I've been visiting a few Web sites on the Republican side of the fence. While there's a lot of energy on blogs like The Daily Kos, many conservatives are writing articles with titles like: "Six Things McCain Should Do to Salvage His Campaign," "There May Still Be Hope for McCain," "Oh, God! It's Going to Be a Disaster!" Well, not that last one. Here's an example by the well known and prolific Victor Davis Hanson, who frequently contributes to Commentary.
Hanson is saying that the supposed "nastiness" of McCain's campaign is merely an excuse for former supporters, or potential supporters, or people who might be expected to be supporters, to distance themselves from a losing cause. Maybe he's right, but I think there's more to it than that.
McCain likes it best when he's talking about national security. He's not an expert on economic matters, despite years on the Senate Commerce Committee, and he's not comfortable talking about the economy. Even so, he has economic advisers, he has speechwriters, he knows people who do know about the economy: So why hasn't he been able to articulate some kind of compelling, large-scale plan for dealing with the economy? I think that there are a couple of possible answers.
1) McCain is so ignorant of economic matters, and so uncomfortable discussing them, that he and his advisers are afraid to have him try to articulate a complex plan in public. I don't think this is really it, because he does know how to use a Tele-Prompter, but maybe it is. In which case, I'd really worry about how President McCain would deal with issues outside his comfort zone.
2) All of the plans his advisers have come up with would anger some constituent group. This is a possibility. You will have noted that both he and Senator Obama have dodged questions about what programs they'd have to cut, which promises they'd have to break, and which groups would have to suffer, because of the cost of the economic rescue plan. It's also obvious that some of McCain's supporters are really unhappy about "socialism," and here's McCain himself proposing that the government become the biggest mortgage banker in the country.
In any event, I think, pace Hanson, that some people are genuinely turned off by the negative tone of the McCain campaign. (They don't like negatives from Obama, either, but he's ahead, so he's doing less of that.) Moreover, it demonstrates a paucity of ideas relevant to popular concerns. That is, if McCain had a really good answer on the economy, he'd be pushing it instead of going negative. That he and Governor Palin are spending so much time attacking Senator Obama and his positions, serves as a marker that they don't have good proposals of their own.
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As someone who has generally voted for Republicans, I find this year's choices in Presidential candidates down right depressing.
In previous elections I've often been left feeling like I was choosing the lesser of two evils, in this election I don't feel like there is a lesser of two evils, I feel like both choices are equally bad.
I am left asking the question, "Is this the best the two major parties have to put forth to the American people?" Sadly, I know many other people who feel the same way.
It seems like there has to be some better choices out there.
Why do you find Senator Obama lacking as a presidential candidate? He's young, he's articulate, he's very intelligent, he has demonstrated that he can organize a very effective campaign, and he has also demonstrated that he's not afraid to take on large and challenging tasks.
Come to that, why do you find Senator McCain inadequate? I know what I don't like about him, but some of these attributes are appealing to people who don't share my tastes.
As to better choices, I think the candidate who impressed me most in the primary debates, interviews, and so on, was Joe Biden. So I see Obama as making a really good choice for Vice President, which speaks well of Obama's judgement.
Being Canadian, I am somewhat distanced from the US election campaign, but the whole world has some skin in that game, I guess.
Biden impresses me as well.
One of the things I like about Obama is the advisory team he has gathered. Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett, and most recently, Colin Powell. Like most assemblages of intelligent and dynamic people, they cannot be expected to all think alike on all topics. That Obama has been able to build such a team of high-profile names, plus a truly impressive volunteer organization, speaks to his ability to be a leader.
We think hockey here when teams are the topic. A hockey team captain does not have to be the top scorer, or the burly guy "enforcer" who is slamming the opposing team's jerk into the boards. One roots for a sports team, not the team captain.
Back to McCain ... he could simply say, eg on an economic topic, that "I've had my economic advisory team look into that (whatever), and their recommendation at present is that the best way is to (whatever). We will look at it further during the next administration. Situations change, and we'll adapt to give you good government in the executive office over the next four years."
How distant that is, from what the public is used to hearing. Never get elected that way!
Are there "better" candidates out there? Well, quite possibly. However, one can make two arguments about that theory.
First, if a "better" potential candidate chose not to run, then he or she, by definition, isn't a better candidate. That is, those who choose not to serve are, in effect, voting against themselves, which should tell us something about their fitness for office.
Second, the "better" candidates who were eliminated during the primary process were, after all, eliminated. None of us can have it both ways; we can't approve of the operation of a democratic process that selects the candidate we favor, but disapprove of that same process if it selects another candidate.
So, the candidates we have are the candidates we have; there is no one better.
However, one portion of the selection process serves the vital function of allowing us to examine the thinking of the two candidates, and that is their selection of running mates. Which candidate exhibited the best judgement? Consider this thought experiment:
There are two alternate universes. In the first one, Obama is elected, while in the second one, McCain is elected. The morning after inauguration day in both universes, the President walks into the Oval Office, trips on the carpet, and is killed when he bangs his head on the desk.
In the first alternate universe, Joe Biden sits down behind that desk and is President. In the second universe, Sarah Palin is President. Which one of those two universes would you choose to live in?
Lloyd's remark about there being, at this time, no better candidates is on the mark.
Given that some presidents have been replaced by their vice president (eg, Nixon replaced by Ford), one could calculate the probable number of days which a vice president might expect to serve as president. Perhaps it is 60 days on average? Then a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket could be seen as a vote for 46 McCain-months and 2 Palin-months - or whatever mix you consider likely given the expectations re McCain's duration in office as president, if elected.
One further comment on selection - in my own Cdn riding, we will have to nominate a new Liberal candidate in future, as our recently defeated candidate will most likely not be running again. This morning I was approaching the problem as a two step ... first, find a pool of people who we consider would make a good MP (member of parliament) from our party for our riding, and then from that pool select the person who is most electable. We have something like 6-10 people in the pool, on a first glance. So at this stage, we have maybe 10 candidates -- not all of whom will be willing to stand for nomination, able to commit the necessary energy and time, have the popular appeal to win an election, etc.
Since the beginning of the American republic, quite a few Vice Presidents have succeeded to the presidency through the death or (in the case of Richard Nixon) resignation of the President. On the other hand, only a few Vice Presidents have been elected President in succession to their principals.
John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison in 1841, and served almost all of Harrison's term.
Millard Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor in 1850, and served more than half of Taylor's term.
Andrew Johnson succeeded Lincoln in April, 1865, so he served almost all of Lincoln's second term. (Presidents were inaugurated on March 4 in those days.)
Chester Alan Arthur succeeded James A. Garfield in 1881, so he served most of Garfield's term.
Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to William McKinley's office upon McKinley's assassination in 1901 and was re-elected in 1904.
It is interesting that, with the exception of Taylor, all of these Presidents died during the first year of a term in office, so their successors had in excess of three years as President.
Calvin Coolidge succeeded Warren Harding in 1923, and he became the second of all these former Vice Presidents to win a new term in his own right, serving from 1923-1929.
Harry Truman succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, and served until 1953, winning re-election in 1948.
Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F. Kennedy in 1963, and served until 1969, beating Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Gerald Ford succeeded Richard Nixon in 1974, and served until 1977. Ford narrowly lost a bid for a term in his own name, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
So, from 1841 through 1977, nine Vice Presidents became President by succession, and three of them won terms of their own. In all, these men served as President for about 44 years, or eleven presidential terms.
In addition, former Vice Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin van Buren, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush were elected President, and they served a total of about 26 years.
Of our 43 Presidents, 13 served as Vice President prior to ascending to the higher office. Former Vice Presidents have served as President for more than one-quarter of the time since the founding of the American Republic. But, as you will note, only four sitting Vice Presidents, Adams in 1796, Jefferson in 1800, Van Buren in 1836 and Bush in 1988, have been elected to the presidency.
Only one person, as far as I can recall, was nominated for Vice President on a losing major party ticket, and came back to win the presidency: Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 1920, and won the presidency in 1932.
Post a Comment