A bipartisan commission looks at the candidates "position papers" and finds:
While campaigns typically snow reporters with white papers and policy minutiae, many of the domestic policy plans of John McCain have been notably short on details.
Analysts caution that both McCain and Barack Obama have produced policy pronouncements that are just as much election documents as workable proposals; after all, that is what presidential candidates do. But when it comes to the metric of paper produced, McCain trails Obama in spelling out the nitty-gritty.
Read the article here. (Though if you've seen McCain actually try to discuss most of his policy proposals, you already
An article in today's Washington Post looks at some problems McCain has been having with defining his campaign:
...they are trying to walk this tightrope between creating distance from Bush and not angering the base," said a Michigan Republican operative who described himself as nervous about McCain's chances of victory in that swing state...Another Republican strategist, who worked for a rival GOP campaign during the primary and has ties to Bush's political team, said the McCain team has "not really figured out" how to present McCain to voters: as an experienced conservative leader or a reformer who wants change..."who John McCain is and what he stands for -- it's a little hard to connect all the dots."
It has indeed become difficult to understand what John McCain stands for:
- He fought the Bush administration on torture, and stated he wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, yet he voted AGAINST banning waterboarding, and called the recent Supreme Court decision establishing limited habeas corpus rights to detainess one of the worst decisions in the America's history (yes, worse than the ones that called slaves property, or that upheld segregation).
- He spoke out for years against the reckless Bush tax cuts, but now wholeheartedly endorses them as the bedrock of his economic plan.
- He was against offshore oil drilling before he was for it.
- He now states that he would not even vote for his own immigration plan, probably because he found that it was not supported by his conservative base.
- He speaks out against lobbyists and "pork" but has turned out to have a staff full of lobbyists. Just one recent instance: McCain had a large role in killing a wasteful government deal with Boeing to develop new planes for refueling. But it has recently been revealed that McCain is also being closely advised by lobbyists for the Boeing competitor that instead received the contract.
And perhaps most importantly, Frank Rich recalls some of McCain's biggest changes in judgment about Iraq:
Mr. McCain’s sorest Achilles’ heel, of course, is his role in facilitating the fiasco in the first place. Someone in his campaign has figured this out. Go to JohnMcCain.com and, hilariously enough, you’ll find a “McCain on Iraq Timeline” that conveniently begins in August 2003, months after “Mission Accomplished.” Vanished into the memory hole are such earlier examples of the McCain Iraq wisdom as “the end is very much in sight” (April 9, 2003) and “there’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiites” (later that same month).
To finesse this embarrassing record, Mr. McCain asks us to believe that the only judgment that matters is who was “right” about the surge, not who was right about our reckless plunge into war. That’s like saying he deserves credit for tossing life preservers to the survivors after encouraging the captain of the Titanic to plow full speed ahead into the iceberg.
Anyhow these are just some flip-flops in what will likely be an ever expanding list. Or as this clip from MSNBC states "McCain Flip Flops on Everything": Keep Reading (if there's more)...
I'm not an expert on campaign finance reform, but I do understand the basics: the idea behind public funding of campaigns is to equalize the playing field so that donors with more money do not have outsized influence over campaigns.
Now Obama, despite having stated repeatedly he was considering public financing for his campaign has decided to forestall public financing and instead stay with his unprecedentedly successful fund raising, with over 1.5 million donors, most contributing less that $100 on the internet. His campaign claims having this many individual small donors is in itself a grassroots form of public financing. (Not to mention it allows him to raise money beyond public financing limits).
The McCain campaign has been harping on this in the hope they can use it to brand Obama as a candidate who will go back on his word, who "flip flops" based on the needs of the moment. This being unlike McCain - who's evolving positions on the Iraq War, offshore oil drilling, or George Bush's tax cuts (to just choose a few) - aren't position changes based on political expediency, they are principled leadership. They are "shocked, shocked!" that Obama is willing to do what is necessary to win.
Nice try. The decision may perhaps not be a pretty one, but it is a pragmatic one. And as Chuck Todd and MSNBC's "First Read" state:
...the decision was a no-brainer. As one very smart political observer told us yesterday, if Obama had stayed in the system -- bypassing the opportunity to raise about three times amount what the system offers -- then he’d question Obama’s judgment and ability to be president. Simply put, it would have been a dumb move.
"[I]...see no reason why public financing is somehow morally superior to hundreds of thousands of small donors. But if you want to see a Democrat prepared to take a short-term hit in order to score a real long-term advantage over his opponent, Obama's your man."
But to top it all off, harping on this issue cleverly obscures the fact that McCain himself is currently openly violating campaign LAW, after opting in to public financing to save his campaign, then spending beyond the agreed limits. Josh Marshall at TPM (tries to) explain "McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight":
People thing supporters of Obama are somehow going to be surprised to realize he's also a POLITICIAN. Well no shit. I think the these mindless zealots who believe he is some sort of messianic figure largely exists only in the minds of his detractors. (And to me, his FISA position is much more problematic than this one). The fact is he is liberal and a pragmatist, or as David Brooks states:
"This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside."
John McCain has been trying to put a lot of distance between himself and our ever-unpopular current president, while Democrats have been trying to proclaim that John McCain's election would mean Bush's third term. Well the New York Times takes a look today at where John is "McSame" and where he differs from Bush's policies. Take a look at their chart here.
One thing you might notice immediately: The "same" column is substantially longer than the "different column." And as I explored in an earlier post, some of the differences on foreign policy are quite troubling. The Times also has an accompanying article in which they state:
A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts...while it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.
And regarding how McCain's contradictory energy policy strains to seem "different" than Bush, check out this clip (more on this later):
One of the few actual diplomatic achievements of the Bush administration was to negotiate a solution to the North Korea's nuclear weapon program. After an initial hard line stance, It was one of the only times they showed the willingness to engage, rather than saber rattle or threaten military action. (Yes, I just threw half a bone to the Bush administration).
John McCain wants to put a stop to that. Seriously. The one single time this administration actually had a diplomatic solution to a problem, and McCain doesn't like it, he thinks they're being soft.
Its just another aspect of McCain's perverse view of international relations, shaped as it by the scary neoconservative philosophy (which I explored in this earlier post). In fact, this and other policies serve to not only distance us from North Korea, but also threaten to push us away from more powerful players like China and Russia: McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to bypass Russia and China's role in United Nations activities, alienating them and putting them in a much more adversarial relationship to us. He proposes expelling Russia from the G8 group of world powers, again, isolating them. His policies on nuclear deterrence could potentially lead to more nuclear build up in China and Russia, and to greater nuclear proliferation.
What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war...The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers?
I've found myself emailing a lot of articles I've found on my internet travels around recently, especially as the elections are upon us. I'm pretty pro-Obama, made more so by some of the divisive political hijinks the Clinton team have been up to the last couple of weeks, which have really angered me. If you're up in the air, or find yourself asking "what hijinks is he referring to," or are unconvinced by Obama (as I was until recently), please check back here to at least read (or watch) some of these links. I hope to be a good source of info for someone who doesn't have the time or energy to look up stuff themselves.
