Rebuilding around Palin

The New York Times and CNN both ran stories this morning about Sarah Palin being the standard bearer of the Republican Party over the next four years, and possibly longer. (The Times piece includes a quote from my former boss, Morton Blackwell, positively giddy about getting within four feet of Palin at a fundraiser.)

It's true that Palin’s ascension to the VP spot on the ticket was a symptom of the GOP’s short bench – but no more than John McCain’s ascension to the top of the ticket. But she was also the best pick - a true small government conservative - and moving forward, she has the potential to give a credible voice to the Party from well outside the Beltway.

And though her support outside her conservative base has suffered from a harsh campaign, her wounds may not be fatal. Even Linda Bloodworth-Thomas - the television producer who used an entire episode of Designing Women to bash Clarence Thomas (no relation) – said she was fed up with the “demonizing” of Palin and red-staters.

It’s not hard to get sick of the treatment she has received, including the attacks on her experience from the campaign of a guy who only has a Senate seat because Mike Ditka allowed it) and a silly RNC clothing budget controversy – which is a top story for all our major news outlets because everything else in the country is apparently going pretty well.

Me? I'm supporting McCain's redistribution of wealth...

This is a couple weeks old, but a friend just showed it to me. King of All Media Howard Stern interviewed Barack Obama supporters in New York City and asked them if they supported Obama's "pro-life" stance, or his call to "finish the job" in Iraq. They enthusiastically agreed with many of McCain's positions:



It's no surprise to find uninformed voters who support a candidate but really don't understand what he or she stands for. This leads to two conclusions:

1. The 2008 election is not a referendum on any political philosophy, and should not be read as a fundamentaly shift to the left from the American electorate. It is a fundamental shift toward a guy who is great on TV and gives a great speech.

2. The Republicans - specifically, conservatives - need to step up the candidate recruitment, because there are plenty of people out there who will jump on board if you look great on TV and give a great speech.

That's not exactly what we mean by dirty campaigning...

GOP Congressional candidate Zane Starkewolf is under fire because his campaign's robocalls sound like they were recorded by a cast member from Girl 6. Some of the folks in CA-01 understandably complained the calls were inappropriate.

This is Starkewolf's answer and, appropriately, there is no apology. Starkewolf, 27, shows wisdom and message discipline beyond his years:

"I acknowledge that the idea behind the ad, and indeed the execution of the call, was not the safe route to take. And if my run for office was simply for personal gain, I would not have taken a risk. But the content and the facts within the message were there and need to be discussed... The message is there--and what it says is that Mike Thompson went against the people of this district when he voted to pass and have us pay for the 700 billion dollar bailout and went along with George Bush..."

Well said, Zane. An tail-between-the-legs apology would have done nothing for Starkewolf's long shot bid. His bold stance demonstrates that he stands behind his decisions and keeps the discussion about the issues raised in the robocall. It sets a trap for his opponent, too; if incumbent Mike Thompson stops talking about his platform to demand an apology, Starkewolf will be in control of the media discussion a week before Election Day.

And, if nothing else, it earns his campaign some free publicity.

But all PR is good PR, right? Right?

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study this week that showed coverage of John McCain in the mainstream media was predominantly negative, while coverage of Barack Obama is fairly even and balanced.

(I know – I’m shocked to learn this, too.)

In fact, the study shows McCain gets more bad coverage than typical Presidential candidates received in 2000 or 2004. Pew spokespeople are quick to point out that their findings do not indicate a partisan slant to the news (although, watching the news does indicate a strong partisan slant).

They may be on to something; McCain’s negative coverage could not solely be the work of a hostile press dedicated to electing Barack Obama. Hostile press is a fact of political life. Presidents Reagan and Bush both dealt with it and were able to speak with the American people through the coverage. That’s a tactic McCain simply hasn’t mastered yet, but its an important one for the rest of us Republicans who will be talking to both national and regional media over the next few years.

Mass voters may throw tea party Nov. 4

This Election Day, my adopted homeland of Massachusetts will vote on a referendum that would eliminate their state income tax. The last time Massachusetts citizens stood up against taxes, Boston Harbor smelled like oolong for weeks.

McCain learns what snoring elephants sound like

There will be no third party, anti-Obama campaign this election cycle in the image of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who exposed some of John Kerry’s dirty laundry in 2004. McCain shouldn’t be surprised – the campaign finance legislation that he’s so proud of made independent speech more difficult, and his campaign has worked to subdue potential independent, non-party election speech.

Ultimately, though, it’s tough for a Republican to be excited to be a Republican anymore. What does the GOP stand for?

In 1980, 1994, and 2000 it was simple: Less government. Keep more of your money. Elections in 2002 and 2004 were a question of which party was in touch with the American public.

In 2008, Democrats have been campaigning on their plans for America: healthcare for everybody; a steeply graduated income tax that forces higher earners to pay more; and government programs to generate environmentally friendly technology.

Try to sum up John McCain’s campaign in three sentences that don’t include “war hero.” Go ahead.

And the election outlook isn’t pretty for McCain or any other Republican. And it will go downhill from there. Republican pundits and politicos will be cannibalizing each other like they’re stranded in the Andes.

The theme I hope the GOP rallies around – and a major theme I’ll be using in my efforts to promote conservatism and freedom over the next few years – is one that the President-turned-pariah George W. Bush coined 2003: the “Ownership Society.” He talked about letting us manage our own retirement, rather than flushing money down the toilet with Social Security. It meant us taking control of our own health care and driving costs down. It meant more options for savings and home ownership. And in internal discussions, Bush intended these proposals to help Americans assume more personal responsibility. It was the best summation of conservative thought since Ronald Reagan.

This never came to fruition. Democrats successfully scared the American public away from any meaningful Social Security reform. Bush passed the biggest entitlement package since the Great Depression, gave out free money when the economy started to slide, and gave handouts to people who were foolish with their (and other people's) money.

It's only a start, but resurrecting the idea of an ownership society would excite the GOP base: those rank-and-file voters, volunteers, and activists who fueled their rise to power. And when excited, it will be “the base” who makes the case for Republican candidates – something they are not doing in 2008, as McCain is becoming painfully aware.

Playing a new game

My brother Mike had the best summary about the constant harping on Sarah Palin over the past 60 days: "Everyone seems to be mad because she doesn't play the game." She certainly is the biggest outsider of the race.

Pundits are quick to point out that despite appearing on Saturday Night Live, she hasn't appeared on any Sunday morning talk shows. True - but she also probably understands Saturday Night Live is probably more relevant in shaping public perceptions outside of the beltway than the Sunday morning talk shows. Fourteen million viewers tuned into NBC for Saturday Night Live last weekend. That's 10 million more than how many tuned into NBC's Meet the Press the previous week - and that was the top-rated show.

(And who ever imagined we'd see a national candidate raising the roof at the Weekend Update desk and not looking like a complete doofus? At the very least she raised her favorability numbers.)

Palin even criticized her own campaign (politely) for using automated phone calls, candidly saying they are annoying. Sure, that's common sense - but it's quite a step to admit that political campaigns are tedious for the average American. This understanding creates opportunity for connection that, really, no other person on a national ticket has made.

As I mentioned previously, the question now is whether Palin can build on this to create a stronger connection with the American people - and to become a national spokesperson for the people who respond better to her style of politics. Based on the way she rolled with the punches on Saturday, her chances seem decent.

Nazis for McCain/Palin

Last night's Family Guy featured a sight gag I missed until I saw it on Digg today. Apparently, Nazis are all about McCain/Palin:



I'm assuming Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane did this because of the image of McCain's cult of personality inspiring massive crowds in Germany last summer... Oh, no, wait, that was Obama. Well, maybe it was because of the way McCain has targeted one segment of America as having too much money, and has promised to re-distribute their wealth (as Hitler did with Jewish businessowners)? Nope, that's Obama again.

It must have been campaign finance reform.

$600 Million? This is a change...

Barack Obama has changed politics - now it can cost you $600 million to run for President, thanks to Obama's record-shattering $150 million raised in September.

With one more month like that, the Obama campaing would have raised enough to buy both 2008 World Series participants. He has already raised enough for his White Sox.

By raising this much from small donations, Obama has indeed changed campaign fundraising as we know it. By creating a system where people can give $10 at a time, the Obama camp is getting people to invest in his campaign - and once people are invested, they stay interested. It's a tactic that dates back to high school: a club that charges dues can expect members to be much more serious about meetings and activities; a campaign can similarly expect its donors to be more serious about getting to the polls on election day.

Palin's next steps

Sarah Palin is stepping out of her shell to appear on SNL this week. This is a critical appearance - not for 2008, which is pretty much decided, but for her future as a Republican leader.

Palin's selection as McCain's veep energized the Republican party for a short period of time by signalling that the national ticket was willing to add a candidate who not only identified as a conservative but had governed (and lived) as one, as well. After a primary season where candidates fell all over themselves to quote Ronald Reagan, Palin was different in that she walked the walk. And of course, Republicans were eager to have their views articulated by someone other than an old white guy - just as the Democrats were when they rushed Barack Obama to the national spotlight in 2004.

This weekend, Palin begins the next phase of her political career. If she can hold her own and roll with SNL's punches, she can earn a position of relevance as a GOP spokesperson and set up a possible 2012 run for the White House.

Game on!

News broke this week that Barack Obama placed campaign ads in online video games. Obama's campaign has been very innovative throughout this campaign cycle - most notable their iPhone application which turns your mobile phone into a satellite campaign office. I'm not sure this is a great example of technical innovation, but it shows the pervasiveness of both advertising and political campaigns.

You might also imagine it shows the Obama camp has too much money, that they are wasting resources on ads directed at stoner teens who can't - or don't - vote. But if you look at the demographics of online gamers, it actually makes sense to advertise in this space. In fact, online gamers spend three times as long on their computers as they do in front of their TVs. It's actually a pretty bright move.

The biggest value was, of course, the free advertising the Obama camp received from the news media for using such a novel advertising tactic - a less-controversial equivalent of the strategy behind the "Daisy" ad.

Where's MY tax cut?

I tried out Barack Obama's "tax cut calculator." It doesn't seem to work. It looks nice, but when I tried to enter my information the problems started.

First, it wouldn't take all the information required. Next, it started processing whatever information it did have, but I couldn't tell what it was doing or how it was manipulating that data. Then it gave me a brief message about staying informed.

I didn't get any details about my tax cut - just the same short message, over and over again.

Hey, wait a minute...

Obama: We're taking your money. Get over it.

I don't have to make it up: He said it to a plumber from Ohio. To illustrate the courage of his convictions, he even tries to explain marginal rates to make the tax hike sound not so bad.



It plays well in the polls to wage class warfare and say that you're only taxing "the wealthy" - but the reality is that those taxes hurt the people who are expanding the economy. Government prints money, but businesses create wealth.

(By the way, if all this sounds familiar, it should.)

A promise is a promise...

John McCain has promised to bring up Barack Obama's relationship with 1960's activist/terrorist William Ayers in their debate this week.

I guess that's good, but on the off chance that Obama has a glib reply prepared, McCain may want to find something else to ask his opponent. Some things I would like to see discussed:

• How will Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans when 33% don't pay income tax? What, is he just going to start printing money?
  
• Given all the issues surrounding ACORN, isn't this lofty rhetoric just a slick veneer on politics as usual? Or is there a canned talking point that says bringing that up is "erratic"?
  
• Isn't paying for your health care plan by raising a death tax a conflict of interest? If the health care system is funded by death rather than life, that might shift the incentives.

Putting union thugs back in charge of elections

The most interesting part of this week’s Presidential debate wasn’t even part of the debate – it was this commercial:



If you need to watch it again, I don’t blame you – that’s leftist stalwart George McGovern opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA. This creatively-named legislation would let union officials – i.e. goons – look over a worker’s shoulder when he or she casts a vote to unionize, replacing the apparently outdated concept of secret ballots. The hope from organized labor and Democrat circles is that this would lead to an increase in union membership.

Union membership has been steadily declining despite a small uptick in 2007 – and the states where the economies have been most prosperous have been those with right-to-work laws.

Barack Obama (who is receiving $3 million worth of campaign help from his union buddies) is promising to sign the bill – which has been blocked by filibusters but has already passed the Democrat-controlled House. Considering what unions have done for the economies in places like Michigan, that would be an unwise move. Obama would do well to listen to fellow Democrat McGovern.

(For more information on keeping secret ballots in union elections, check out www.myprivateballot.com.)

American Film Renaissance

The American Film Renaissance festival came to Your Nation's Capital last week. An attempt to break the left's stranglehold on entertainment media, AFR features conservative and libertarian-themed films and filmakers.

My normal rul of thumb is that when you label yourself "The Conservative [ANYTHING]" you've already lost - as An American Carol is demonstrating in box offices right now. But AFR and similar film festivals are a little different; if nothing else, they serve to act as a place for conservative filmmakers to practice. Not all the films are politically themed, either.

I've attended a few of these, and admittedly it's easy for less-than-stellar works to get a free pass because conservatives are just that thrilled to see something on a big screen that reflects their values. But this is still an important sandbox for conservative would-be entertainers - if just a few emerge making Hollwood-quality movies or TV shows, that will certainly help balance things out.

After the party it's the afterparty

Did you enjoy your post-debate afterparty? It's safe to say Barack Obama did, netting nearly a cool million at a high-dollar fundraiser at Al Gore's mansion.

McCain's campaign has to be frustrated that despite Obama's obvious elitism and status as a long-time darling of the Democrat establishment, he still manages to successfully position himself as the "change" candidate.

We're losing the debates

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden debated last night. Like millions of Americans, I made sure I was in front of a TV to tune into Pitt's 26-21 upset of No. 10 South Florida.

What made the football game more interesting was that even though I was rooting for Pitt, I didn't have any idea what either side was going to do - much less what the outcome would be. If you've made up your mind on a candidate, chances are the debate won't change your mind. Worse yet, if you've followed the race to this point - and it has been a very long race to this point - you have a good idea of what each veep candidate will say in advance.

Early in the third quarter of the football game, Pitt tried a fake punt. It came from out of nowhere. What would the equivalent of a fake punt be in a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate? Joe Biden calling for free market solutions to the financial crisis? Sarah Palin accepting Hugh Hefner's offer?

Debates have become microcosms of the campaigns - in other words, scripted personality contests that only happen every four years. And for the campaigns, that's the right move, because they have such a finite amount of time to discuss issues and ideas. The American people are stuck voting for candidates based on personality rather than ideas.

Debates would be more useful if they were more frequent. In addition to holding a handful of candidates' debates just before an election, it might be fun to see monthly or weekly debates between conservatives and liberals on various issues. At the risk of dating myself, this worked well about 15 years ago, when Ross Perot and then-thin Vice President Al Gore debated NAFTA on Larry King Live.

I'd like to see an hour long debate between MoveOn.org and the Heritage Foundation about whether we should replace our income tax with a national sales tax. I'd like to see the AFL-CIO debate National Right to Work over the proposal to remove secret ballots from union elections.

This isn't going to turn our Presidential election into forums of philosophy, but it might help engage people more in the political process. And, let's be honest, those 24-hour-a-day news channels don't have enough news as it is. This would help them kill an hour or so a week.

Daily Kos: Earmarks are OK!

The rhetorical gymnasts at DailyKos are hard at work "taking the steam out of John McCain's anti-earmark crusade." Their two-pronged approach has two key points:

1. Earmarks don't cost that much.
2. Earmarks pay for good things!

It's not pointing out earmarks that McCain has supported, or rooting out hypocrisy in McCain's position. They actually like earmarks (for the purposes of the 2008 Presidential campaign).

For the first point, DailyKos draws the analogy of a worker who makes $30,000 per year and carries $90,000 debt, approximately the ratio the country is in. Under this scale, the worker would spend $150 in earmarks - not enough to dent the debt. Thus, according to Kos, earmarks don't cost that much.

On the other hand, I'd advise the worker that throwing around money and spending wastefully is probably the type of behavior that led to the $90,000 in debt.

And of course DailyKos advises it's readers to highlight earmarks that do good things and were sponsored by Obama. Setting aside that it's probably a bad idea to highlight their candidate's record of supporting earmarks, is the point of reforming earmarks really about the outcome? If our government was spending money on the Monroe County Office of Puppy Punching, I doubt earmarks would be an issue.

Earmarks are bad because it's taxpayer money - yours and mine - going to a project so a Congressman or Senator can buy their constituents' votes. And regardless of DailyKos's moral relativism, that's wrong.

Don't call us, we'll call you

It looks like the Senate will vote to approve the Wall Street bailout that failed the House earlier this week – despite intense constituent disapproval.

Public disapproval of the proposed bailout was so high, in fact, that the House website crashed under the weight of the public response: those who tried to email their Congressman got an error message about high volume. Their solution was to limit the number of emails constituents could send in.

That’s not a typo – Congress really told America, “Hey! Pipe down!”

It’s easy to blame Capitol Hill's 1970s-era staffing structure for making Congressional offices amazingly ill-equipped to handle high volumes of electronic constituent communication. But as the internet becomes the easiest and most convenient way for most people to get in touch with their elected representatives, this may just be a scam to drum up business for the post office.