It's all about Obama

Dick Morriss and Eileen McGann's latest article is intresting, in that they seem to acknowledge the possibility that their candidates may not have universal appeal.

The Democrats are gleeful over the missteps of Christine O'Donnell. Too many leading Republicans do not realize that all of our fates in the midterm election are tied to her. If the Democrats can discredit her, they can discredit all of those like her and raise lasting doubts about dozens of Republican candidates who would otherwise be victorious.

If the grass-roots tea party is foisting unqualified candidates upon us, and if our very own party leaders think this is true, what a weapon we are handing the Democrats. Those critical Republican leaders who would criticize the O'Donnells of our party must realize that she is here to stay, she is one of us now and she deserves all our support. Fortunately, the grass-roots knows this fact and has showered her campaign with donations and support.

Kind of confusing there as Morris seems to recognize that O'Donnel (and others) are weak, but stressing that they must be supported.

The larger point though is that this election needs to be about Obama; it shouldn't matter what kind of candidate we put up, so long as America focuses on how badly Obama has failed.

This will be our year

Well maybe not. According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, we are pretty well screwed.

The magnitude of the catastrophe facing the Democratic Party in the fall elections is only gradually becoming clear to the leaders of both parties. The Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House. They will lose more House seats in 2010 than the 54 they lost in 1994, and they will lose the Senate, possibly with some seats to spare.

Pretty much all the articles over at Townhall follow a similar theme this week - I guess it's the post labor day period - time to pay attention to the election. And the goal of articles right now is to both convince your voter to fight like hell for victory and to discourage the opposing party to pack it in because they have already lost. So it's hard to put too much stock in these articles.

But it's still depressing to read article after article about how your side is going to lose. So I suppose it's better to be enthusiastic about how foolish these two will look in November.

The Republican Plan to Healthcare Reform

Republicans have a plan to fix health care. I know it seems like they are the party of "No," but really they have some ideas. And Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have articulated these ideas in their latest article.

The Republicans need to explain how much of the unnecessary medical costs are being driven by useless tort litigation. In Mississippi, where they acted to preclude much of it, malpractice premiums have declined by 50 percent.

Hmmmm. Malpractice premiums have declined - how much has that affected the patients bills? Presumably were that number as impressive they would have cited it. I generally favor the jury system; but I know that Conservatives have grave doubts about their fellow citizens ability to judge cases fairly.

Frankly I think Andrew Cohen, of the Atlantic, has it right.

Make no mistake-- the "reform" in "tort reform" is about eliminating or reducing the ability of trial juries to act as levelers of the playing field; as avengers of otherwise toothless victims; as the voice of a community in meting out justice. It is about helping corporations before individuals; about the bottom line and not the bottom rung.

Yep. It is baffling to me that republicans think the solution to overly expensive healthcare is to hold doctors less responsible.

But Morris and McGann have other suggestions.

Then Republicans need to discuss other cost-saving measures, such as allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines and other measures to encourage competition.

It will encourage competition exactly as long as it takes for the big insurers to crush the little guys, at which point the competition will end. It does seem like the Republican/Conservative plans are to empower corporations and weaken the power of the people. I'm not sure that will actually improve things that much.

Maddening

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article is maddening. It is also the conventional wisdom regarding Obama.

On the other hand, we reject the total revamping of the health care industry, the reduction of doctor pay, the cuts in Medicare and the mandatory insurance embedded in the Obamacare legislation. Were Obama to embrace these solutions, he would quickly be able to pass his bill and would be hailed for it.

But will Obama do it? Will he emulate Bill Clinton and save his presidency by moving to the center? Certainly not before he has lost his control over Congress.

At least Morris isn't pretending that Obama is beholden to the left wing like some morons are. But the whole thing is insane. Obama and congressional democrats have moved as much towards the middle as they can, without being on the right.

But presumably Morris and McGann would encourage Obama to move all the way to the right, while constantly lambasting him for being one step to the left of Mao.

Conservative Democrats

Dick Morris and Eileen Gann's latest article illustrates how differently the world looks from the right. It is about Conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, and how they are basically done.

Now that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Byron Dorgan in the Senate and the likes of Marion Berry, Tom Perriello and John Spratt Jr. in the House have shown how easily they fold under pressure and how thin their conservatism really is, their states and districts will no longer be deceived into re-electing them. They will be replaced by real Republicans.

The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It over-reached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system.

It's kind of an odd argument. First of all, many liberals believe that the Health Reform bills were gutted by these people, particularly Nelson and Lieberman (who Morris leaves out of his article, for reasons that escape me). Nelson put pressure on Harry Reid to remove the Public Option and to ensure that none of this money will go to abortions. In my mind and many others he substantially weakened the bill. After getting all those concessions, does Morris really expect Nelson to vote against the bill after all?

But again, Morris sees this bill as excessively liberal, while many if not most liberals see it as excessively pro insurance industry. I guess the real question is how will the American people see it.

Dangerous Policies

Dick Morris and Eilleen Gann are aghast at some of Obama's dangerous tax policies. The dangerous part about the plan seems to be the part where it's a tax cut for the middle class and working class.

Obama's plan - he'd give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 - would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a "refund" welfare check.

In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters - and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Whether or not this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City - hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords' profits.

Yeah my heart bleeds for the wealthy in America. I mean it's not like they don't have plenty of other ways to influence elections, by say Campaign Contributions or running for office themselves (most office holders will continue to come from the wealthy in America).

The real problem is that this plan will expose to the American Middle and Working class that the interests of the Republican party are not their own. The Republicans (and to be fair, most Democrats) work for the Corporations not the People; opposing a bill that will put money in the pockets of the working and middle class will reveal that, whatever the rhetoric is.

It's clear that this bill is dangerous. To Republicans.

The Power of Negative Advertising

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have written an article on the benefits of negative advertising, coincidentally, just as McCain and Palin are starting to go negative in a big way.

Some political consultants, including most Republicans, treat positive advertisements like the overture before the show begins, marking time until the real campaign starts and the negatives begin to hit. That's wrong. Positive ads that explain a program, develop a theme, or spell out hot-button issues are still the most effective communications in politics. But negative ads work and have their place. They are how the voters find truth in a morass of claims and counterclaims. With much of the media oriented toward the left or the right, negative ads are often the only way voters can penetrate the claims of the various campaigns and get the facts.

Yeah - negative ads are the only way voters can get the facts. For example media outlets, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have repeatedly examined Obama's connection to William Ayres and found little of note. But Palin and McCain know there is something there. So negative ads can highlight this supposed connection, and in that way bring the "facts" to the voters.

I think maybe Morris is using fact in a different way than I am using it.

Dick Morris's Political Advice

Dick Morris's advice for McCain going into this first debate is that he should make an issue of Obama's tax plans. Great advice. Really solid. Except of course that the first debate is slated to cover "Foreign policy and national security issues." That doesn't seem like a great forum to bring up tax policy in.

Jim Lehrer. - "Senator McCain, what changes would you envision making to better protect American citizens?"

McCain(R) - "Well one change I won't be making is raising anybody's taxes, like my esteemed colleague here. No I'll be keeping taxes low so as to keep our economy strong."

Jim Lehrer - "OK. But for national security?"

McCain(R) - "National security is important, but you know what else is important? Job Security. And Job Security will be threatened if Obama's plans to increase taxes goes through."

I better stop. This is actually starting to feel kind of plausible. Anyway I think it's safe to assume that Friday's debate will be mostly about foreign policy, which won't leave a lot of room for talking about tax policy.

Dick Morris's Political Advice

Well, I suppose it's Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. Not sure how that partnership works, but she must be in there for a reason. Anyway they think that McCain has an opening he should exploit.

In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that McCain is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush’s third term. It was no accident — or Freudian slip — when Joe Biden spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.

This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.

The problem with this strategy is that the Republican base likes Bush, and are suspicious of McCain. McCain distancing himself from Bush will look a lot like McCain distancing himself from his own base, and I'm not sure that's a winning strategy.

If Democrats will only Jump Thru these Hoops, Republicans will Provide More Hoops

Michelle Obama spoke Monday night at the Democratic Convention, as I'm sure everybody knows. And her speech was well received and with good reason. It was an excellent speech. It went a long way towards humanizing her and her husband. Read it yourself, if you like.

All of us driven by the simple belief that the world as it is just won't do, that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.

And that is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.

And, you see, that is why I love this country.

According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann this is a critical test that the Obama camp needed to pass.

'I love this country": Those are the magic words that Michelle Obama said at the Democratic National Convention last night.

They're the words we've wanted to hear from her ever since we saw her say that she was proud of her country "for the first time in my adult life" now that her husband was winning primaries en route to the White House.

Thank goodness. Michelle Obama cleared the arbitrary hoop that Morris and McGann set for her. Now for smooth sailing.

Except, of course, as Morris and McGann know, the conservatoids aren't going to stop harping on this. They are going to continue harping on this issue. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a week and a half, we hear Hannity and Limbaugh and the others asking "Why don't we ever hear Michelle Obama say anything positive about our nation?"

And, naturally enough, Morris and McGann have another hoop for the Obama's to jump through.

OK, we found ourselves saying, You didn't grow up as elitists. You can reach back for the stories and the memories. But what about now? What about the future? You started off poor, but have you gone Ivy League on us?

Listening to her, we couldn't help feeling that we've heard it all before from Barack Obama himself. Couldn't help wondering if there was more than just the rhetoric and the emotion, no matter how sincerely and obviously felt.

Ah - Obama has to prove that he has actual plans for America instead of just "rhetoric and emotion." Well I suppose a reporter could go and look at the Democratic Party Platform, or at Obama's campaign website and try to glean from it what Obama plans to do if elected. But damn that sounds like work. Easier to just sit back and carp "Obama hasn't put forward any real plans to help America." Easier, and if you are a conservative commentator, more lucrative.

Changing the Subject

Intermixed with all the bad news for Republicans, they have found one issue that works for them. Energy. Now of course they have the difficulty of explaining how Bush hasn't been able to do anything about it in 8 years of office, but McCain will have better luck. Usually they explain this by muttering about Democrats. Certainly talking about those dastardly Democrats who like Moose more than People is more fun than defending the Bush Record on Iraq.

The theme of Dick Morris's latest article is that Obama is an enormous flip-flopper, so why not flip flop on energy and support drilling everything. But in his list of flip-flops, and there have been some doozys lately, Morris does overstate his case a little. For example he presents this as a flip-flop.

Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

Silly. He always said he would plan the specifics of our withdrawal with the military; one of his repeated phrases is that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. I think Morris's assumption is that the military will tell him "You've got to stay in Iraq forever, sir." I'm not sure they will. And at any rate, I believe it's the Military's job to execute tactically the direction the President gives them. If Obama makes it an objective to withdraw military from Iraq in a sensible manner, I'm not sure what the Military can say to that.

At any rate the rest of it is on energy. I do think that if the Republicans can convince the American people that the high gas prices are entirely the Democrats doing, well, it will be good for them. That might be a hard sell, particularly if Obama insists on bringing up Iraq.

Mordantly Funny

Caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity show as I was out and about this afternoon - they had Dick Morris on who was noting that President Bush had taken enormous and far reaching executive powers to himself, which was ok because President Bush could be trusted with those powers. Unfortunately it looks like there is a chance that those powers will drop down to the hated Hillary Clinton, and he's warning America in the strongest possible terms that they must not let this happen.

Had this possibility really never occurred to him before? And if not, doesn't that mean that he's, well, kind of stupid?

McCain can win

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article is based on a simple principle - Hillary Clinton must be defeated no matter the cost. Based on that principle, he says that McCain is a better bet.

It is only on the economy that McCain has a self-proclaimed (if inadvisably so) weakness. But Hillary would be overreaching dramatically if she claimed special expertise on this issue merely through the osmosis that she claims to be a feature of living in the White House. Her tax increase proposals, particularly her support for a higher capital gains tax, can be painted, accurately, as foreshadowing doom for the economy. Neither Hillary nor McCain can claim the economy as an especial preserve.

Can Romney? Inexplicably, the McCain campaign has not spoken of the layoffs that must have accompanied Romney’s efforts to “turn around” failing companies. Hedge funds are notorious for cutting jobs and the Clintons will make Mitt eat every single one. McCain has no such vulnerability and, hopefully, will make Romney’s layoffs an issue before Super Tuesday.

So McCain can win and Romney won’t. That’s the long and the short of it.

There it is. That said, I think the Conservative hatred for McCain is at least as great as their hatred of the Clintons. It's kind of a depressing thing to consider that this contest may turn on who the Conservatives hate less.

Well depressing for Conservatives, anyway.

Huckabee is All things to All People

Not so much.

Donald Lambro, in his "latest article", follows the Novak Line from last week, suggesting that Huckabee isn't a traditional conservative.

The Club for Growth has also examined his tax and spend record and found it wanting. Its verdict: Huckabee could not be trusted to hold the line on taxes, let alone push it back.

Huckabee of course rejects the charges and said they do not take into account the many taxes he also cut. He insists he is a committed tax-cutter who could be trusted to shrink the size of government.

But seeing is believing, and the visual record backs the Club for Growth up; . . .

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, on the other hand, think that Huckabee's star is on the rise.

The fact is that the only two things holding Romney aloft in the early states were the fact that he was the only alternative to Giuliani and that he was spending a bundle on campaign advertising.

For many months the other campaigns were not on the air in Iowa or New Hampshire. Why Giuliani didn’t advertise is a mystery and likely the subject of future political science classes. Huckabee, of course, was broke, and Thompson couldn’t get his act together in time.

But now that everybody is on the air, Huckabee is emerging as a new alternative to Giuliani for socially conservative voters. Reliably pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is now emerging as the real thing — a social conservative alternative to the ersatz Romney version.

And, of course, he’s not a Mormon. Many Republicans remain fearful that nominating a Mormon would be tantamount to handing the election to the Democrats.

It raises the question - do Republicans, if forced to choose, prefer low taxes and conservative fiscal policy or would they rather have their values questions addressed?

President Bush needs to pull out if Iraq

According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article, Bush needs to pull out of Iraq in order to save the Republican Party and his own legacy.

But Bush faces a stark choice: If he doesn't begin pulling out, his party will lose the White House, lose Congress by stunning and likely filibuster--proof margins, and his tax cut and education reforms will be repealed. His footsteps will be obliterated from history. It will be as if he never served.

That last line is a bit hopeful I think. I don't think people will forget President Bush served as our President.

His larger point is that President Bush can make symbolic gestures towards pulling out, which will mollify the American people, while leaving enough troops there to accomplish our goals (whatever those may be).

I'm listening to President Bush, and he keeps mentioning Gen. David Petraeus. He also talks about needing to trust the generals. It just kind of feels that if Iraq fails (assuming it hasn't already), he's laying the foundation for it not being his fault.

Bush and Iraq and 2008

Dick Morris's latest article suggests how President Bush could revive Republican hopes for 2008 by pulling troops out of Iraq.

If Bush begins to draw down manpower levels by the end of the year, he could reduce the differences between his positionand that of the Democratic front-runners on a matter of numbers rather than on basic policy. In taking the Iraq issue out of contention in the 2008 election, Bush will have rescued his party from what is now almost certain defeat.

Will his move seem transparently political? Democrats will surely say that it is, but nobody will really believe that Bush or the Republicans will reverse course and send in more troops after the election. Everybody will believe that the draw-down of U.S. troops is permanent and quite real.

In fact, Bush’s stubborn obstinacy on Iraq in the past will make it unlikely that any concession on his part will be seen as opportunistic.

I do like the idea that Bush can, in effect, rescue his party from his own bad decisions.

That said, I'm not sure about Morris's contention that the public won't see Bush's actions as political. I think perhaps Morris, a conservative himself and blinded with hatred for Hilary Clinton, might be assuming the American people see things the same way he does.

The Election needs more Mud

Or at least Dick Morris and Eileen McGann would like to see a bit more mud, particularly in the debates.

The gulf between the two parties has so widened and the partisan bitterness it engenders so increased, voters are be massively turned off when one member of their party criticizes another - even when they are facing off for the presidential nomination.

The voters seem to be saying: Save your criticism for the other party - don't weaken one of our own by going after him (or her).

I don't know if that is true or not; certainly we've seen candidates take potshots at each other. Obama has been critical of Edwards and Clinton for their votes on the Iraq War Resolution for example.

Morris is a Conservative Republican and he wants to sink Hillary Clinton in particular. I suspect the subtext of this article is "Why don't you Democratic Candidates get Hillary good and bloodied for us?"

Dick Morris enourages President Bush to play games with funding the troops

Dick Morris's analysis of the current showdown between Congress and the President is that the President holds all the cards. Congress won't actually defund the war, so all he has to do is wait it out and remain intractable, and eventually Pelosi will be put in the embarrassing position of begging her coalition to vote for a bill to fund the war and making peace with the Republicans.

But the consequences for Pelosi of a retreat will be serious: She'll leave behind her the party's left - who will never vote for funding without also mandating withdrawal. Pelosi will have to scramble and craft a majority with a combination of Republican votes and support from the center of her own party.

The speaker will probably wind up having to vote against the majority of her Democratic members. That spectacle won't be healthy for her future authority or control.

If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.

I am not sure I agree with Morris the political whore's political judgment in this case. One thing you always wonder about with Morris the political whore is who is paying for his services. By now though Morris has a sugar daddy in the Republican Party which is why his sharp political senses can be counted on to discover that the Democrats are both immoral and stupid.

In this case I think he discounts institutional rivalry. President Bush has been thumbing his nose at congress for six years and it might well catch up with him. I think he also underestimates the desire of the American people to see this war end; but that's common among Republicans these days.

Morris believes that if the President and his allies in congress refuse to sign a troop funding bill until they've sufficiently humiliated Speaker Pelosi that the American people will interpret that as being Pelosi's fault. Color me doubtful.

What I find amusing about this situation is that Republicans have, for weeks now, been complaining that the constitutional power that Congress has, the one that not even the President questions, is the power of the purse. They can stop funding the war at any time. Now that it looks like we are closer to that option, well, maybe they want to question it after all.