We've given much talk here recently to some potential weaknesses facing Barack Obama in the fall. In part, there is value to having such discussion even as some Obama supporters whistle past Dixie, proclaiming all to be ok.
Meanwhile, John McCain's weaknesses have been pretty well-discussed. Age, lack of interest in some domestic issues, unenthused GOP base, etc. A couple more, however, have showed some leg recently, haven't yet become real problems, but look like they could potentially explode on him in the fall if events sour.
1) His wife's tax returns. It simply will not do for Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself to not have the full returns of both he and his wife made public. This is standard fare in modern Presidential politics. The media will not let the issue rest if her returns, covering her sizable fortune, are not released.
2) The lobbyist issue. Having to re-vet your own staff after winning the nomination is a huge alarm bell. Even over this weekend there has been another Team McCain casualty on this front, plus the Obama campaign is beginning to press the matter.
Just as with the tax return issue, it will not do for Mr. Reformer to be stuck talking about lobbyists and influence peddling among his own team rather than taking it to Obama on ties to '60's radicals, his liberal voting record, lack of legislative accomplishments, flawed foreign policy, and such.
3) The lack of excitement in the GOP base has already been mentioned. Nevertheless, our own region showcased McCain's tightrope act here.
McCain came to town to talk global warming, earning boffo coverage for his outreach to independents. Danny Westneat wrote the kind of column praising McCain that drives Democrats nuts - and was promptly picked up by the Politico's Jonathan Martin. David Postman also gave McCain the kind of coverage his campaign wants to use to reach the less partisan suburbanites.
All well and good, but as anyone following politics knows it drove the GOP base bonkers. Poke, meet eye. Eye, meet poke. A full embrace of a liberal issue is a non-starter for the conservative right. For that universe, talking energy, conservation, and a clean environment are one thing. Drinking the kool-aid that greenhouse gases cause hurricanes is another (oops!).
You can argue the merits of the issue all you want. The point with McCain is that he only has a handful of times he can get away with aggravating his base between the spring and November. And he has already used a big one up.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 18, 2008 09:43 PM | Email ThisDepress the base, and you depress the vote FOR YOU. McCain has been depressing the conservative base for years.
I do not identify myself as a Republican = I identify myself as a conservative. Cannot do Obama nor Clinton, but not excited by McCain
Posted by: Dick on May 18, 2008 09:42 PMUnfortunately one will win, but at least I will have my dignity!
Posted by: Lysander on May 18, 2008 09:46 PM4) mr campaign reform himself also broke campaign finance rules by using matching funds while also exceeding the limit imposed on candidates that use such funds.
Posted by: Lysander on May 18, 2008 09:48 PMThey have filed taxes separately the entire 28 years of their marriage, (Happy Anniversary by the way... it was yesterday) have separate incomes and an iron clad pre-nup agreement. What purpose does it serve to have the class envy set pouring over every single line in HER 28 years of tax forms? Nothing would relate to the husband running for office. This is dirt digging 101, plain and simple.
I wonder, though, has this ever come up in any of his other campaigns? How was it resolved?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 18, 2008 10:01 PMAnd for those who might try and claim there would be little difference between a President McCain and Obama:
Get real; and GIVE ME A BREAK.
As she has done on other threads, in #2 above Michele gives a good and concise summary of just a few things.
And also as before, I add:
Obama has been objectively rated as THE most liberal member of the US Senate.
So Senator McCain is not with some of you on 100 percent of all the issues you care about. I don't care if it's only ~50 percent of the time (it's certainly a lot more than that for me):
Get over it:
A President Obama will be with you close enough to ZERO percent of the time that the difference doesn't matter. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face (yeah: I'm getting more than a little tired of people who seem willing to let the country go down the tubes; just to (they seem to think) give them a better chance to elect what they consider their perfect candidate next time. That kind of ''next time'' may NEVER come.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 18, 2008 10:23 PMMajor touche by True Soldier at #4.
1) The economy stinks, and the electorate has good reasons for their belief that Republican overspending was largely the cause. The rout against Republicans that began in 2006 is still happening, as proven by several mid-term elections where Republicans in normally safe gerrymandered districts lost.
2) The electorate has turned against the Iraq war, but McCain has no chance of coming to the center on this issue. He has been too hawkish to ever do that.
Since these are the two most important issues before the electorate, and since McCain is toast on both of them, he will lose in November.
All of the points Eric frets about in his article above pale in comparison to these twin elephants in the room.
Dick @ 3: We DO have somewhere else to go. If Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, as seems likely, we can vote Libertarian. Bob Barr will probably get the LP nomination. I'll be voting Libertarian. This sends a clearer message to the GOP, which will lose anyway, than holding your nose and voting for McCain.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 18, 2008 11:35 PMAs you noted, Congress changed power in 2006 to the Democrats and yet in two years are we any better off than we were before they took over power?
I do believe that the loss of power in 2006 by the Republican party was brought on by their lack of fiscal conservatism, but we have not seen any better restraint under the Democrats since. You might also note that the Democrats ran under an anti-war banner yet they have not pulled the plug on the war like they claimed they would (not that I agree with pulling the plug on the war).
As for the public turning against the war, my question is would the public still feel that way if they actual heard all the good news stories that are in Iraq. Newsbusters.org does a good job of showing the bias in the media. Here is just one example of it:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/05/12/sacbee-anti-war-bias-hidden-tale-iraqi-girl-getting-new-legs-us-
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 19, 2008 01:39 AMI also agree that the Iraq war was a bipartisan mistake. The liberals who hope that Hillary Clinton or Obama will bring the troops home are probably in for a rude awakening.
I think that when the American people were told about the war, they assumed we'd get in, fix things and get out. One or two years was the max duration. But we are there for five years, and McCain would be happy to occupy Iraq for 100 years. Americans don't want that. They want an end to this.
Personally, I think the Iraq war was about helping a few oil corporations preserve their investments. If Saddam had taken over Kuwait, he still would have had to sell the oil, and he would not have had the power to set world oil prices. So if it wasn't about the price at the pump, it had to be about the specific oil contracts.
We had no business going in there.
I'm a free market fan, but giving special interest handouts to big corporations is not free market, and just tends to give capitalism a bad name.
The backlash that began in 2006 is still happening. Expect more GOP losses in November. I'm not particularly happy about this, just calling 'em as I see 'em.
I think the Libertarian Party will grow a bit this year. Disapproval of the two old parties is at an all-time high.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 19, 2008 04:33 AMFor one reason or another American forces have been stationed in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII. That is over 60 years. Are you suggesting we should remove these forces?
More American troops died during the Clinton administration then during the Bush administration. Care to comment on that little fact and the follies in Serbia and Africa led by BJ Clinton.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 19, 2008 08:21 AM...It has been. She was compensated by Mr. McCain's campaign when he paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February. Where's the beef?
The law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control.
So I ask again, Where's the beef?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2008 08:53 AM++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gezzz, how many times have I heard this one. Yet it never happens.
The RP folks just never give up.
Her millions got her husband started in politics way back in 1982, that signals to me that her tax returns are fair game. She recently had to divest her monetary interests in Sudan...which no one would have known about. Obviously some vetting going on behind the scenes.
Seems only fair that the public know what she has and how it could possibly influence the campaign and the White House.
The fact that she's helping him out is a need for her to be vetted. She would hold a very important role an first lady should he win. Even Bill C., the potential first husband released his tax returns.
wrong. There has been no violation of the FEC laws. He could have used the plane without paying a red cent under the laws.(See 3rd paragraph @ 17).
"Even Bill C., the potential first husband released his tax returns."
Yes, because they file jointly.
But, if you have a story that he took money illegally or unethically, then have at it- Daschle and his wife regarding the air accident comes to mind.
Other than a perverse desire to know the details of the celebrity- read Brittany and Lindsay- why should anyone care if one persons wife or spouse gives money to the spouse? Get real, Cato and tc, for your nonexistent nexus.
Posted by: swatter on May 19, 2008 11:31 AMI never said their was, but since she loaned in it was clearly a donation on her part. All potential first lady's (and first husband) have released their returns, what's she got to hide?
Yes, because they file jointly.
And you are making excuses...as a potential benefactor of the highest office in the nation she should show America her tax returns.
False. As I said in the post @17, the campaign reimbursed Cindy McCain for the use of the jet even though it was not required to do so since the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control from being considered in-kind contributions.
"All potential first lady's (and first husband) have released their returns, what's she got to hide?"
False. To date, Teresa Heinz Kerry has never released her personal tax returns.
I guess if it applies to Mrs. Kerry, shouldn't it also apply to Mrs. McCain? I thought so.
The Repubs also have alot of work to do if they want to hold their own in Congressional elections, although I think McCain will run stronger than many incumbents. However, McCain will have get out in front and respond to his opponent and get some help from conservatives.
Another stupid notion is to believe that if McCain loses, another Reaganesque candidate for President will be there in 2012 to win. That kind of strategy will not only hurt our economy and security for a number of years, but it could also be irreversible.
Posted by: KS on May 19, 2008 08:55 PMVote B. Obama ... a useful idiot from the G. Bush wing of a frat party.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 19, 2008 09:45 PMI don't recall you complaining about John Kerry's use of his wife's corporate jet during his campiagn in 2004. If it was not an issue with John Kerry then why is it an issue with John McCain?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 19, 2008 10:18 PMI think that intelligent voters will see through the cult like followers of Obama that dictate to the blasphemers that he can do no wrong. Though a McCain win is no victory for me. Don't think for a nanosecond I want the empty suit who doesn't even know about Hanford and yet wants to talk nukes with Iran. Perhaps Amadinejahd can tell Obama about Hanford.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 10:34 PMVote for Obama! It will be our own form of affirmative action, especially since Barak is clearly too dumb to be president of all 57 states, totally unqualified, and went to the Black equivalent of an aryan nation church for 20 years - can you think of a better person to patronize. Some white guy just isn't going to get the white house job, but don't worry McCain there is always 2012 - you just had such a blessed life made possible by all of your relatives being racist slave holders why not share some of your blessing with a random person from a different race.
(I actually have no idea what McCain's family history is, but affirmative action treats all whites as if they need to be punished. Even though lots of whites fought and died to free the slaves, and many came to America after slavery was banned)
Posted by: John McDonald on May 20, 2008 01:43 AMWrong. He used matching funds and then exceeded the spending limits imposed on candidates that use matching funds.
Posted by: Lysander on May 20, 2008 05:36 AMYou're totally incorrect on the matching funds issue. McCain, like Howard Dean in the 2004 cycle, applied to be eligible to receive matching funds in the primary but never actually took the next step of accepting them...in part for the very spending limits you note that would hamstring a campaign.
And please don't bore us with the Democratic line that he used his FEC matching fund eligibility to get on the ballot in Ohio, therefore he benefited from them so should be held to the spending limits for money he never received.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 20, 2008 07:17 AMObama sez Only the UN should set your thermostat and decide what you eat. You are just not smart enough to do it.
Posted by: Kudzu Fire on May 20, 2008 05:23 PM