

What to do when the supposed intellectuals of the right - I have in mind William Kristol - embrace Sarah Palin, who has been revealed by Fox News (!) to have believed that Africa is a country, not a continent!

In fact, I honestly hope that Sarah Palin & Joe the Plumber are the future leaders of the Republican Party! To whom will such a party appeal? To the 25% that still think W is doin' a heckuva job! - not to "moderate" Republicans, not to Independents, not to the modern equivalent of "Reagan Democrats", not to George Will... Only to those who believe the antediluvian Eden is a real, physical place.

Now that's the Republican Party I'd like to run against!

"If the economy hadn't tanked, McCain would've won"

[... but first, I'd like to try to dispel a myth: the U.S. economy did not suddenly fall off a cliff in September. It had been on a downward trajectory for quite a while - this downward trajectory became impossible to ignore in September. Keen observers - Paul Krugman and Atrios among them - had been shouting at the top of their lungs for more than a year about the coming crash. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton recognized at least some of the economic ills last spring.]

Onward.
A common talking-point - particularly among Republican apologists - is that McCain would've won - or at least not lost so badly - had the economy not tanked in September. Who knows, they may be right...

BUT... this serves only to highlight a weakness of the Republican brand: a Republican candidate has no chance to win if the economy is in tatters. Why not? Presumably because Republicans don't know how to fix a broken economy!
There are two other plausible alternative explanations - other than the weakness of the Republican brand... and they are self-reinforcing:
Alternative #1: When the economy tanks, the incumbent Party gets the blame. [The Republicans broke the economy!]
Alternative #2: McCain's economic policy, such at it was, simply extended W's policy - which led to disaster. [McCain proposes to perpetuate the policies that broke the economy!]

Sen. Obama also found himself faced with the very same economic crisis, and with the very same two months left till the election. Why was he not at a disadvantage?
Well - there are Alternatives #1 & #2, above: Obama's not a Republican... and his economic policy - outlined fairly clearly on his campaign website - is not a continuation of W's follies.

Other than that?
Obama seemed calm in response to crisis. McCain seemed unhinged.

A few of the talking heads have noted this, and suggested that it wasn't the economic crisis per se that did in McCain - but rather McCain's response to the crisis that doomed him: first pronouncing the fundamentals of the economy strong, then suspending his campaign, then unsupsending his campaign, then throwing out solution #1, then solution #2... then solution #n - without any apparent serious thought behind any of 'em.

This 'chicken-lacking-head' behavior contrasted markedly with Sen. Obama's universally-acknowledged calmness in the face of crisis.

So, yes - without the economic crisis the electorate may not have seen Sen. McCain's inability to respond calmly to a crisis... and in that sense perhaps it was the economic crisis that doomed his candidacy: the crisis revealed for all the world to see just how poorly McCain handled the challenge it presented!

Have a nice day!

One reason (among many)? Maybe...

In this post I will call attention to three recent campaigns, and suggest they share something in common.

Campaign #1: U.S. President - McCain (R) v. Obama (D)

As many have observed, McCain's campaign was based almost exclusively on attacking Obama's character (occasionally using Obama's policy proposals as a springboard to character attacks; e.g., Obama's tax-policy led almost immediately to McCain labeling Obama a socialist or a communist).

Obama's negative ads focused on McCain's well-documented association with W's policies & failures. Few, if any, attacked McCain's character.
Obama's campaign also included more than a few positive ads, giving the electorate positive reasons to vote for him.

Obama won.

Campaign #2: NC Senate - Elizabeth Dole (R) v. Kay Hagan (D)

In the final week of the campaign, Dole launched a vicious & false character attack on Hagan - the infamous "Godless" spot.

Dole had led in the polls through mid-September. She was, after all, the incumbent!

After the spots, Hagan surged ahead, eventually upsetting the incumbent Dole.

Campaign #3: NM1 - Darren White (R) v. Martin Heinrich (D)

Both campaigns ran negative ads.

Heinrich's negative ads focused on White's record as Bernalillo County Sheriff and in previous state government jobs.

White's negative ads were without exception attacks on Heinrich's character ("liar", "law-breaker", "untrustworthy").

White ran NO positive ads - ads that told the electorate why they ought vote for him.
Heinrich DID run positive ads - ads that told the electorate why they ought vote for him.

Heinrich won handily (11% margin).

In each case the Republican candidate ran a predominantly negative campaign that focused on the Dem candidate's character. "My respected Democratic opponent is an evil person." In each case, this tactic failed miserably.

I hope there might be a lesson here.

Revisiting Cheney's endorsement (a very convoluted conspiracy theory!)

I note that Candidate Obama was quick to seize on Cheney's last-minute endorsement of Sen. McCain, producing a very effective TV spot based on the endorsement within 24 hours.

I note further than Cheney is politically astute, and therefore would almost certainly have anticipated Candidate Obama's use of the endorsement.

In those final few days, the race seemed to be tightening. Perhaps Cheney feared a McCain come-from-behind victory, and was doing his level best to ensure that Obama won.

But why?

Whichever Candidate ended up the President-elect, he would face a huge mess - W's mess. Perhaps Cheney feared that a McCain administration would be unable or unwilling to clean up the mess - perhaps would even make the mess worse (given McCain's emphasis on balancing the budget, it is possible he'd have worsened the economic crisis!). This failure would practically guarantee the demise of the Republican brand in 2012.

Cheney's solution: get Obama elected! Now it'll be President Obama and the Dems held accountable for not cleaning up W's mess by 2012! - creating an opening for a Republican resurgence!

This is, of course, entirely speculative... but it fits the facts quite neatly. (Why, after all, did Cheney endorse McCain the Saturday before the election???)

Have a nice day.

Using David Brooks as a compass

On tonight's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Shields & Brooks discussed the election and the challenges facing President-elect Obama.

One exchange in particular caught my ear.
The set-up:

DAVID BROOKS: "...there's a debate now in the Democratic Party and in the Obama circles, is it 1933 or is it 1993? In other words, is it 1933? Huge problems, we just have to come out of the box with a full-bore agenda, health care, energy, big programs, just -- we've got this moment. Let's do it all as quickly as we can.

Or is it 1993, when Clinton took office, where you have a country a little dubious about big government programs, about a new Democratic Party, and you try to do it step by step. You do SCHIP. You do Earned Income Tax Credit. You do a small tax cut. You do a series of things to build."

Jim Lehrer kindly helped Mr. Brooks pursue this line of inquiry:

JIM LEHRER: "And what clue did you get from Barack Obama's words as to how he's going to do this?"

This was just the follow-up Brooks was hoping for:

DAVID BROOKS: "And so I think, if you're thinking in his shoes, you say, "You've got to build. You've got to show people. We're going to give you real practical results right away, but we're not going to give you the big health care plan right away. We may not do the entire energy plan right away, but we're going to build up to -- we're going to show you something practical right away, but we're going to build up to those things."
[After Landmark Victory, Challenges Begin for Barack Obama]

So, David Brooks' advice to Obama is to go slowly, gradually... In the context of the original framing of this discussion: be Bill Clinton in 1993, not FDR in 1933.

That's good enough for me: If David Brooks thinks you should be a gradualist, go the opposite direction - do the 1933 FDR thing!

Brooks has been lost for much of this election cycle. In praising Sen. McCain, he relates anecdotes told by most Senators of unpleasant encounters with McCain in which McCain wags his finger in their faces, yells at them... then apologizes an hour or so later.
A minute later, Brooks reveals that a President has no time for reflection - his day is filled with meetings, and he must be ready to make the decision NOW! - with no opportunity to revisit, rethink, or apologize...
So... just why does Brooks believe that McCain's admittedly mercurial temperament is a good fit in the White House???
[Brooks' comments, paraphrased above, were made during a recent appearance on Charlie Rose; the show charges for transcripts, so I won't be getting one to provide a more accurate rendition of Brooks' remarks!]

As stated above: if David Brooks suggests President Obama proceed cautiously, I believe the best conclusion President-elect Obama can draw is that he ought proceed with all deliberate speed!

Have a nice day.

p.s. My sense is that conservatives in general & Republicans in particular don't quite get the implications of the 2006 & 2008 elections. We've elected Democrats!... not because we want warmer-and-fuzzier Republicans, but because we want Democrats.

President George W. Bush surprises

This morning President George W. Bush discussed yesterday's election, and somehow managed a really good speech:

Good morning. Last night, I had a warm conversation with President-elect Barack Obama. I congratulated him and Senator Biden on their impressive victory. I told the President-elect he can count on complete cooperation from my administration as he makes the transition to the White House.

I also spoke to Senator John McCain. I congratulated him on a determined campaign that he and Governor Palin ran. The American people will always be grateful for the lifetime of service John McCain has devoted to this nation. And I know he'll continue to make tremendous contributions to our country.

No matter how they cast their ballots, all Americans can be proud of the history that was made yesterday. Across the country, citizens voted in large numbers. They showed a watching world the vitality of America's democracy, and the strides we have made toward a more perfect union. They chose a President whose journey represents a triumph of the American story -- a testament to hard work, optimism, and faith in the enduring promise of our nation.

Many of our citizens thought they would never live to see that day. This moment is especially uplifting for a generation of Americans who witnessed the struggle for civil rights with their own eyes -- and four decades later see a dream fulfilled.

A long campaign has now ended, and we move forward as one nation. We're embarking on a period of change in Washington, yet there are some things that will not change. The United States government will stay vigilant in meeting its most important responsibility -- protecting the American people. And the world can be certain this commitment will remain steadfast under our next Commander-in-Chief.

There's important work to do in the months ahead, and I will continue to conduct the people's business as long as this office remains in my trust. During this time of transition, I will keep the President-elect fully informed on important decisions. And when the time comes on January the 20th, Laura and I will return home to Texas with treasured memories of our time here -- and with profound gratitude for the honor of serving this amazing country.

It will be a stirring sight to watch President Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their beautiful girls step through the doors of the White House. I know millions of Americans will be overcome with pride at this inspiring moment that so many have awaited so long. I know Senator Obama's beloved mother and grandparents would have been thrilled to watch the child they raised ascend the steps of the Capitol -- and take his oath to uphold the Constitution of the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Last night I extended an invitation to the President-elect and Mrs. Obama to come to the White House. And Laura and I are looking forward to welcoming them as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.
[President Bush Discusses Presidential Election, 5 Nov 2008]

Wow! A surprisingly gracious and welcoming speech!