Over a Candle

I had two fears about the immediate fallout from an Obama loss (if such a thing had actually come to pass).

The first was that Democrats would learn the wrong lesson from such a (now hypothetical) defeat. Obama ran the smoothest, most disciplined campaign I have ever seen. Had Obama lost, I didn’t want the Democrats to blame it on the way his campaign was managed. It seems to me that it’s a campaign Democrats should study for future campaigns. And had he lost, I was worried they wouldn’t do that.

I suspect I can put that fear to rest now.

The second fear, though, may not be as easily averted. My second fear, if Obama had lost, was that the Republicans wouldn’t engage in the necessary soul-searching that they so desperately need. George W. Bush and the neocons have moved the party so far away from its traditional conservative roots that it’s hardly recognizable. There has been no fiscal discipline. There has been none of the humility on the foreign stage that Bush advocated in his 2000 campaign. The government is more involved in our lives than ever (it seems). The Republicans need to find a more coherent (and I would hope a more traditionally conservative) message for their party.

Had McCain won, I feared that the Republicans might think that everything was fine with their party and not engage in that necessary self-evaluation. (I don’t mean that it’s just necessary for them. I think it’s necessary for the country to have a viable and reasonable alternative to the Democrats’ policies. Having a positive message to rival that of the Democrats is good for all of us.) With McCain’s defeat, I thought such a reevaluation an inevitability.

But now I worry that it may not happen. I’ve heard a few Republican pundits in the last 24 hours suggest that this country is still “center-right.” They somehow believe that this “center-right” country voted for “socialists” (as they would have us believe about Obama and Biden) because… why? I don’t know. They will cling to their incoherent party policies in the face of overwhelming evidence that the country rejects them.

I had hope that the Republicans who spoke up during the campaign to critique McCain’s run might get a fair hearing and help the Republicans come together with a positive, forward-looking plan. But instead, the Republicans seem content to blame McCain, or Palin, or the public, or the media.

I still hope that the Republicans, after they vent their ire, might still do some of that important soul-searching. Until they do, they deserve their time in the wilderness.

Perhaps, at least, they can serve as a reminder to the Democrats not to get too complacent. As we saw in 1994 and again in 2006, the public can get frustrated with hubris from either party.

I can’t help but wonder how things might have been different if the John McCain who conceded last night had shown up earlier. While there was one comment during his speech that gave me pause, for the most part McCain was gracious and laid the first stone to bridge the divide between his supporters and Barack Obama.

One of the elements of Obama’s campaign that I have been impressed with for months is that it struck a tone that suggests unity, rather than division.

For me, this is the most hopeful sign of this election. I do not expect Obama to single-handedly fix the country. There is much to work on, and I don’t expect the government to be the answer. What I do hope is that we might overcome some of the bitter polarization that was the legacy of the 2000 election.

This divisiveness was stoked by McCain’s campaign, by Sarah Palin’s “Real America,” and Michele Bachmann’s “Pro-America.” Things have gotten worse, not better, this campaign season. My one hope, the one thing I would like Obama to do, is set a tone of cooperation and openness in Washington.

Does it seem like I do not ask very much? I think, perhaps, I aim too high. The hate that seemed to regularly pour from McCain and Palin’s rallies gave me ever-increasing pause. If Obama can find away to temper that, to bring Democrats and Republicans together for common cause, it will be a major achievement.

Last night, I heard Obama strike that tone, a tone he has long included in his speeches. My hope is that he will bring that same tone to the White House.

We’re nearing the end of this thing. I don’t expect too many minds to be changed at this stage. Including my own. But that doesn’t stop me from reading everything I can find about the campaign.

I’m still struck by the very different John McCain that has been running this season. Even if I were inclined, this time around, to vote for him, I wouldn’t really know who I was getting.

I know that McCain wants to extend the Iraq war indefinitely. But what else does he stand for?

He used to ride the “Straight Talk Express,” inviting all questions from the media, but now he hides from and attacks the media at every turn. His running mate has spent much of the campaign largely sequestered. So does McCain stand for openness, or does he intend to continue the Bush administration’s policy of secrecy?

Does John McCain stand for positive, forward-looking campaigns (like the one he ran in 2000) and against smear campaigns (like the one run against him in 2000)? Or is he now in favor of smear campaigns, like the one he is currently running, which is headed up by those who smeared him in 2000?

Is John McCain a bipartisan who wants to work for all of America? Or does he endorse his running mate’s view of the country as divided into real America and fake America?

Is John McCain someone who believes in progressive taxation, as he endorsed on the campaign trail back in 2000? Or does he oppose “spreading the wealth”? Does he oppose the Bush tax cuts, as he did when they were first proposed? Or does he support them? Does he oppose government regulation, or support it? Is smaller government the answer? Or is more government intervention the answer? (Some of these contradictory positions he seems to hold even today.)

Mostly, John McCain has argued we should vote for him because he isn’t Barack Obama. But that’s not enough. That’s nowhere near enough. What does John McCain stand for? From his campaign, I cannot tell. And if I’m supposed to ignore his campaign and vote for him based on the past, then what IS his campaign for?

Unless he does something amazingly horrible in the next few days, I feel like it’s time to let McCain go. His campaign this time around has lacked substance and consistency. It has been a massive disappointment. It’s time to put it to bed.

Over the last day or two, another reason to vote against John McCain has set in: the in-fighting.

Throughout this election, McCain has tried to bolster his support with the base by turning sharply to the Right. This has had the effect, culminating in the last week or so, in undermining McCain’s claims to bipartisanship as he mercilessly attacks not only Obama, but Democratic congressional leaders. This has made it difficult to believe that McCain will be able to work across the aisle if he is elected. That, in itself, is troubling and serves to undercut one of the main attractions of the McCain candidacy (namely, that McCain is a moderate).

But the nomination of Sarah Palin has finally caused the division in the Republican party, which had been simmering for some time now, to boil over. Palin and McCain surrogates seem to be spending almost as much time attacking one another (and the candidates) as their opponent. Whether it is complaints that Palin has been handled badly by McCain staffers, or whether it is complaints that Palin had to be handled because she was almost completely ignorant and thus a danger to the campaign… it doesn’t matter. The campaign is imploding.

This, by itself, does not guarantee an Obama victory. No one should take it as that. It does, though, indicate that the campaign has lost confidence in its own ability to win. And that’s the danger I worry about. What happens if this dysfunctional campaign actually wins? Now that the sniping and finger-pointing has shifted into high gear, how would they actually manage to govern if they were to win?

We have already suffered for eight years under a White House that functioned, but did so poorly. How would the country fare under a White House that cannot manage to function at all? That’s the danger of the blame game the Republicans are currently engaged in: It sends the message that these people cannot hang together long enough to run a campaign. There is no hope, then, of them doing so for four years of a Presidency.

McCain has already given up his bipartisan image. Now he has skewered his partisan image. Who would he work with if he were to win election? I think there is no one left for him to actually form alliances with.

John McCain has begun to make what I think of as his last, best argument: Divided Government. Rather than have one party in charge of two branches of government, better to put the White House in the hands of Republicans (conceding that the Democrats will continue to control both houses of Congress). This is the first argument he’s offered in the general election campaign that appeals to me.

But this time, it’s not enough.

I generally approve of divided government. And there are very real dangers this time around. The Democrats cannot forget the message of change that they ran on. This is not a time to punish the other side. It’s a chance to change the tone in Washington. A Democratic White House and Congress cannot allow themselves to engage in excess.

I don’t know if I trust Congress to heed that warning.

Unfortunately, electing a Republican Congress is not an option this cycle. It’s just not going to happen. The McCain campaign, in its argument, concedes this much. So McCain contends we must elect him to balance out the even more Democratic Congress we will have in 2009.

Eight years ago, this argument probably would have been enough for me. But McCain has undermined this argument himself. The dangers of McCain’s erratic nature, and lousy choice for VP, worry me more than the Dems having control of both branches. Indeed, Barack Obama seems more well suited to checking the excesses of his own party than McCain does.

McCain has given into the excesses of his own party to win this election. The worst excesses of his own party. He has, through his negative campaigning, his inconsistent messages, undermined his own stated principles of moderate bipartisanship. He ran to win his party’s vote.

Obama has, rather consistently, talked about uniting the whole country, not just the Democrats. I grant you that Obama has had the luxury of front-runner status, and thus didn’t need to go as negative as McCain felt he had to. But be that as it may, I would feel more inclined to vote for McCain had he maintained a consistent, respectful message. I would believe his message of bipartisanship more.

As it is, the excesses of the Bush administration cannot continue. And McCain, despite his attempts at countering the claim, has supported the worst of the Bush administration. If the choice is electing McCain or the Dems controlling two branches of the federal government, I’m afraid there isn’t any choice at all. I don’t see how the country can afford a McCain administration, based on what we’ve seen him support these past eight years.

With apologies to J. Michael Straczynski, the Divided Government is McCain’s last, best hope for victory. It fails.

There is a lot going on. Socialism. Clothes. Charging the government for your kids travel. Al Queda endorsements. And polls. Lots and lots of polls.

I’m just an addict. When I’m not furiously preparing for class (something I’ve been doing a lot lately), I’m furiously reading political websites. I have to echo Larry David’s comment on HuffingtonPost: November 4th cannot get here fast enough. I want the election to be over.

Mostly because since it’s really all I’m thinking about, I don’t have anything interesting to say. It’s not as though I have anything interesting to say about the election. I mean, I have plenty to say. But despite my biting commentary, I keep thinking I should just point people to other commentators.

One thing keeps bothering me, though. I keep hoping John McCain, before the end, will take the high road. That he will abandon the rather vile attacks his campaign has been throwing around and will run some positive messages before the end. I might even be able to stand McCain winning if he would turn around his vicious and dishonest campaign. At the very least, I would like to have a modicum of respect for him when all of this is over.

I don’t expect this happen. All signs point to a continued downward trend for McCain. Not in the polls (though that might be true as well). But in the mudslinging department. The only saving grace is that he might not have the money available to sink even further than he has.

But I still want this all to be over. November 5th cannot come fast enough.

Do you remember when Sarah Palin was criticizing Barack Obama for talking about people differently in different parts of the country? Does anyone remember when John McCain talked about his ability to reach across the aisle?

One has to wonder if Palin is willing to go to New York City and stand at Ground Zero and say that it isn’t part of the Pro-American America. One has to wonder if McCain can reach across the aisle to deal with the Anti-Americans that he seems determined to slur.

If you pay attention to the liberal media (like that noted bastion of liberalism Fox News during this segment on Fox News Sunday), then you probably already have heard a lot about Palin and others making claims about the difference between the real America and the fake America, the pro-American America and the anti-American America.

But I have to wonder if McCain can sleep at night. Is it okay to engage in the same sleazy tactics that he decried (and rightly so) during the 2000 campaign, just because he’s losing? Is it okay to drag out the Reverend Wright, as the McCain campaign is threatening, after promising not to do so? Is it okay to further divide this country, and cast aspersions on many parts of it, after castigating your opponent for doing that?

Does John McCain want to be president so badly that he’s willing to be president over only half the country? Because the way his running mate and his surrogates are talking, he is clearly willing to alienate half the country that supports his opponent.

There was a great bit during the first segment of The Daily Show tonight on this point. When it finally pops up on the web, I’ll add the link to this post.

UPDATE: Here’s the video from last night’s The Daily Show. A perfect take on the McCain campaign’s new divisiveness:

And here’s the quiz you can take to determine whether you are a REAL American:

So did the gloves come off? Did they? Did John McCain go after Barack Obama like a pit bull (presumably without lipstick)?

Well, I guess so. McCain talked about William Ayers and ACORN. McCain also talked about being hurt by John Lewis’ comments. He also hit hard on several areas of policy disagreements.

Each and every time, though, it seemed that Obama didn’t rise to take the bait. He calmly responded to both the personal attacks and defended his policy positions.

McCain was strong. Obama was cool. It leaves one with the impression that McCain did better in this debate than the previous debates. But I didn’t see any game-changer, which everyone seemed to think had to happen here.

This debate, though, seemed more substantial than past debates. It seemed that both candidates were more involved with the questions and with each other. In this way, I think the debate was better for the voting public, whether or not either candidate did better.

And besides, Joe the Plumber is from my hometown. So you know that it was a good debate.

Now that they bailout has passed through Congress, with both Presidential Candidates voting for it, I’m hearing more and more about all the pork that was put into this bill.

Since John McCain has said he will veto any bill that arrives on his desk with earmarks, I am wondering: Would John McCain have vetoed this bill?

This seems important. If he wouldn’t have vetoed it, would he argue that the pork in this bill isn’t the same as earmarks? If so, I’d like him to explain the difference between these two kinds of wasteful government spending. Or would he argue that this bill is too important to veto? In that case, I’d like him to explain his earlier statement on vetoes. What kind of bills would be too important to veto, even if they are loaded up with earmarks?

On the other hand, if John McCain would have vetoed this bill, why did he vote for it while he was in the Senate? Why isn’t he lobbying the President to veto it?

There seems to be a great deal of tension between John McCain the Senator and John McCain the Presidential candidate. Will the real John McCain please stand up?

Okay, it’s over. Would someone remind me not to do that again. That was tough to keep up with the speed of the discussion. And probably boring to read. There was little time for reflection during the debate. So let me do that now.

They were both rather subdued and vague about the economy, which ate up the first half hour or so of the debate. They seemed to refuse to engage each other. And frankly, they didn’t really engage the questions. I think if people were looking for some indication of how the candidates think we should be reacting to this economic crisis, they were likely disappointed.

The one thing I did like about Obama on this point was mentioning the real number of earmarks in the federal budget. No one would doubt that $18 billion is a lot of money. But it’s also clear that fixing the budget won’t be accomplished by dealing with earmarks. Other things must happen.

Neither candidate, though, really explained how they would change their plans. And that was too bad. We need to hear how these two think we move forward. They both failed to do that.

On foreign policy, we saw the two express very different views. I doubt, very much, that any views were changed in the electorate. If you supported the war in Iraq, you liked what McCain had to say. If you don’t support the war, you liked what Obama had to say.

The “dueling bracelets” stories underscored, I think, the silliness of those pseudo-personal stories. McCain has a a bracelet from a mother who wants him to win the war in Iraq. Obama has a bracelet from a mother who wants the war to end. It would be nice if the candidates put an end to such stories.

In the end, I thought the debate was serious, and both candidates were composed. I did think McCain seemed rather condescending to Obama, but I doubt that will turn off anyone who is already a McCain supporter. They both got their messages out there. But I didn’t hear a winner. I heard two men, running for President, who expressed very different ideas about how to move forward.

In a way, that’s good. I would prefer a debate where we see what the candidates really stand for. People can then decide who they agree with.

One last comment, though. I can’t help it. It bothers me that McCain feels the need to identify himself both as a maverick and as someone with experience. If you really are those things, they should be obvious. The more you point them out, the more I think you are trying to claim a label you aren’t entitled to. If McCain is a maverick, and is experienced, he shouldn’t have to point it out.