Advice for McCain vs. Obama: Pork and Earmarks Will Not Cut It
Start Thinking Strategically
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | John McCain — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
OK, with McCain stuffing the Huck-insurgency back in the bottle again yesterday, it's time to start thinking general election strategy. Now, we know the basics of what John McCain needs to do to beat Hillary Clinton, which is mostly based on (1) reminding voters that she is Hillary Clinton and (2) letting voters get prolonged exposure to watching and listening to Hillary Clinton.
But Barack Obama, if he manages to keep his back free of Clinton shivs long enough to secure the nomination, will be a more challenging nut to crack; he has far lower built-in negatives and is surrounded by a protective heat shield of worshipful press coverage. He's unlike the unlikeable and fundamentally disingenuous candidates the Democrats ran in 2000 and 2004, and much more similar to the candidates they ran in 1972 and 1984. That last analogy suggests why Obama, strong as he is on the surface, should not be confused with an unbeatable candidate.
Anyway, I'll start with one specific issue that I think needs not to be overplayed in a campaign against Obama: pork-barrel spending and earmarks. Yes, it's a hot issue and a worthy one. Yes, it contributed to the air of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption that fed the GOP's defeat in 2006, and from which McCain needs to distance himself. Yes, it's important to McCain's good-government, spending-hawk brand, is an issue he attacks with genuine enthusiasm and helps serve as a firewall against the charge that McCain's superior experience is a liability because he doesn't represent Abstract Nouns like a man who just got to Washington in 2005 and hasn't even located the big spigot where the taxpayer money flows from yet.
But for all of that, if Sen. Obama is the nominee, I hope Sen. McCain is clued in early to the fact that this issue is not going to be a useful distinction against Obama, for three reasons.
Read On...
1. People like Obama and think he embodies Change from Business as Usual. Trying to change that perception is going to be harder work than it's worth. You beat a guy like Obama by burrowing into his fundamental naivete, extremism and inexperience, by showing how his combination of extreme liberalism and lack of experience leads him to be very wrong on the very biggest of the big things, and to take extremist positions on cultural-signifier issues. Small-bore goo-goo issues won't do that.
2. One of Obama's very few actual accomplishments in DC was co-sponsoring the "porkbusters" bill on earmark disclosures with Tom Coburn. Granted, Coburn did all the heavy lifting, but Obama will get (deservedly) some credit for putting himself out there on the issue and reaching across the aisle.
3. McCain's been in DC so long, and Obama so little time, that it will be much easier to find examples of projects McCain himself has brought home than Obama. That's not to say that Obama has no weaknesses in this area; one can certainly point to letters Obama wrote as a state Senator in support of a $14 million taxpayer-funded housing project that yielded more than $850,000 in fees for now-indicted Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko. But while McCain has fought the good fight against some of Congress' most ridiculous wastes of money, he has never himself been entirely immune to bringing home what Arizona voters wanted.
McCain will talk about pork and earmarks in his stump speech; as I noted above, it's part of his appeal. But those of us who remember his 2000 primary campaign and other races like Rick Lazio's 2000 Senate race (which was run by the same people) know that "process" issues can grease a candidate's good press but they don't win elections; the big things do, the things that go to people's basic hopes, fears, needs and values. Let's hope Sen. McCain keeps that in mind in focusing his priorities. The remarks Ben notes from last night are, thematically, a good start.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Crunching the Democratic Numbers, 02/13/08. — Comments (27) »
Advice for McCain vs. Obama: Pork and Earmarks Will Not Cut It 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This would be a nice strategy if McCain could legitimately run as a fiscal conservative. But despite his demagoguery of the occasional pork project, McCain's own legislative agenda carries a very heavy price tag and adds up to a massive expansion of the Federal Government. McCain-Kennedy was estimated by the Heritage Foundation at $2.6 trillion and while McCain has now said he will secure the border first he has made clear that he still favors turning the illegals into citizens and giving them the full buffet of social service.
And while I don't know to much about McCain-Lieberman, I have heard it repeatedly described as an economy killer and one of the most expensive bills in history.
McCain could be accused of costing the economy a few jobs himself. It's not like Obama won't be fighting back.
it's not as if Obama would oppose either of those bills.
Also, it's very much a debatable point what the net economic effect of a bill like McCain-Kennedy would have been.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Can you cite anything believeable than doesn't suggest that the costs will be anything less than huge?
They are already here so whatever contribution they are going to make to the economy we are already getting. And most (65% is a commonly cited figure) are working under a social security number and are subject to income tax and employment tax withholding. I'll grant you that tax compliance could be better but frankly you can't wring much taxes out of a rock and an unskilled worker with less than a highschool education isn't much better. There is very little upside potential on the positive side either in terms of the economy or the treasury.
But on the cost side, the upside is tremendous. Just giving them access to the EITC would be huge and most of them would qualify. And then there is every other social program that they are currently barred from.
Here are a couple of excellent comprehensive studies on my side of the debate. I've never seen anything that comes close to effectively refuting them. If there is such a thing I would appreciate seeing it. Usually the best the other side comes up with in their pitiful attempt at debate is tallies of their contributions to payroll taxes while ignoring all of the costs that they do or will impose on the treasury.
Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
The Heritage Foundation usually carries a fair amount of credibility with Republican and conservatives.
There are two huge vulnerabilities in Obama's campaign:
1. His support for strategic retreat and the related call to appeasing our most deadly adversaries.
2. His numerous promises to raise taxes and impose huge, backruptcy-causing government programs on the American people.
This is radical change, change for the worse.
If McCain can articulate these two issues and pick a running mate who can do the same, he can win this election.
While those of us on this blog would never agree, a significant majority of Americans want us out of Iraq within the next year. McCain will have to work hard to convince some Republicans and most Independents that we need to stay in Iraq. If he can't he will lose because the differences in policy positions are dramatic and, right now, Obama's position is by far the most popular.
which is his extreme leftism on cultural issues. Voting against an anti-infanticide bill? Sponsoring legislation to give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens? These are values issues that will convince people he's as liberal as Mondale or Dukakis.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I read a lot of RedState comments and it's like people have forgotten how critical pro-life issues are to the Republican base. For many moderate Republicans, it's pretty much what's keeping them from voting Democrat.
Obama favored legalizing the murder of babies that survived abortions in Illinois.
Insert pictures of babies, videos of mothers talking about how they decided against abortion, letters from teens who are glad their moms didn't abort them, charts, graphics, Pat Moynihan quote, etc.
Make Obama talk about what kinds of abortions he favors, about when exactly the fetus becomes a baby, at what point does he favor inserting the vacuum into a baby's brain, and ask for diagrams.
Again I think you are suffering from Redstate = the whole country.
Abortion is no where near at the top of the list of what the average American is concerned about in this election cycle, its the Economy and Iraq. Period. McCain is on the wrong side of the Iraq issue and knows nothing about Economics.
Earmark reform doesn't resonate much with the average voter. With respect to the budget and deficits, it's a miniscule problem. I agree that McCain trying to build some conservative momentum around this issue is a lame duck.
I disagree with your notion. While a billion dollars here and there doesn't mean much to politicians in Washington, most Americans consider that quite a bit of money. So, while I agree that in the grand scheme of things, eliminating earmarks will only make a small dent in government expenditures, I do believe that eliminating them will have a measurable positive impact symbolically and will benefit McCain and those who support their elimination.
While a billion dollars here and there doesn't mean much to politicians in Washington, most Americans consider that quite a bit of money.
To pay for new roads and bridges. Or to bring jobs to their district. If bringing home the pork wasn't a political winner, it wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, it is an awful strategy to attempt to beat Obama with... as was rightly pointed out in this blog.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'd say that average joe doesn't even know what an earmark is. Pork-Barrell politics was a better term.
__________________________________________________________
I was brought up to believe that how I saw myself was more important than how others saw me. (Anwar al-Sadat, President of Egypt, 1970-1981)
Iraq may be unpopular, but appeasement and blaming America for our enemies is an electoral loser. Moreover, the success of the surge in Iraq undercuts Obama's claims of superior judgment.
What I'm saying is that it is not the opinion of most of the country right now and McCain will have to work hard to convince the electorate. I certainly think he is the right man to make that argument.
People like Obama and think he embodies Change from Business as Usual. Trying to change that perception is going to be harder work than it's worth.
I agree with you that it might be difficult to change this perception, and that the earmarks debate may not be the way to do it, but stuffing Obama into the Business as Usual box is probably essential to beating him. How? He's tainted with Rezko; here may certainly be others. From what I know about state legislatures in general and Chicago politics in particular, there's got to be a way to show that Obama's squeaky-clean image is no more than a weakly-supported facade.
Allowing him to continue to campaign as the Man from Change - that to me, seems like a political suicide pact.
I voted early in the Florida primary. Find out who and why.
will be important as well. I know that a lot of Red Staters would like a nominee that can shore up or "prove" McCains conservative credentials.
However, the keys to this election are going to be blue collar white men in the industrial Midwest (who have traditionally voted either party, and were drawn to Edwards this cycle), and the hockey moms of the upper midwest (many who backed Bush and other Republicans in the past).
Their big concern is the announcement by GM that they wish to shed their entire hourly workforce, and replace it with cheaper hourly workers with less benefits), as well as simular announcements by other companies. They could care less about McCain-Feingold.
Our policies should benefit them: Less tax, pro small business (most of them will be rehired by small business's), pro school choice so that their children have better opportunities than they do.
But wee need a VP nominee that can relate to them on these issues. I don't think McCain has ever been on the edge economically (not an "up by the bootstraps" story), and I am not sure that he relates.
...and the key to it is right on the front of the podium when he speaks.
Change.
Try reading the text of his speech from last night.
He bashes an oil company and claims they put the planet "at risk."
He attacks NAFTA and free trade.
He implies Washington needs to do something about healthcare.
He wants to end the war and "end the mindset that got us into war." Cumbaya!
He says he is against the Bush tax cuts, but is for tax cuts for "working people, seniors and struggling homeownwers."
He wants to give tax credits to college students who do community service. Presumably the Peace corps would qualify.
Where's the change????
It's the same tired old Democratic agenda which has been around in one from or another since at least the 1970s.
Barack Obama is just the same old message in a shiny new wrapper.
Obama is like the movie remakes of Dukes of Hazzard and Charlie's Angels: fresh-faced new cast, but it's still a rerun from the 70s.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
The immigration issue in CA is huge. True, McCain sold out on amnesty as did W, yet 2/3rds of Californians are dead-set against issuing driver's licenses for illegals. This was the single most issue that had all of popular talk radio agog and led to the recall and defeat of Gov. Gray Davis. McCain needs to pound this theme day after day after day. Hispanic turn-out for McCain will be considerably less than it is for Hillary. California is within reach is McCain tries.
in car registration fees "Car Tax".
Immigration is a nebulous (probably the best word to use) issue. The cost and strain it puts on social services is unbelievable (try walking into an emergency room waiting are on a Saturday or Sunday).
There were a lot of people infuriated by the protests in downtown LA where people were waving Mexican Flags.
There are also some people who do not like "them" because they look and talk different, they change the makeup of business areas when their business's move in, and many do not like the groups of Day Laborers whostand around waiting.
That having been said, California is pretty diverse, and has a strong immigrant background (Chinese, Latino, Armenians, Persians, Ethiopians, Lebanese, Italians, Greeks, Croats - Shout out to San Pedro! - Africans, Japanese, SE Asians, Phillipinos, and Americans and English when it was Mexican. Heck, we even had waves of Okies and Arkies during the great depression;) So the majority is sensative and tolerant of people who are a little different.
Also, I think while most people are in favor of the rule of law in principal and the abstract, they also know at least one person who they either suspect or know is here illegally. And we are not talking about the guys standing in the parking lot of Home Depot. We are talking about your best friend from college (yep, they have college degrees --lots of them), or the woman whose cubical is next to yours, or the lady whose son is serving in Afganistan. They do not want to snitch on those people, or see their kids who have never known anywhere else but here get snatched out of schools, and sent to foriegn countries.
Also, Californians are sensative to the treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
So immigration is a double edged sword here: Talk about the rule of law; talk about the costs; but be careful in talking about how to effect change.
he'd have great credibility because he can essentially say "look, I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm not anti-Mexican. I almost wrecked my campaign by standing up for immigrants, even illegal immigrants. But this is a far-left liberal idea with no common sense behind it and it's exactly why no matter where you stand on immigration you can trust me more than you trust him."
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
This is an issue he could certainly use to his advantage if he choose to do so. He could easily make it a security issue and attack it on that basis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Although it will play better in the mountain states.
He needs to say that he has always backed the rights of immigrants, but that he has been humbled by the reaction of everyday Americans to the costs of ILLEGAL immigration, and their desire to have the borders secured; and reiterates his respect for hard working American citizens of Latino descent.
That will play well - especially the part about being humbled.
During the recall campaign. This was after he vetoed the bill a couple times. The recall seemed to make him run hard left in an attempt to appease the Democrat base. I don't think the immigration stuff had anything to do with his recall. Taxes and his inability to keep the lights on probably did, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yes it's the Clinton mantra from the 1992 elections, but it is right, especially this year.
Talk about how Obama's big government plans will cost jobs.