Obama in the Middle East

Israeli polls have placed presumptive democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama behind Senator John McCain in the latest popularity polls. Obama crossed swords with the Palestinian leadership, after vowing in June that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” a comment which seemed to prejudge final status peace talks.

He later walked back from the comments, but the controversy was a reminder of the political minefields lying in wait in the Middle East.

Obama has however hinted at a return to a fully engaged US role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which President George W. Bush avoided until late in his second term.

Hours after clinching the Democratic nomination ahead of rival Hillary Clinton in June, Obama told the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that peace talks would be a priority right from the start of his presidency.

Obama aides have declined to release details of his itinerary, owing to security fears, on a trip getting the kind of blanket Secret Service protection normally offered to a US president.

But he is expected to arrive in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II on Monday, after making crucial war zone visits to Afghanistan Sunday, and an expected onward journey to Iraq.

Jordanian sources said King Abdullah would take the opportunity to stress the importance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Such visitations with key Middle Eastern leaders are possibly designed to bring hope to the possibly of a peace agreement during an Obama presidency.

What a Bounce!

Obama opens up a fifteen point lead in the latest Newsweek poll, buoyed by the shifting party sentiments:

55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way.

Yowzers!  Couple this with statistical models granting Obama an average of 343.8 electoral votes, and this election may turn into a landslide.

Congressional Artifice

In 2004, Republicans used their control of Congress to embarrass Kerry into a series of missed votes. The Massachusetts senator would frequently trek to the Capitol for a scheduled vote, only to discover that the vote had been postponed. Kerry’s legislative record, or lack of one, became a centerpiece for Republican attack fodder. Democrats should pursue a similar strategy during this election cycle.

McCain, a longtime advocate for climate change initiatives, recently missed a vote on a landmark emissions regulation bill in order to hold a private fundraiser. The issue passed without much attention, as Obama was considering skipping the vote as well. Neither senator has an exemplary attendance record with each one racking up hundreds of missed votes while on the campaign trail.

However, the Democrats could schedule a series of votes designed to force McCain to choose between two options: appealing to independents or satisfying the queasy conservative base. Schedule a vote on McCain’s original immigration bill, a piece of legislation he now opposes, and stamp him as a flip-flopper. Bring up a campaign finance reform vote, both reigniting McCain’s past sparks with the base and broadcasting his reversal on the issue. These attacks also penetrate the McCain brand itself, stripping away the straight talk facade and revealing the Flipflop Transit.

Combine these votes with those of the utmost importance and schedule them successively on the same day.  That way, Obama could easily attend the daily session, while McCain would grope in vain for an excuse to shirk his senatorial duties.

If Congressional Democrats pursue this strategy, they will help to continue a streak stretching back to the nation’s founding: no sitting minority senator has ever won the presidency.

The Pitfalls of McCain’s Experience Argument

The Democratic primaries witnessed a fundamental question of change versus experience. The electorate could be neatly sliced into those two categories, with each bloc overwhelmingly supporting one candidate. Hillary regularly pulled over ninety percent of voters deeming experience the most desired quality in a candidate; in other words, she essentially maxed out among “experience” voters. To then bolster her numbers, Hillary was forced to either gain ground among “change” voters or shift people’s top priority to experience. Neither happened. Hillary failed to crack the conundrum, which ultimately toppled the campaign.

Translate Hillary’s enigma to the general election. McCain will run a reincarnation of her strength and experience campaign (with outside groups serving up the unpatriotic salsa). Thus, he will likely near or surpass Hillary’s numbers among “experience” voters. But as the primaries revealed, a candidate cannot build a winning coalition solely through the backing of “experience” voters. To broaden his support, McCain holds the same two options that fatally vexed the Clintons.

Consider the first option: improving his standing among “change” voters, a herculean task when tied to an unpopular president and party. McCain has publicly broken from the administration on several issues, hoping his departures from Bush orthodoxy will produce a newsreel of Sister Souljah moments. However, his maverick aura fades on the two crucial issues, Iraq and the economy. This lethal duo is driving the electorate’s disaffection with Republicans, yet McCain firmly adheres to party doctrine on matters of guns and butter.  The Democrats hope to amplify this conformity by tying McCain and Bush in an inextricable knot. 

The other option calls for persuading voters to emphasize experience over change. Bluntly, this requires fear-mongering, a tactic the Republicans have exercised successfully in the past. However, Obama appears as an effective messenger to combat these panic-based ploys. In the appeasement spat this past week, Obama forcefully declared:

They aren’t telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it’s not going to work. Not this time, not this year.

The aggressive push-back reframes the issue: casting the Republicans as policy-deficient while branding their playbook old politics. The former seizes upon the overwhelming majority (82% of the public) that believes the country is on the wrong track, while the latter fits into Obama’s central campaign theme. Also, repeated use of fear-mongering has blunted its effectiveness, evidenced by the Republicans’ slipping national security advantage since 2006.

Herein lies McCain’s challenge ahead.  A burning desire for change presently exists, and Obama fulfills that want.  McCain, slapped with an “R”, cannot significantly encroach into Obama’s territory.  The appetite for experience exists, but needs to be whetted further for McCain to have a chance at winning.  McCain must run a campaign of convincing, one emphasizing the need for experience.  His campaign’s success hinges on this message’s persuasiveness.   

Bush’s Gift

On Thursday, Bush assailed Obama for his plan to meet with dictators, comparing the policy to appeasement during WWII. The fallout illustrates precisely why the Democrats will unite for the general election, regardless of how the nomination imbroglio concludes.

Take a look at the breadth of the Democratic establishment rushing to defend Obama in the wake of Bush’s verbal assault. The list includes neutral bystanders such as Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emanuel, while even Hillary (!) chimed in with support. A party always unites in the face of an external foe, especially one almost universally despised. If Bush continues to involve himself, the Democrats (and many independents) will constantly revive their fervent anti-Republican sentiment. If Bush doesn’t stop spouting off, the election will turn into a referendum on the past eight years - spelling certain doom for McCain.

Assessing Romney for Veep

Vice presidential candidates generally balance the ticket, shoring up the presidential nominee’s weaknesses. For McCain, the recommended attributes in a veep pick would include a relatively young candidate with chief executive experience - perhaps Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. There’s also speculation that Mitt Romney is angling for a spot on the ticket, evidenced by his recent fund-raising swing with McCain. Fred Barnes outlined his case for Romney, offering the following criteria for the selection process:

He wants a candidate who will be seen as a plausible president. That’s criterion number one. He also wants someone who won’t subtract from his campaign in any serious way. That’s criterion number two.

Our contention lies with the second criterion. McCain has carefully nurtured an image as a straight-talking maverick unafraid to buck party line. Romney is the polar opposite - an artificial, flip-flopping candidate adopting the policies suited to the context of whatever position he is running for. Romney’s dissembling compromises McCain’s candor, arguably his most appealing trait.

The other perceived plus for Romney is his expertise on economic issues. Barnes writes:

With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain’s admitted weakness on economic issues.

Romney’s business credentials are indeed impressive; consider his successful tenure at the helm of Bain Capital. Yet he failed to translate his private-sector accomplishments into a triumph at the voting booth. Examine Florida, where 45% of Republicans considered the economy the most important issue. Logically, Romney should have performed extremely well among that demographic, but McCain won the bloc by eight percentage points. Florida is not an aberration either, as many other states (Connecticut, California, etc) had a similar pattern.

Barnes himself points out the flip-side of the economy argument:

As a corporate turnaround artist, [Romney] rescued companies, sometimes by laying off workers. When he ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 1994, the incumbent, Teddy Kennedy, raised the layoff issue with punishing effect. No doubt Democrats would use it again, and it might have resonance if a recession hits and unemployment is increasing.

Take a look at these compelling ads from Kennedy’s 1994 Senate campaign, featuring factory workers laid off from a company bought out by Romney’s Bain Capital. In a general election match-up that may hinge on white, working-class voters with low job security, Democrats could simply re-run the tapes to devastating effect. As of now, McCain has a decent shot at capturing Pennsylvania, a crucial step on the Democrats’ path to the White House. Placing Romney on the ticket, and thus acquiring the layoff baggage, could squander that opportunity.

Perhaps the most important disqualifier, McCain simply doesn’t like Romney. During the acrimonious primary battle, McCain once said about Mitt, “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty.” McCain advisers say loyalty and an ability to work together are two of the most important qualities for a vice presidential pick.

Also, as McCain fills his number two spot, he is essentially anointing his heir. Republicans generally coalesce around a big-name candidate early; there’s a turnstile through which only one passes through (see Reagan in 1980, H.W. Bush in 1988, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000). If McCain were to lose, Romney would be ideally positioned for a 2012 run; if McCain won, Romney would be the natural successor. Since McCain detests Romney, he would hardly want to hand him the power associated with a vice presidential nomination.

McCain Attacks Obama

Barely a few minutes into his victory speech, McCain outlines his line of attack against Obama:

I will fight every day in this campaign to make sure that Americans are not deceived by an eloquent and empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed philosophy that trusts in government more than the people.

McCain’s Luck

In a Cook Report/RT Strategies national poll conducted at the beginning of February, John McCain was the clear front-runner, garnering 39% of the vote. The rest of the field: Romney - 24%, Huckabee - 18%, Paul - 6%. Factor in the second choice of Huckabee and Paul voters, and there’s a dramatic upheaval in the standings. Romney marches into the lead, with 44%, while McCain slips to 38%. The anti-McCain vote was split among three candidates, and the fractured field eventually handed McCain the nomination.

A series of improbable events awakened McCain from his summer slumber. First, immigration, the issue credited with temporarily sinking his candidacy, largely disappeared from the media spotlight. His gamble on the surge also paid off, lending him crucial credibility on the war in the general election. Then, Huckabee upstaged Romney in Iowa, improving McCain’s chances in New Hampshire. McCain’s luck compounded as Giuliani had pulled out of the Granite State, leaving his moderate voters to McCain. Take any one of these dominoes out of the chain, and it’s likely another candidate would be claiming the nomination.

Thoughts on the Republican Debate: “Facts are Stubborn Things”

During last night’s debate, the Straight Talk Express derailed into distortion, revealing the true character of the candidate.  Over the ninety-minute long affair, John McCain resorted to a barrage of incorrect assaults aimed at his chief rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney.  The most egregious moment revolved around a question debated for the last week - did Romney support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, a claim pushed by McCain.  The resounding answer, from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, was no.  Yet on the debate stage, McCain stuck to his original statement, refusing to retract it.

McCain’s dissembling stretched far beyond that, reaching into the realm of immigration.  When asked if he would vote for McCain-Kennedy, the now-dead immigration bill symbolic of McCain’s political apostasy, the senator demurred.  Disapproving of hypotheticals, McCain said the legislation wouldn’t come up for a vote.  Yet on Meet the Press last Sunday, he said he’d vote for it.

The flaps continue: citing an endorsement he never received, mischaracterizing a study to paint Romney as incompetent.  “Facts are stubborn things,” Romney said at one point.  Indeed, they are.  It’s time for the media to wrest the mantle of straight talk away from McCain and grant it to someone more worthy.

The New Hampshire Editorial Boards Pile On

On the heels of the Concord Monitor declaring anyone but Mitt, the New Hampshire Union Leader echoed a similar sentiment yesterday. The Union Leader, which has endorsed McCain, wrote “the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes.” Although not as influential as, say the Des Moines Register in Iowa, the New Hampshire editorial boards continue the calculation vs. conviction storyline contributing to McCain’s resurgence in the state.

What remains to be seen is whether or not Republican primary voters are prepared to vote for principles over positions. McCain still holds many views out of line with the base, most notably on illegal immigration (which sank his campaign over the summer) and campaign finance reform. While Romney has reversed his positions to more conservative stances, it is unlikely that he will change again if in the Oval Office.

However, the deciding issue for voters desperate to maintain their hold on the White House may be electability. McCain runs the strongest amongst the Republicans, beating Clinton by an average 4.7%. And, can the party that skewered John Kerry really nominate their own Massachusetts flip-flopper?

Update: Rasmussen has recent numbers measuring the core opposition for each of the major candidates.  A startling 47% of the electorate said they would definitely not vote for Romney, while 33% said the same for McCain.  What’s remarkable is the intensity of dislike toward Romney despite his brief stay on the national scene.