Sarah Palin for VP

As you know by now, McCain made a bold choice in selecting Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. McCain made the announcement at a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio. Right before he introduced her, I could only imagine how nervous this small state, young Governor must be as she waited to be unveiled to the world. Well, she smashed my expectations. I still know very little about her, but she impressed in her dynamic speech (which must have been hastily written).

This woman has more executive experience than Barack Obama, but she will be attacked by the Democrats for being too green. We'll see how she holds up under that scrutiny.

She made a strong case:

-Strong energy experience
-Western sensibility
-Hockey mom
-Fighter of corruption and government beauracracy
-Mother of an Iraqi soldier
-Former Miss Alaska
-Married to a United Steel Workers Union member
-Member of the NRA
-Potential first female Vice President of the United States

She especially knocked it out of the park when she thanked Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for helping pave the road for a female candidate. She said, "Hillary left 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling, but the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

This dark horse seems poised to be a strong VP choice, but in the coming days she'll be accused of being too inexperienced and she'll be questioned about how she can care for her children (especially a newborn with Down's Syndrome) and run at the same time.

One thing is for sure, the boring factor of the McCain campaign just seemed to vanish.

Home from the Democratic National Convention

Been crazed at my real job this week, but some thoughts on my couple of days at the DNC will come soon. I wasn't actually in the convention center, but i learned a couple of things just being there and talking to delegates, Democrats, and Denverites.

In the mean time, check out this classy (and of course, politically smart) spot by McCain that will run tonight during the convention.

And Obama's Team Also Gets It Right

The more Obama can make the "Third Bush Term" idea stick, the better he'll do in November:

McCain's Advertising Team Gets It Right

Is the the best ad ever? Nah, but McCain and team have picked an issue to go after and are hitting it again and again. Attacking Obama's strengths and weaknesses at the same time is just smart poker.

Judge for yourself:

East Village Republican vs. Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

Our latest debate over my last post:

BCPL:
the mccain campaign's press release for this ad confirms that all these quotes were pre-2006, when mccain's brand as a straight-talking bi-partisan maverick was still alive and well.

EVR:
Please, the accolades stopped because everyone knew he was going to run for president. Minus some recent (and slight) political maneuvering, McCain’s bi-partisan brand of governing is alive and well. See: Feingold’s latest praise.

This is in sharp contrast to your boy Obama who is second-to-none when it comes to Clinton-esque triangulation and can’t claim a single battle scar from choosing principle over popularity. This is why he lacks any significant across-the-aisle respect.

BCPL:
it's too bad he is in the process of reversing that image with his:

1. flip-flops (now supporting regressive bush tax cuts for the super-rich, now seeking political support of the christianist "agents of intolerance"),

EVR:
1) Looking at the entire picture, McCain’s original stance against the Bush tax cuts was due to his desire to have them accompanied by spending cuts. He’s been a supply-sider his entire career and has been as tough as anyone on fiscal restraint. He took a principled stand against the Big Government Conservatism that Bush brought to the White House, knowing that it could haunt him one day. He also rightly admits that at this point, repealing the cuts would be devastating for the economy.

2) The Bush tax cuts were incredibly PROGRESSIVE. The wealthiest 1% of the pop earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay 68%. The top 25% pay 85%. The bottom 50% pay 13%.

3) Can we please put the "seeking support of evangelists" complaint to bed? He needs these votes if he has any chance to win. Would I like him to denounce these crazies? Yes. Do I blame him for looking for their support? No. There is a stark difference between looking for evangelical votes (or votes from "agents of intolerance") and actively joining and participating in a church that is lead by a total religious nut case. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let's not equivocate on this one.

BCPL:
2. double-speak (erroneously offering off-shore drilling and a gas-tax suspension as a salve for high gas prices, falsely claiming "obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign"), and

3. political chicanery (blaming barack "paris/brittney" obama for high gas prices, claiming that obama snubbed wounded troops because he couldn't bring along cameras).

EVR:
Agree that the claim that Obama snubbed wounded troops was lame. But claiming that Obama is more deserving of a front cover on Entertainment Weekly than Congressional Quarterly is a fair argument. Second, I agree that the Dems would rather lose the war than lose their power. Their treatment of this war has been one of the most disgraceful things I've ever witnessed as an American. From Harry Reid declaring, prematurely, that the war is lost, to Obama's refusal to admit that the current stability in Iraq might be due mainly to the surge, it certainly appears that these positions have more to do with Democratic Party politics than a desire to see America achieve victory.

Regarding energy, off-shore drilling and a gas tax suspension would indeed lower gasoline prices at the pump. Drilling would drive prices down immediately (see: laws of supply and demand and global speculation) and the gas tax suspension is obvious. That said, the gas tax suspension is a quick fix political ploy and no substitute for sound, long-term strategy. Besides all the political maneuvering, the truth is that we need a comprehensive plan; one which includes both short term, environmentally sound drilling, and long term investment in renewables and nuclear. P.S. hasn't Obama actually recently reversed on drilling? Gosh, what a quandary for the Democrats! A candidate is actually making sense on energy! Also, Paris Hilton may be on to something on this issue.

BCPL:
much like these video quotes, i've always maintained respect for mccain and his message even while disagreeing with many of his policy positions. however, he has allowed this campaign to bring out the worst in him, and that respect is now in incredibly short supply.

and sorry, no uber-links this time. ;)

McCain or Obama: Who's The Real Post-Partisan Leader?

From the McCain campaign:

A Response to The Pinko Commie Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Commie Pinko responded to my previous post. My responses are interstitial within his:

wow. okay, this will be easy:

1. obama's campaign did not approve the publication of the prayer nor did they distribute its contents beforehand. it's clear the paper is trying to find a defense against their possibly-illegal violation of privacy charges. the offending student who took the note has since apologized and the note has been returned.

EVR: And yet, Obama hasn’t denied it and the spokesman’s line, "We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone" is pretty damn hazy.

2. while despicable to me (as both a political junkie and a secular humanist) the politicization of faith in american politics is nothing new. see such exhibits as:

A. GWB's lying about his conversion with billy graham, in order to curry political favor with evangelicals and be elected president.

EVR: Read the article and it doesn’t convince me that Bush lied. Graham didn’t outright say that he wasn’t the one to convert Bush (plus, I wouldn’t expect Graham to disregard humility and take credit for something as subjective as, “the moment I truly accepted jesus.”

This is in Stark contrast to Obama’s clearly political “come to jesus moment” when he was “interviewing" churches that could provide him with a black political face card: (click view single page, then word search for "Trinity United Church") http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all


B. lieberman's embrace of a fundamentalist christian who preaches a gospel that praises the destruction and painful death of lieberman's very people via the rapture.

EVR: This is the most complex topic of the bunch. As a Jew, I understand the cognitive dissonance that a relationship with the fundamentalists inspires. I believe that Lieberman is a good man and an honest man and while I disagree with 90% of his politics, I’ll trust him that this wasn’t a political move. You may disagree, but I think it is highly subjective. What I know for a fact, is that in a world in which it seems that you’re still everyone’s scapegoat … in a world in which the land that we belong to (and belongs to us is questioned daily, threatened daily) we are faced with choosing friends that make strange bedfellows. I’d also say that since we don’t really believe in the fundamentalist version of the apocalypse, it’s easier to take their hand in friendship. Only the future knows the philosophical (and perhaps political) cost of this odd symbiosis.

C. and most galling of all, mccain's complete and utter flip-flop regarding jerry falwell and other "agents of intolerance". i strongly support mccain's 2000 position on this issue. this reversal is most disturbing.

EVR: Blah blah blah … McCain betrayed some values here for sure. But it’s different to accept support from one of these crazies than to sit in their church every Sunday for 20 years. This is no subtle distinction.

all-in-all, this entire "god triangulation" charge smacks of typical right-wing campaign smear jobs, where issues are not debated honestly (see: mccain's current crop of dishonest TV propaganda) and personal attacks on one's character substitute for political discourse (see: mccain's "would rather lose a war" nonsense).

EVR, i'm disappointed to hear your voice in that echo chamber.

EVR: I'll see you at 8p for dinner tonight you damn Commie Pinko. We'll slug it out more then.

Was The New York Times Rejection Good for McCain?

News today that The New York Times rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain on Friday made big news. This is especially offensive journalism by the NYT given the fact that they ran an Obama piece just days earlier. It was perfectly timed with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Jordan and allowed him to lay out his Mid East foreign policy on a national stage.

The Grey Lady didn’t agree to give John McCain the same opportunity, issuing a rejection with strict conditions required for acceptance. In this case, the conditions that needed to be met meant a rewritten McCain piece that framed his issues as the NYT saw fit (i.e. discussion of definitive timelines for withdrawal). I’m sure the editors at the Times didn’t change a comma for Obama.

And yet, as an ad guy, I can tell you that all of this is actually good for McCain. The media impressions he’ll gain from the rejection will far outweigh the Monday circ of the NYT op-ed page. The recent campaign for Trojan Condoms is a perfect example. A brand with a small budget gained over 200 million media impressions by getting its ad rejected by CBS and FOX. A few million bucks on late night TV could never touch the attention garnered by airtime on The Colbert Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and VH1's Best Week Ever.

The rejection will only work to galvanize the Right and, if the campaign is smart, become part of the McCain campaign theme. I’m not so convinced, however, of this campaign’s political IQ.

"Get off my back!"

The Highlight of the 2008 Campaign

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...

The Myths of Barack Obama

The presidential campaign is entering the hot summer months and things are about to get good. Most people think Barack Obama is sitting pretty with up to a 15% lead, depending on the poll. I live in New York City and from here, it feels like it’s a one candidate race. I saw someone in the East Village yesterday wearing a shirt that said, “McCain Who?”

Now it’s true that whether or not you like Obama, agree with Obama, or trust Obama, he’s the one with all the momentum. The whole damn media has a collective erection for the guy right now … including Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas (of Daily Kos), neither of whom have a penis.

But this is all good news for John McCain and the Straight Talk Express. The main reason is that McCain is best when he’s playing the underdog. This is when his true personality shines through: a sharp, witty man – the kind who you’d follow into battle. This is a man that you want leading the troops in a nasty prison camp and this is a man who you want picking up the phone at 3 a.m. when Iran’s development of nuclear weapons comes to pass.

But more than anything, I hope he can be the type of candidate that’s able to make the argument that he can lead on the critical issues facing the country. If he can’t, it’s no one’s fault but his own – Obama has some huge holes in his glossy sheen and a candidate who can’t exploit them isn’t ready for the Oval Office.

Beginning today and running through the election, I am going to list the arguments that expose these holes. Below is a list of a couple of key myths about the inimitable Barack Obama that McCain must exploit. More will follow, including discussions about taxes, foreign policy, health care, and other relevant items presented over the next few months:

Myth 1:
Barack Obama is a post-partisan politician

Truth:
Obama has consistently toed the Democratic party line in his few short years in the Senate. From judges to medicare to immigration to the Iraq War, the Illinois Senator has been a strident party loyalist. Not one major piece of legislation has his name on it; not one tough battle has he fought in the senate; not one stand has he made against his party; not one politically unpopular decision has he made. This is in sharp contrast to Senator McCain, who has proven to be THE post-partisan candidate on judge appointments, campaign finance, immigration, taxes (though i especially hate this one), and more. This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is political expedient.

Myth 2:
Barack Obama may be inexperienced, but he has good judgment

Truth:

Obama’s big claim to fame is that he may not have any of the necessary experience (either political, business, executive, etc.) to run the nation, but, unlike Bush, Clinton, McCain, and everyone else in Congress at the time, he was against the war from the start. This has provided the platform from which he can state that experience is less important than good judgment. It’s the basis (besides the fact that he’s extremely well spoken) of his entire candidacy.

But here’s the thing: if, in retrospect, you want to criticize the war, the intelligence, or the execution of war/post war strategy there is room for valid dissent. But, in March of 2003, given the uncertainty of American security, given our failure to connect the dots to 9/11, and given the intelligence that the entire globe supported, how could anyone NOT have supported the Iraq War effort? Imagine if Obama was president at the time. Imagine if the world’s intelligence was correct. Imagine if a dirty bomb or any other WMDs found their way into the hands of the very same people that had the audacity to fly airplanes into buildings. Imagine if all of this happened and our president, in a post-9/11 world, did nothing about it. In this scenario, our president would deserve to be put on trial as an accessory to war crimes.

More to come...

McCain can't out-Obama Obama

John McCain lately seems to be making a concerted effort to distance himself from President Bush. In light of Bush's record low approval ratings, he’s right to do so. But he's talking like a liberal and angling the wrong way if he wants the upper hand in a tough battle with Barack Obama. McCain cannot out-Obama Obama. If he's going to go maverick, he needs to propose big, bold, inherently conservative ideas for the country. Calling for a timetable on the war and a cap and trade approach to carbon emissions are sickle and hammer politics.

McCain’s only chance this fall, going up against the charm, smarts, and eloquence of Obama, is to continue his no BS approach to foreign policy and conjure the brightest of our American ideals with stark domestic ideas. Veering left, besides being wrong-headed, will lose center/center-right voters and gain nothing in return.

Here’s what McCain needs to propose on these two specific issues:

The War on Islamic Terror
Don’t listen to the wikimedia narrative that wants us to believe there’s no hope and that the U.S. is weaker than ever. Petraeus has whipped the insurgency like Teddy Roosevelt did the Dakota Badlands. Violence has spiked downward and the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions have all bought into democracy and power sharing. I’m not naïve enough to say it’s not messy, but our boys are spanking Al Qaeda and the Maliki government is taking on fellow Shia in Basra and Sadr City.

For the first time, we can look to the future and glimpse the face of victory. The surge has worked, and it was McCain who’d been advocating it the entire time. This gives Johnny Mac an incredible point of leverage. He can both distance himself from Bush AND take credit for crucial military foresight.

As for Iran, McCain must lay out a plan that threatens force first and diplomacy second. The carrot only works when the stick is big and scary. Obama’s proposition to sit down first is insane. In fact, there’s a narrative thread throughout Obama’s life that shows his willingness to befriend radical, anti-American (not to be mistaken for those who are constructively critical) individuals and this is quite unsettling.

Reagan didn’t sit down with Gorbachev until Gorby was scared. The next president must put the fear of god into our enemies before considering any public conversation. We need to lay out a foreign policy that claims loudly that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons. The military option shouldn’t just be “on the table,” it should be the table. If the left thinks we’re weak now, wait until we’re cow towing to a nuclear Iran.

Environment
U.S. carbon emissions grew by only 6.6 percent between 1997 and 2004, compared with 18 percent for the world and 21 percent for the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses.

I’m not suggesting that we needn’t focus on climate change, but I am suggesting that we focus on it intelligently. A huge government command-and-control operation like cap and trade is more sickle and hammer politics. McCain needs to get off this pony immediately. We’re all foolish if we think big businesses won’t make a fortune gaming this rigged-up market scenario. It’s an opaque system that will create an entire industry (both government and private) around regulating and exploiting the rules.

Instead, let’s combine smart government policy with the true power of free markets. Simply, McCain should advance a program that swaps a carbon tax for either an income, corporate, or social security/medicare tax cut (or some amalgamation of them all). If we really want to encourage non-carbon based energy via government policy, at least the implementation of a tax is both transparent and obvious.

Also, the cost of cutting CO2 is too pricey right now. More research and greater incentives for renewables are the only honest solution. An interesting idea comes from Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, and suggests we can achieve our green energy goals by:

spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies — be they wind, wave, or solar power — or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer ones would pay the larger share.

The GOP is suffering a cataclysmic loss of direction right now and is bereft of big ideas that will bring about real change. A tax swap and big incentives for renewable energy ventures are sound policy. Borrowing bad liberal notions and repackaging them as “maverick” is a recipe for a November Democratic sweep.

Red Sox Flip Flop Dooms Giuliani in Republican Race

“I will be rooting for the Red Sox…you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we’re not that bad.”

-Former New York Mayor and Die-Hard Yankee Fan Rudy Giuliani on campaign trail in New Hampshire (Red Sox country)


When the New York Post reported Rudy’s BoSox claim, it was October 23rd and he was leading the national polls and well ahead in big pre-Super Tuesday states like Florida. A Quinnipiac University Poll had Giuliani at 30 percent and John McCain at 14 percent. It also showed him beating Hillary 46-43 and Obama 47-40. In the final outcome on January 29th, Florida was the guillotine for the former New York Mayor’s dumb all-or-nothing campaign strategy which bet it all on a victory in the Sunshine State.

As you know, it didn’t work, and he placed a very distant third (14.6%) to winner John McCain (36%) and runner-up Mitt Romney (31.1%). What happened? There were no big blow-ups, no Dean-like screams, no floosies. Some pundits will complain that the New York Times pulled a front page hit job on him every other day and he got clobbered by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. He also looked stupid taking a phone call from his wife in the middle of an NRA speech – an attempt to look like a family man (or something), though it came across as staged and rude.

But let’s face it, most readers of the Times and most members of the NRA weren’t going to give Rudy their vote anyway. So what really happened? The Red Sox flip-flop is what happened. Rudy’s whole thing was that he was a foreign policy hawk, a national security strongman, a man who may be unlikable, but whose backbone was strong. The Red Sox flip-flop brought his entire character into question. For sports fans (and especially Boston and Yankees fans) this infidelity was tantamount to saying, “If America loses in Iraq, I hope Al-Qaeda takes over the world so at least we lost to the best.”

Suddenly Republicans started to question Rudy's meddle in the face of evil. And once they began to do that, McCain looked like a much more attractive candidate. These guys were fighting for the same national security votes, but McCain didn’t switch alliances because it was politically convenient. McCain also didn’t have questions about shady business dealings or questions about public money paying for his mistress’s limo rides. McCain was willing to say the hard things that needed to be said (though it cost him in Michigan) and primary voters trusted him even if they disagreed with him.

It seems like a small thing, but sometimes these little details completely affect the brand image that voters conjure when pulling the lever in the voting booth. I’m curious to see what happens next time Rudy shows up at a Yankees game. He might fare worse than he did in the Republican Primary.

Perhaps Oprah and Chuck Norris Don't Play in New Hampshire

At 10:15 p.m. est, we've got the results of the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries. Right now, it looks like Hillary and her Trail of Tears is going to take the Democratic delegates in a very tight race over Obama, but John McCain has kicked some major ass on the Republican side. Huckabee, Chuck Norris, and creationism simply don't have the same appeal in the Granite State as they do among evangelical Iowans.

McCain won on the backs of the same independent voters that gave him New Hampshire in 2000 vs. George W. Bush. In fact, Johnny Mac likely took many votes from ... yes, Barack Obama. The open NH primary proved key. I like John McCain, but I think his chances are still low. The GOP is shaping into a WWF Cage Match. It is WIDE open. Look at the following possibilities heading into Super Tuesday on February 5th:

Iowa: Huckabee
New Hampshire: McCain
Michigan 1/15: Likely Mitt Romney
South Carolina 1/19: Likely Huckabee
Nevada 1/19: Giuliani has lead
Florida 1/29: Giuliani has lead

So leading into "Tsunami Tuesday," it will likely be neck-and-neck with NO clear leader. I don't think anyone knows who will be the last man standing. It's hard to imagine Giuliani, who may not post his first victory for another 2 weeks, and Fred Thompson is doing the dead man's float, but everyone else has a very legitimate chance.