Despite all that McCain still looks like a solid favorite against likely Democratic opponent Rodney Glassman, leading him 49-33. That does represent a significant tightening since September when McCain led 55-25, but doesn't put him in a particularly dire situation. The reason for the disconnect between McCain's approval rating and his support for reelection is that while only 48% of Republicans express approval of his job performance, 78% will still vote for him in a general election.
Democrats' only real shot at winning the seat then is if Hayworth can win the primary, and we find Glassman leading Hayworth 42-39 in such a scenario. Hayworth is extremely unpopular with only 23% of voters holding a favorable opinion of him to 50% with an unfavorable one. Democrats (6/68 favorability) predictably see him in a dim light but he doesn't do a whole lot better with independents (22/49). Republicans are evenly divided with 37% viewing him favorably and 37% unfavorably.
If we want to win back the Senate (still a slim possibility), we can't give up an own goal.
Predictably, the anti-moderate chorus is pushing 2006 congressional loser JD Hayworth to run against the GOP's presidential candidate in 2008, and of course they will get some ammunition from Rasmussen's recent poll, which shows the former sportscaster within striking distance of McCain.
Frankly, I doubt Hayworth's dumb enough to challenge McCain. For one thing, the senator's already got about $5 million in his campaign fund, and another $20 million left over from his presidential run. And the Democrats have already admitted that they can't come up with a credible challenger, so he doesn't have to keep his powder dry for the general election.
Don't Blame Me, I Voted for the Loosertarian Candidate
Not the dumbest thing Stacy McCain has said, but right up there.
Yes, and how did this happen? Because I voted for Bob Barr in Maryland? I think not. The GOP nominated as its presidential candidate the only candidate in the primary field for whom I could not vote. (S. 2611.) The most electable candidate in the Republican field, Mitt Romney, quit two days after Super Tuesday.
The most electable candidate in the Republican field was the guy who couldn't win in the Republican primaries? How ironic is that?
As I will eventually tire of pointing out, McCain did better than the GOP candidates for Senate in 2008. So far from McCain dragging down the GOP, the GOP dragged down McCain. I can understand why some people want to ignore this, but I don't understand why we should listen to them when it is quite obvious that they are wrong, and when they contributed to Obama's victory with their constant carping about how the GOP's candidate was completely unacceptable.
Unlike Stacy McCain, I will pledge here and now to support the GOP's candidate in 2012. Even if it turns out to be Ron Paul.
I asked McCain what might happen if Obama and Orszag get their way. First, the U.S. could have to print a lot of new money, "running the huge risk of inflation and returning to the situation of the 1970s, only far worse," McCain said. The second option is to raise taxes.
Just this week, former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin conceded that Obama's budget could present a "scary scenario" that would "raise deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers." The solution, she wrote, is higher taxes, and not just for the richest of the rich.
Of course, that's what McCain said during the campaign. And it's what the much-maligned Joe the Plumber said, too. Remember when he took so much flak for objecting to Obama's plan to raise taxes only on those Americans making more than $250,000 a year? Joe didn't make anything near that, the critics said, so why was he worrying?
But I'm sure Bob will tell me that McCain was wrong and Obama was right. He certainly seems to be quite the Obama fan.
Update: Quoth the Bob: "Nope McCain is wrong about nearly everything but when it comes to talking of printing money and raising taxes he takes a backseat to no one."
And that could be an issue in a nation where seven of the last eight presidential elections have been won by the candidate widely perceived as cooler, more likable, more popular: Reagan, Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Bush (arguably primarily for these reasons), Bush, and Obama. (I consider the 1988 election a draw in terms of uncoolness.)
Let's think about this for a second. Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who finished sixth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, or the guy who was the president of Harvard Law Review? Who's more likely to be cool, a fighter jet pilot or a "community organizer"? Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who married the daughter of the local beer distributor, or the guy who married a lawyer?
Heck, I didn't vote for the guy, but one of the things I found endearing in him was that he acknowledged his geekiness. Remember this photo of him?
Now that's some major geekage there. And that's okay; a forty-something dad out for a ride with his family (that metal contraption at the back was attached to his daughter's bike) is not supposed to be cool.
If you remember, that was the question for most of the winter and spring of this year. Despite having a mathematical advantage over Hillary, Obama found himself unable to seal the deal until after the primaries were over.
Of course, eventually he became the nominee and must currently be considered the most likely next President. But are there cracks in that confident, self-assured demeanor? Over at Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat dismisses recent polling:
DKos/R2000 has Obama by 7, 50-43. This is down significantly from Obama's consistent double digit leads in this poll. Rasmussen has Obama steady - with a 5 point 50-45 lead for the fourth consecutive day. Hotline actually trends towards Obama, up 2 for a 10 point 50-40 lead, UPDATE - Hotline today - narrows to 7. IBD/TIPP has Obama by 5, 46-41. Battleground has Obama by 4.
The question is the spread now. Obama will win. The last debate did nothing significant for McCain. Downticket should be our focus now.
Translation: There's no real reason for McCain to be rallying right now, so it doesn't matter. Really? I think the fact that there's no specific reason could be quite a cause for concern for Obama partisans. Note that most of the polls have not shown Obama breaking the 50% barrier. I've talked about this a lot in the past but this is a systemic problem for the Democrats. Do you know who the last Democrat was to get 50.1% of the general election vote or better?
Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Carter got 50.08%, and Clinton never managed 50% (partly because of Ross Perot). In that same period of time, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I and Bush 2004 all managed better than 50%.
"I want you to believe," said the candidate, clad in an open-necked shirt and barn jacket. "Not so much believe just in me but believe in yourselves. Believe in the future. Believe in the future we can build together. I'm confident together we can't fail."
There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: "I promise you. We won't just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we're going to change the country and change the world."
Oh, Lord. A barn jacket? Anybody remember Kerry in the barn jacket?
For the silly article of the day, check out this suggestion that what the GOP needs in 2012 is North American Union fruitcake Lou Dobbs:
This suggests that if Obama wins, the real political energy in the country over the next several years may come from a new populist political force. Would someone challenge Obama from the left? Unlikely. But already there are arguments from such political theorists as Michael Barone and Steve Sailer that the cheap mortgages, which led to the housing crisis, which precipitated the financial crisis, were directly related to the immigration boom. Such arguments are made-to-order for someone like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has recently been railing against the lackluster efforts to solve the financial crisis with gusto, much as he attacks the government's failures to enforce immigration laws.
In other words, Dobbs -- or a counterpart -- is likely to be a "third party" political force to watch after November 4. That's not politics as usual. But neither is the era we're now facing.
Barack Obama began sketching the outlines of his expected presidential contest against Republican John McCain on Saturday, saying the fall election will be more about specific plans and priorities than about questions of political ideology or who is more patriotic.
Hey, if I were Barack, I'd not want the campaign to be fought over who is more patriotic, too!
I have talked many times in the past about Bud Day, one of America's greatest heroes. Bud Day is the second-most decorated military man in US history, topped only by Douglas MacArthur. He is the sort of man for whom the Congressional Medal of Honor, which he received, seems ridiculously inadequate. He should be somebody that children learn of in grammar school.
Karl Rove has an anecdote about Bud Day and John McCain during their time in the Hanoi Hilton, that will bring tears to your eyes; I know they did to mine:
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense. It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage. But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.
If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'
McGovern claims that McCain said in a panel discussion on Robert McNamara's book regretting his involvement in Vietnam, that "Well we all know that George McGovern knows little about national defense."
My guess is that this panel discussion took place in 1995 on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Unfortunately the real audio and real video feed doesn't work so we can't check McGovern's recollection, and of course one word (a) before "little" would change the meaning of McCain's comment entirely.
It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."
McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.
Problem: Bob Kerrey himself (a Democrat) says that's not what happened:
Since I was mentioned in the Post story I can offer my account of the McCain-Grassley argument. First, I did nothing to intervene; the two Senators worked it out on their own. Second, the subject of the debate - the status of Americans held as prisoner in Vietnam - was one that always provoked violent, ugly debates. The precise point of disagreement between the Senators was over a man name Robert Garwood. Senator Grassley believed he was a hero whose reputation was destroyed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Senator McCain believed him to a traitor who caused prisoners (like Senator McCain) to receive additional encounters with torture. Both Senators were extremely angry. Senator McCain was explosive (who wouldn't be?) but at no time threatening. Most important: McCain won the argument. My experience is that his anger always has a purpose and in this case the purpose was to defeat Senator Grassley's argument which he did decisively.
Posted By: Bob Kerrey | April 21, 2008 at 07:45 AM
Garwood is an interesting case. He claimed to have been captured by the Viet Cong in 1965, but this claim is doubted by many, and he was charged with desertion (although not convicted). By 1967, according to some POWs, he was assisting the North Vietnamese in POW camps. At his trial, the following evidence was included of his collaboration with the enemy:
"Robert GARWOOD had a multitude of jobs at the camps. He acted as a guard to some of the prisoners. On other occasions he acted as an interpreter for the commander or anybody that spoke Vietnamese and did not speak English."
"Robert GARWOOD carried a wallet or pouch that he had for his possessions, and he carried a picture of HO CHI MINH in it."
"...GARWOOD sucker punched HARKER in the ribs."
"'His' physical condition was better than that of the POWs living at the compound."
"PFC GARWOOD aided the enemy by acting as interpreter, collaborator, guard... He was also an interrogator."
Garwood apparently tired of life in Vietnam by 1979 and requested to be repatriated to the United States. He was placed under a military court martial and was convicted of being a collaborator and assaulting an American POW. At the time he made no claims about Americans still being held in Vietnam, although by 1983 he was claiming to have such knowledge.
He was interviewed in 1981 by the BBC, which includes this account of his original capture:
At each village, young boys threw stones at his head, at his wounded arm and at his testicles. Whenever he yelped in pain, they squealed in delight.
They would sneak up behind him and jab sharp bamboo sticks up his unguarded anus.
The VC marched him all through the second night in a cold, bone-chilling rain.
Garwood, wearing only his shorts, shivered violently as he stumbled along on his bleeding and swelling feet.
Ummm, wearing shorts, but his anus was unguarded? And if the VC had him prisoner, why did the kids have to "sneak up behind him"? Don't get me wrong, I am sure that American prisoners were treated horribly. But this has the aroma of a story that has been compiled from several others that don't mesh perfectly.
He describes a wounded arm, and yet despite appalling details that would lead one to suspect gangrene, somehow nobody describes him as a one-armed man:
By the third day, his would had become infected and his arm had swollen up to three times its normal size and it began to stink like rotting meat.
And get this oddball sentence:
He couldn't see the large dark circles around his sunken eyes.
Couldn't see the sunken eyes either, I'd wager.
If you're as surprised as I am at the MSM covering this story of Vietnamese atrocities, well, understand that it's only a prelude to covering American atrocities to poor Mr Garwood:
Recently declassified files prove that the Pentagon knew Garwood was alive after 1973.
He was abandoned by his own government!
They told his father he was dead.
On his own, he escaped and returned to the United States.
He was charged with Desertion. If convicted, he could have been executed.
The meme that there were still POWs in Vietnam had an oddball resonance with elements of the Left and the Right back in the 1980s. The Right, of course, loved it because it proved what dirty bastards we had been fighting in Southeast Asia. And the Left found a way to accept it as indicating that our government had lied to us yet again about Vietnam. It was one last thing to hate about Nixon.
So eventually the Left began to adopt Bobby Garwood. If what he was saying was true the government had railroaded an innocent and honorable man. And if what he was saying was false, he was a commie sympathizer and collaborator with the North Vietnamese. So either way he's a hero, in the eyes of the Left.
So a TV movie was made for him, starring Ralph Macchio (the Karate Kid) as Garwood. Did it have a liberal slant? I haven't seen the movie, but guess for yourself; the second actor billed is Martin Sheen. His story was also done in book form by a "former Emmy-winning 60 Minutes producer". Not that that means she's a liberal or anything. Except when you read this, you can kind of check off that box:
Now, in a newsbreaking new book, SPITE HOUSE: The Last Secret of the War in Vietnam, investigative reporter Monika Jensen-Stevenson, author of Kiss the Boys Goodbye, unveils the shocking truths behind a contemporary American tragedy. She reveals Garwood's innocence and exposes the U.S. government's dreadful initiatives against its own men in Vietnam.
I always remind myself to watch for confirmation bias, although I am not always successful at avoiding it. I found this discussion of Robert Garwood circa 1999-2005 compelling and very believable, despite the rather obvious fact that the author is the jilted former husband of Garwood's wife. It certainly indicates that Garwood has remained a lowlife.
In 2006, the Arizona Republican congressional delegation had a strategy meeting. McCain repeatedly addressed two new members, congressmen Trent Franks and Rick Renzi, as 'boy.' Finally, Renzi, a former college linebacker, rose from his chair and said to McCain, "You call me that one more time and I'll kick your old ass." McCain lunged at Renzi, punches were thrown, and the two had to be physically separated. After they went to their separate offices, McCain called Renzi and demanded an apology. Renzi refused. Apparently this posture made McCain admire him, as they became fast friends.
This last part is of course very convenient, because Renzi is currently under indictment, and if the story was just that McCain scuffled with a corrupt politician, it wouldn't suit the liberal agenda. BTW, Renzi had been in office for at least three years at the time the supposed incident took place, so the notion that he was a "new member" is wrong.
Let me remind people that John McCain is unable to do some things, like comb his own hair, because of the torture he suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. The idea that he would engage in fisticuffs with Renzi is just plain nutty. And some of the other stuff (added for bulk) includes the shocking news that McCain once told Ted Kennedy to "Shut up". The only negative about that claim is that apparently it only happened once.
Update: Check out this list of other people McCain has reportedly had arguments with. Strom Thurmond, Robert Torricelli, Charlie Keating, Ross Perot... the man sure can pick his enemies well.
McCain's Blogger Outreach Effort Noted in Washington Times
In an article that mentions my longtime blog-buddy Pat Hynes:
The main reason: Mr. McCain's blogger outreach, the most extensive of any presidential campaign in either party, helped keep him afloat in the dark days last summer when the major press was sizing up his campaign grave. During those times, Mr. McCain got attention and digital ink from the bloggers he invited to biweekly conference calls, and got a chance to talk policy.
"During the unpleasantness, whenever Senator McCain put himself in front of reporters, the question was always, 'How much did you raise today, when are you dropping out,' " said Patrick Hynes, a conservative blogger who Mr. McCain hired in 2006. "And then we'd put him on the phone with bloggers, and they'd want to talk about Iraq, and pork and chasing down al Qaeda."
Patrick has done terrific work for McCain, although it's taken his toll on him as you can see from this recent photo:
Update: John Cole, who was most emphatically not part of the blogger conference calls, offers these trite thoughts:
I suppose it is only natural to go to a forum where you can be asked the truly pressing questions. Things like- “Who is less patriotic, Obama or Hillary?” Or, “Will the Democrats be content to lose the war in Iraq, or will they try to turn the US into a province of Iran.” Or, “Do you think you can be as great a President as Bush?”
If anything, Cole's commenters are even more pathetic.
It's hilarious how hard the libs are stretching to smear John McCain, because every time they try, then end up helping him. Case in point: Sam Stein's column at the HuffnPuff today:
McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, played a crucial role in blocking the deal to build air tankers from going to U.S.-based Boeing, instead paving the path for EADS to score the loot. He framed his decision as an example of political integrity; Boeing has previously been exposed of contract abuse. But a review of campaign finance donations and lobbying records suggests that money and personal lobbying may have also been in play.
Stein establishes that McCain received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from EADS. That's right, fifteen thousand. Apparently Sam thinks this some kind of princely sum. And he glides over why Boeing didn't get the deal:
Finnegan was referring to McCain's 2003 investigation into Boeing's billing practices and lock on the tanker business. That investigation resulted in the company losing out on a $23 billion deal to lease tankers to the Air Force.
And why did Boeing lose out? You won't find it in Stein's column; for that you have to look over at the National Review:
When McCain finally received the e-mails, the Boeing tanker deal exploded. The investigation revealed malfeasance, resulting in a $615 million fine for the company. Boeing’s CEO, Phil Condit, was forced to resign. The company’s CFO was sent to prison. Darleen Druyun, who had served as the second-ranking civilian official for Air Force procurement, also went to prison. She pled guilty in 2004 to steering the tanker contract and other deals toward Boeing in the hopes of later securing lucrative jobs with the company for herself and her family members.
Gee, what's a little thing like that, compared to FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!
Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.
The senator started by stating his feelings on the Kosovo situation and the storming of the embassy in Belgrade. He indicated that it was his understanding that it was a case of drunken hooligans and slow response from the local police. On the Cuba situation, Senator McCain indicated that he disagreed strongly with Barack Obama's statement last night that he'd meet with Raul Castro with no conditions.
I got the chance to ask Senator McCain a question about the electoral college map given reports that a McCain/Obama matchup might shake things up, and asked him to tell us the states he felt he could break through in, and for one state that he felt would be difficult to defend.
He replied that he didn't want to get too far ahead of himself in respect for Governor Huckabee (no mention of fruitcake Ron Paul), but that he felt he does have to run a 50-state campaign. He did feel that he could be competitive in California (I agree), New Jersey (ditto) and New York (probably a stretch). He cited New Mexico as a state which will have to be vigorously defended.
There were no significant questions on the New York Times story; one blogger did express the thoughts of (I believe) most of us, that the story was nothing more than a smear job.
Fausta asked a question about a Hawaiian native bill that is apparently kicking around in Congress; Senator McCain expressed concern that this might be an attempt to give the natives a status similar to that of Native Americans (i.e., Indians), which had been settled at the time of Hawaii's admission to the union.
James Joyner of Outside the Beltway asked about Cuba, pointing out that the current US policy towards that island nation has not changed in his lifetime. Senator McCain noted that our policy towards Cuba has prevented them from exporting Castroism elsewhere, and that Raoul Castro is every bit the thug that his brother has been. I agree here, and note that Obama's comments will make it very difficult for him to be competitive in Florida, where the Cuban exile community is based.
Liberal Bloggers Try to Tie NY Slimes Piece to Stolen Honor
Oh my, just when you thought that the fantasies couldn't get any more fantastic:
For the moment, though, I'm more interested in the 2004 election--the one McCain didn't run in. You see, I find it a mighty curious coincidence that two of the companies for which Iseman was lobbying John McCain in 1999 and 2000--the time of their potentially inappropriate relationship--also happen to be the two television companies that championed the Kerry smear, "Stolen Honor," in 2004.
Stolen Honor
Stolen Honor, you'll recall, was a 45-long propaganda piece, repeating the allegations the Swift Boaters made against John Kerry. It came out in September 2004 (as Republicans have promised a smear against Hillary or Obama will come out at precisely the same time this cycle). Shortly thereafter, Sinclair Broadcasting ordered its stations to pre-empt normal broadcasting to play the "documentary." Sinclair also fired one employee who complained about the order.
Bzzzzt! Wrong! Stolen Honor was not about the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations at all. There was no discussion of Kerry's Purple Hearts or Christmas in Cambodia. Instead the focus was on POWs held in North Vietnam, and how Kerry's staged "Winter Soldier" hearings in the early 1970s created this false image of our soldiers in Vietnam as acting in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjhis Khan. It was about how the North Vietnamese used Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when interrogating the POWs, to say, look, here's a naval officer who admits he committed war crimes. Why don't you admit your war crimes as well?
The only real connection between Stolen Honor and the Swiftees is that the POWs and the Swift Boat Vets combined forces. But there really was no overlap in the charges made against Kerry by the two groups.
But the post does us one big favor; it reminds us of John McCain's reaction to Sinclair's later decision not to air Stolen Honor:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Sinclair's decision: "There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq."
Something for us conservatives to remember when considering John McCain's initial negative reaction to the Swiftees is that he supported Stolen Honor. McCain opposed the focus on the medals, but felt the focus on Kerry's antiwar activities was legitimate.
