John McCain RIP

Senator John McCain.

I was a fan of John McCain. Somehow a friend knew this.

I wanted to see him win back in 2000. I did not like George W. Bush, who seemed a mediocrity, and I thought ran a dishonest campaign. (And Al Gore was terminally creepy.) It should have been McCain's year.

I can't help but wonder how history might have been different had McCain rather than Bush been president when 9/11 hit. A military man, a war hero. A guy who is used to improvising in a crisis.

Even if he did nothing different, he would have been a more unifying and inspiring figure to have in place at the time.

Trump Refuses to "Defend" Obama

So now, for a change, Donald Trump is in trouble, as he observes, for saying nothing. A questioner referred to Obama as a Muslim, and Trump did not correct him. This, it seems, was a very bad thing for Trump not to do. It has been contrasted, unfavourably, with a moment in the 2008 campaign when a questioner called Obama an Arab, and John McCain jumped in, saying his opponent was a decent man with whom he simply disagreed on policy. McCain even ignored the rest of the woman's question.

It seems that is how a proper gentleman of the upper class behaves: lecturing the unwashed voter on such matters.

But who is being prejudiced here?

First of all, religion is a deeply personal matter. Nobody can properly speak for anyone else here, because it would presume knowing the others most intimate thoughts. The simple truth is, Trump does not know, and cannot know, what Obama's religion is.

But more importantly, what is .wrong with being Muslim? McCain's answer actually implies one cannot be both an Arab and a decent man. Trump, by contrast, makes no such assumption regardiong Muslims.

His critics plainly do.

Tom Bradley Comes Out for McCain

According to an email by a rogue Obama staffer read by Rush Limbaugh on his program yesterday, the Obama campaign believes what I do. They believe the “Bradley effect” is real and will happen. And they estimate it at about the same size as I do, into the double digits.

Here's the quote:


"Do not believe these public polls for a second. I just went over our numbers, found that we [that is, the Obama campaign] have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain but it's too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa are the true toss-up states. The only two of these the Obama campaign feels confident are Iowa and New Mexico, but now Obama's headed back to Iowa on Monday. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we in the Obama campaign tend to take a ten-point percentage in allowing for this, a minus ten-point percentage for allowing this and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark."


I think this has to be true. In fact, we can already see, and almost measure, a “Bradley effect” actually happening.

According to the McCain camp's polling figures, voters who are still “undecided” fit a distinct profile: “older, downscale, more rural, and ... certainly economically stressed. They are quite negative about the direction of country and seek change. They voted for Bush over Kerry by a margin of 47% to 24%.”

They also indicate a very high degree of interest in the election.

Based on their interest and their previous voting record, they have almost certainly already decided, and decided heavily in favour of McCain. They are not truly undecided at all, but simply not inclined to admit to a stranger that they are not voting for the pollitically correct choice. That's the Bradley effect. The real undecideds are probably already being counted by polls as in Obama's camp.

The “undecideds,” according to the polls, constitute about 8% of the electorate at this point.

If that eight percent broke entirely for McCain, of course, it would give him an extra 8 points. If they break two-thirds or three-quarters for McCain, as the same voters did for Bush last time, there's a Bradley effect of 5-6 points.

But that neglects the true undecideds probably now counted in Obama's column. If they are really undecided, and, say, really about 8%, and so break evenly between the two candidates, that takes 4% from “Obama's” vote, and hands it directly to McCain—for a swing of 8%. Add 5: a Bradley effect of 13-14%.

And what do the polls actually show? Real Clear Politics shows an Obama lead of 6.5, and closing. Zogby's daily results actually now show a tiny McCain lead.

It is not enough.

Obama's Still Going Down

By this time, I expected John McCain to have left Barack Obama choking in the dust in the US Presidential election campaign.

I expected that, as an untried candidate, the odds were good that Obama by now would have been brought low by either gaffes or unfortunate discoveries about his past. And the press, having glorified him unreasonably in the past, would then, by now, have turned on him.

I was right about embarassing things turning up in his past: Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, ACORN, the New Party, old quotes about wanting Supreme Court judges to transcend the intentions of the founders, Bill Ayers, illegal campaign donations from Mickey Mouse, and on and on. I was right about the gaffes, too: Joe the Plumber, nost notably, and a loose Roman candle by Joe Biden saying electing his running mate would lead to an international trial of Obama's mettle. Come to think of it, Joe Biden himself is a gaffe.

But I was wrong about the press. They have not yet turned on Obama. Just the reverse: they have become more blatantly partisan in his favour week by week, and far more than ever before. Instead of covering them, they have basically done their best to suppress all these stories. They have as much as already declared Obama elected.

Some have theorized an unspoken pact at work: in return for getting Barack elected with a Democratic majority in both houses, the old mainstream media types expect a renewed “fairness doctrine,” applying not just to radio and TV but also the Internet. This, they hope, will suppress the new voices that are swiftly robbing them of their viewers, listeners, readers, advertisers, and livelihoods.

I doubt this. For several reasons:

1.Such a new law would be unlikely to survive a Supreme Court challenge.

2.You can't control the Internet, because you can't control foreign sites. A suppression of free speech on American blogs would only be a boon for Canadian (and Qatari?) bloggers; and Canadian Internet-based talk radio.

3.It would be too unlikely to work; instead, the blatant partisanship seems likely to hasten their decline, driving readers to those new voices to get the real news.

4.The left is not smart enough to pull off something this coordinated.

No, I think the failure to turn on Obama is based on something else.

It might still have something to do with news sense. Yes, the media are long overdue to find out he's not the Messiah. Even so, the bigger they build him, the better the eventual news when he blows. So there is no compelling reason to pop the bubble now. And, if he does actually get elected, it is intrinsically more newsworthy than if McCain does--”First Black American President.” Not to mention the most leftist president ever, with the legislative majority to try something dramatic. That could generate lots of news. Then there will be lots of time to destroy him later.

Unfortunately, this instinctive attitude, while good for the news business, would of course be very bad for America. If Obama is discredited only after he is elected, the cost will be a failed presidency, and a rough four years for everyone.

I think there may be another reason—a bit of wisdom as old as Aeschylus. In “Prometheus Bound,” Heaphaestos explains Zeus's cruelty with the observation, “his rule is always harsh whose rule is new.” A tyrant who most fears being toppled is most inclined to harsh measures.

Just so, the mainstream media, once so powerful, seeing their power slip so swiftly away, may be up for one last mad fling: seeing if they can actually skew the news enough to elect their favoured candidate. Flexing their power to the maximum before it's all gone.

Afgter all, if you're going down with the Titanic anyway, you might as well finish the champagne.

However, I still don't think they are going to pull it off. First, the press bias is too blatant. People are beginning to talk. It is losing its intended effect. It may now even start to generate a backlash, against both Obama as well as the MSM. McCain has at last started to rise quickly in the polls, perhaps just in time to pull off a victory.

Second, even if it is effctive, such press bias is likely to create of increase a “Bradley effect.” If everything they read and see on TV says Obama is going to win, and should win, people will be that much shyer of saying to a stranger that they still want to vote for McCain. If the Bradley effect has in the past typically been in the range of ten percentage points, with this kind of media push against the pricks, it should this time be, if anything, something higher than that. Obama is now leading by 5.9% in the poll of polls, with that gap closing.

I say he still loses.

It's Not Over

Everyone seems now to assume that Obama has the election won. An Irish bookie has actually begun paying out, cutting his losses on an Obama win. Rassmussen Markets has President Obama trading at 83.2, President McCain at 16.7.

I must be nuts. I still think McCain is going to win.

McCain had, I think, a very good third debate. He beat Obama soundly, and he projected a strong, very understandable message: “He's going to raise taxes. In the middle of a recession. And you can't believe him if he says he isn't. You don't know him.” Joe the Plumber could not have been invented as a better spokesman for the issue. Obama, by contrast, did not seem to have a clear message or a clear program for the perilous times. He did not seem—and this all along I have felt was his Achilles' heel—to care.

Debates don't usually count for that much, but a good last debate is better than a bad one. It should take two weeks for any bounce to fully appear, and that will bring us very close to election day.

The timing for it all is very good, and fits McCain's usual m.o. McCain runs best as the underdog; he is best under pressure. With everyone feeling Obama is inevitable, all eyes are on Obama; and there is now just time enough for second thoughts. McCain's campaign has played this opportunity well. As someone wisely said earlier in the campaign, if the central issue at the end is George Bush, Obama wins. If the central issue is Obama, McCain wins.

And what do the polls say?

Anne Coulter claims that, since 1976, the major media polls in the last month of a campaign have “never been wrong in a friendly way to Republicans.” When they were wrong (albeit they were not always wrong) they overestimated Democratic support by 6 to 10 points.

That's without the “Bradley effect.”

It makes sense. Supporting the Republicans is the politically incorrect choice. Democrats hate Republicans in a way Republicans do not hate Democrats; and the chattering classes are solidly Democrat. So there is no surprise if 3 to 5 percent of the polled population regularly lie to pollsters in an effort to preserve social peace.

That's in an average year. Add in the unique unpopularity of the Republican “brand” this year, seen in the polls on Congressional races. Then add in the possible Bradley effect—the more so since Democrats have already pretty openly played the “race card.”

Real Clear Politics now has Obama leading by 6.9%, with the gap closing.

It's not enough.

Who is Obama?

Pundits are wondering why in Ohio, where early voting has begun, turnout has actually been historically low. This is odd, in an election that is highly competitive, of historic importance, that has attracted record-breaking audiences for TV debates, convention coverage, and rallies, in which Ohio is considered a crucial swing state where every vote counts. Moreover, Obama is supposed to have a historically well-funded, well-oiled turn-out-the-vote machine. What gives?

I submit the simple answer is this: people have genuinely not yet made up their minds. They want to hold off until the last minute, because they are not comfortable yet that they know enough to make a decision.

Given that McCain is already pretty well known, I think that can only mean one thing: they feel they do not know enough about Obama.

Which means the central question of the election now is “Who is Obama?”

The Republicans should hit this theme, and hit it hard, by bringing up Obama's questionable past. The press too should examine it closely.--it is what the public wants to know. They should be featuring, and digging carefully into, Obama's connections with former terrorist Ayers and his wife. They should be featuring Obama's connections to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their contributions to his campagins. They should be featuring Obama's associations with shady Chicago businessmen like Rezko—Chicago has a peculiar political culture, the last big city machine in America, and it might be important. They should be taking a close look at ACORN, Obama's first employer, and just what kind of activities it pursues—voter fraud? Lobbying for sub-prime lending? They should be looking carefully at who is donating to Obama's campaign, and who has donated in the past. A Mr. “Good Will” of “Loving,” Texas? Donations from points overseas? They should be noting that Obama was endorsed in his early elections by the American socialist party (the New Party—not that radical, in Canadian or European terms, but it means that Obama can be legitimately called a “socialist”), and that his voting record is far to the left. This is the information the American public wants and needs.

They fear they do not know Obama yet—and they are right. The issue is not so much “Is he ready to lead?”, but “Is he a Manchurian candidate?”

Why McCain Will Win

I am not saying I told you so. I did say McCain should nominate Mitt Romney for VP, and he chose Sarah Palin instead. I said he should choose Romney, in part, because there was quite likely to be more economic turmoil in the runup to Election Day, and, given the other side's lack of economic expertise, the inclusion of someone with Romney's financial background could be a game winner.

Would McCain be further ahead today with Romney instead of Palin on the ticket? Perhaps.

But I also think he may have been wise for chosing Palin.

Even without Romney, McCain should have the best of this economic issue. He does not yet; but that may change as things sink in. It takes, in my experience, about two weeks for public reactions to events to fully form. Since neither Obama nor Biden have any particular economic expertise, McCain should still be the winner on this issue, on the plain value, at a time of turmoil, of an experienced hand at the tiller.

Meanwhile, there is another reason why Palin still looks very good. She is getting hammered right now in the press, but there may be a snap-back effect; what counts is how she connects with the average voter.

On this, I present an insight from Canadian literary criticism.

I hate Margaret Atwood's politics, and I think she has gotten further than she deserved to solely on the grounds of being a woman. But she once wrote an excellent book of literary criticism in which she argued that all Canadian literature reflects a single informing motif: that of survival.

At the same time, she pointed out different motifs distinguishing British and American literature. British literature is all about “the island”; American literature always returns to “the frontier.”

It works—it is true. And here is an interesting way in which it works. At least since the 1940s, whichever presidential candidate can most clearly identify himself with “the frontier” has a big advantage in the election. It makes sense; a president is a symbol of the nation. It matters if his own life story intersects with the nation's central narrative.

Let's parse past races on this basis:

George W. Bush—with his cowboy manner, his cowboy walk, his cowboy talk, and his Texas roots, he has an unusually strong connection with the frontier. This enabled him to beat Kerry, who had none; and Al Gore, who had little. Tennessee was frontier enough for Andrew Jackson; but some years have passed.

Bill Clinton—Arkansas is not particularly frontiersy, but it is as good as Kansas (Bob Dole) or George H.W. Bush's essentially Northeastern roots, even with a bit of Texas added. Clinton managed a draw on frontiersmanship with his main opponents, and won on other factors (specifically, thanks to Ross Perot).

George H.W. Bush--was able to out-frontier Michael Dukakis, a fellow Northeasterner, but one who looked awkward in a tank. The point of that, in the end, was how un-frontiersy Dukakis seemed. Entirely a man of salons, offices, and elevators. Bush had at least some claim to Texas connections, and his war record, and he had his link with the Reagan legacy.

Ronald Reagan—may not have been a real cowboy, but he played one in the movies and on TV. His frontier associations easily trumped Mondale's or Carter's.

Jimmy Carter—probably a wash against Gerald Ford, Michigan versus Georgia. The VPs were also a wash—Kansas versus Minnesota. Other factors prevailed. But Carter's backstory of being a “plain peanut farmer” from a small town surely helped. That's more frontiersy than a professional life spent in Washington.

Richard Nixon—Orange County, California, is not that frontiersy, and South Dakota, home of George McGovern, is, but here, Vietnam was more important. Marshall McLuhan saw the Vietnam War at the time as an extention of the old frontier across the Pacific. Nixon represented persisting in that drive—and his opening to China was the opening of another sort of frontier. George McGovern and, to a lesser extent, Hubert Humphrey, represented pulling back from that distant Asian frontier.

Lyndon Johnson—against Goldwater, the frontier issue was a wash. Both had strong frontier associations. Other factors prevailed.

John Kennedy—in his race with Nixon, he deliberately evoked the frontier image: he called his vision the “New Frontier.” Neither Kennedy nor Nixon had personal frontier connections. Given that, it was enough.

Dwight Eisenhower—against Adlai Stevenson the intellectual, Ike from Kansas was plainly the frontiersman. All else being equal, being a professional cavalryman is a suitably frontiersy occupation.

Harry Truman—Mark Twain's Missouri trumps New York (Dewey). Truman's plain-spoken, common-man image was pretty frontiersy quite apart from where he came from.

In theory, FDR should have been vulnerable, being from New York. He was aided by overwhelming historical events—the Great Depression, WWII—which took precedence. Even so, some of his opponents were no more frontiersy than he: Wendell Willkie was a Wall Street lawyer, and Tom Dewey was also from New York. In normal times, perhaps Landon should have beaten him, and Hoover, on sheer frontier.

Enough; but to note that a connection to the frontier was important for Lincoln, too—famously born in a log cabin; for Teddy Roosevelt; for Andrew Jackson; and many other presidents, especially those best remembered.

This is what Palin brings to the ticket: the frontier. Even without Palin, McCain has much of the frontier about him: the maverick, the Arizonan, the military man, the lone pilot.

If urban, urbane Obama beats him, it will be a historical surprise, regardless of what the polls show.

Debate Notes

My take on the presidential debate: McCain won.

Of course, I start out being biased. And yes, Obama was very smooth, very well-spoken, and sounded knowledgeable. I was even prepared to think he was matching McCain point for point, until what seems to me the defining point of the debate: the moment he seemed to look at his wrist bracelet to get the name of the soldier he was supposed to be commemorating with it. And that crystallized something for me; perhaps for others as well. It was the thought that OBAMA DOESN'T CARE. He doesn't care about ordinary soldiers. He doesn't care about ordinary people. He quite possibly doesn't care what happens to America.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that gesture seemed to telegraph this. And, in the light of that insight, his very coolness and smoothness seemed to work against him. It too said he did not care. By contrast, McCain seemed passionate; he seemed to care very much. His voice at times seemed to break with passion.

McLuhan used to say that television was a cool medium, and everyone thinks Kennedy beat Nixon by seeming calm. If so, Obama won. He was perfectly cool. But that is not how it came across to me. I actually stopped hearing what he had to say; it seemed to be just words. I ended with a feeling of real fear over the consequences of putting such great power in the hands of someone who seemed to care so little about others and about the country.

Other notes: McCain wrongly identified Iran's Revolutionary Guard as the “Republican Guard.” Obama could have had a slam dunk there, correcting him, given that McCain is supposed to be the foreign policy expert. Instead, he immediately repeated the mistake, showing not only that he does not know any better than McCain, but that he instinctively defers to McCain on foreign policy. It also suggests that his instincts are those of a follower, not a leader.

Obama said that some had called him “naive” for wanting to talk directly with hostile leaders. McCain repeated the charge, but missed a good comeback there—he could have pointed out that among them was Joe Biden.

At one point, Obama interrupted McCain, so that you could not hear McCain's answer. I found that cringingly rude, disrespectful, especially since McCain is much older. It seemed to me to fit with the theme that Obama does not care about others.

Obama made the point repeatedly that al Qaeda is resurgent. McCain never disagreed, but I think he is quite wrong. Yes, they've been bombing recently, in Yemen, in Karachi, and in Islamabad. But this seems to me a sign of weakness, not strength. They used to be able to bomb in London and New York. Is this now the best they can do? They are bombing in their own back yards: Yemen is where the bin Ladens originally came from, and has almost no effective government. Pakistan is where bin Laden is thought to currently reside, and has also for the last few years been in a state of near-chaos.

It is bad politics to bomb your neighbours. It does little to increase your popular support. This is evident in a sharp drop in support for al Qaeda in opinion polls across the Muslim world.

We may be watching their death agony.

Read My Lipstick!

Now it looks as though the Obama campaign is getting a knack for making horrible blunders. That's the risk when you must try anything. Following the “lipstick on a pig” bit, they've now put out an ad claiming John McCain is out of touch because he cannot send an email.

Bad move. It turns out he cannot use a keyboard because of the results of torture.

It's probably not good politics to mock someone for his war injuries. Fellow Canadians might recall the fallout from Kim Campbell's ads mocking Jean Chretien for his partial facial paralysis.



By the way, the McCain campaign should put out a version of those ubiquitous arty posters of Obama with lipstick added to his lips, and the tag line “lipstick on a (male chauvinist) pig.” Or just “Sweetie!”

Above are my own humble attempts, courtesy of the free GIMP software.

Who Ran for the Democrats in 2008?

I'm glad I'm not Obama's campaign manager.

This commentator has taken the trouble to try to rank all US presidents, plus the current contenders, for relevant experience.


John McCain would, by his calculation, be the second-most-experienced president in US history, after John Quincy Adams and just ahed of George Washington. Obama would rank 37 out of 44—notably underqualified. He would still be ahead of Sarah Palin, who would be less qualified than all but two presidents, Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. But she in turn is still ahead of Hillary Clinton.

Either Obama's or Palin's election would plainly be a case of affirmative action. Palin is where she is because she is a woman. Obama is where he is because he is black.

I fear that Palin's inexperience came through in her recent interview with Charles Gibson, and it was slightly sobering. Still, she is running for VP, not president.

Obama's campaign is saddled with a plainly unqualified candidate. He was a one-trick pony, and the Republicans learned the trick. “Change” was all he had. As a theme, that is too easily trumped. It was inevitably beaten by a fresher face than Obama's. Obama is now yesterday's fad, and suddenly boring.

Now what does the Democratic campaign have left? No surprise if they are thrashing about. They have tried to attack the Republican ticket for inexperience, or for corruption, or for flip-flopping, or for extremism, or for being “out of touch with ordinary Americans”—but this cannot work. Obama is probably more vulnerable than McCain on any of those points, and raising any of them is against his interests.

The latest idea the Obama campaign has come up with is that McCain-Palin would not be “real change,” because they are still, like the incumbent president, Republicans. Hence the infamous “lipstick on a pig” comment.

Two problems:

1.Ideological change is not the change the public really wants. Republicans probably score better than Democrats on the issues, and most people actually vote, quite reasonably, not on issues or ideology, but on personalities.

2.Obama is more vulnerable than McCain on that charge, too—of being cosmetic rather than real change. What evidence can Obama offer that he will deliver real change? What change has he ever delivered? Only his choice of running mate. On the one big opportuinity, Obama chose continuity over change. McCain's choice of Palin throws that fact into stark relief.

What can Obama's campaign come back with? Darned if I know.

The one thing that might still happen is a serious gaffe by the inexperienced Palin. The Gibson interview reminds me of that possibility. But who cares? Even if it did happen, would it hurt McCain? Or would it remind us all that Obama, too, is terribly inexperienced to be president? All Palin needs to do is to show that she can learn quickly.

It looks like game, set, and match. It looks like it is the Obama campaign that is stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. It looks like Obama who is fit now for nothing but wrapping fish.

He is yesterday's news.

It's Over

Frankly, I don't think this US presidential election is even going to be close.

Bottom line: people vote for candidates they warm to personally—at least, the voters who swing elections do. Who do you want appearing on your TV screens for the next four years? That's what really matters, and it is reasonable that it should—in the US system, a president is a symbol of the nation, and his primary power is the “bully pulpit.”

In the likeability stakes, Obama looked good at first, but he does not seem to wear well. “Where's the beef?” applies more aptly to him than it ever did to Gary Hart. He has now run out of interesting things to say. Biden was never there—amiable in a way, but audibly full of helium.

McCain is hard not to like. Because of his ability to improvise, used so effectively in town hall meetings, he remains interesting to listen to more or less indefinitely. Television is, in the end, an intimate medium, and this works better for him than for a set-piece orator like Obama.

And Palin? Sorry, but every magazine editor knows that both men and women would rather look at an attractive woman than any man. Not any woman, perhaps, but a babe, certainly. Who isn't going to want to see her on their TV screens for the next four years? Sexist, perhaps, but true, and it will work for her. At this point, everybody wants to see more Palin.

A Historic Ticket

Much has been made of the current Democratic ticket being historic—since Barack Obama, although raised by a white mother and white grandparents, would be the first American president of part-African heritage.

Real change: a historic ticket.

But in fact, electing the Republican ticket would involve a good deal more historic firsts. Most obviously, the oldest president at time of election, and the first woman vice president. But also the first president from Arizona, the first president or vice president from outside the continental USA, the first president or vice president from Alaska, the first person in the White House of Eskimo ancestry (Todd Palin), the first of South Asian ancestry (the McCains' adopted daughter Bridget), the first Vietnam vet in the White House, and one of the few presidential tickets not including a lawyer.

And just to kick the last slats out from under the “historic” Democratic ticket, some historians argue seriously that Barack Obama would not be the first president to claim African ancestry.

The argument is simple: in America's youth, there were often more men than women. Many of these men owned African slaves. Slaveowners were ultimately free to have sex with their female slaves—only personal morality could stand in the way. But social pressures and self-interest required families not to acknowledge any resulting African blood.

Odds are fairly good, therefore, that Warren G. Harding, of West Indian ancestry, president from 1921 to 1923, was part black—on both sides, more than can be said for Barack Obama. This was a common rumour in his day, and Harding himself said only that he did not know.

Cases can be made for at least four other presidents having some African blood: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Calvin Coolidge.

The Case for Romney

Rumour at this point is that McCain has picked Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.

McCain should pick Romney. It's not just that this gives the Republican ticket heft on the economy that the Democratic ticket, now known, cannot match—and the economy looks likely to be the main issue this fall. It's not just that Romney may move Michigan, land of his fathers and a whopping big state, into the Republican column. It's not just that Romney has the record and the gravitas to look like a fine president should anything happen to the aging McCain. It's not just that Romney would then be well-positioned to be a strong nominee in four or eight years—helping to secure the Republican future.

It's that choosing his top competitor would visibly unify the Republican party. This would make a nice contrast to the Democrats, who come out of their convention looking a little ragged and rumpled. It would send a message to the Hillary supporters: look, McCain chose his nearest rival. Why couldn't Obama?

Some have asked why Romney would want the job—after all, he should be front-runner next time regardless, while if McCain loses, he will be tarred with the loss. But this overlooks a critical point: if McCain chooses anyone else, win or lose, but especially win, his choice becomes a credible rival to Romney tomorrow.

McCain's 57 Houses

Some leftward commentators, and the Obama campaign, are making an issue out of the fact that, when asked, John McCain did not know how many houses he owned.

Why do they think this reflects badly on him?

Is their argument that being rich is disreputable? Only to a confirmed Marxist; but if so, how can they endorse Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy?

Is it that his inability to give a number suggests he is out of touch with his own financial affairs? I think that argues in his favour: to me, it makes it look as though he is less interested in his own financial situation than in the business of the country. I'd prefer a public official who kept his own financial interests at arm's length. That's why many put theirs into a blind trust.

I'd be rather more alarmed if, say, he did not know how many states there were in the US.

Obamamania, Like Real Mania, Has Its Down Side

It is not too soon to say Obama is toast. In fact, I've already said it, haven't I?

The press was too aggressive in boosting him, and his followers too starry-eyed—making him out as something Messianic. Nobody can deliver on expectations like that. When this becomes clear, the backlash is accordingly severe. They tend to crucify.

And it has begun. The Centre for Media and Public Affairs, having noted through the primaries an overwhelming prejudice in the mainstream press in favour of Barack Obama, now finds, though he still leads by far in media coverage, that most of that coverage is now, by their standards, “negative.” The swords are out.

A recent Comedy Central skit on his mock presidential seal included the line “It's okay to laugh at him.” When they start laughing, you know you're doomed.

And even with all the hype, Obama never achieved much of a lead against McCain—perhaps five to eight points currently, though some polls are tied and some even show him trailing. Kerry had a bigger lead over Bush at this point. So did Gore. The Democrat normally leads at this point in the process, and should, because far more folks are registered Democrats than Republicans. Before more careful scrutiny of the candidates begins in the fall, and before the undecideds have decided, party loyalty is an important factor.

Obama can also expect no boost from any VP pick, while McCain perhaps can. The VP nominee can help overcome doubts about the candidate. But no possible pick can do that for Obama; for him, there is only downside. An unusually inexperienced candidate, he should theoretically pick someone who gives him more credibility in foreign affairs, in economics, and in administration. But for foreign affairs experience, one needs a senator; for administration, one needs a governor. Pick someone who has both, and you end up with an old pol—violating Obama's campaign theme of “change.”

McCain, by contrast, needs no more than relative youth and economic experience. Mitt Romney, among others, comes to mind.

Wild cards? McCain holds them all. McCain, with his longer political career, is less likely to make a gaffe. And he is less likely to have hitherto unknown skeletons falling out of his closet, on the order of the Reverend Mr. Wright.

If the economy continues to look sour, that should argue for the candidate from the party out of power. But who is that? The Democrats hold both houses of Congress. The Republicans traditionally hold the edge on economic issues. And a crisis of any sort argues for an experienced hand at the helm.

If the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to improve, that is again an advantage for McCain, who is identified more than anyone with the policy of the surge. Iraq nearly killed McCain's chances last summer, and revived him last fall. It matters, in American politics. Similarly, in 2004, Howard Dean looked like a sure thing for the Democratic nomination, on the sole issue of getting out of Iraq. Until Saddam was captured, and suddenly being in Iraq looked like a good idea. On the reasonable assumption that present trends continue, then, McCain should win on this issue.

And, if some new crisis in foreign policy occurs between now and November—this is again an advantage for McCain, with his military and foreign policy bona fides.

What could work in Obama's favour?

Mass hypnosis?

So far, so good.

McCain Surges

The latest Rasmussen polls apparently show a sudden jump in support for McCain. Currently, he would beat either possible Democratic nominee. More interestingly, the bump occurred immediately after the New York Times smear piece on him, featuring rumours of an affair with a lobbyist.

Essentially as I expected. Those who don't believe it, are outraged at a hit against an honest man based on almost no evidence. Those who believe it, are impressed.

This almost makes up for the NYT endorsing him on the eve of the Florida primary.

One marvels, really, not just at the partisanship, but at the revealed incompetence of the vaunted media giants: CBS, the New York Times et al.

A Baker's Dozen Reasons McCain Could Win

Could go either way. But in a race between McCain and Obama, if you’re going to bet on either, I’d say, bet John McCain. Here’s why:

1. Obama still has a fight on his hands for the nomination. He may get damaged in this fight. It was Al Gore who dug up Willie Horton against Dukakis.

2. The fight will drain Obama’s financial resources, while McCain can husband his for the general election. This is what killed Bob Dole.

3. Obama is relatively unknown. His public persona can still be shaped by new information. He is open to scandal, smear, and clever characterizations by his opponents. McCain, long a public figure, is much less so. This killed John Kerry, not to mention John Dean.

4. For the same reason, Obama is more vulnerable to a gaffe; and, being less experienced, more likely to make one.

5. Gaffes seem to have already begun. Michelle is “not proud of her country,” for example… Obama’s story of soldiers scrounging for ammunition in Afghanistan is being questioned.

6. Obama has received a free ride and more, so far, from the press. They are likely to get bored by this story line in time for the general election. The knives will come out. Again, being new, Obama is especially vulnerable to this. McCain has already been through this to some extent, and does not start as the same sort of media phenomenon.

7. If the situation in Iraq goes well, it hugely helps the Republicans. If it goes badly, it hugely helps the Democrats. Currently, the news looks good. The best bet is that present trends will continue.

8. There is always the chance, even the likelihood, of some new foreign affairs crisis. If it happens, it argues for McCain, with his foreign policy expertise and experience.

9. An economic downturn should help the Democrats. But maybe not with this matchup. Economic turmoil too calls for an experienced hand. McCain’s overall experience and proven leadership, even though without expertise in this field, may also in this case trump Obama’s inexperience. McCain is not identified closely with the Bush regime and its economic policies; it will not be easy to blame him for the problem.

10. Republican National Committee fundraising this quarter is running ahead of DNC fundraising. They’ve already banked the max for their presidential nominee. This too suggests McCain may have more money to get his message out in the fall. This also suggests that the folks with big money are now betting that the Republicans will win the presidency this cycle—they usually invest in the probable winner. This sort of money market has in the past been more accurate than polls in predicting election results.

11. Republicans are more likely to unite behind their nominee. Republicans historically have this discipline. Democrats are more likely to stay home if they are unhappy with a nominee. And, with a tougher battle for the nomination, there is also more likely to be more disgruntled Democratic than Republican voters.

12. Bill Clinton did not actually tag Obama as a “fairy tale.” But a lot of people think he did, and I’ve seen the phrase used several times since. This is a strong indication that the label resonates. That’s a big vulnerability.

13. Right now, polls show Obama and McCain about even. On even polls, bet on the Republicans. They’re better at getting out their vote.

New York Times vs. John McCain

You can’t hurt a 71-year old candidate with a sex scandal. Even if people believe it—you’ve only succeeded in eliminating the age issue.

In any case, the nation has no business in the bedrooms of state.

McCain and Illegal Immigration

A conservative American friend has challenged me on my support for John McCain on illegal immigration.

I think this issue is an important one. Here’s an edited version of my response:


First, he called me on referring to it as “immigration. As he rightly pointed out the controversy was over illegal immigration, not immigration per se. Big difference.

But he was also under the misapprehension that McCain was for amnesty. He is not.
From the YouTube Republican debate:

“Q: Will you pledge to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty?

McCain: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty.”

McCain’s plan includes “fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some.” That’s no amnesty, by normal definition. It is just not as tough on illegal immigrants as most others in the GOP want to be.

But I think, with McCain, that more than this is inhumane, bad for the US economy, and plain unrealistic. It’s no small thing to deport 12 million people. That would involve one of the bigger refugee problems in history.

And, as I noted, any liberal in the true Clear Grit sense (as opposed to what passes as "liberal" in North America today) should favour immigration. Allowing immigration is a matter of fundamental human freedoms--freedom of movement and the right to work.

If you say—as we all are accustomed these days to do—that only Americans have a right to move to and to work in the US, we are making a distinction between American rights and human rights. But do only American citizens have the right to work? If so, either this is no human right, or you do not hold Mexicans to be human.

We are all brothers and sisters; we are all God’s children. Yes, those who commit a crime waive rights. But in moral principle, the border should be completely open. To close it is already sinful. And, at least in conventional Catholic morality, a poor man has the absolute right to do what he must do, even including theft, in order to sustain himself.

My friend is under the misapprehension that “illegals” (sic) “have depressed wages” and are “preventing US citizens from making a living wage.”

I don’t buy that. I sincerely doubt there are many employed American citizens earning less than a “living wage”—i.e., not enough to physically survive. Less than they’d like to, perhaps. I hope I’m not being callous here, but with due respect, a whole lot of people in the Third World manage to live on less than even welfare pays in the US. Why, indeed, would a Mexican want to come all the way to the US to work, if the money he made was not enough to live on? Surely it is, for him.

But let’s also not suppose that nativists on this score are really acting in the best interests of American workers, as opposed to specific vested interests. Realistically, if foreign workers will do the same job as Americans for less money, you have two choices: 1. allow the workers into the US, or 2. watch the factories move out of the US. The former is far better for the US economy and for the US working man. It will produce more jobs, and better-paying jobs, for everyone.

It is, indeed, exactly how the US grew to this point. It is the American way.

All of this applies equally well, of course, to Canada.

The Case for McCain-Huckabee

Assuming McCain is the Republican nominee, he might do well to choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

By conventional wisdom, the most a VP nominee can do for the ticket is to deliver his home state. Huckabee can probably do that—and Arkansas might well swing otherwise to Clinton, its former first lady, if she is the Democratic nominee. So Huck is ideal on the conventional measure.

But there is more. Huckabee also ably represents a specific constituency, which is notably loyal to him: the born-again evangelicals. It seems likely he can pull them to the ticket; McCain holds no particular attraction for them otherwise; and they are a crucial voting block.

This article points out why.

First, they actually represent about half the total votes cast in a general election.

Second, they are, perhaps contrary to popular belief, up for grabs between the parties. Here are the stats for recent contests:

Bush I vs. Clinton: 39% to 35%
Dole vs. Clinton: 49% to 43%
Bush II vs. Gore: 57% to 42%
Bush II vs. Kerry 62% to 38%

With the closeness of those last two elections, the evangelical vote was crucial.

Here’s what polls of born-agains say so far this year:

Democrat 40% Republican 29% Undecided 28%

In other words, the Republicans could easily lose this vital group, if they do not actively target it. Huck likely pulls them in.

Huck also presumably helps in the South, which is huge: the Dems have never won without it.

Huckabee may help with another crucial group: Hispanics. He and McCain stand out as “soft on immigration,” bucking the bulk of their party. On this issue, not incidentally, the party is wrong. Allowing immigration is a matter of fundamental human freedoms--freedom of movement and the right to work. But on a purely practical level, Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic in the US, and are presumably sympathetic to their illegal compatriots. Lose the Hispanics, and you lose the future. Bush and Rove, wisely, worked hard for Hispanic approval. A McCain--Huckabee ticket should further that work, and slap down unfortunate nativist tendencies in the Republican Party.

Huckabee is also young enough to succeed to the presidency after four or eight years. Given that much more time in the public spotlight, that much more national experience, and his talents, I expect him to grow into a truly formidable candidate when that time comes. This is important for the future of the party and the conservative movement.

Huckabee’s executive experience as a governor is a good balance to McCain’s legislative experience; and the geographical balance is there.

Beyond this, all else aside, Huckabee is a formidable political talent, a prodigy. He ought to be harnessed if at all possible. He would be superb as a point man, another traditional role of the Veep-designate. His down-home style would complement McCain’s “straight talk” well, underlining the message that this would be an honest, straightforward administration. I think this would run well against Clinton, who always gives one the sense that she is hiding something, that what she says has been carefully scripted.