08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

The most notable news story this week to my mind has been the New York Times editorial page's refusal to publish John McCain's response to Barack Obama's submission on his plan for Iraq.  This flagrant partisan censorship was capped with a condescending and patronizing feint at neutrality as they stated that although McCain's first submission didn't meet standards, he could submit another draft if he wanted. 

So when did the New York Times become John McCain's 10th grade history teacher taking a struggling student under their wing?  Long criticized for its failure to maintain neutrality and blatant partisanship, especially in yet another election cycle where the New York Times is writing puff pieces on Obama and hit pieces against McCain on a daily basis, this act can only be considered an abandonment of whatever pretense at professional journalistic integrity they maintained.  

But as to the fallout, yet again, I believe this will hurt the New York Times more than John McCain.  The ad revenues at the New York Times are reported as down 84%, including a 16% drop in June alone.  Once a somewhat reputable newspaper, Democrats could cite to the New York Times as evidence in support of various claims.  The New York Times could paint the issues that would get discussed.  Republicans felt uncomfortable dismissing such a large "mainstream" newspaper.  But no more.  

Rasmussen Reports recently reported an astounding 49% and rising block of the public feel the media is out to help Obama get elected.  While the 31% or so of the public Rasmussen reports as enthusiastically supporting Obama will not admit it, they are most likely aware that the newspaper tends to disproportionately support their candidate.  The real number of people, therefore, who know the media, and in particular blatantly partisan media outlets such as the New York Times, is biased is probably well over 80%. 

A critical mass has been reached in the public consciousness such that the New York Times, and similar groups such as the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc. are no longer owed any deference or automatic credibility in the public conversation.  Reading them may be a nice reference point, but it is no different really than going to a liberal blog.

To make up for its advertising revenue losses, the New York Times has hiked its prices for the second time in a year, with the newstand price now at $1.50 per day.  That's $45.00 a month.  Heck, for half that, anybody could pay for their internet, drop the newspaper, and get far more diverse, professional, and thorough news online.  One could even take that $45 a month, get a computer on a monthly payment plan, get their internet connection, and still be saving money!


While Obama's "media army" marches on the home front, he continues his tour of the Middle East.  Obama spoke to the Israeli's today, incorrectly asserting his role in pushing forward legislation that would put economic pressure on Iran.  Obama referred to the bill as coming out of "his committee" even though it did not.  It seems anytime he is put in any setting where his message is not carefully controlled through teleprompter, advance knowledge of the questions and control of the backdrops, or avoidiing random questions from reporters, he gets off message and flubs something.

His reception in Jordan was positive, and several terrorist groups declared, (though Obama did not rebuke them nor reject their offer) that Obama was under their protection as he visited the Middle East.

Obama also re-declared his support for peace in Israel, but seems to have taken a yet third stance on the issue.  First, he stated he supported a non-divided Israel.  Then, he stated that he wanted to have things divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that Israel should commit to trading land and any future settlements to achieve peace.  Then he oscillated back to support for a non-divided Israel.  Now, he is saying that it would be unrealistic to expect to achieve peace quickly given the historical problems and that it is chiefly up to the Palestinians and Israelis to work it out.  Israelis favor McCain by a 2-1 margin.

Here is an excerpt from an interview of Obama by Katie Couric:

Meanwhile, McCain has struggled to gain media attention here in the States.  McCain has, to my mind, wisely utilized this juncture to call attention to Obama's multiple unpopular policies and position changes, as well as misjudgments on Israel, Iran and Iraq.  Most pointedly, McCain points out that Obama, (as recently as today), is still harping on the surge as a mistake, stating that he would still vote against the surge.  The surge in American troops though has been directly responsible for the reduction in violence, the reduction in loss of life of American troops (from 80-90 or more per month to under 30 per month).  Obama continues to bleat that a political solution is necessary.  While of course that is true, Obama seems very Bush-esque in that he seems incapable of admitting he made a mistake in voting against the surge and that his judgment was off.  Obama also claimed that nobody could have foreseen the Sunni militias joining with American forces as "Sons of Iraq" and the "Awakening Councils" which coincided with the surge, and the announcement there would be a surge, which also helped turn the tide. 

One story, perhaps a tactic of the McCain campaign this week, was a rumor that McCain might pick a veep this week.
 
Here are my thoughts on the respective candidates:

1.  Mitt Romney - while he currently is considered the leader among possible candidates, and he would not make a bad veep, he would be the wrong choice.  For an excellent analysis as to why, see Dick Morris's article - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/romney_a_mistake_for_mccain.html.  While I disagree that Romney's Mormonism would be a big problem to the base, and Romney does have some economic gravitas, Romney for whatever reason has not been able to win anything despite heavily outspending his opposition in the primaries.  What would be interesting though is to see whether Romney would help the ticket much in Michigan, the one state he did win, and see a few polls there.  He would not carry Massachussetts, and the Mormon vote is already going to go strong for the GOP, so there's no chance of losing there anyway.  Most pointedly, Romney was a voracious critic of McCain in the primary, almost to a brutal extent.

2.  Tom Ridge - Would be an unmitigated disaster of a choice.  Ridge was Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and comes from Pennsylvania, which are overstated as accolades.  A recent Rasmussen poll showed just as many people would be less likely to vote for McCain as more likely to vote for him with Ridge on the ballot.  Ridge would not help McCain carry Pennsylvania.  Ridge would also hurt McCain in important base constituencies to whom Ridge's pro-choice stance is anathema.  No pro-choice veep ticket could possibly stand even a slight chance of winning in 2008.  I'll say that again - no pro-choice veep could do anything but destroy McCain's chances of winning.  McCain has had a long hard road to unite his base, but he will lose in a landslide if he alienates them by picking someone like Ridge.  In that same vein, forget about Rice, Powell, and Giuliani.

3.  Tim Pawlenty - Governor of Minnesota, he also would not be a bad choice, but I'm not sure if he'd give the ticket any boost at all.  While Minnesota would be closer, he would not carry Minnesota for McCain, and a loss is a loss is 0 electoral votes from Minnesota.

4.  Mark Sanford - While this South Carolina star would please the base, and would not be a bad choice, he also would not particularly help McCain.

5.  Sarah Palin - Governor of Alaska, she is without a doubt the best choice of any potential veep candidate, head above shoulders over the rest.  The political stars are perfectly aligned for her candidacy.  The Clintonistas who have never been really won over by Obama yet reluctantly support him would flip back against Obama.  Before Clinton dropped out to a few days after, Obama went from a 8-10 point underdog to McCain to a 5-10 point leader.  That was a swing of about 15 points.  While McCain campaigned well over the next month and managed to even the polls out to the virtual tie its at now, with perhaps Obama still sporting a point or two lead, the "Clintonistas" are still out there as the reluctant Obama supporters.  NO MALE VEEP WILL FLIP THESE VOTERS TO MCCAIN.  There is no larger swing block that can be moved by a veep selection in this cycle.  Hispanics are a second major swing group that McCain could tap into through selecting a Hispanic, but the female vote is even bigger in this cycle.  McCain should promise some prominent positions to HIspanics in his administration and continue to reach out to them, but a female veep is the ticket this year.

Clintonistas still remember Obama's sometimes chauvinistic and sexist comments and how their gal criticized his inexperience and other shortcomings in that long brutal primary.  The "bitterness" if you will of that drawn out primary is still the hatchet sticking out of the ground behind Obama's back that the GOP could lift up if McCain is wise enough to pick a female.

Not only that, but look at the internals in the polls in swing states as to the gender gap.  In Michigan, there is a 21 point gender gap according to Rasmussen Reports. 

Last, the Clintonistas should not be thought of as merely acolytes of NARAL and NOW.  Exit polls consistently show only 9 percent of the public base their vote on abortion, and they break 7-2 Pro-Life.  So those 2% are only a small portion of the 25-30% of the Democratic party who just two months ago were saying Obama would not win their vote over McCain. 

They are still open to McCain.  They want a woman.  They know the glass ceiling got more cracks in ever in it during the Clinton candidacy, and McCain's nomination choice could be the hammer that breaks that glass ceiling once and for all.

See my previous posts for a full top 25 reason list as to why Palin is the best choice on an array of other issues.  The beauty queen, sports star, highly effective, strong fiscal conservative, strong social conservative, with an astronomical approval rating and excellent resume on achieving energy independence, as well as nothing short of heroic stand on ethics reform where she risked her own political demise and came out the brighter for it, is the ticket.

The Dems can't attack her without risking bleeding support.  A mother of five and successful working woman, she is the whole package.  If they attack her in almost any way, more women will line up and rally behind her and McCain.  If they attack McCain for being too old, the Clintonistas will be even more cognizant that as our nation's #2, she could become the first female President a lot sooner than any Democrat could.