It would be hard to argue that John McCain’s policies differ from George Bush’s. There are a few differences, but they are by no means substantial, or at least I don’t view them as significant. Since Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush’s handling of the two top issues — Iraq and the economy — and McCain is Bush III, how is McCain able to receive relatively favorable ratings in general election polling against the Democrats?
Only 28 percent of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the economy and only 31 percent approve of his handling of the Iraq war (4/7-9/08). But in head-to-head matchups against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, McCain’s ratings are 45 and 46 respectively.
Obviously there are contradictions and many would like to know the answer, especially Sen. Clinton since she is arguing only she can win against McCain.
Here I go with another Chertoff-gut-reaction, but I believe the answer probably resides in the election polling and is not an indication of inaccuracy on the issues polling. I have a few thoughts on why the polling results appear to be contradictory, but nothing worth noting at the moment. However, it certainly is something I would like to have a better understanding of before the Pennsylvania primary is held on April 22.
The New York Times’ Bob Herbert s is not one of my favorite columnists, but he makes a good point today. Briefly summarizing, Herbert writes that Barack Obama’s choice of words weren’t the best and he can stash the experience in his lessons-learned file. But, Herbert continues, "there is something perverse in the effort to portray Senator Obama — who has tried hard to promote a message of unity and healing — as some kind of divisive figure."
I have by no means captured all the salient points, so I suggest giving it a read.
Large undecided numbers, but one thing is clear. Clinton’s Lee Atwater strategy, if anything, is not helping her. In fact, a five-point lead in Pennsylvania is a hell of a long way from the double-digit lead Clinton held when she declared it her firewall state, the fourth or fifth consecutive one I believe.
The Times did not ask about Obama’s despicable elitism, but they did ask about the Jeremiah Wright issue in Pennsylvania and it "marginally helped."
With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid — even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party’s nomination.
What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters. …
In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.
Expect the media to continue its frenzy and catering to Clinton’s tirades as long as possible. It’s just too much showbiz for them to actually consider doing their job.
It’s still too soon to make any real conclusions about Clinton’s "elitist" attack on Barack Obama, but today’s Gallup Daily Poll is not reflecting the results Clinton’s desperation seeks. However, I think it is safe to assume Clinton will only increase her attacks. No one really expects Clinton to consider they may be counterproductive as the poll might suggest.
John McCain gave a speech on the economy in Pittsburgh today. While he had a few subtle turns, McCain made it clear he intends to follow the policies of the Bush administration, which have obviously made for a great economy.
The central tenet of McCain’s plan is to cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. McCain also proposed eliminating the AMT for families making more than $100,000 per year.
Grand idea. It would only cost trillions of dollars to implement, on top of of the existing deficit, and it’s not clear McSame has any substantive plan to balance the tax cuts. The Republicans fail to understand a very basic principle, one which every adult can relate to. If the monthly bills are X dollars, there must be at least X income to pay the bills. So, if you intend to reduce the income (the tax cuts), where is the money coming from to pay the bills? Does McCain really believe he is going to reduce expenses by trillions of dollars to rectify the tax-cut balance?
And what about the war in Iraq that the government keeps using MasterCard to pay for? McCain has no plans to end it, so how is he going to pay for it? Any talk of improving health care plans can be dismissed because there will be no funding available. Whose going to pay to rebuild the thousands of bridges that are in disrepair across the nation? The state’s can”t…the downturn in the economy is putting states back into budget crisis mode again.
Ronald Reagan instituted the same tax-cut policy and it failed. George W. Bush tried the same approach and it has failed big time. Trickle down economics has been and will continue to be a fool’s objective. Moreover, no president has ever cut taxes in the middle of a war (to my knowledge) except George W. Bush, and how did that work out?
So, while the Democratic presidential campaign focuses on the really important issues of elitism, the insurgency in Iraq rises. Mabye John McCain will call the Commander in Chief, as McCain sees it, David Petraeus, and will ask him what his plan is..
Dozens Killed in Bombings in Four Iraqi Cities - New York Times
BAGHDAD — Insurgents armed primarily with car bombs struck in four cities in Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 66 people and wounding dozens more. The most lethal attack was in the troubled provincial capital of Baquba, a city the Americans believed they had largely taken back from Sunni extremists last summer.
At least 40 people died in the Baquba suicide car bomb attack, according to the chief of security operations for the city, but the police and emergency workers removing the bodies said they counted 53.
A suicide bomber also struck in Ramadi in Anbar Province, killing 13 people. In Baghdad, one civilian was killed in a bombing that was aimed at a police major and his bodyguards. In Mosul, a car bomb exploded in a neighborhood close to the university, previously a peaceful area despite the turbulence that has rocked much of the rest of the city.
John McCain Hillary Clinton launched an ad in Pennsylvania yesterday, attacking Barack Obama on his "elitist" (Clinton description, not mine) remarks on April 6. As expected, the Crown-Royal-chugging Duck Hunter opens her attack with "Barack Obama said people in small towns ‘cling to guns or religion as a way to explain their frustration…’ "
The ad then has what are portrayed as Pennsylvania voters, saying how "very insulted" they were and asserting that "it shows just how out of touch Barack Obama is." Non-scripted, and unrehearsed I’m sure.
This is an ad Republicans would run in a general election against a Democrat. Hardly what one would expect from a fellow Democrat. And it is similar to the same ads Clinton ran in Wisconsin, which got her nowhere.
Over seven stops in North Carolina, Clinton said “Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I’m not bitter - I’m not bitter.”
Clinton said during a stop in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania “this fellow said to me… “President Clinton, we are not bitter, we just want to turn the country around.” Clinton said another supporter in North Carolina said “I hunt ’cause I like to and I go church ’cause I need to. And if I were a millionaire, I would still hunt and go to church.’ He said what we need is to get this country together, get it on the road and go forward. So that is what this election is about. And we all gotta go forward together. We all have to go forward together.”
The strong sentiments were appreciated by the crowd, but were not entirely accurate. During Clinton’s seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no “I’m not bitter” signs. There was a small assortment of people at his later events wearing stickers with the slogan, but many of those sporting the stickers weren’t even sure what they meant. Clinton also was a bit confused about his encounter in Pennsylvania. The conversation actually took place at an earlier event in Bloomsburg, PA - or so Clinton told the crowd in Bloomsburg.
Despite the evolving anecdotes, the fact that the Clinton campaign needs this story to stay alive in Indiana and other rural states was crystal clear.
This is one of Jon Stewart’s best. Stewart rips apart the "elitist" kerfuffle, turning it around by saying he wants a president that far surpasses somebody like himself. This is one you have to watch. I can’t possibly do it justice by merely describing it.
Jonah Goldberg, an Xer, who received an undergrad degree from Groucher, claims he knows what is wrong with Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle. After a puzzling research and analysis project, Goldberg has now concluded the Obamas are self-hating yuppies. Well, I do hope Sen. Clinton was promptly notified.
Since Goldberg, a Gen X neocon, does not hold an advanced degree in social or medical sciences (to my knowledge), I would be interested to learn how Goldberg definitively came to this conclusion. Furthermore, what version of the DSM is he referring to support his conclusion. Are we taking about Axis I, Axis II, or Alex P. Keaton as Goldberg seems to be loosely applying below.
There’s always been a certain cultural lag time to Barack and Michelle Obama, a kitschiness that’s been hard to pinpoint. But I think I’ve got it: They’re self-hating yuppies straight out of the 1980s, which was to the Obamas what the 1960s were to the Clintons.
For those too young to remember, “yuppie” was shorthand for young urban professionals — think Michael J. Fox as Alex P. Keaton in the TV series “Family Ties” or Charlie Sheen in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” — who allegedly represented the collapse of ’60s values and the triumph of ’80s greed. Yuppies sold their souls for a BMW and a condo.
Ironically, the biggest complaints about yuppie materialism came from self-loathing liberal yuppies — like the Obamas.
The Obamas still seem stuck in that time warp, clinging to ’80s-style resentments and political assumptions. Michelle Obama is never so eloquent as when she’s complaining about the burden of student loans for her two Ivy League law degrees and covering the high cost of summer camp and piano lessons for her kids on her family’s half-million-dollars-a-year income.
“Don’t go into corporate America,” she exhorted low-income working mothers in Ohio in February, even though she is a highly compensated hospital executive. She admits to being consumed with “a constant sense of guilt” over having to balance work, politics and family. “It’s guilt, feeling guilty all the time.”
It’s Ronald Reagan — the president of the 1980s — who seems to loom so large in Obama’s world. (Recall how last year, Obama caught some flak suggesting he might be a new Ronald Reagan.) Reagan famously restored confidence in the nation while reducing confidence in government as the solution to our problems. He put a stake in the heart of the “Vietnam syndrome” and the blame-America-first ethos of the Democratic Party, as famously diagnosed by Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican convention. The Reagan Revolution moved the country durably to the right — so much so that even Democrats saw the writing on the wall.
It is worth noting that Dr. Mr. Goldberg is part of Generation X, whose thinking commonly has significant overtones of cynicism against things held dear to the previous generations, which would include Yuppies (Mr. and Mrs. Obama) and Baby Boomers. Although the distaste is more frequently associated Boomers.
It is possible Goldberg’s Gen X inclination for cynicism of Yuppies may have clouded his judgment and consequently let the "haters" modifier be included, but inappropriately so.
I quickly checked the DSM-IV-TR and was unable to find a specific reference to "self-hating yuppie" but maybe Dr. Mr. Goldberg is referencing the DSM-V, which is not scheduled for general use until 2011. (He’s probably in that special consultation section preparing for the release.)
It is also quite intriguing that man and wife share the same affliction, so the logical question is do they have the same etiology? Dr. Mr. Goldberg appears to suggest in his progress notes they may have the same etiology, although his notes are a tad cryptic and lend themselves to prose, rather scientific.
Second opinion, doctor? That would be my suggestion.
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.
You are currently browsing the The Political Chase weblog archives for the day Tuesday, April 15th, 2008.
John McCain gave a 